CAR_Public/180627.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


            Wednesday, June 27, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 128



                            Headlines


A&B INSURANCE: Settlement in "Youngman" Has Preliminary Approval
ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Discovery Ongoing in Surfside Suit
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Postle" Suit
ALTISOURCE ASSET: Appeal in Retirement System's Suit Underway
APOLLO GLOBAL: "McEvoy" Class Suit Underway

APOLLO GLOBAL: ClubCorp Shareholders' Suit Ongoing
APOLLO GLOBAL: Asks Court to Strike Class Action Claims
APOLLO GLOBAL: Faces Class Suit over ADT IPO
APPLE INC: "Brody" Product Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
APPLE INC: "LaNasa" Product Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.

APPLE INC: "Mallh" Warranty Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: Bid to Dismiss "Abouzied" Suit Underway
AUTO ZONE: Faces "Hernandez" Suit in S.D. California
AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: $15M Securities Case Accord Wins Final OK
B RILEY FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Suit vs. MLV & Co.

BABAD MANAGEMENT: Court Approves Settlement in "Penafiel" Suit
BANK OF NEW YORK: Depositary Receipt Litigation Still Ongoing
BBVA COMPASS: Dismissal of Securities Suit Under Appeal
BBVA COMPASS: St. Lucie Firefighters' Suit Still Ongoing
BBVA COMPASS: Continues to Defend "Hossfeld" Suit

BBVA COMPASS: Suit by Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Ongoing
BBVA COMPASS: Agreement in Principle Reached in "Bellissimo" Suit
BBVA COMPASS: Faces Lopez-Wright Suit in Illinois
BBVA COMPASS: Settlement in Principle Reached in "Andrade" Case
BBVA COMPASS: Faces Oklahoma Firefighters Pension Fund Suit

BELLICUM PHARMA: Bid to Appoint Lead Plaintiff & Counsel Pending
BIOCRYST PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "Klein" Suit
BIOCRYST PHARMACEUTICALS: Defending Against "Raatz" Suit
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Summary Judgment Bids in TCPA Suit OK'd
CARDINAL HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Opioid Related Suits Underway

CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Sinohu Seeks Approval of Legal Fees & Costs
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Settlement Reached in "French" Suit
CERRO FLOW: Ill. App. Vacates Good Faith Finding in "Custer" Deal
COUNTRY CLUB: Clarification Order in "Mickles" FLSA Suit Vacated
COZI INC: Faces "Sullivan" Suit in S.D. New York

CRAFTMASTER PAINTING: Class in "Boutell" ERISA Suit Certified
DISH NETWORK: Unit Appeals Ruling in "Krakauer" Suit
DONISIJAX INC: Faces "Missry" Suit in E.D. New York
E! ENTERTAINMENT: Faces "Sullivan" Suit in S.D. New York
ELECTRONICS FOR IMAGING: Bid to Dismiss "Pipetone" Suit Underway

FAIRMOUNT SANTROL: Merger-Related Suits Filed
FAMOUS DAVE'S RIBS: "Broad" to Recover Illegally-Withheld Tips
FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Faces "Reyes" Suit in E.D. New York
FIRST COMMONWEALTH: Final Settlement Approval Hearing on July 23
FLAGSTAR BANK: Faces "Wilde" Suit in S.D. California

FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: Lead Plaintiff Appeals Dismissal Order
FORSTER & GARBUS: Faces "Page" Suit in E.D. New York
FRONT YARD: Discovery Underway in "Martin" Suit
GLOBAL CREDIT: Faces "Neuman" Suit in E.D. New York
HENRY SCHEIN: Miami General Employees Trust Named Lead Plaintiff

HENRY SCHEIN: Amended Complaint Filed in Marion Diagnostic Suit
HRONIS INC: Faces "Garcia" Suit in California Superior Court
I-FORTUNE COOKIE: "Chauca" Suit Seeks Retained Tips, Overtime Pay
IDERA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces 3 Suits over BioCryst Merger
KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Negotiations on Legal Fees Ongoing

LIFEVANTAGE CORP: Bid to Dismiss "Smith" Suit Underway
LIFEVANTAGE CORP: Securities Suit in Utah Now Concluded
LINCOLN NATIONAL: "Tutor" and "Trinchero" Suits Consolidated
M & T BANK: Faces "Jorge" Suit in S.D. New York
MALLINCKRODT PLC: MSP Recovery Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois

MALLINCKRODT PLC: Still Defends Amended City of Rockford Suit
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Employee Stock Purchase Plan Suit Ongoing
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Lead Plaintiff Seeks to Conduct Discovery
MANNKIND CORP: Plaintiff Appeals Tel Aviv District Court's Ruling
MDL 2406: Settlement Negotiations Suspended, Triple-S Says

METLIFE INC: "Owens" Suit Gets Nationwide Class Certification
METLIFE INC: Sales Practices Suits vs. Sun Life Still Ongoing
METLIFE INC: "Voshall" Suit Still Ongoing
METLIFE INC: Appeal in "Martin" Suit Underway
METLIFE INC: "Lau "Class Action Concluded

METLIFE INC: 7th Circuit Revives "Newman" Class Action
METLIFE INC: Dismissed from "Miller" Class Suit
METLIFE INC: Julian & McKinney Suit Conditionally Certified
MICHAEL C KOEHN: Faces "Long" Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
MY BELLY'S: Court Approves Settlement in "Ortiz" Suit

MYRIAD GENETICS: Faces "Kessman" Suit in Utah
NATUS MEDICAL: Still Defends Against "Costabile" Suit
NEW CITY LAWN: Faces "Flores" Suit in S.D. New York
NEWPORT CORP: MKS Objects to Subpoena Duces Tecum
NICARAGUA: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Robertson" Suit

NISSAN NORTH: Court Adds Leyva as Named Plaintiff in "Falk" Suit
OCULAR THERAPEUTIX: Reply in Dextenza Suit Due July 6
OMNI HOTELS: Faces "Samaniego" Suit in S.D. California
OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Faces Suit over tZERO Initial Coin Offering
PBF HOLDING: "Goldstein" Class Suit Still Ongoing

PERRIGO COMPANY: "Schweiger" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
PERRIGO COMPANY: "Keinan" Suit Concluded
PERRIGO COMPANY: Israel Employees' Education Fund Suit Stayed
PERRIGO COMPANY: Attorney General's Opinion Due on May 30
PHH CORP: 3 Merger-Related Suits Filed in New Jersey

PURDUE PHARMA: Faces National Roofers Suit in D. Arizona
QUANTUM CORP: Court Extends CMC, Related Deadlines in "Lazan"
SANDRIDGE ENERGY: West-Hopson Suit Still Pending
SANDRIDGE MISSISSIPPIAN: Continues to Defend Lanier Trust Suit
SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Still Faces Morning Song Bird Food Litigation

SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Initial Settlement Reached in EZ Seed Suit
SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Gentry Homes Suit Underway in Hawaii
SPRINT CORP: Bid to Enforce "McGlon" Deal Denied
STANISLAUS COUNTY, CA: Ct. Strikes All Class Claims in "Osegueda"
SUNPOWER CORP: California Class Action Dismissed

TD AMERITRADE: Order Routing-Related Suits Still Ongoing
TD AMERITRADE: Continues to Defend Aequitas Securities Litigation
TRINITY HEATING: Ct. Denies Bids to Dismiss "Boger" Suit
TURNBULL & ASSER: Faces "Jorge" Suit in S.D. New York
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Court Dismissed "Gonzales" With Leave to Amend

UNION BANKSHARES: "Rowe" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Court Dismissed "Gonzales" With Leave to Amend
UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Bid to Drop Teamsters' Suit Pending
USANA HEALTH: Bid to Drop "Rumbaugh" Suit Shelved
VONAGE HOLDINGS: Merkin & Smith, et al. Suit Still Ongoing

WESTERN DIGITAL: Continues to Defend Calif. Securities Suit
WILLIAMS-SONOMA INC: Revised Briefing Sched in "Rushing" OK'd
WILLIS TOWERS: Bid to Dismiss Proxy Litigation Pending
WILLIS TOWERS: Faces City of Fort Myers Pension Fund Suit
WILLIS TOWERS: Regents' Bid for Lead Plaintiff Pending

WILLIS TOWERS: Settlement in "Sanchez" Litigation Now Final
ZIMMER BIOMET: Continues to Defend "Shah" Suit in Indiana





                            *********


A&B INSURANCE: Settlement in "Youngman" Has Preliminary Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JIM YOUNGMAN and ROBERT ALLEN, Plaintiffs, v. A&B
INSURANCE AND FINANCIAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 6:16-cv-1478-
Orl-41GJK (M.D. Fla.), Judge Carlos E. Mendoza of the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando
Division, granted the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Second Renewed Motion
for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement.
United States Magistrate Judge Gregory J. Kelly submitted a
Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court grants the
Renewed Motion and enters the Plaintiffs' proposed Preliminary
Approval Order.  The parties filed a Joint Notice of Non-
Objection to the Report and Recommendation.

After a de novo review, Judge Mendoza agrees with the analysis in
the Report and Recommendation.  Therefore he adopted and
confirmed the Report and Recommendation, and made a part of the
Order.  He granted the Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion.  The Judge
will enter the Plaintiffs' proposed Preliminary Approval Order as
a separate docket entry.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 17, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/LfsQMH from Leagle.com.

Jim Youngman, individually and on behalf of a class of all
persons and entities similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented
by Anthony Paronich -- anthony@broderick-law.com -- Broderick &
Paronich, P.C., pro hac vice, Edward A. Broderick --
ted@broderick-law.com -- Broderick & Paronich, P.C., pro hac
vice, Matthew P. McCue -- mmccue@massattorneys.net- Law Office of
Matthew P. McCue, pro hac vice & Phillip T. Howard, Howard &
Associates, PA.

Robert Allen, Plaintiff, presented by Edward A. Broderick,
Broderick & Paronich, P.C., pro hac vice, Matthew P. McCue, Law
Office of Matthew P. McCue, pro hac vice, Phillip T. Howard,
Howard & Associates, PA & Anthony Paronich, Broderick & Paronich,
P.C.

A&B Insurance and Financial, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Christina Marie Kennedy -- ckennedy@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner,
LLP & Michael D. Leffel -- mleffel@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner,
LLP, pro hac vice.


ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Discovery Ongoing in Surfside Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that parties in the case,
Surfside Non-Surgical Orthopedics, P.A. v. Allscripts Healthcare
Solutions, Inc., are engaged in limited jurisdictional discovery.

On January 25, 2018, a complaint was filed in Surfside Non-
Surgical Orthopedics, P.A. v. Allscripts Healthcare Solutions,
Inc., No. 1:18-cv-00566, in the Northern District of Illinois.
This is a purported class action lawsuit related to a January 18,
2018 ransomware attack, and alleges the following counts: (1)
negligence, gross negligence and negligence per se; (2) breach of
contract; (3) unjust enrichment; (4) violation of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud Act; and (5) violation of the Illinois Deceptive
Trade Practices Act.

Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of customers seeking damages
from Allscripts. The parties are currently engaged in limited
jurisdictional discovery.

Allscripts expects to respond to the complaint after this
discovery is completed.

Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc. delivers information
technology ("IT") solutions and services to help healthcare
organizations achieve optimal clinical, financial and operational
results. The company is based in Chicago, Illinois.


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Postle" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jorge L. Alonso of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denied the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss the case, REID POSTLE, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ALLSTATE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-07179 (N.D. Ill.).

Postle, brings the putative class action under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), against AIC.  Postle complains
that AIC violated the TCPA by using an autodialer to make
unsolicited and pre-recorded sales calls for non-emergency
purposes to the cellular phones of Postle and others in the class
Postle proposes to represent.  Postle alleges he received one
such call.

In his complaint, Postle alleges the call harmed him by violating
his privacy, subjecting him to an annoying and harassing call
that deprived him of the legitimate use of his cell phone while
he dealt with the call.  In his response brief, Postle explains
that the call harmed him by depleting his cell phone battery,
wasting his time, and creating a risk of personal injury due to
interruption and distraction.

The Defendant moves to dismiss.  In support of its motion to
dismiss, AIC argues Postle's allegations concerning the single
phone call are insufficient to establish a concrete injury
necessary to assert Article III standing.  AIC argues that any
injury from the single call is de minimis and incapable of
conferring standing, as well as self-inflicted because Postle
chose to spend time answering the call and obtaining information
about the caller.  AIC additionally argues Postle's intangible
injuries are not personal and distinct because they are shared by
all victims of TCPA violations.  Lastly, AIC argues that because
Postle was not charged for the call, he cannot base his claim
upon Section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the TCPA.

Judge Alonso is not persuaded by AIC's contention that because
Postle alleges he received only one call, he alleges at most a de
minimis injury insufficient to confer standing.  AIC's argument
that any injury from the call was self-inflicted is also
unconvincing.  The alleged harm occurred when Postle received an
unsolicited incoming call, for non-emergency purposes, that
resulted in him answering the phone and waiting on the line for
somebody to speak.  Any subsequent action, by Postle or anyone
else, does not eliminate that claimed injury.

Further, the Judge holds that AIC is incorrect in stating
Postle's intangible injuries are not personal and distinct
because every victim of a TCPA violation incurs that injury.  A
TCPA violation imparts on an individual victim intangible harm --
a violation of his or her privacy -- which is personally felt by
that victim.  Although other TCPA violations impart on other
victims the same kind of harm, the harm from each call is
distinct to each victim.

Lastly, contrary to AIC's argument, Postle may assert his TCPA
claim under Section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) even if he was not charged
for the call because he lacks a limited minute cell phone plan.
As the Judge notes, tangible, economic harm is not required to
establish standing under the TCPA.  The intangible harm --
intrusion upon one's privacy -- is sufficient in and of itself.
Accordingly, Postle's allegations are sufficient to establish
Article III standing.

For these reasons, Judge Alonso denied AIC's Motion to Dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 17, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/KHvqaa from Leagle.com.

Reid Postle, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander Holmes Burke --
aburke@burkelawllc.com -- Burke Law Offices, LLC, Andrew Richard
Kaufman -- akaufman@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, Daniel M. Hutchinson -- dhutchinson@lchb.com -- Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein Llp, Jonathan D. Selbin --
jselbin@lchb.com -- Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, Llp,
Matthew R. Wilson -- mwilson@meyerwilson.com -- Meyer Wilson Co.
LPA & Michael Joseph Boyle, Jr. -- mboyle@meyerwilson.com --
Meyer Wilson Co., Lpa.

Allstate Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Mark Levin
-- LEVINMJBALLARDSPAHR.CO -- Ballard Spahr LLP, pro hac vice,
Daniel L. Delnero -- DELNERODBALLARDSPAHR.CO -- Ballard Spahr
LLP, Emilia Luisa McKee Vassallo --
MCKEEVASSALLOEBALLARDSPAHR.COM -- Ballard Spahr LLP, pro hac
vice, Kristine Marie Schanbacher --
kristine.schanbacher@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP, Mark L.
Hanover -- mark.hanover@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP & Philip
Neil Yannella -- YANNELLAPBALLARDSPAHR.COM  -- Dechert LLP.


ALTISOURCE ASSET: Appeal in Retirement System's Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Altisource Asset Management Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the appeal from a
court decision in the lawsuit by the City of Cambridge Retirement
System remains pending.

On January 16, 2015, a putative shareholder class action
complaint was filed in the United States District Court of the
Virgin Islands by a purported shareholder of AAMC under the
caption City of Cambridge Retirement System v. Altisource Asset
Management Corp., et al., 15-cv-00004.

The action names as defendants Altisource Asset Management
Corporation (AAMC), the company's former Chairman, William C.
Erbey, and certain officers of AAMC and alleges that the
defendants violated federal securities laws by failing to
disclose material information to AAMC shareholders concerning
alleged conflicts of interest held by Mr. Erbey with respect to
AAMC's relationship and transactions with Front Yard, Altisource
Portfolio Solutions S.A., Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd.,
Southwest Business Corporation, NewSource Reinsurance Company and
Ocwen Financial Corporation, including allegations that the
defendants failed to disclose (i) the nature of relationships
between Mr. Erbey, AAMC and those entities; and (ii) that the
transactions were the result of an allegedly unfair process from
which Mr. Erbey failed to recuse himself.

The action seeks, among other things, an award of monetary
damages to the putative class in an unspecified amount and an
award of attorney's and other fees and expenses. AAMC and Mr.
Erbey are the only defendants who have been served with the
complaint.

On May 12, 2015, the court entered an order granting the motion
of Denver Employees Retirement Plan to be lead plaintiff, and
lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 19, 2015.

AAMC and Mr. Erbey filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, and on April 6, 2017, the Court issued an opinion and
order granting defendants' motion to dismiss.

On May 1, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the
complaint and, at the same time, filed a proposed first amended
consolidated complaint. AAMC and Mr. Erbey opposed the motion,
and on July 5, 2017, the Court issued an opinion and order
denying with prejudice the motion of the Plaintiff for leave to
file the first amended consolidated complaint.

On July 7, 2017, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the
Third Circuit Court of Appeals with respect to the federal
district court's April 6, 2017 memorandum and order granting
Defendants' motion to dismiss, the April 6, 2017 order granting
Defendants' motion to dismiss and the July 5, 2017 order denying
with prejudice Plaintiff's motion for leave to file the first
amendment consolidated complaint in the matter.

Altisource Asset Management said in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that on September 18,
2017, Appellant filed its appeal brief, and Defendants filed
their reply brief on October 18, 2017. Appellant's response to
Defendant's reply brief was due on November 15, 2017.

In its recent quarterly report, Altisource Asset Management
disclosed that briefing on the appeal motion was completed on
November 15, 2017.  Oral argument on the appeal had been
scheduled for May 24, 2018.

Altisource Asset Management said "We believe the amended
complaint is without merit. At this time, we are not able to
predict the ultimate outcome of this matter, nor can we estimate
the range of possible loss, if any."

Altisource Asset Management Corporation, an asset management
company, provides portfolio management and corporate governance
services to institutional investors in the United States.


APOLLO GLOBAL: "McEvoy" Class Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2018, that a bankruptcy court has granted
a motion to correct, and entered an order to that effect on April
24, 2018.

On August 3, 2017, a putative class action was commenced in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
against AGM, Gareth Turner (an Apollo Partner) and Mark Beith (a
former Apollo Principal) by Michael McEvoy on behalf of a class
of current and former employees of subsidiaries of CEVA Group,
LLC ("CEVA Group") who purchased restricted Class A shares in
CEVA Investment Limited ("CIL"), the former parent company of
CEVA Group.

The complaint alleges that the defendants breached fiduciary
duties to and defrauded the plaintiffs by inducing them to
purchase shares in CIL and subsequently participating in a debt
restructuring of CEVA Group in which shareholders of CIL did not
receive a recovery. The complaint purports to seek damages in
excess of EUR14 million. On October 18, 2017, the bankruptcy
trustee for CIL filed a motion in the Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of New York to prevent Mr. McEvoy and his
counsel from continuing to prosecute the Florida action on the
basis that the relevant claims belong to the CIL bankruptcy
estate. On October 18, 2017, the bankruptcy trustee for CIL filed
a motion in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New
York to prevent Mr. McEvoy and his counsel from continuing to
prosecute the Florida action on the basis that the relevant
claims belong to the CIL bankruptcy estate.

On November 21, 2017, the Florida court granted the parties'
joint motion to stay the case pending resolution of the CIL
bankruptcy trustee's motion to enforce the automatic stay,
staying the case until further Order. On February 9, 2018, the
bankruptcy court granted the CIL trustee's motion to enforce the
automatic stay and enjoined further prosecution of the McEvoy
Action (the "February 9 Order").

On February 23, 2018, defendants Beith and Turner filed a motion
to correct certain statements in the February 9 Order. Also on
February 23, 2018, Mr. McEvoy filed a motion for leave to appeal
the February 9 Order. On April 3, 2018, the District Court for
the Southern District of New York held that Mr. McEvoy's appeal
of the February 9 Order was stayed pending the resolution of the
motion to correct certain statements in that order.

On April 12, 2018, the bankruptcy court granted the motion to
correct, and entered an order to that effect on April 24, 2018.

Based on the allegations in the complaint, Apollo believes that
there is no merit to the claims.  Additionally, as the case is in
its early stages, no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if
any, can be made at this t

Founded in 1990, Apollo is a global alternative investment
manager. The company is a contrarian, value-oriented investment
manager in credit, private equity and real assets with
significant distressed expertise and a flexible mandate in the
majority of its funds which enables the funds to invest
opportunistically across a company's capital structure.


APOLLO GLOBAL: ClubCorp Shareholders' Suit Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2018, that ClubCorp Holdings Inc.
continues to defend itself in a consolidated class action suit
entitled In re ClubCorp Holdings Shareholder Litigation.

Between July 25 and August 15, 2017, plaintiffs filed three
purported stockholder class actions in the Nevada state and
federal court against ClubCorp Holdings Inc. ("ClubCorp"), the
directors of ClubCorp, and AGM, in connection with the proposed
acquisition of ClubCorp.

The cases in the District Court for Clark County, Nevada were
originally captioned Meng v. ClubCorp Holdings, Inc., et al., No.
A-17-758912-B ("Meng"); Baum v. Affeldt, et al., No. A-17-759227-
C ("Baum"); and Solak v. Affeldt, et al., No. A-17-759987-B
("Solak").

On August 16, 2017, the Meng and Baum actions were consolidated
with two other similar actions that did not name AGM as a
defendant. The consolidated action is captioned In re ClubCorp
Holdings Shareholder Litigation, Case No. A-17-758912-B ("In re
ClubCorp"). On September 21, 2017, the Solak action was
consolidated into In re ClubCorp.

On October 12, 2017, plaintiffs in In re ClubCorp filed a
consolidated amended complaint. The complaint purports to assert
claims against the directors of ClubCorp for allegedly breaching
their fiduciary duties of loyalty, due care, good faith, and
candor owed to the plaintiff and the public stockholders of
ClubCorp.

The complaint includes allegations that the directors, among
other things, agreed to a transaction at an unreasonably low
price, failed to take the necessary steps to maximize stockholder
value, gave preferential severance benefits to certain
executives, agreed to preclusive deal protection provisions, and
included materially incomplete and misleading information in the
proxy statement recommending that stockholders vote in favor of
the acquisition. The complaint also purports to assert a claim
against AGM for aiding and abetting the directors' purported
breach of fiduciary duty.

On November 15, 2017, another plaintiff with separate counsel
filed a motion to intervene, attaching a proposed complaint in
intervention containing similar allegations but asserting claims
only against ClubCorp and its directors, not AGM. On December 19,
2017, a hearing was held in which the motion to intervene was
denied.

On January 26, 2018, plaintiffs filed a second consolidated
amended complaint. On February 23, 2018, AGM, ClubCorp, and the
ClubCorp directors filed motions to dismiss the second
consolidated amended complaint. On March 23, 2018, plaintiffs
filed a brief in opposition to the motions to dismiss. On April
20, 2018, defendants filed reply briefs in further support of
their motions to dismiss. Because this action is in the early
stages, no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be
made.

Founded in 1990, Apollo is a leading global alternative
investment manager. The company is a contrarian, value-oriented
investment manager in credit, private equity and real assets with
significant distressed expertise and a flexible mandate in the
majority of its funds which enables the funds to invest
opportunistically across a company's capital structure.


APOLLO GLOBAL: Asks Court to Strike Class Action Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2018, that the defendants have asked the
court to strike plaintiffs' class action claim and to pursue
their arbitration claim individually.

On February 9, 2018, plaintiffs Joseph M. Dropp, Mary E. Dropp,
Robert Levine, Susan Levine, and Kaarina Pakka filed a complaint
in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada
against Apollo Management VIII, L.P. ("Management VIII"), Apollo
Global Management, LLC ("AGM") and Diamond Resorts International,
Inc. ("Diamond") and several of its affiliates and executives.

Plaintiffs, who allege that they bought vacation interest points
from Diamond, allege that the points are securities and that
defendants violated federal securities laws by selling the points
without registering them as securities. Plaintiffs also assert a
"control person" claim against Management VIII and AGM.

Plaintiffs assert their claims on their own behalf and on behalf
of a purported class of Diamond customers who bought vacation
interest points over the last three years. They seek injunctive
relief prohibiting defendants from continuing to market and sell
unregistered securities, the right to rescind their purchases,
and unspecified compensatory damages.

On April 11, 2018, Defendants filed motions to sever Ms. Pakka's
claims from the claims of the other plaintiffs and to transfer
those claims to the United States District Court for the District
of Hawaii. In regard to the other plaintiffs, Defendants filed
motions to compel those plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims; to
strike their class action claim and to pursue their arbitration
claim individually, rather than jointly; and to dismiss the
complaint or, in the alternative, stay it pending arbitration.

Because this action is in the early stages, no reasonable
estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at this time.

Founded in 1990, Apollo is a leading global alternative
investment manager. The company is a contrarian, value-oriented
investment manager in credit, private equity and real assets with
significant distressed expertise and a flexible mandate in the
majority of its funds which enables the funds to invest
opportunistically across a company's capital structure.


APOLLO GLOBAL: Faces Class Suit over ADT IPO
--------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management LLC 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 four
shareholder class action suits in connection to the initial
public offering ("IPO") of ADT Inc.

Four substantially similar shareholder class action lawsuits
related to the January 19, 2018 initial public offering ("IPO")
of ADT Inc. ("ADT") common stock were filed in the Circuit Court
of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County,
Florida in March and April 2018.

The actions are entitled Goldstrand Investments Inc. v. ADT Inc.,
Krebsbach v. ADT Inc., Katz v. ADT Inc., and Sweet v. ADT Inc.

Plaintiffs in each case allege the purchase of ADT common stock
in or traceable to the IPO or "pursuant to" ADT's registration
statement, assert claims for alleged violations of the Securities
Act of 1933 (the "1933 Act"), and seek to represent a class of
similarly situated shareholders. Each of the complaints names ADT
and various ADT officers, directors and IPO underwriters,
including Apollo Global Securities, LLC, as defendants.

Plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated the 1933 Act
because the registration statement and prospectus used to
effectuate the IPO purportedly were false and misleading in that
they allegedly misled investors with respect to material
litigation involving ADT, ADT's efforts to protect its
intellectual property, competitive pressures ADT faced, ADT's
customer acquisition costs, and false-alarm pressures.

Apollo Global said "Because these actions are in the early
stages, no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be
made at this time."

Founded in 1990, Apollo is a leading global alternative
investment manager. The company is a contrarian, value-oriented
investment manager in credit, private equity and real assets with
significant distressed expertise and a flexible mandate in the
majority of its funds which enables the funds to invest
opportunistically across a company's capital structure.


APPLE INC: "Brody" Product Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Ysroel Brody, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Apple Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 18-cv-00080, (E.D. N.Y., January 5, 2018), was
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California on April 25, 2018, under Case No. 18-cv-02461.

Plaintiffs seeks 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.

Brody owns an iPhone 6, which, after upgrading updates issued and
downloaded onto his phone, resulted in delayed response in
launching applications, severe delays in typing functions and
other delays and malfunctions.

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

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
      Jay I. Brody, Esq.
      KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
      747 Chestnut Ridge Road
      Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
      Tel: (845) 356-2570
      Email: jbrody@kgglaw.com
             ggraifman@kgglaw.com


APPLE INC: "LaNasa" Product Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Alfred LaNasa, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Apple Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 17-cv-17878, (E.D. La., December 28, 2017), was
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California on April 25, 2018 under Case No. 18-cv-02468.

LaNasa seeks 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.

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

Plaintiff is represented by:

      L. Kirstine Rogers, Esq.
      Bruce W. Steckler, Esq.
      STECKLER GRESHAM COCHRAN
      12720 Hillcrest Road - Suite 1045
      Dallas, TX 75230
      Telephone: (972) 387-4040
      Facsimile: (972) 387-4041
      Email: krogers@stecklerlaw.com
             bruce@stecklerlaw.com

Apple Inc. is represented by:

      Quentin F. Urquhart, Jr.
      Matthew J. Averill, Esq.
      IRWIN FRITCHIE URQUHART & MOORE LLC
      400 Poydras Street, Suite 2700
      New Orleans, LA 70130
      Tel: (504) 310-2100
      Fax: (504) 310-2101
      Email: qurquhart@irwinllc.com
             maverill@irwinllc.com


APPLE INC: "Mallh" Warranty Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Victor Mallh, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Apple Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 18-cv-00051, (E.D. N.Y., January 4, 2018), was
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California on April 25, 2018 under Case No. 18-cv-02462.

Mallh seeks redress for Apple's failure to warn iPhone SE, iPhone
6, iPhone 6s, iPhone 6s Plus, iPhone 7, and iPhone 7 Plus users
that certain iOS updates could negatively and significantly
impact iPhone performance. Apple falsely represented to consumers
that such updates would increase iPhone performance.

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

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory Joseph Allen, Esq.
      120 W Wilson Ave #1135
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Tel: (203) 535-4636
      Fax: (301) 490-7913
      Email: greg@gjallenlaw.com

             - and -

      John W. Hermina, Esq.
      HERMINA LAW GROUP
      8327 Cherry Lane
      Laurel, MD 20707
      Tel: (301) 206-3166
      Fax: (301) 490-7913
      Email: law@herminalaw.com

Apple Inc. is represented by:

      Jillian Nicole London, Esq.
      GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP (Los Angeles)
      333 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 4600
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Tel: (213) 229-7671
      Fax: (213) 229-6671
      Email: jlondon@gibsondunn.com


APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: Bid to Dismiss "Abouzied" Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. continues to defend a Texas
securities class action lawsuit, the company said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018.

On August 5, 2017, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas against the Company and two of
its officers in Mona Abouzied v. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.,
Chih-Hsiang (Thompson) Lin, and Stefan J. Murry, et al., Case No.
4:17-cv-02399.

Applied Optoelectronics said "The complaint in this matter seeks
class action status on behalf of the Company's shareholders,
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act against the Company, its chief executive officer, and its
chief financial officer, arising out of its announcement on
August 3, 2017 that "we see softer than expected demand for our
40G solutions with one of our large customers that will offset
the sequential growth and increased demand we expect in 100G."

A second, related action was filed by Plaintiff Chad Ludwig on
August 16, 2017 (Case No. 4:17-cv-02512) in the Southern District
of Texas. The two cases were consolidated before Judge Vanessa D.
Gilmore. On January 22, 2018, the court appointed Lawrence
Rougier as Lead Plaintiff and Levi & Korinsky LLP as Lead
Counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed an amended consolidated class
action complaint on March 6, 2018. The amended complaint requests
unspecified damages and other relief. The Company disputes the
allegations and intends to vigorously contest the matter.

Applied Optoelectronics said "We filed a motion to dismiss on
April 4, 2018. Briefing on the motion to dismiss is expected to
be completed on May 16, 2018."

Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. is a leading, vertically integrated
provider of fiber-optic networking products, primarily for four
networking end-markets: internet data center, cable television,
or CATV, telecommunication, or telecom and fiber-to-the-home, or
FTTH. The company is based in Sugar Land, Texas.


AUTO ZONE: Faces "Hernandez" Suit in S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Auto Zone, Inc. The
case is styled as Marvin Hernandez, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Auto Zone, Inc., a
Nevada corporation, Autozoners, LLC, a Nevada limited liability
company, Autozone Parts, Inc., a Nevada corporation and DOES 1-
50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-01324-JAH-AGS (S.D.
Cal., June 18, 2018).

AutoZone is an American retailer of aftermarket automotive parts
and accessories, the largest in the United States. Founded in
1979, AutoZone has over 6,000 stores across the United States,
Mexico, and Brazil.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jacob N. Whitehead, Esq.
   15615 Alton Pkwy. Suite 175
   Irvine, CA 92618
   Tel: (619) 936-4001

The Defendants are represented by:

   Christopher J. Archibald, Esq.
   Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.
   695 Town Center Drive, Suite 1500
   Costa Mesa, CA 92626
   Tel: (714) 800-7900
   Fax: (714) 754-1298
   Email: christopher.archibald@ogletreedeakins.com


AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: $15M Securities Case Accord Wins Final OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Denise J. Casper entered on May 30, 2018, an Order of Final
Approval and Final Judgment of the settlement in the case, In re
AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:13-
11157-DJC (D. Mass.).

Aveo Pharmaceuticals said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that two class action lawsuits have been filed
against the Company and certain of its former officers and
directors, (Tuan Ha-Ngoc, David N. Johnston, William Slichenmyer,
and Ronald DePinho), in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, one captioned Paul Sanders v. Aveo
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:13-cv-11157-JLT, filed on
May 9, 2013, and the other captioned Christine Krause v. AVEO
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:13-cv-11320-JLT, filed on
May 31, 2013.

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

The Company moved to dismiss again, and after a second round of
briefing and oral argument, the District Court ruled in the
Company's favor and dismissed the second amended complaint with
prejudice on November 18, 2015. The lead plaintiffs appealed the
District Court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals
for the First Circuit. They also filed a motion to vacate and
reconsider the District Court's judgment, which the Company
opposed.

On January 3, 2017, the District Court granted the plaintiffs'
motion to vacate the dismissal and judgment, and the plaintiffs
filed a motion to dismiss their appeal on February 8, 2017. On
February 2, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint,
on behalf of stockholders who purchased common stock between May
16, 2012 and May 1, 2013, alleging claims similar to those
alleged in the prior complaints, namely that the Company and
certain of the Company's former officers and directors violated
Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements
concerning the phase 3 trial design and results for the Company's
TIVO-1 clinical trial in an effort to lead investors to believe
that the drug would receive approval from the FDA.

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

On December 26, 2017, the parties entered into a binding
Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU") regarding the settlement
of the lawsuit. On January 29, 2018, the parties entered into a
Stipulation of Settlement (the "Stipulation"), which was filed
with the District Court on February 2, 2018.

Under the terms of the MOU and Stipulation, AVEO agreed with
counsel for the lead plaintiffs to cause certain of AVEO's and
the Individual Defendants' insurance carriers to provide the
Class with a cash payment of $15.0 million, which includes the
cash amount of any attorneys' fees or litigation expenses that
the District Court may award lead plaintiffs' counsel and costs
lead plaintiffs incur in administering and providing notice of
the settlement.  Additionally, AVEO agreed to issue to the Class
the Settlement Warrants for the purchase of 2.0 million shares of
AVEO common stock exercisable from the date of issue until the
expiration of a one-year period after the date of issue at an
exercise price equal to the closing price on December 22, 2017,
the trading day prior to the execution of the MOU, which was
$3.00 ("the "Settlement Warrants").

On February 8, 2018, the District Court issued an order
preliminarily approving the terms of the Stipulation.  The
Stipulation is subject to final approval by the District Court.
The District Court set a Final Approval Hearing for May 30, 2018.

The Company has agreed to use its best efforts to issue and
deliver the Settlement Warrants within ten business days
following the effective date of the final approval of the
Stipulation.

Additional information on the case is available at:

             https://www.aveosecuritieslitigation.com/

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


B RILEY FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Suit vs. MLV & Co.
---------------------------------------------------------
B. Riley Financial, 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 putative class action suit against
MLV & Co. is still ongoing.

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

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

The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages and
reimbursement of certain costs and expenses. In August 2017, the
Court granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss on Section 12 claims
and found that the plaintiffs had not sufficiently alleged a
corrective disclosure prior to August 6, 2015, when an SEC civil
action was announced. Defendants' answer was filed on September
25, 2017.

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

B. Riley Financial, Inc. provides financial services and
solutions in North America, Australia, and Europe. The company
operates in four segments: Capital Markets, Auction and
Liquidation, Valuation and Appraisal, and Principal Investments -
United Online. The company is based in Woodland Hills,
California.




BABAD MANAGEMENT: Court Approves Settlement in "Penafiel" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Henry Pitman of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York approved the settlement in the
case, LILY PENAFIEL, Plaintiff, v. BABAD MANAGEMENT CO., LLC, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 17 Civ. 4629 (HBP) (S.D. N.Y.).

The Plaintiff commenced the action pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") to
recover unpaid straight time and overtime premium pay.  The
Plaintiff also asserted claims that the Defendants failed to keep
certain records and to provide certain notices under the NYLL.

The Plaintiff brought the action as a collective action pursuant
to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) with respect to the FLSA claims, but
the parties reached a settlement prior to the matter being
conditionally certified.  The matter is currently before the
Court on the parties' joint application to approve a proposed
settlement agreement that they have reached.

The Plaintiff worked at the Defendants' residential building
management company from approximately October 2012 until Aug. 14,
2016.  She alleges that she was compensated at a base hourly rate
of $11 per hour from approximately October 2012 through
approximately July 2015, $11.75 per hour from approximately
August 2015 through approximately April 2016 and $12.75 from
approximately May 2016 until the end of her employment on Aug.
14, 2016.

The Plaintiff claims that throughout her employment, the
Defendants would regularly engage in "time-shaving", i.e.,
requiring her to work off the clock for 40 minutes per day
without compensation.  She also claims that she worked, on
average, approximately 43.33 hours per week, but that the
Defendants did not compensate her at all for the overtime hours.

In addition, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' wage and
hour statements were fraudulent because they did not accurately
reflect the number of hours she worked each week.  She claims
that she is entitled to $31,894.641 in total damages, exclusive
of pre-judgment interest.

The Defendants deny the Plaintiff's claims.  They appear to
contend that the Plaintiff was not authorized to work more than
40 hours per week and, thus, is not entitled to any overtime
premium pay.  They argue that the Plaintiff was paid properly and
received all compensation owed to her.

The parties agreed to a settlement in the amount of $7,500.  They
also agree that the Plaintiff's counsel will retain $500 for out
of pocket costs and $2,333.33, or one-third of the remainder, as
a fee.

Reasonably, a court should consider the totality of
circumstances, including but not limited to the following
factors: (1) the plaintiff's range of possible recovery; (2) the
extent to which the settlement will enable the parties to avoid
anticipated burdens and expenses in establishing their claims and
defenses; (3) the seriousness of the litigation risks faced by
the parties; (4) whether the settlement agreement is the product
of arm's length bargaining between experienced counsel; and (5)
the possibility of fraud or collusion.  Magistrate Judge Pitman
finds that the settlement here satisfies these criteria.

First, although the settlement fund after deduction of fees and
costs represents approximately 15% of the Plaintiff's total
alleged damages, exclusive of interest, that fact does not render
the proposed settlement deficient.  Second, the proposed
settlement will entirely avoid the burden, expense and
aggravation of litigation.  Third, the settlement will enable the
Plaintiff to avoid the risk of litigation.  Fourth, the counsel
represents that the settlement is the product of arm's-length
bargaining between experienced counsel and that the counsel
advocated zealously on behalf of their respective clients during
negotiations.  Fifth there are no factors that suggest the
existence of fraud.

The proposed settlement agreement also contains a release and a
mutual non-disparagement clause.  Finally, the settlement
agreement provides that $2,333.33 will be paid to the Plaintiff's
counsel as contingency fees.  This amount is equal to
approximately 33.3% of the settlement fund, exclusive of out-of-
pocket costs.

Accordingly, for all the foregoing reasons, the Magistrate Judge
approved the settlement in the matter.  In light of the
settlement, he dismissed with prejudice and without costs the
action.  He respectfully requested the Clerk to mark the matter
closed.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 18, 2018 Opinion and Order
is available at https://is.gd/NVKV3n from Leagle.com.

Lily Penafiel, on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class, Plaintiff, represented by Anne Melissa Seelig --
info@leelitigation.com -- Lee Litigation Group, PLLC & C.K. Lee,
Lee Litigation Group, PLLC.

Babad Management Co., LLC, Sheldon Becker & Chaim Babad,
Defendants, represented by Jason Andrew Grossman, Turek Roth
Grossman LLP, Gaddi Goren, Turek Roth Grossman LLP & Zachary C.
Hall, Turek Roth Grossman LLP.


BANK OF NEW YORK: Depositary Receipt Litigation Still Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Bank of New York Mellon 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 firm continues to
defend the so-called Depositary Receipt Litigation.

Between late December 2015 and February 2016, four putative class
action lawsuits were filed against BNY Mellon asserting claims
relating to BNY Mellon's foreign exchange pricing when converting
dividends and other distributions from non-U.S. companies in its
role as depositary bank to Depositary Receipt issuers.

The claims are for breach of contract and violations of ERISA.
The lawsuits have been consolidated into two suits that are
pending in federal court in the Southern District of New York.

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

                          *     *     *

The Bank of New York Mellon said in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that the remaining
FINRA action has been resolved and dismissed.

In late December 2005, Pershing LLC ("Pershing") became a
clearing firm for Stanford Group Co. ("SGC"), a registered
broker-dealer that was part of a group of entities ultimately
controlled by R. Allen Stanford ("Stanford"). Stanford
International Bank ("SIB"), also controlled by Stanford, issued
certificates of deposit ("CDs"). Some investors allegedly wired
funds from their SGC accounts to purchase CDs.

In 2009, the SEC charged Stanford with operating a Ponzi scheme
in connection with the sale of CDs, and SGC was placed into
receivership. Alleged purchasers of CDs have filed 15 lawsuits
against Pershing that are pending in Texas, including two
putative class actions. The purchasers allege that Pershing, as
SGC's clearing firm, assisted Stanford in a fraudulent scheme and
assert contractual, statutory and common law claims. The
remaining FINRA action has been resolved and dismissed.

The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation provides a range of
financial products and services to institutions, corporations,
and high net worth individuals in the United States and
internationally. The company operates through two segments,
Investment Management and Investment Services.


BBVA COMPASS: Dismissal of Securities Suit Under Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------
BBVA Compass Bancshares, 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 in the case, In
re Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. Securities Litigation, has
taken an appeal from the court's decision granting the
defendants' motion to dismiss.

In January 2016, BBVA Securities Inc. (BSI) was named as a
defendant in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, In re
Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. Securities Litigation, wherein
the plaintiffs challenge statements made in registration
materials and prospectuses filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission in connection with eight securities offerings of stock
and notes issued by Plains GP Holdings and Plains All American
Pipeline and underwritten by BSI, among others. The plaintiffs
seek unspecified monetary relief.

On April 2, 2018, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss with prejudice. The plaintiffs have appealed.

The Company believes there are substantial defenses to these
claims and intends to defend them vigorously.

BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. is a Sunbelt-based bank holding
company whose subsidiary, Compass Bank, operates 687 branches,
under the trade name BBVA Compass.  BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc.
is a United States financial holding company headquartered in
Birmingham, Alabama and is a wholly owned subsidiary of BBVA.


BBVA COMPASS: St. Lucie Firefighters' Suit Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2018, that BBVA Securities Inc. continues
to defend itself in a putative class action suit entitled, St.
Lucie County Fire District Firefighters' Pension Trust,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Southwestern Energy Company, et al.

In October 2016, BBVA Securities Inc. (BSI) was named as a
defendant in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the
District Court of Harris County, Texas, and subsequently removed
to the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas, St. Lucie County Fire District Firefighters' Pension
Trust, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Southwestern Energy Company, et al., wherein the
plaintiffs allege that Southwestern Energy Company, its officers
and directors, and the underwriting defendants (including BSI)
made inaccurate and misleading statements in the registration
statement and prospectus related to a securities offering.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary relief. The Company
believes there are substantial defenses to these claims and
intends to defend them vigorously.

BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. is a Sunbelt-based bank holding
company whose subsidiary, Compass Bank, operates 687 branches,
under the trade name BBVA Compass.  BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc.
is a United States financial holding company headquartered in
Birmingham, Alabama and is a wholly owned subsidiary of BBVA.


BBVA COMPASS: Continues to Defend "Hossfeld" Suit
-------------------------------------------------
BBVA Compass Bancshares, 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
itself in a class action suit filed by Robert Hossfeld.

In December 2016, BBVA Compass was named as a defendant in a
putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Robert Hossfeld,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
BBVA Compass and MSR Group, LLC, alleging violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act in the context of customer
satisfaction survey calls to the cell phones of individuals who
have not given, or who have withdrawn, consent to receive calls
on their cell phones.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary relief.

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

The Company believes there are substantial defenses to these
claims and intends to defend them vigorously.

BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. is a Sunbelt-based bank holding
company whose subsidiary, Compass Bank, operates 687 branches,
under the trade name BBVA Compass.  BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc.
is a United States financial holding company headquartered in
Birmingham, Alabama and is a wholly owned subsidiary of BBVA.


BBVA COMPASS: Suit by Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2018, that BBVA Securities Inc. continues
to defend itself in a putative class action suit entitled,
Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Teva Pharmaceutical
Industries Ltd., et al.

In August 2017, BBVA Securities Inc. (BSI) was named as a
defendant in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut, Ontario
Teachers' Pension Plan Board, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.,
et al., wherein the plaintiffs allege that Teva Pharmaceutical
Industries Ltd. ("Teva"), its officers and directors, and the
underwriting defendants (including BSI) made inaccurate and
misleading statements in the offering materials related to Teva's
role in an alleged conspiracy to inflate the market prices of
certain generic drug products.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary relief.

The Company believes there are substantial defenses to these
claims and intends to defend them vigorously.

BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. is a Sunbelt-based bank holding
company whose subsidiary, Compass Bank, operates 687 branches,
under the trade name BBVA Compass.  BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc.
is a United States financial holding company headquartered in
Birmingham, Alabama and is a wholly owned subsidiary of BBVA.


BBVA COMPASS: Agreement in Principle Reached in "Bellissimo" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BBVA Compass Bancshares, 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 reached an
agreement in principle in the case, Lara Bellissimo, individually
and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. BBVA Compass.

In September 2017, BBVA Compass was named as a defendant in a
putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Lara Bellissimo,
individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v.
BBVA Compass, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act in the context of collections calls to the cell
phones of individuals who were not the individuals that provided
the phone numbers to BBVA Compass. The plaintiffs seek
unspecified monetary relief.

The suit was refiled in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois. The parties reached a settlement in principle on
February 13, 2018 and are in the process of seeking court
approval.

BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. is a Sunbelt-based bank holding
company whose subsidiary, Compass Bank, operates 687 branches,
under the trade name BBVA Compass.  BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc.
is a United States financial holding company headquartered in
Birmingham, Alabama and is a wholly owned subsidiary of BBVA.


BBVA COMPASS: Faces Lopez-Wright Suit in Illinois
-------------------------------------------------
BBVA Compass Bancshares, 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 a putative class action suit entitled, Petra Lopez and
Colea Wright, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. BBVA Compass.

In January 2018, BBVA Compass was named as a defendant in a
putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Petra Lopez and
Colea Wright, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. BBVA Compass, challenging BBVA Compass' assessment of
certain overdraft fees.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary relief.

The Company believes there are substantial defenses to these
claims and intends to defend them vigorously.

BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. is a Sunbelt-based bank holding
company whose subsidiary, Compass Bank, operates 687 branches,
under the trade name BBVA Compass.  BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc.
is a United States financial holding company headquartered in
Birmingham, Alabama and is a wholly owned subsidiary of BBVA.


BBVA COMPASS: Settlement in Principle Reached in "Andrade" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
BBVA Compass Bancshares, 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 have reached a
settlement in principle on an individual (non-class) basis in the
putative class action suit entitled, Daniel Andrade, Sr. and
Elizabeth M. Andrade, individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly situated persons v. BBVA Compass.

In January 2018, BBVA Compass was named as a defendant in a
putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Texas, Daniel Andrade, Sr. and
Elizabeth M. Andrade, individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly situated persons v. BBVA Compass and
Taherzadeh, PLLC, alleging that BBVA Compass improperly assesses
default rate interest on HELOCs prior to default and without
prior notice.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary relief.

On April 20, 2018, the parties reached a settlement in principle
on an individual (non-class) basis.

The Company believes there are substantial defenses to these
claims and intends to defend them vigorously.

BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. is a Sunbelt-based bank holding
company whose subsidiary, Compass Bank, operates 687 branches,
under the trade name BBVA Compass.  BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc.
is a United States financial holding company headquartered in
Birmingham, Alabama and is a wholly owned subsidiary of BBVA.


BBVA COMPASS: Faces Oklahoma Firefighters Pension Fund Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
BBVA Compass Bancshares, 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 a
putative class action suit entitled, Oklahoma Firefighters
Pension & Retirement System, et al., on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc.,
BSI, et al.

In March 2018, the Company and BBVA Securities Inc.  (BSI) were
named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System, et al.,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. BBVA
Compass Bancshares, Inc., BSI, et al., alleging that the
defendant banks and their named subsidiaries engaged in collusion
with respect to the sale of Mexican Government Bonds. The
plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary relief.

The Company believes there are substantial defenses to these
claims and intends to defend them vigorously.

BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. is a Sunbelt-based bank holding
company whose subsidiary, Compass Bank, operates 687 branches,
under the trade name BBVA Compass.  BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc.
is a United States financial holding company headquartered in
Birmingham, Alabama and is a wholly owned subsidiary of BBVA.


BELLICUM PHARMA: Bid to Appoint Lead Plaintiff & Counsel Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, 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 district has not yet ruled
on motion for appointment of lead plaintiff and approval of lead
counsel in the Kakkar-Rudy consolidated suit.

On February 6, 2018, a purported securities class action
complaint captioned Nipun Kakkar v. Bellicum Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., Rick Fair and Alan Musso was filed against the Company and
certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.

A second substantially similar class action was filed on March
14, 2018 by plaintiff Frances Rudy against the same defendants in
the same court.

The lawsuits purport to assert class action claims on behalf of
purchasers of the company's securities during the period from May
8, 2017 through January 30, 2018. The complaints allege that the
defendants violated the Exchange Act by making materially false
and misleading statements concerning the company's clinical
trials being conducted in the U.S. to assess BPX-501 as an
adjunct T-cell therapy administered after allogeneic
hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

The complaints purport to assert claims for violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  The complaints seek, on behalf of the
purported class, an unspecified amount of monetary damages,
interest, fees and expenses of attorneys and experts, and other
relief.

On April 9, 2018, the District Court consolidated the two
lawsuits under the Kakkar action and motions were filed by
putative class members for appointment as lead plaintiff and
approval of lead counsel. The District Court has yet to rule on
the motions.

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


BIOCRYST PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "Klein" Suit
--------------------------------------------
Biocryst Pharmaceuticals, 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 a
putative class action suit entitled, Melvyn Klein v. BioCryst
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

On March 6, 2018, a purported stockholder of BioCryst filed a
putative class action lawsuit against BioCryst, the BioCryst
board of directors, Idera Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Idera"), a
Delaware corporation, Nautilus Holdco, Inc., a Delaware
corporation and a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of BioCryst
("Holdco"), Island Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a
direct, wholly owned subsidiary of Holdco ("Merger Sub A"), and
Boat Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a direct,
wholly owned subsidiary of Holdco ("Merger Sub B") in the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware, captioned
Melvyn Klein v. BioCryst Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-00358-UNA.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act because the preliminary Form S-4
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission allegedly
contains material omissions and misstatements. The complaint
seeks, among other things, injunctive relief preventing the
consummation of the Mergers until additional disclosures are
made, and damages. The defendants believe that the action is
without merit.

BioCryst Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is a biotechnology company,
designs, optimizes, and develops small molecule drugs that block
key enzymes involved in the pathogenesis of diseases. The company
is based in Durham, North Carolina.


BIOCRYST PHARMACEUTICALS: Defending Against "Raatz" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Biocryst Pharmaceuticals, 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 March 14, 2018, a purported
stockholder of Idera filed a putative class action lawsuit
against Idera, the Idera board of Directors, BioCryst, Holdco,
Merger Sub A and Merger Sub B in the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts, captioned Lisa Raatz, v. Idera
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al, Cast No. 1:18-cv-10485.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated sections 14(a)
and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder and section 20(a) of the
Exchanges Act because the preliminary Form S-4 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission allegedly contains material
omissions and misstatements. The complaint seeks, among other
things, injunctive relief preventing the consummation of the
Mergers until additional disclosures are made, and damages. The
defendants believe that the action is without merit.

BioCryst Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is a biotechnology company,
designs, optimizes, and develops small molecule drugs that block
key enzymes involved in the pathogenesis of diseases. The company
is based in Durham, North Carolina.


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Summary Judgment Bids in TCPA Suit OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PHYSICIANS HEALTHSOURCE, Plaintiff, v. BOEHRINGER
INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:14-cv-
00405 (SRU) (D. Conn.), Judge Stefan R. Underhill of the U.S.
District Court for the District Connecticut granted the
Defendants' motions for summary judgment.

Boehringer, Medica, Inc., and John Does 1-10 for violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 ("TCPA"), as amended by
the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005.  Physicians Healthsource is
a medical clinic based in Cincinnati, Ohio; it alleges that a fax
sent to one of its doctors by the defendants was an "unsolicited
advertisement" that violated the TCPA.

On April 6, 2010, Dr. Jose Martinez -- a general practitioner
employed by Physicians Healthsource in Cincinnati, Ohio --
received a fax from Defendant Medica.  The fax invited Dr.
Martinez to an awareness dinner meeting on April 28, 2010 at a
McCormick & Schmick's restaurant in Cincinnati, sponsored by
Defendant Boehringer and featuring a presentation by board-
certified obstetrician/gynecologist David Portman.  The remainder
of the fax concerns logistics, such as the time, date, and
location of the dinner meaning, and the process of registration.

Around the time of the dinner meeting, Boehringer was seeking
approval from the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") for a new
drug, flibanserin.  Flibanserin was intended as a treatment for
FSD/HSDD.  The fax sent to Dr. Martinez does not name any product
designed to treat FSD/HSDD, however -- in fact, it does not
mention treatment of the disorders at all.

On June 18, 2010, an FDA advisory panel recommended against
approving flibanserin, and Boehringer halted development of the
drug.  Boehringer subsequently sold its rights in flibanserin to
Sprout Pharmaceuticals, which (following FDA approval) brought
flibanserin to market under the trade name Addyi.  Boehringer has
never commercially produced flibanserin.

On March 30, 2014, Physicians Healthsource sued the Defendants
for violating the TCPA by faxing an unsolicited advertisement
without a proper opt-out notice.  Physicians Healthsource brought
a putative class action on behalf of all persons who (1) on or
after four years prior to the filing of the action, (2) were sent
telephone facsimile messages of material advertising the
commercial availability of any property, goods, or services by or
on behalf of the Defendants, and (3) did not display a proper
opt-out notice.

Medica and Boehringer moved to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on May 21, 2014, and May 22, 2014,
respectively.  They argued that Physicians Healthsource failed to
state a claim because the fax was not an advertisement as defined
by the TCPA.  On Jan. 12, 2015, Judge Underhill granted the
motions to dismiss, reasoning that nothing in the fax indicates
that the dinner was a pretext for pitching a Boehringer product
or service related to FSD/HSDD or links the potential registrant
with Boehringer's other products and services.  Physicians
Healthsource appealed, and the Second Circuit vacated and
remanded for discovery and further proceedings.

On March 9, 2017, the Court received the Court of Appeals'
mandate and reopened the case.  On Aug. 30, 2017, the Judge held
a Rule 16 pretrial conference with the parties, at which he
determined to resolve the Defendants' proposed motions for
summary judgment against Physicians Healthsource's individual
claim prior to a motion for class certification.  He directed the
parties to begin discovery, appropriate subjects of which might
include emails, agreements, and other materials relating to the
April 2010 meeting in Cincinnati that is the basis for Physicians
Healthsource's individual claim.

At the Rule 16 pretrial conference, he also scheduled a hearing
on the Defendants' anticipated motions for summary judgment for
March 27, 2018.  Medica and Boehringer separately moved for
summary judgment on Feb. 9, 2018.  Physicians Healthsource filed
a combined opposition on March 7, 2018.

Judge Unnderhill finds that Physicians Healthsource would
interpret the TCPA as imposing a per se ban on faxed invitations
to free seminars, a reading that the Second Circuit already
rejected.  Reasoning that not every unsolicited fax promoting a
free seminar violates the TCPA, the Second Circuit invited
Boehringer to rebut at the summary judgment stage with evidence
showing that it did not feature its products or services at the
seminar.  Boehringer has now done so.  The undisputed evidence
shows that the seminar did not advertise the commercial
availability or quality of any property, goods, or services.
Therefore, the faxed invitation was not an "advertisement," and
the Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

For these reasons, the Judge grants the motions for summary
judgment.  The Clerk will enter judgment in favor of the
Defendants and close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 18, 2018 Memorandum of
Decision is available at https://is.gd/6vZ23S from Leagle.com.

Physicians Healthsource, Inc., an Ohio Corporation, individually
and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated
persons, Plaintiff, represented by Aytan Y. Bellin, Bellin &
Associates LLC, Brian J. Wanca -- bwanca@andersonwanca.com --
Anderson & Wanca, pro hac vice, Glenn L. Hara --
gara@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca, pro hac vice, Ross M.
Good -- rgood@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca, pro hac
vice, Wallace C. Solberg -- wsolberg@andersonwanca.com --
Anderson & Wanca & Ryan Michael Kelly -- rkelly@andersonwanca.com
-- Anderson & Wanca.

Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. & Boehringer Ingelheim
Corporation, Defendants, represented by Bryan James Orticelli --
borticelli@daypitney.com -- Day Pitney LLP & Thomas D. Goldberg -
- tgoldberg@daypitney.com -- Day Pitney LLP.

Medica, Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew H. Geelan --
MGeelan@ddnctlaw.com -- Donahue, Durham & Noonan, P.C..


CARDINAL HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Opioid Related Suits Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cardinal Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that motions to dismiss in a number of lawsuits
over the sale of Opioid drugs will be briefed from June through
August 2018 and that three lawsuits will proceed to trial in
March 2019 depending on the court's ruling on those motions.

Pharmaceutical wholesale distributors, including the company,
have been named as defendants in hundreds of lawsuits relating to
the distribution of prescription opioid pain medications. These
lawsuits have been filed in various federal, state, and other
courts by a variety of plaintiffs, which are primarily counties,
municipalities and political subdivisions from 46 states.

Plaintiffs also include four state attorneys general, unions and
other health and welfare funds, hospital systems and other
healthcare providers. Of these lawsuits, 21 are purported class
actions. The lawsuits seek equitable relief and monetary damages
based on a variety of legal theories including various common law
claims, such as negligence, public nuisance, unjust enrichment as
well as violations of controlled substance laws and various other
statutes. Many also name pharmaceutical manufacturers, retail
pharmacy chains and other entities as defendants.

The vast majority of these lawsuits have been filed in U.S.
federal court and have been transferred for consolidated pre-
trial proceedings in a Multi-District Litigation proceeding in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio.

In April 2018, the court, among other things, ordered that
motions to dismiss in a number of these lawsuits be briefed from
June through August 2018 and that three lawsuits proceed to trial
in March 2019 depending on the court's ruling on those motions.

As part of these proceedings, the company has been discussing
with various parties and other stakeholders, including state
attorneys general, possible prospective non-monetary injunctive
relief and other solutions that the company and others in the
healthcare system either have already undertaken or may undertake
in the future to help alleviate the national opioid epidemic.

Cardinal Health said "We are vigorously defending ourselves in
all of these opioid lawsuits. Since all of the above-referenced
lawsuits are in early stages, we are unable to predict their
outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible losses."

Cardinal Health, Inc. operates as an integrated healthcare
services and products company worldwide. The company is based in
Dublin, Ohio.


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Sinohu Seeks Approval of Legal Fees & Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Sinohu filed on June 20 a Motion for Approval of
Attorney's Fees and Costs in a class action lawsuit against CEC
Entertainment Inc.

CEC Entertainment Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended April 1, 2018, that on October 10, 2014, former venue
General Manager Richard Sinohui filed a purported class action
lawsuit against CEC Entertainment in the Superior Court of
California, Riverside County (the "Sinohui Litigation"), claiming
to represent other similarly-situated current and former General
Managers of CEC Entertainment in California during the period
October 10, 2010 to the present.

The lawsuit sought an unspecified amount in damages and to
certify a class based on allegations that CEC Entertainment
wrongfully classified current and former California General
Managers as exempt from overtime protections; that such General
Managers worked more than 40 hours a week without overtime
premium pay, paid rest periods, and paid meal periods; and that
CEC Entertainment failed to provide accurate itemized wage
statements or to pay timely wages upon separation from
employment, in violation of the California Labor Code, California
Business and Professions Code, and the applicable Wage Order
issued by the California Industrial Welfare Commission.

The plaintiff also alleged that CEC Entertainment failed to
reimburse General Managers for certain business expenses,
including for personal cell phone usage and mileage, in violation
of the California Labor Code; he also asserted a claim for civil
penalties under the California Private Attorneys General Act
("PAGA").

On December 5, 2014, CEC Entertainment removed the Sinohui
Litigation to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, Southern Division.

On March 16, 2016, the Court issued an order denying in part and
granting in part Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.
Specifically, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion to the extent
that he sought to certify a class on Plaintiff's
misclassification and wage statement claims, but certified a
class with respect to Plaintiff's claims that CEC Entertainment
had wrongfully failed to reimburse him for cell phone expenses
and/or mileage.

On June 14, 2016, the Court dismissed Sinohui's PAGA claim. After
participating in mediation on April 19, 2017, the parties agreed
to settle all of Sinohui's individual and class claims.

Pursuant to the basic terms of their settlement, Sinohui will
grant a complete release to CEC Entertainment on behalf of
himself and the class of all claims that he asserted or could
have asserted against the Company, based on the facts that gave
rise to the certified reimbursement claim in the Sinohui
Litigation, in exchange for the Company's settlement payment.

On December 13, 2017, the Court entered its order granting
preliminary approval of the parties' settlement and setting a
final fairness hearing for June 15, 2018. Pursuant to the order,
Plaintiff filed his motion for final approval of the parties'
settlement on April 27, 2018; the Court then set the motion for
hearing on June 15, 2018.

The settlement of this lawsuit should be funded and concluded no
later than the third quarter of 2018 and will not have a material
adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position,
liquidity or capital resources.

The case is captioned, Richard Sinohui v. CEC Entertainment,
Inc., Case No. 5:14-cv-02516 (C.D. Cal., December 5, 2014).
Judge Josephine L Staton oversees the case.

CEC Entertainment, Inc. develops, operates, and franchises family
dining and entertainment centers (venues) under the names of
Chuck E. Cheese's and Peter Piper Pizza in the United States and
internationally. The company is based in Irving, Texas.


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Settlement Reached in "French" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
CEC Entertainment Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended April 1, 2018, that Kevin French filed a Notice of
Settlement in the Superior Court of San Bernardino County,
California.

On January 30, 2017, former Technical Manager Kevin French filed
a purported class action lawsuit against the Company in the U. S.
District Court for the Northern District of California ("the
French Federal Court Lawsuit"), alleging that CEC Entertainment
failed to pay overtime wages, failed to issue accurate itemized
wage statements, failed to pay wages due upon separation of
employment, and failed to reimburse for certain business
expenses, including for mileage and personal cell phone usage, in
violation of the California Labor Code and federal law, and
seeking to certify separate classes on his federal and state
claims.

On October 30, 2017, the parties conducted a mediation. At the
conclusion of the mediation, the parties agreed to settle all of
French's class and individual claims. Pursuant to the parties'
agreement, on November 14, 2017, the Federal Court Lawsuit was
dismissed, and on November 15, 2017, Plaintiff filed a new
lawsuit in Superior Court of San Bernadino County, California
(the "French State Court Lawsuit"). The French State Court
Lawsuit carried forward only the California state law claims
alleging a failure to reimburse for business expenses, and sought
to certify a class of CEC California Senior Assistant Managers,
Assistant Managers, Technical Managers and Assistant Technical
Managers who were authorized to drive on behalf of CEC from
January 30, 2013 through April 27, 2018.

On December 20, 2017, further pursuant to the parties'
settlement, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement.

CEC Entertainment said "We expect that the settlement will be
concluded and the case dismissed by the end of the third quarter
of 2018. The settlement of this action will not have a material
adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position,
liquidity or capital resources."

CEC Entertainment, Inc. develops, operates, and franchises family
dining and entertainment centers (venues) under the names of
Chuck E. Cheese's and Peter Piper Pizza in the United States and
internationally. The company is based in Irving, Texas.


CERRO FLOW: Ill. App. Vacates Good Faith Finding in "Custer" Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARTHA CUSTER, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.
CERRO FLOW PRODUCTS, INC.; PHARMACIA CORPORATION, n/k/a Pharmacia
LLC; PHARMACIA & UPJOHN COMPANY LLC; SOLUTIA, INC.; MONSANTO
COMPANY; PFIZER, INC.; MONSANTO AG PRODUCTS LLC, n/k/a Monsanto
Company; and EASTMAN CHEMICALCOMPANY, Defendants, (Cerro Flow
Products, Inc., Defendant-Appellant; Pharmacia Corporation;
Pharmacia & Upjohn Company LLC; Solutia, Inc.; Monsanto Company;
Pfizer, Inc.; Monsanto Ag Products LLC; and Eastman Chemical
Company, Defendants-Appellees), Case No. 5-16-0161 (Ill. App.),
Judge Judy Cates of the Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth
District, vacated the orders of the circuit court finding that an
aggregate settlement agreement between the 11,546 Plaintiffs and
the Defendants was made in "good faith," within the meaning of
the Joint Tortfeasor Contribution Act.

The appeal concerns 131 mass tort cases, filed on behalf of the
11,546 Plaintiffs, who alleged that they suffered personal
injuries and property damage resulting from exposure to hazardous
substances and contaminants emitted from three "release sites" in
or near the village of Sauget, Illinois.  The release sites were
identified as (1) a 90-acre landfill site ("Sauget landfill"),
(2) a 314-acre plant operated by one or more of the Monsanto
Defendants ("Monsanto facility"), and (3) a parcel of property
abutting the Monsanto facility that was owned and operated by
Cerro ("Cerro facility").

The litigation began in June 2009, with the filing of 20 cases
against the Monsanto Defendants and Cerro.  A total of 1022
individuals were named as Plaintiffs in the 2009 cases.

The personal injury claims were based on theories of negligence,
strict liability/ultrahazardous activity, nuisance, and battery.
The Plaintiffs alleged they suffered one or more of the following
diseases or conditions:  diabetes, hypertension, depression,
sinusitis, anemia, endometriosis, fibroid tumors, anxiety, gout,
heart disorder, arthritis, hysterectomy, diverticulitis, ovarian
cysts, thyroid problems, noncancerous tumors,
hypercholesterolemia, upper respiratory infection, heart disease,
urinary tract infection, asthma, leukemia, chronic bronchitis,
congestive heart failure, emphysema, osteoporosis, stomach
disease/disorder, pancytopenia, thrombocytopenia, bone diseases,
leucopenia, myelodysplasia, migraines, and various forms of
cancer.

The property damage claims were based on theories of negligence,
nuisance, and trespass.  The Plaintiffs alleged that they
suffered injury and damage in the form of "cost to remediate"
their real property and "diminution in value" of the real
property.

On Aug. 3, 2010, the parties informed the trial court that they
had entered into a tolling agreement, effective June 18, 2010,
which provided for a stay of all nondiscovery issues while they
attempted to mediate the contested issues.  Pursuant to that
agreement, the court ordered a stay of the proceedings.  Over the
next three years, the parties engaged in mediation.  The
mediation between the Plaintiffs and Monsanto Defendants was
apparently successful, concluding in November 2014, with a
tentative agreement to settle not only the 2009 cases but also
the claims of thousands of other individuals who had not yet
filed lawsuits, based upon injuries arising from the same
environmental exposure.  Cerro was not a party to the proposed
settlement, and its mediation efforts with the Plaintiffs ended
without an agreement.

On June 3, 2014, an additional 111 cases, naming more than 10,000
new Plaintiffs, were filed against Cerro.  Because of the pending
Settlement Agreement, the Monsanto Defendants were not sued.  The
allegations in the 2014 cases were similar to those brought
against Cerro in the 2009 cases.

On June 23, 2014, Cerro filed a motion to lift the stay order in
the 2009 cases because its mediation efforts with the Plaintiffs
had been unsuccessful.  On July 8, 2014, the trial court issued
an initial case management order covering the 2009 cases and the
2014 cases.  As part of that order, the court lifted the stay as
to the claims made against Cerro in the 2009 cases.  The court
also permitted the Plaintiffs and Cerro to resume discovery and
trial preparations for the 2009 cases and the 2014 cases.

On Aug. 6, 2015, the Plaintiffs in the 2009 cases filed a motion
to establish a "Qualified Settlement Fund" and to appoint Lexco
Consulting, LLC as the administrator of the fund.  The Plaintiffs
represented that the Qualified Settlement Fund satisfied
pertinent federal regulations and requested a court order finding
that the account and the settlement payment arrangements meet the
criteria for a Qualified Settlement Account" under section 468B
of the Internal Revenue Code and the corresponding Treasury
Regulation.  On Aug. 6, 2015, the trial court entered an order in
the 2009 cases, granting the motion to establish the Qualified
Settlement Fund.  The court approved Lexco as the Fund
Administrator.

On March 4, 2016, the Plaintiffs in the 2009 cases filed motions
requesting that the trial court find that their settlement with
the Monsanto Defendants was made in good faith, as defined in the
Contribution Act, and order the dismissal of those claims with
prejudice.  On March 29, 2016, the parties appeared in court for
the hearing on the Plaintiffs' good-faith motions and Cerro's
request for a continuance.  Two circuit court judges, Judge
Andrew Gleeson and Judge Vincent Lopinot, were assigned to these
cases, and they jointly presided over the good-faith hearing.

In a written order entered on March 29, 2016, the trial court
granted the Plaintiffs' motion for a finding of good faith in the
2009 cases and dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims against the
Monsanto Defendants, with prejudice.  The court further ordered
that, pursuant to the Contribution Act, any potential liability
of the settling Defendants to other tortfeasors was discharged
and any and all contribution claims asserted, or that could be
asserted, by or against the settling defendants, were barred.

On May 19, 2016, Cerro filed a third-party complaint in the 2014
cases, seeking contribution against the Monsanto Defendants.  On
June 13, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for a good-faith
finding in the 2014 cases.  They asked the court to find that the
Nov. 21, 2014, settlement was made in good faith and to dismiss,
with prejudice, all contribution claims asserted against the
settling defendants.  They also requested an order discharging
any potential liability of the Monsanto Defendants to other
tortfeasors and barring all contribution claims that have been
asserted, or that could have been asserted, by or against the
Monsanto Defendants.

On June 23, 2016, the Plaintiffs' motion was called for a hearing
before Judge Gleeson and Judge Lopinot.  The court entered a
written order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for a good-faith
finding.  It further ordered that the settlement agreement and
each release, as well as the transcript of the hearing on the
matter, will be filed under seal.  Finally, it found there was no
just reason to delay an appeal of the order.  Thus, the Monsanto
Defendants were completely discharged from any liability to
Cerro.

The confidential Settlement Agreement between the Plaintiffs and
the Monsanto Defendants is dated Nov. 21, 2014.  In exchange for
executing the Release, each living Plaintiff or claimant received
$600.  The Settlement Agreement identifies four additional
settlement funds, and establishes protocols and procedures for
determining whether the Monsanto Defendants will fund them.

According to the terms of the settlement, the Monsanto Defendants
agreed to transfer an additional $300,000 into the Trust to
create Additional Settlement Fund No. 1.  This fund is intended
to compensate 600 living Plaintiffs, who are selected at random
and who agree to provide a blood sample for testing.  Additional
Settlement Fund No. 2 is intended to provide additional
compensation calculated pursuant to the six tiers of value set
forth in exhibit No. 9.  Recovery of monies from Additional
Settlement Fund No. 2 is limited to the living Plaintiffs.

Although the families of the 1,370 deceased Plaintiffs were not
included in the initial Base Settlement Fund, the settlement
provides that any monies paid into the Additional Settlement Fund
No. 3 would be used to compensate these claimants.  Additional
Settlement Fund No. 4 is a fund intended to compensate the living
Plaintiffs who are able to provide proof of ownership of a parcel
or parcels of real estate located within a six-mile radius of the
Monsanto facility.

The Settlement Agreement identifies 4000 properties whose owners
are potentially eligible to recover from Additional Settlement
Fund No. 4.  Thus, if 90% of the eligible Plaintiffs sign the
Release and indemnity agreements, then the Monsanto Defendants
would be required to pay an amount equal to 5% of Additional
Settlement Fund No. 2 to fund Additional Settlement Fund No. 4.

The Settlement Agreement also provides that the percentage
multiplier (5%) will be reduced pro rata by the percentage of
owners below the 90% threshold who fail to participate or provide
the necessary documentation.  As with Additional Settlement Fund
Nos. 2 and 3, the Settlement Agreement does not define or
describe how the Trustees of the Trust will allocate any money
among the Plaintiffs who have asserted property damage claims.

On appeal, Cerro challenges the trial court's findings that the
aggregate settlement of the 2009 cases, and the 2014 cases, was
made in "good faith" within the meaning of the Contribution Act.
It timely appealed from the orders entered March 29, 2016, in the
2009 cases, and the orders entered June 23, 2016, in the 2014
cases.  Subsequently, the appeals were consolidated for purposes
of argument and decision.

After considering the totality of the circumstances surrounding
this settlement, and the unique facts in the case, Judge Cates
finds that the settling parties failed to meet their burden to
make a preliminary showing that the settlement was legally valid
and that the terms of the Settlement Agreement satisfied the
"equitable apportionment policy" underlying the Contribution Act.
In this case, the trial court should have examined the Settlement
Agreement to determine whether it was obtained with informed
consent, and without internal conflicts of interests, before
considering whether the settling defendants were entitled to any
relief under the Contribution Act.  Such scrutiny was necessary
to reduce the potential for inequity and abuses that may arise
from an aggregate settlement.  Therefore, the trial court's
determination that the Settlement Agreement was entered in good
faith was without foundation and, as such, was an abuse of
discretion.  For those reasons, the Judge vacated the trial
court's good-faith orders and remanded these cases for further
proceedings consistent with the Opinion.

On remand, the Judge ordered the settling parties to make a
preliminary showing that the Settlement Agreement is a legally
valid agreement and that the settlement is consistent with the
Contribution Act's policy favoring equitable apportionment of
damages among joint tortfeasors.  As she noted, the settling
parties must provide some information concerning the contested
issues related to liability, damages, and defenses; the projected
total sum of the settlement; and the method of apportionment of
settlement proceeds among the individual Plaintiffs.

In considering the motions for good-faith findings, the trial
court must thoroughly review the Settlement Agreement and
attached exhibits, the Trust Agreement, and the Release.  In
addition, the trial court must consider whether the Plaintiffs'
counsel made full disclosures and provided adequate
representation to each Plaintiff and whether each individual
Plaintiff was fully informed of all material terms of the
settlement.  In addition, the Judge directed that the court must
also consider whether provisions in the Settlement Agreement and
the Trust Agreement present conflicts of interest between counsel
and the Plaintiffs and among Plaintiffs and, if so, whether they
were adequately informed of the conflicts and waived them.  It
must also determine whether the Plaintiffs were aware of the
attorney fees and costs and how those fees and costs would be
assessed and paid.  In essence, the trial court must consider
whether the individual Plaintiffs received sufficient information
to make an informed choice to settle their claims.

The Judge noted that when the trial court issued its order
establishing the Qualified Settlement Fund, the court retained
continuing jurisdiction over the Fund, the Trustees, and the Fund
Administrator, and directed the Trustees, with the assistance of
the Fund Administrator, to jointly prepare an accounting
detailing all distributions from the Qualified Settlement Fund.
On remand, the trial court may consider, in its discretion,
whether to require the Fund Administrator to provide an
accounting of funds distributed to date, whether to require
periodic status reports, and whether the Plaintiffs' counsel, as
the Trustees, should be required to supply a final accounting of
the apportionment and distribution of all of the settlement funds
for the court's review.

As is apparent from her discussion, Judge Cates there is much to
be considered before the trial court entertains any motion
seeking relief under the Contribution Act.  She recognized that
this was a difficult case, and their comments should not be
viewed as a rebuke of the trial court's action.  Rather, as the
trial court indicated, the nature of the case and the
circumstances of the settlement were complex, and there was
little precedent to provide guidance.

Additionally, she said her comments regarding the Settlement
Agreement should not be construed as a condemnation of mass
actions or aggregate settlements.  The ability to join claimants
and claims through procedural joinder is vital to the efficient
use of judicial resources and the equitable settlement of mass
torts.  That said, the counsel involved in joined actions must
act with transparency so that nothing remains hidden from the
court and their individual clients.

She noted that unlike the state courts, the federal courts have a
structure for dealing with nonclass aggregate settlements.  As
noted, there are currently no Illinois statutes or rules, aside
from the Rules of Professional Conduct, to guide and inform
practitioners and the courts in addressing the unique issues
presented by the aggregate settlement of mass torts.  Mass tort
actions are becoming more common, and perhaps, based on the
concerns raised in the case, the state supreme court will
consider whether the implementation of additional rules regarding
good-faith proceedings in mass tort cases might be of benefit to
the trial courts and practitioners.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 18, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/wnUjCh from Leagle.com.

Stephen L. Agin, 909 W. Ohio Street, Unit 9, Chicago, IL 60642;
Mark A. Kircher -- mark.kircher@quarles.com -- Quarles & Brady,
LLP, 411 E. Wisconsin Ave., Suite 2350, Milwaukee, WI 53202-4426;
Lindsey T. Millman -- lindsey.millman@quarles.com -- E. King Poor
IV -- king.poor@quarles.com -- Anthony P. Steinike --
anthony.steinike@quarles.com -- Quarles & Brady, LLP, 300 N.
LaSalle Street, Suite 4000, Chicago, IL 60654; Thomas R. Ysursa,
Becker, Hoerner, Thompson & Ysursa, P.C., 5111 W., Attorneys for
Appellant. Main Street, Belleville, IL 62226, Attorneys for
Appellant.

Clyde L. Kuehn -- ckuehn@mmrltd.com -- 120 W. Main Street, Suite
122, Belleville, IL 62220 (attorney for Martha Custer, et al.);
Bruce N. Cook, Bernard J. Ysursa, Cook, Ysursa, Bartholomew,
Brauer & Shevlin, Ltd., 12 W. Lincoln Street, Belleville, IL
62220-2085; Charles R. Hobbs II -- rhobbs@lathropgage.com --
Patricia L. Silva -- psilva@lathropgage.com -- Lathrop & Gage,
LLP, Pierre Laclede Center, 7701 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 500,
Clayton, MO 63105; Joseph G. Nassif, Nassif Law Firm, 10701
Kingsbridge Estates Dr., Creve Coeur, MO 63141; Robert J. Sprague
-- rsprague@spragueurban.com -- Sprague & Urban, 26 E. Washington
Street, Belleville, IL 62220 (attorneys for Eastman Chemical Co.;
Monsanto AG Products LLC; Monsanto Co.; Pfizer, Inc.; Pharmacia &
Upjohn Co. LLC; Pharmacia Corp.; Solutia, Inc.) Attorneys for
Appellees.


COUNTRY CLUB: Clarification Order in "Mickles" FLSA Suit Vacated
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANDREA MICKLES, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant, LAUREN HOUSTON,
Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellant, SHANA MCALLISTER, APRIL
LEMON, Plaintiffs-Appellants, JOY RICHARDSON, Plaintiff, v.
COUNTRY CLUB INC., d.b.a. Goldrush Showbar, Defendant-Counter
Claimant-Appellee, Case No. 16-17484 (11th Cir.), Judge Susan H.
Black of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (i)
affirmed the district court's denial of conditional
certification; (ii) vacated the district court's clarification
order; and (iii) remanded with instructions for the district
court to either (1) dismiss the Appellants from the case without
prejudice to refile, or (2) go forward with the Appellants'
individual cases since discovery has been completed.

In April 2014, Mickles filed a complaint against Country Club,
alleging she was proceeding on behalf of herself and all other
similarly-situated employees in a collective action lawsuit under
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").  Mickles alleged Country
Club had improperly classified her and other employees as
independent contractors and, as a result, failed to compensate
them at the minimum wage and for overtime work. Country Club
answered the complaint and filed counterclaims against Mickles --
and any Plaintiff who joined the action -- for money had and
received, unjust enrichment, and breach of contract.

Other employees then opted into the litigation by filing consents
to become party Plaintiffs.  On June 11, 2014, Houston filed a
"Consent to Become a Party Plaintiff" with the Court, stating she
consented to sue as a Plaintiff in the FLSA action.  On Aug. 26,
2014, McAllister and Lemon filed their "Consents to Become Party
Plaintiffs," also consenting to sue as the Plaintiffs in the FLSA
action.

Discovery began on Aug. 22, 2014. Mickles and Country Club agreed
that, per Northern District of Georgia Local Rule 7.1(A)(2),
except as specifically provided, all motions must be filed 30
days after the beginning of discovery unless the filing party has
obtained prior permission of the court to file later.  The
district court adopted this deadline in its Scheduling Order.
All motions (absent a few exceptions) were required to be filed
by Sept. 22, 2014.

Country Club took the depositions of Houston, McAllister, and
Lemon during the discovery period.  The district court twice
extended the discovery period, which ultimately ended on April 6,
2015.  On May 14, 2015, more than a month after the close of
discovery, Mickles filed a motion for conditional certification
of a collective action.  She moved to certify the collective
action under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), citing the procedure
outlined by this Court in Hipp. 252 F.3d at 1218.

On Jan. 6, 2016, the district court denied the motion for
conditional certification based on untimeliness, as the motion
was filed nearly eight months past the deadline set by the local
rules, and Mickles did not have prior permission of the court to
file the motion after the deadline.  The conditional
certification order made no mention of dismissing Houston,
McAllister, and Lemon from the litigation.

On Oct. 6, 2016, Country Club filed a motion for clarification of
the district court's conditional certification order, inquiring
about which individual Plaintiffs remained parties in the action.
Mickles, Houston, McAllister, and Lemon each believed they were
party Plaintiffs in the action because the district court never
dismissed their claims.  On Oct. 17, 2016, the district court
granted the motion for clarification stating that Houston,
McAllister, and Lemon were never adjudicated to be similarly
situated to Mickles, and, therefore, were never properly added as
party Plaintiffs to the collective action.

On Oct. 31, 2016, Country Club notified the district court that
it had reached a settlement with Mickles.  Mickles and Country
Club filed a motion to approve the settlement, which resolved
both the substantive claims and the counterclaims.  On Dec. 5,
2016, the district court approved the settlement.  Houston,
McAllister, and Lemon filed a notice of appeal, specifying that
they were appealing the district court's (1) conditional
certification order, (2) clarification order, and (3) order
approving the settlement.

Judge Black finds that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying the motion for conditional certification as
untimely.  The day the motion was due was Sept. 22, 2014, yet the
motion was not filed until May 14, 2015.  The exchange recounted
during a phone conference regarding discovery does not constitute
"prior permission" to file an untimely motion for conditional
certification nearly eight months after the deadline provided by
the local rules.  While the district court stated that the
Appellants could file the motion in the phone conference, its
statement to file the motion does not constrain the district
court from later finding that motion untimely.  The district
court did not abuse its discretion, and she affirms the district
court's denial of conditional certification as untimely.

The Judge also finds that the Appellants were parties to the
litigation upon filing consents and, absent a dismissal from the
case, remained parties in the litigation.  Thus, the district
court erred in deeming the Appellants non-parties in the
clarification order, which had the effect of dismissing their
claims with prejudice.

For these reasons, Judge Black affirmed the district court's
denial of conditional certification.  She vacated the district
court's clarification order, and remanded with instructions for
the district court to either (1) dismiss the Appellants from the
case without prejudice to refile, or (2) go forward with the
Appellants' individual cases since discovery has been completed.

In addition, the Judge holds that the Appellants are entitled to
statutory tolling of their claims beginning on the dates they
filed their written consents.  Thus, Houston is entitled to
statutory tolling beginning on June 11, 2014, and McAllister and
Lemon are entitled to statutory tolling beginning on Aug. 26,
2014.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 18, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/uD5bhk from Leagle.com.

Thomas A. Withers -- twithers@gwllawfirm.com -- for Plaintiff-
Appellant.

Dean Richard Fuchs -- d.fuchs@swtwlaw.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.

Anthony C. Lake, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Gary F. Lynch -- glynch@carlsonlynch.com -- for Plaintiff-
Appellant.

Stephen Whitfield Brown -- swbrown@littler.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.

Jamisen A. Etzel -- jetzel@carlsonlynch.com -- for Plaintiff-
Appellant.

Edwin J. Kilpela -- ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com -- for Plaintiff-
Appellant.

Benjamin J. Sweet, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

William Grant Cromwell, for Plaintiff-Appellant.


COZI INC: Faces "Sullivan" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cozi Inc. The case
is styled as Phillip Sullivan, Jr., on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Cozi Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-05630 (S.D. N.Y., June 21, 2018).

Cozi is a free mobile app and website that helps families stay
organized. Its features allow multiple family members to manage
appointments and schedules with one account, as well as organize
and update shopping and to-do lists.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   C.K. Lee, Esq.
   Lee Litigation Group, PLLC
   30 East 39th Street
   2nd Floor
   New York, NY 10016
   Tel: (212) 465-1188
   Fax: (212) 465-1181
   Email: cklee@leelitigation.com


CRAFTMASTER PAINTING: Class in "Boutell" ERISA Suit Certified
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANTHONY BOUTELL, BRIAN STOUT, SHANE MORN and ROGER
ANDERSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. CRAFTMASTER PAINTING, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 17-cv-317-bbc (W.D. Wis.), Judge Barbara B. Crabb of the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin granted
the Plaintiffs' (i) motion to allow opt-in of Jennifer Przybyla,
and motion for class certification.

Boutell, Stout, Morn and Anderson are former employees of the
Defendant.  The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant failed to
pay them in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
and state law.  The Judge granted the Plaintiffs' motion to
conditionally certify their FLSA claims as to hourly employees
who worked for the Defendant on jobsites on or after April 28,
2014.

Now before the Court is the Plaintiffs' motion under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23(a) and (b)(3) for certification of a class of all hourly
employees who worked on jobsites for the Defendant  during the
time period of April 28, 2015 to the present.  The Plaintiffs
have also filed a motion to accept the late opt-in form signed by
Przybyla.

The Defendant does not oppose the class certification or
Pryzbyla's participation in the case.

Judge Crabb is persuaded that a class certification is
appropriate under Rule 23(b)(3).  The Plaintiffs meet all the
requirements of Rule 23(a): the class is sufficiently numerous;
the class claims share common questions; the claims of the named
representatives are typical of the class; and the named
Plaintiffs are adequate, as are class counsel.  The Plaintiffs
have also satisfied the requirements in Rule 23(b)(3) to show
that common questions predominate for the purpose of determining
liability and that a class action is a superior method of
resolving liability.

The only remaining issue is the class notice.  Generally, the
Plaintiffs' counsel include a proposed class notice with their
motion for certification, but the Plaintiffs failed to do that in
the case, the Judge finds.  She will give them the opportunity to
do that now.  She say the Plaintiffs should take care to include
all the information required under Rule 23.

The Notice must clearly, concisely, and comprehensibly state: (1)
the nature of the action; (2) the class definition; (3) the class
claims, issues or defenses; (4) that a class member may enter an
appearance through an attorney should he or she desire; (5) that
the court will exclude any class member requesting exclusion; (6)
the time and manner for requesting exclusion; and (7) the binding
effect of a class judgment on class members, regardless of
whether a member may have a stronger individual claim of
liability not dependent on proof of an unofficial policy to deny
overtime pay.

Accordingly, Judge Crabb granted the Plaintiffs' (i) motion to
allow opt-in of Przybyla, and (ii) motion for class
certification.  She certified the class of all hourly employees
of Craftmaster Painting, LLC who worked on jobsites for
Craftmaster on or after April 28, 2015.  She appointed The
Previant Law Firm, S.C. as the class counsel, and Boutell and
Stout as the class representatives.  The Plaintiffs may have
until April 25, 2018, to file a proposed class notice.  The
Defendant may have until May 2, 2018, to file a response.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 18, 2018 Opinion and Order
is available at https://is.gd/3C3ZrE from Leagle.com.

Anthony Boutell, Brian Stout, Shane Morn & Roger Anderson,
Plaintiffs, represented by Yingtao Ho -- yh@previant.com --
Previant, Goldberg, Uelmen, Gratz, Miller & Brueggeman, S.C.

Craftmaster Painting, LLC, Defendant, represented by Douglas E.
Witte -- dwitte@boardmanclark.com -- Boardman & Clark LLP.


DISH NETWORK: Unit Appeals Ruling in "Krakauer" Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Dish Network Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2018, that DISH Network L.L.C. has filed a notice
of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit in the "Krakauer" suit.

Following a five-day trial, on January 19, 2017, a jury in a
certified class action filed against DISH Network L.L.C. in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina (the "Krakauer Action") found that an independent third-
party retailer was acting as DISH Network L.L.C.'s agent when it
made the 51,119 calls at issue in that case, and that class
members are eligible to recover $400 in damages for each call
made in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

On March 7, 2017, DISH Network L.L.C. filed motions with the
Court for judgment as a matter of law and, in the alternative,
for a new trial, which the Court denied on May 16, 2017. On May
22, 2017, the Court ruled that the violations were willful and
knowing, and trebled the damages award to $1,200 for each call
made in violation of TCPA. On April 5, 2018, the Court entered a
$61 million judgment in favor of the class.  On May 4, 2018, DISH
Network L.L.C. filed a notice of appeal to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

DISH Network said "During the second quarter 2017, we recorded
$41 million of "Litigation expense" related to the Krakauer
Action on our Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations and
Comprehensive Income (Loss). We recorded $20 million of
"Litigation expense" related to the Krakauer Action during the
fourth quarter 2016. Our total accrual related to the Krakauer
Action at March 31, 2018 was $61 million and is included in
"Other accrued expenses" on our Condensed Consolidated Balance
Sheets. We intend to vigorously defend these cases. We cannot
predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of these suits."

DISH Network Corporation operates satellite television
programming and technology services in the United States. It
offers HD/DVR technology; international channels; Internet and
phone services; and DISH Anywhere, an online video site that
allows users to watch TV shows, movies, and clips on computer.
The company is based in Englewood, Colorado.


DONISIJAX INC: Faces "Missry" Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DonisiJax, Inc. The
case is styled as Carol Missry and Hyman Missry, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
DonisiJax, Inc. d/b/a Nationwide Health Advisors, Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-03614 (E.D. N.Y., June 21, 2018).

The Defendant offer companion health insurance.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE.


E! ENTERTAINMENT: Faces "Sullivan" Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against E! Entertainment
Television, LLC. The case is styled as Phillip Sullivan, Jr., on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
E! Entertainment Television, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-
05466 (S.D. N.Y., June 18, 2018).

E Entertainment Television Inc was founded in 1984. The company's
line of business includes the dissemination of visual and textual
television programs on a subscription or fee basis.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


ELECTRONICS FOR IMAGING: Bid to Dismiss "Pipetone" Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants' motion to dismiss the case, Pipitone v.
Electronics For Imaging, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-05992 (D.N.J.,
August 10, 2017) remains pending.

The Defendants filed the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended
Class Action Complaint on April 23, 2018.  The Plaintiffs filed a
Memorandum in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss on May 23, and
the Defendants filed their reply brief on June 14.

The case is assigned to Judge Madeline Cox Arleo.

Electronics for Imaging, 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 August 10, 2017, a putative
class action was filed against the Company and its two named
executive officers in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, captioned Pipitone v. Electronics For
Imaging, Inc., No. 2:17-cv-05992 (D.N.J.).

A First Amended Complaint was filed on February 20, 2018. The
plaintiffs allege, among other things, that statements by the
Company and its officers about the Company's financial reporting,
revenue recognition, internal controls, and disclosure controls
and procedures were false or misleading.

The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, interest,
attorneys' fees, and other costs, on behalf of a putative class
of individuals and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
EFI securities from February 22, 2017 through August 3, 2017.

"At this time, we do not believe it is probable that we will
incur a material loss in this matter. However, it is reasonably
possible that our financial statements could be materially
affected by an unfavorable resolution of this matter. Because
this matter is in the preliminary stages, we are not yet in a
position to estimate the amount or range of reasonably possible
loss that may be incurred," the Company said.

Electronics for Imaging, Inc. a world leader in customer-centric
digital printing innovation focused on the transformation of the
printing, packaging, ceramic tile decoration, and textile
industries from the use of traditional analog based printing to
digital on-demand printing. The company is based in Fremont,
California.


FAIRMOUNT SANTROL: Merger-Related Suits Filed
---------------------------------------------
Fairmount Santrol Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on May 14,
2018, that the company is facing two putative class action suits
related to its merger with Unimin Corporation.

On May 10, 2018, an alleged stockholder of Fairmount Santrol
Holdings Inc. ("Fairmount Santrol") filed a putative class action
against Fairmount Santrol and its directors, captioned Schneider
v. Fairmount Santrol Holdings Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-01047, in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio.

On May 11, 2018, another alleged stockholder filed a putative
class action against Fairmount Santrol and its directors,
captioned Fitzgibbon v. Fairmount Santrol Holdings Inc., et al.,
No. 1:18-cv-01095, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio.

Fairmount Santrol said in a separate Form 8-K filing that on May
4, 2018, an alleged stockholder of Fairmount Santrol Holdings
Inc. ("Fairmount Santrol") filed a putative class action against
Fairmount Santrol and its directors, captioned Scarantino v.
Fairmount Santrol Holdings Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-01047, in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio.

The lawsuits generally allege that Fairmount Santrol and its
directors violated the federal securities laws by issuing
allegedly misleading disclosures in connection with the
previously announced proposed transaction (the "merger") with
Unimin Corporation ("Unimin"), pursuant to the terms of that
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated December 11, 2017, among
Fairmount Santrol, Unimin and the other parties thereto (the
"Merger Agreement"), and seeks, among other things, to enjoin the
special meeting of Fairmount Santrol stockholders scheduled to be
held on May 25, 2018 (the "special meeting") at which Fairmount
Santrol stockholders will vote on, among other items, a proposal
to adopt the Merger Agreement.

Fairmount Santrol and its directors believe that the allegations
against them lack merit.

Fairmount Santrol Holdings Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
provides sand-based proppant solutions for exploration and
production companies. The company operates in two segments,
Proppant Solutions and Industrial & Recreational Products. The
company is based in Chesterland, Ohio.


FAMOUS DAVE'S RIBS: "Broad" to Recover Illegally-Withheld Tips
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Stephanie Broad, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Famous Dave's Ribs Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 508082/2018, (N.Y. Sup., April 20, 2018),
seeks to recover minimum wages, overtime compensation and other
damages under the under the New York Labor Law and Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Broad is a "tipped employee" who works as a server at Famous
Dave's restaurant located at 1060 Corporate Drive, Westbury, NY
11590.

Defendant illegally applied a tip credit to her wages resulting
in a rate lower that the minimum wage. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
      Frank J. Mazzaferro, Esq.
      FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
      28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 300-0375

Defendant is represented by:

      FEATHER LAW FIRM, P.C.
      666 Old Country Road Ste. 605
      Garden City, NY 11530
      Tel: (516)-745-9000


FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Faces "Reyes" Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Financial Recovery
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Mabel Reyes, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Financial
Recovery Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-03616-JMA-
SIL (E.D. N.Y., June 21, 2018).

Financial Recovery Services, Inc. provides debt collection
services to consumer creditors, finance companies, and debt
buyers. It serves bank and retail credit card, installment loan
and DDA, payday loans, purchased debt service contracts, and
utility markets. The company was founded in 1996 and is based in
Edina, Minnesota.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Daniel A. Louro, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza W
   12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: dlouro@cml.legal


FIRST COMMONWEALTH: Final Settlement Approval Hearing on July 23
----------------------------------------------------------------
First Commonwealth 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 court has
scheduled a hearing for July 23, 2018, to consider final approval
of the settlement of a class action lawsuit.

First Commonwealth Financial Corporation and First Commonwealth
Bank were named defendants in an action commenced August 27, 2015
by eight named plaintiffs that is pending in the Court of Common
Pleas of Jefferson County, Pennsylvania.

The plaintiffs allege that the Bank repossessed motor vehicles,
sold the vehicles and sought to collect deficiency balances in a
manner that did not comply with the notice requirements of the
Pennsylvania Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), charged inappropriate
costs and fees, including storage costs for dates that a
repossessed vehicle was not in storage, and wrongly filed forms
with the Department of Motor Vehicles asserting that the Bank had
complied with applicable laws relating to the repossession of the
vehicles.

The plaintiffs seek to pursue the action as a class action on
behalf of the named plaintiffs and other similarly situated
plaintiffs who had their automobiles repossessed and seek to
recover damages under the UCC and the Pennsylvania Fair Credit
Extension Uniformity Act.

First Commonwealth said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, First Commonwealth and the Bank
contest the plaintiffs' allegations and intended to oppose class
certification. The Bank has also asserted counterclaims for
breach of contract, set-off and recoupment against the
plaintiffs, individually, and as representatives of the putative
class.

The Bank and counsel for the plaintiffs reached an agreement-in-
principle to settle the litigation during the second quarter of
2016.  First Commonwealth said the parties are negotiating the
terms of a definitive settlement agreement which would be subject
to court approval and other customary conditions. The estimated
cost of the settlement to the Bank was recorded as a liability in
the second quarter of 2016.

In its recent SEC report, the Company said that First
Commonwealth Financial Corporation, First Commonwealth Bank, the
plaintiffs, the plaintiffs' counsel and First Commonwealth's
liability insurer have entered into a Class Action Settlement
Agreement and Release in which, among other things, First
Commonwealth and its insurer have agreed to pay certain amounts
into a settlement fund to be distributed among the class members
and class counsel, First Commonwealth has agreed to satisfy the
remaining deficiency balances of the class members and request
that credit reporting agencies delete the tradeline relating to
the repossession from each class member's credit report, and the
class members will release all claims against First Commonwealth
and its insurer.

The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on March
29, 2018, and has scheduled a hearing on July 23, 2018 to
consider final approval of the settlement.

The estimated cost of the settlement to First Commonwealth was
recorded as a liability in the second quarter of 2016. As set
forth in the preceding paragraph, all current litigation matters,
including this action, are believed to be within the range of
reasonably possible losses set forth in the preceding paragraph.

First Commonwealth Financial Corporation, through its subsidiary
First Commonwealth Bank, provides consumer and commercial banking
services to individuals, and small and mid-sized businesses in
the United States. The company is based in Indiana, Pennsylvania.


FLAGSTAR BANK: Faces "Wilde" Suit in S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Flagstar Bank FSP.
The case is styled as Robert Wilde, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Flagstar Bank FSP and
Flagstar Bancorp Inc., Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-01370-LAB-BGS
(S.D. Cal., June 21, 2018).

Flagstar Bank offers a wide range of personal banking and
business banking services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Helen Irene Zeldes, Esq.
   Coast Law Group LLC
   1140 South Coast Hwy 101, Suite 2050
   Encinitas, CA 92024
   Tel: (760) 942-8505
   Email: helen@coastlaw.com


FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: Lead Plaintiff Appeals Dismissal Order
---------------------------------------------------------
Flotek Industries, 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 lead plaintiff has taken an appeal
from the District Court's decision granting a motion to dismiss a
class action lawsuit.

On March 30, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas granted the Company's motion to dismiss the
four consolidated putative securities class action lawsuits that
were filed in November 2015, against the Company and certain of
its officers. The lawsuits were previously consolidated into a
single case, and a consolidated amended complaint had been filed.

The consolidated amended complaint asserted that the Company made
false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. The complaint sought an award of damages in an
unspecified amount on behalf of a putative class consisting of
persons who purchased the Company's common stock between October
23, 2014 and November 9, 2015, inclusive. The lead plaintiff has
appealed the District Court's decision granting the motion to
dismiss.

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

Flotek is a global, diversified, technology-driven company that
develops and supplies chemistries and services to the oil and gas
industries, and high value compounds to companies that make food
and beverages, cleaning products, cosmetics, and other products
that are sold in consumer and industrial markets. The company is
based in Houston, Texas.


FORSTER & GARBUS: Faces "Page" Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Forster & Garbus,
LLP. The case is styled as Kyle A Page, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Forster & Garbus,
LLP, Navient Solutions, Inc., Navient Solutions, LLC, SLM Private
Credit Student Loan Trust 2012-C, Mark A. Garbus and Ronald
Forster, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-03611 (E.D. N.Y., June 21,
2018).

Forster & Garbus LLP provides legal services. The Company
specializes in collecting debts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FRONT YARD: Discovery Underway in "Martin" Suit
-----------------------------------------------
Front Yard Residential Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that discovery is ongoing
in the case captioned as Martin v. Altisource Residential
Corporation, et al.

On March 27, 2015, a putative shareholder class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court of the Virgin
Islands by a purported shareholder of the Company under the
caption Martin v. Altisource Residential Corporation, et al., 15-
cv-00024.

The action names as defendants the Company, our former Chairman,
William C. Erbey, and certain officers and a former officer of
the Company and alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by, among other things, making materially false
statements and/or failing to disclose material information to the
Company's shareholders regarding the Company's relationship and
transactions with AAMC, Ocwen Financial Corporation ("Ocwen") and
Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd.

These alleged misstatements and omissions include allegations
that the defendants failed to adequately disclose the Company's
reliance on Ocwen and the risks relating to its relationship with
Ocwen, including that Ocwen was not properly servicing and
selling loans, that Ocwen was under investigation by regulators
for violating state and federal laws regarding servicing of loans
and Ocwen's lack of proper internal controls. The complaint also
contains allegations that certain of the Company's disclosure
documents were false and misleading because they failed to
disclose fully the entire details of a certain asset management
agreement between the Company and AAMC that allegedly benefited
AAMC to the detriment of the Company's shareholders. The action
seeks, among other things, an award of monetary damages to the
putative class in an unspecified amount and an award of
attorney's and other fees and expenses.

In May 2015, two of the company' purported shareholders filed
competing motions with the court to be appointed lead plaintiff
and for selection of lead counsel in the action. Subsequently,
opposition and reply briefs were filed by the purported
shareholders with respect to these motions. On October 7, 2015,
the court entered an order granting the motion of Lei Shi to be
lead plaintiff and denying the other motion to be lead plaintiff.

On January 23, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint.

On March 22, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss all
claims in the action. The plaintiffs filed opposition papers on
May 20, 2016, and the defendants filed a reply brief in support
of the motion to dismiss the amended complaint on July 11, 2016.

On November 14, 2016, the Martin case was reassigned to Judge
Anne E. Thompson of the United States District Court of New
Jersey. In a hearing on December 19, 2016, the parties made oral
arguments on the motion to dismiss, and on March 16, 2017 the
Court issued an order that the motion to dismiss had been denied.

On April 17, 2017, the defendants filed a motion for
reconsideration of the Court's decision to deny the motion to
dismiss.

On April 21, 2017, the defendants filed their answer and
affirmative defenses. Plaintiff filed an opposition to
defendants' motion for reconsideration on May 8, 2017. On May 30,
2017, the Court issued an order that the motion for
reconsideration had been denied. Discovery has commenced and is
ongoing.

Front Yard Residential Corporation is an industry leader in
providing quality, affordable rental homes to America's families
in a variety of suburban communities that have easy accessibility
to metropolitan areas.


GLOBAL CREDIT: Faces "Neuman" Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Global Credit &
Collection Corp. The case is styled as Sarah Neuman, on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v.
Global Credit & Collection Corp., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-
03551 (E.D. N.Y., June 18, 2018).

Global Credit & Collection Inc. provides customer and account
receivable management services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
   Adam J. Fishbein, P.C.
   735 Central Avenue
   Woodmere, NY 11598
   Tel: (516) 668-6945
   Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


HENRY SCHEIN: Miami General Employees Trust Named Lead Plaintiff
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Salkowitz v. Henry Schein, Inc. et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-01428 (E.D.N.Y., March 7, 2018), Magistrate Judge Vera M.
Scanlon entered an order dated June 18, 2018, directing Movants
Stuart Neiss and Joseph Salkowitz to confirm that they are
withdrawing their motion to be appoint lead plaintiff or put in
their opposition to the Motion to Appoint Counsel and to Appoint
Lead Plaintiff filed by City of Miami General Employees &
Sanitation Employees Retirement Trust.

On June 22, 2018, Judge Scanlon entered an Order withdrawing
Neiss and Salkowitz's Motion to Appoint Counsel and granting the
Retirement Trust's bid.

Henry Schein, 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 March 7, 2018, Joseph Salkowitz,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
filed a putative class action complaint for violation of the
federal securities laws against Henry Schein, Stanley M. Bergman
and Steven Paladino in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, Case No. 1:18-cv-01428. The
complaint seeks to certify a class consisting of all persons and
entities who, subject to certain exclusions, purchased publicly
traded Henry Schein securities from March 7, 2013 through
February 12, 2018 (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges, among other things, that Defendants made
materially false and misleading statements about Henry Schein's
business, operations and prospects during the Class Period
including matters relating to the issues in the antitrust class
actions and the FTC action, thereby causing Plaintiff and members
of the purported class to pay artificially inflated prices for
Henry Schein securities. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary
damages and a jury trial  Pursuant to the  provisions of the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the "PSLRA"),
plaintiff's counsel published notice of the commencement of this
action, and thereby provided notice of the 60-day period during
which any putative class member could apply to be lead plaintiff
under the PSLRA.

The court's appointment of a lead plaintiff and lead counsel
pursuant to the PSLRA is pending.

Henry Schein said "We intend to vigorously defend ourselves
against this action."

Henry Schein, Inc. provides health care products and services to
dental practitioners and laboratories, animal health clinics,
physician practices, government, institutional health care
clinics, and other alternate care clinics worldwide. It operates
through two segments, Health Care Distribution, and Technology
and Value-Added Services. The company is based in Melville, New
York.


HENRY SCHEIN: Amended Complaint Filed in Marion Diagnostic Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Schein, 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 a class
action suit entitled, Marion Diagnostic Center, LLC v. Becton,
Dickinson, and Co.

On May 3, 2018, a class action complaint, Marion Diagnostic
Center, LLC v. Dickinson, and Co., 3:18-cv-01509 (S.D. Ill), was
filed in the Southern District of Illinois against Becton,
Dickinson, and Co. ("Becton"); Vizient, Inc. ("Vizient");
Cardinal Health, Inc. ("Cardinal"); Owens & Minor Inc. ("O&M");
and Henry Schein, Inc.  The complaint alleges that the defendants
entered into a vertical conspiracy to force healthcare providers
into long-term exclusionary contracts that restrain trade in the
nationwide markets for conventional and safety syringes and
safety IV catheters and that inflate the prices of certain Becton
products to above-competitive levels.

The named plaintiffs seek to represent three separate classes
consisting of all healthcare providers that purchased (i)
Becton"s conventional syringes, (ii) Becton's safety syringes, or
(iii) Becton's safety catheters directly from Becton, Cardinal,
O&M, or the Company on or after May 3, 2014. The complaint
asserts a single count under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and
seeks equitable relief, compensatory and treble damages, jointly
and severally, and reasonable costs and expenses, including
attorneys' fees and expert fees.

On June 15, 2018, an Amended Complaint was filed against all
Defendants.

Henry Schein said "We intend to defend ourselves vigorously
against this action."

Henry Schein, Inc. provides health care products and services to
dental practitioners and laboratories, animal health clinics,
physician practices, government, institutional health care
clinics, and other alternate care clinics worldwide. It operates
through two segments, Health Care Distribution, and Technology
and Value-Added Services. The company is based in Melville, New
York.


HRONIS INC: Faces "Garcia" Suit in California Superior Court
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hronis, Inc. The
case is styled as Jose Garcia, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Hronis, Inc., a California Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
BCV-18-101510 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 21, 2018).

Hronis, Inc. is a fruit wholesaler in California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Douglas Han, Esq.
   411 North Central Avenue Suite 500
   Glendale, CA 91203
   Tel: 818.230.7502
   Fax: 818.230.7259
   Email: dhan@justicelawcorp.com


I-FORTUNE COOKIE: "Chauca" Suit Seeks Retained Tips, Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Marco Rigoberto Panza Chauca, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. I-Fortune
Cookie Food Service Inc. and Shu Heung Lee, Defendants, Case No.
706473/2018 (N.Y. Sup., April 26, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages, retained tips, spread-of-hours, liquidated
damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to New York labor
law.

I-Fortune Cookie is a Chinese restaurant owned by Shu Heung Lee
located at 44-69 21st Street, Long Island City, New York 11101
where Panza was ostensibly employed as a delivery worker, but he
was required to spend several hours each day performing non-
tipped duties. Panza regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per
week without appropriate minimum wage, spread-of-hours or
overtime compensation due to  Defendants' failure to maintain
accurate recordkeeping of his hours worked, says the complaint.
Despite employing Panza as a delivery worker in their payroll,
Panza spent a significant amount of time spent performing the
non-delivery, non-tipped duties but was paid at a rate that was
lower than the required tip-credit rate. Defendants were not
entitled to take a tip credit because Plaintiff's non-tipped
duties exceeded 20% of each workday. Defendants managed to pay
Panza at the lower tip-credited rate by designating him as a
delivery worker instead of a non-tipped employee, notes the
complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


IDERA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces 3 Suits over BioCryst Merger
---------------------------------------------------------
Idera Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2018, that three putative class action
complaints have been filed against the company in connection with
a merger deal.

Three putative class action complaints have been filed in
connection with the Agreement and Plan of Merger announced on
January 22, 2018.

On March 6, 2018 plaintiff Melvin Klein filed a lawsuit captioned
Klein v. BioCryst Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-
00358, against BioCryst, along with the BioCryst board, Idera,
Holdco, Merger Sub A and Merger Sub B in United States District
Court for the District of Delaware.

On March 14, 2018, plaintiff Lisa Raatz filed a lawsuit captioned
Raatz v. Idera Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-10485,
against Idera, along with the members of the Idera board,
BioCryst, Holdco, Merger Sub A and Merger Sub B in United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

On March 22, 2018 plaintiff Ricky Cohen filed a lawsuit captioned
Cohen v. Idera Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-00428,
against Idera, along with the members of the Idera board.

All three lawsuits allege violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 14a-9, for
alleged material misstatements or omissions in connection with
the Mergers. The complaints include demands for, among other
things, an injunction preventing defendants from closing the
proposed merger transaction absent certain disclosures of
information identified in the complaints.

Idera believes the complaints are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend itself.

BioCryst Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ:BCRX), and Idera
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ:IDRA), announced in January that
they have signed a definitive merger agreement to form a new
enterprise focused on the development and commercialization of
medicines to serve more patients suffering from rare diseases.
The combined company will be renamed upon closing and will be led
by Vincent Milano, CEO of Idera, who will also serve as a member
of the Board. BioCryst Chairman, Robert Ingram, will be Chairman
of the Board of the combined company and BioCryst CEO Jon P.
Stonehouse will serve as a member of the Board of Directors.

Under the terms of the merger agreement, each share of BioCryst
common stock will be exchanged for 0.50 shares of the new company
stock and each share of Idera common stock will be exchanged for
0.20 shares of the new company stock.  The exchange ratio
reflects an "at market" combination based upon the approximate
30-day average volume weighted trading prices for each company.
On a proforma, fully diluted basis, giving effect to all dilutive
stock options, units and warrants, BioCryst stockholders will own
51.6% of the stock of the combined company and Idera stockholders
will own 48.4%.  The stock issuance in the merger is expected to
be tax-free to stockholders.

Idera Pharmaceuticals, Inc. a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical
company focused on the discovery, development and
commercialization of novel oligonucleotide therapeutics for
oncology and rare diseases. The company is based in Cambridge,
Massachusetts.


KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Negotiations on Legal Fees Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
Kindered Healthcare, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2018, that negotiations concerning legal fees in
a class action lawsuit are ongoing.

Six purported class action complaints related to a merger
transaction were filed on behalf of putative classes of the
Company's public stockholders (the "Merger Complaints"). Four of
these complaints were filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware: Sehrgosha v. Kindred Healthcare,
Inc., et al., filed on February 8, 2018; Carter v. Kindred
Healthcare, Inc., et al., filed on February 14, 2018; Rosenfeld
v. Kindred Healthcare, Inc., et al., filed on February 15, 2018;
and Einhorn v. Kindred Healthcare, Inc., et al., filed on
February 21, 2018.

The remaining two complaints were filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Kentucky: Tompkins v.
Kindred Healthcare, Inc., et al., filed on February 9, 2018; and
Buskirk v. Kindred Healthcare, Inc., et al., filed on February
13, 2018. The Company and individual members of the Board are
named as defendants in each of the actions. The Tompkins action
also names as defendants TPG, WCAS, Humana, Parent, HospitalCo
Parent and Merger Sub.

The Merger Complaints generally allege that the defendants
violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Exchange Act"), by failing to disclose material information in
the Company's preliminary proxy statement filed on February 5,
2018. The Merger Complaints seek, among other things, injunctive
relief prohibiting the stockholder vote to approve the Merger and
unspecified compensatory damages and attorneys' fees.

On March 5, 2018, the plaintiffs jointly agreed to voluntarily
dismiss the Merger Complaints in exchange for the Company's
agreement to file supplemental disclosures with the SEC. The
supplemental disclosures were filed on March 6, 2018.
Negotiations concerning legal fees are ongoing.

Kindred Healthcare, Inc.is a healthcare services company that
through its subsidiaries operates a home health, hospice and
community care business, TC hospitals, IRFs, and a contract
rehabilitation services business across the United States. The
company is based in Louisville, Kentucky.


LIFEVANTAGE CORP: Bid to Dismiss "Smith" Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------------
Lifevantage 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's motion to dismiss the
case entitled, Smith v. LifeVantage Corp., is due on June 4,
2018, remains pending.

On January 24, 2018, a purported class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut,
entitled Smith v. LifeVantage Corp., Case No. 3:18-cv-a35 (D.
Connecticut filed Jan. 24, 2018).

In this action, plaintiff alleged that the Company, its Chief
Executive Officer, its Chief Sales Officer and its Chief
Marketing Officer operated a pyramid scheme in violation of a
variety of federal and state statutes, including RICO and the
Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act ("CUTPA").

On April 16, 2018, the Company filed motions with the Court to
dismiss the complaint against LifeVantage, dismiss the complaint
against the Company's executives, transfer the venue of the case
from the State of Connecticut to the State of Utah, and contest
class certification. Plaintiff's response was due on June 4,
2018.

The Company has not established a loss contingency accrual for
this lawsuit as it believes liability is not probable or
estimable, and the Company plans to vigorously defend against
this lawsuit. Nonetheless, an unfavorable resolution of this
matter could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, results of operations or financial condition.

Lifevantage Corporation is a company focused on biohacking the
aging code through nutrigenomics, the study of how nutrition and
naturally occurring compounds affect our genes. The company is
based in Sandy, Utah.


LIFEVANTAGE CORP: Securities Suit in Utah Now Concluded
-------------------------------------------------------
Lifevantage 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 entitled Zhang v. LifeVantage
Corp. and later recaptioned as In re LifeVantage Corp. Securities
Litigation has been concluded.

On September 15, 2016, a purported securities class action was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Utah, entitled Zhang v. LifeVantage Corp., Case No. 2:16-cv-
00965-BCW (D. Utah filed Sept. 15, 2016). In this action (later
recaptioned as In re LifeVantage Corp. Securities Litigation),
plaintiff alleged that the Company, its Chief Executive Officer
and former Chief Financial Officer violated Sections 10(b) and/or
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections
78j(b), 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5,
promulgated thereunder.

On June 15, 2017, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
the amended complaint, without prejudice, and permitted lead
plaintiffs to file a motion for leave to file a second amended
complaint. On September 18, 2017, the Court denied lead
plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend and entered final judgment
in favor of LifeVantage and the other defendants and dismissed
the case with prejudice. On October 17, 2017, the parties
executed a stipulation whereby lead plaintiffs agreed not to take
an appeal from the final judgment of dismissal in favor of
defendants in exchange for mutual releases, without payment of
any consideration by or on behalf of defendants.

This case is now concluded.

LifeVantage Corporation is a company focused on biohacking the
aging code through nutrigenomics, the study of how nutrition and
naturally occurring compounds affect our genes. The company is
based in Sandy, Utah.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: "Tutor" and "Trinchero" Suits Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company 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 Tutor v.
Lincoln National Corporation and The Lincoln National Life
Insurance Company was consolidated with the case captioned
Trinchero, et al. v. Lincoln National Corporation and The Lincoln
National Life Insurance Company.

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

In March 2018, the Tutor case was consolidated with a newly-filed
matter captioned Trinchero, et al. v. Lincoln National
Corporation and The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company,
filed in the same court, No. 18-cv-00765.  The consolidated case
is captioned In re: Lincoln National 2017 COI Rate Litigation,
Master File No. 17-cv-04150.

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

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

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


M & T BANK: Faces "Jorge" Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against M & T Bank
Corporation. The case is styled as Carlos Jorge, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. M & T
Bank Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05656 (S.D. N.Y.,
June 21, 2018).

M&T Bank Corporation is a bank holding company headquartered in
Buffalo, New York. It operates 780 branches in New York, New
Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, West
Virginia, Washington, D.C., and Connecticut.[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


MALLINCKRODT PLC: MSP Recovery Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt public limited company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 30, 2018, that the case captioned
as, MSP Recovery Claims, Series II LLC, et al. v. Mallinckrodt
ARD, Inc., et al., has been transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The Company said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2017, that on October 30, 2017, a putative
class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and United
BioSource Corporation ("UBC") in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

The case is captioned MSP Recovery Claims, Series II LLC, et al.
v. Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc., et al. The complaint purports to be
brought on behalf of two classes: all Medicare Advantage
Organizations and related entities in the U.S. who purchased or
provided reimbursement for H.P. Acthar Gel pursuant to (i)
Medicare Part C contracts (Class 1) and (ii) Medicare Part D
contracts (Class 2) since January 1, 2011, with certain
exclusions.

The complaint alleges that the Company engaged in
anticompetitive, unfair, and deceptive acts to artificially raise
and maintain the price of H.P. Acthar Gel.

To this end, the complaint alleges that the Company unlawfully
maintained a monopoly in a purported ACTH product market by
acquiring the U.S. rights to Synacthen Depot and reaching anti-
competitive agreements with the other defendants by selling H.P.
Acthar Gel through an exclusive distribution network. The
complaint purports to allege claims under federal and state
antitrust laws and state unfair competition and unfair trade
practice laws.

In its recent quarterly report, the Company disclosed that
pursuant to a motion filed by defendants, this case has been
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois.

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.

Mallinckrodt public limited company is a global business that
develops, manufactures, markets and distributes specialty
pharmaceutical products and therapies.


MALLINCKRODT PLC: Still Defends Amended City of Rockford Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt public limited company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 30, 2018, that the company continues
to defend itself in a putative class action suit entitled, City
of Rockford v. Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc., et al.

On April 6, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and UBC in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois. The case is captioned City of
Rockford v. Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc., et al.

Mallinckrodt said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, that an amended complaint was
filed on October 9, 2017, adding defendants and alleging that the
Company engaged in anticompetitive, fraudulent, and deceptive
acts to artificially raise and maintain the price of Acthar.

In its recent quarterly report, the Company disclosed that the
complaint was subsequently amended, most recently on December 8,
2017, to include an additional named plaintiff and additional
defendants. As amended, the complaint purports to be brought on
behalf of all self-funded entities in the U.S. and its
Territories, excluding any Medicare Advantage Organizations,
related entities and certain others, that paid for H.P. Acthar
Gel from August 2007 to the present. The lawsuit alleges that the
Company engaged in anticompetitive, unfair, and deceptive acts to
artificially raise and maintain the price of H.P. Acthar Gel.

To this end, the suit alleges that the Company unlawfully
maintained a monopoly in a purported ACTH product market by
acquiring the U.S. rights to Synacthen Depot; conspired with UBC
and violated anti-racketeering laws by selling H.P. Acthar Gel
through an exclusive distributor; and committed a fraud on
consumers by failing to correctly identify H.P. Acthar Gel's
active ingredient on package inserts.

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.

Mallinckrodt public limited company is a global business that
develops, manufactures, markets and distributes specialty
pharmaceutical products and therapies.


MALLINCKRODT PLC: Employee Stock Purchase Plan Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt public limited company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 30, 2018, that the company continues
to defend itself in the Employee Stock Purchase Plan Securities
Litigation.

Mallinckrodt said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, that on July 20, 2017, a
purported purchaser of Mallinckrodt stock through Mallinckrodt's
Employee Stock Purchase Plans ("ESPPs"), filed a derivative and
class action lawsuit in the Federal District Court in the Eastern
District of Missouri, captioned Solomon v. Mallinckrodt plc, et
al., against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer Mark C.
Trudeau ("CEO") , its Chief Financial Officer Matthew K. Harbaugh
("CFO"), its Controller Kathleen A. Schaefer, and current and
former directors of the Company.

On September 6, 2017, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the
Missouri complaint and refiled it in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia. The complaint purports to be brought on
behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
Mallinckrodt stock between November 25, 2014, and January 18,
2017, in the ESPPs. In the alternative, the plaintiff alleges a
class action for those same purchasers/acquirers of stock in the
ESPPs during the same period.

The complaint asserts claims under Section 11 of the Securities
Act, and for breach of fiduciary duty, misrepresentation, non-
disclosure, mismanagement of the ESPPs' assets and breach of
contract arising from substantially similar allegations as those
contained in the putative class action securities litigation
filed on January 23, 2017.

There were two competing movants to serve as lead plaintiff/lead
counsel, and those motions were pending.

In its recent quarterly report, the Company said that stipulated
co-lead plaintiffs were approved by the court on March 1, 2018.

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.

Mallinckrodt public limited company is a global business that
develops, manufactures, markets and distributes specialty
pharmaceutical products and therapies.


MALLINCKRODT PLC: Lead Plaintiff Seeks to Conduct Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt public limited company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 30, 2018, that a lead plaintiff was
designated by the court in the class action suit related to H.P.
Acthar Gel and Synacthen to artificially inflate the price of the
Company's stock.

On January 23, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and its CEO in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia, captioned Patricia A. Shenk v.
Mallinckrodt plc, et al. The complaint purports to be brought on
behalf of all persons who purchased Mallinckrodt's publicly
traded securities on a domestic exchange between November 25,
2014 and January 18, 2017. The lawsuit generally alleges that the
Company made false or misleading statements related to H.P.
Acthar Gel and Synacthen to artificially inflate the price of the
Company's stock.

In particular, the complaint alleges a failure by the Company to
provide accurate disclosures concerning the long-term
sustainability of H.P. Acthar Gel revenues, and the exposure of
H.P. Acthar Gel to Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates.

On January 26, 2017, a second putative class action lawsuit,
captioned Jyotindra Patel v. Mallinckrodt plc, et al. was filed
against the same defendants named in the Shenk lawsuit in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The Patel
complaint purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders during
the same period of time as that set forth in the Shenk lawsuit
and asserts claims similar to those set forth in the Shenk
lawsuit.

On March 13, 2017, a third putative class action lawsuit,
captioned Amy T. Schwartz, et al., v. Mallinckrodt plc, et al.,
was filed against the same defendants named in the Shenk lawsuit
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The
Schwartz complaint purports to be brought on behalf of
shareholders who purchased shares of the Company between July 14,
2014 and January 18, 2017 and asserts claims similar to those set
forth in the Shenk lawsuit.

On March 23, 2017, a fourth putative class action lawsuit,
captioned Fulton County Employees' Retirement System v.
Mallinckrodt plc, et al., was filed against the Company and its
CEO and CFO in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia. The Fulton County complaint purports to be brought on
behalf of shareholders during the same period of time as that set
forth in the Schwartz lawsuit and asserts claims similar to those
set forth in the Shenk lawsuit.

Mallinckrodt said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, that on March 27, 2017, four
separate plaintiff groups moved to consolidate the pending cases
and to be appointed as lead plaintiffs in the consolidated case.
Since that time, two of the plaintiff groups have withdrawn their
motions. There were two competing movants to serve as lead
plaintiff/lead counsel.

In its recent quarterly report, the Company disclosed that Lead
plaintiff was designated by the court on March 9, 2018.

On June 22, 2018, the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio,
as lead plaintiff, filed an Unopposed Motion for Leave to Issue
Document Preservation Subpoenas.

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.

Mallinckrodt public limited company is a global business that
develops, manufactures, markets and distributes specialty
pharmaceutical products and therapies.


MANNKIND CORP: Plaintiff Appeals Tel Aviv District Court's Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MannKind 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 plaintiff has taken an appeal from a
district court ruling in pronouncing that U.S. law will apply in
the case.

Following the public announcement of Sanofi's election to
terminate the Sanofi License Agreement and the subsequent decline
in the Company's stock price, two motions were submitted to the
district court at Tel Aviv, Economic Department for the
certification of a class action against the Company and certain
of its officers and directors.

In general, the complaints alleged that the Company and certain
of its officers and directors violated Israeli and U.S.
securities laws by making materially false and misleading
statements regarding the prospects for Afrezza, thereby
artificially inflating the price of its common stock. The
plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages.

MannKind said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2017, that in November 2016, the district
court dismissed one of the actions without prejudice. In the
remaining action, the district court recently ruled that U.S. law
will apply to this case.  MannKind said "We are in the process of
preparing a response to the plaintiff's motion to certify the
case as a class action. We will vigorously defend against the
claims advanced."

In its recent SEC report, MannKind said the plaintiff has
appealed this ruling.  MannKind added, "The Company will
vigorously defend against the claims advanced."

MannKind Corporation is a biopharmaceutical company focused on
the development and commercialization of inhaled therapeutic
products for patients with diseases such as diabetes and
pulmonary arterial hypertension. The company is based in Westlake
Village, California.


MDL 2406: Settlement Negotiations Suspended, Triple-S Says
----------------------------------------------------------
Triple-S Management 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 settlement
negotiations between the parties in the case entitled, In re Blue
Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation, through mediation have
been suspended for the time being.

Triple-S Salud, Inc. (TSS) is a co-defendant with multiple Blue
Plans and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (BCBSA) in a
multi-district class action litigation filed by a group of
providers and subscribers on July 24, 2012 and October 1, 2012,
respectively, that has since been consolidated by the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama,
Southern Division, in the case captioned In re Blue Cross Blue
Shield Association Antitrust Litigation.

Essentially, provider plaintiffs allege that the exclusive
service area requirements of the Primary License Agreements with
the Blue Plans constitute an illegal horizontal market allocation
under federal antitrust laws. As per provider plaintiffs, the
quid pro quo for said "market allocation" is a horizontal price
fixing and boycott conspiracy" implemented through the Inter-
Plans Program Committee ("IPPC") and whose benefits are allegedly
derived through the BCBSA's Blue Card/National Accounts Program.

Among the remedies sought, provider plaintiffs seek increased
compensation rates and operational changes. In turn, subscriber
plaintiffs allege that the alleged conspiracy to allocate markets
have prevented subscribers from being offered competitive prices
and resulted in higher premiums for Blue Plan subscribers.
Subscribers seek damages in the form of supra-competitive
premiums allegedly charged by the Blue Plans and/or the
difference between what subscribers have paid the Blues and the
lower competitive premiums that non-competing Blues would have
charged. Both actions seek injunctive relief.

Prior to consolidation, motions to dismiss were filed by several
plans, including TSS, whose request was ultimately denied by the
court without prejudice. On April 6, 2015, plaintiffs filed suit
in the United States District Court of Puerto Rico against TSS.
Said complaint, nonetheless, is believed not to preclude TSS'
jurisdictional arguments. Since inception, the Company has joined
BCBSA and other Blue Plans in vigorously contesting these claims.

On April 5, 2018, the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division, issued it's
ruling on the parties' respective motions for partial summary
judgment on the standard of review applicable to plaintiffs'
claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act and subscriber
plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the Blue
Plan's single entity defense. After considering the "undisputed"
facts (for summary judgment purposes only) and evidence currently
on record in the light most favorable to defendants, the court
essentially found that: (a) the Exclusive Service Areas
constitute horizontal market allocations that are subject to the
Per Se standard of review; (b) the National Best Efforts Rule
constitutes an "output restriction" subject to the Per Se
standard of review; (c) there remain genuine issues of material
fact as to whether defendants' conduct can be shielded by the
"single entity" defense; and (d) claims concerning the BlueCard
Program and uncoupling rules are due to be analyzed under the
Rule of Reason standard.

Presently, the court's ruling is being reviewed and evaluated for
purposes of determining the course to follow. Meanwhile, the
settlement negotiations between the parties through mediation
have been suspended for the time being.

Triple-S Management Corporation is one of the most significant
players in the managed care industry in Puerto Rico and have over
55 years of experience in this industry. The company is based in
San Juan, Puerto Rico.


METLIFE INC: "Owens" Suit Gets Nationwide Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
Metlife, 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 certified a nationwide class
and also certified a Georgia subclass in the case, Owens v.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company.

Plaintiff filed this class action lawsuit on behalf of all
persons for whom MLIC established a Total Control Accounts to pay
death benefits under an Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 ("ERISA") plan. The action alleges that MLIC's use of the
TCA as the settlement option for life insurance benefits under
some group life insurance policies violates MLIC's fiduciary
duties under ERISA. As damages, plaintiff seeks disgorgement of
profits that MLIC realized on accounts owned by members of the
class.

In addition, plaintiff, on behalf of a subgroup of the class,
seeks interest under Georgia's delayed settlement interest
statute, alleging that the use of the TCA as the settlement
option did not constitute payment. On September 27, 2016, the
court denied MLIC's summary judgment motion in full and granted
plaintiff's partial summary judgment motion. On September 29,
2017, the court certified a nationwide class. The court also
certified a Georgia subclass.

The Company intends to defend this action vigorously.

MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through
five segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East
and Africa; and MetLife Holdings. The company is based in New
York.


METLIFE INC: Sales Practices Suits vs. Sun Life Still Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Metlife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada
continues to defend itself against sales practices lawsuits.

In 2006, Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada ("Sun Life"), as
successor to the purchaser of MLIC's Canadian operations, filed a
lawsuit in Toronto, seeking a declaration that MLIC remains
liable for "market conduct claims" related to certain individual
life insurance policies sold by MLIC that were subsequently
transferred to Sun Life.

In January 2010, the court found that Sun Life had given timely
notice of its claim for indemnification but, because it found
that Sun Life had not yet incurred an indemnifiable loss, granted
MLIC's motion for summary judgment. Both parties agreed to
consider the indemnity claim through arbitration. In September
2010, Sun Life notified MLIC that a purported class action
lawsuit was filed against Sun Life in Toronto alleging sales
practices claims regarding the policies sold by MLIC and
transferred to Sun Life.

On August 30, 2011, Sun Life notified MLIC that another purported
class action lawsuit was filed against Sun Life in Vancouver, BC
alleging sales practices claims regarding certain of the same
policies sold by MLIC and transferred to Sun Life. Sun Life
contends that MLIC is obligated to indemnify Sun Life for some or
all of the claims in these lawsuits.

These sales practices cases against Sun Life are ongoing, and the
Company is unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or
range of loss arising from this litigation.

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

MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through
five segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East
and Africa; and MetLife Holdings. The company is based in New
York.


METLIFE INC: "Voshall" Suit Still Ongoing
-----------------------------------------
Metlife, 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 case Voshall v. Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company (Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Los Angeles, April 8, 2015), is still ongoing.

Plaintiff filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
himself and all persons covered under a long-term group
disability income insurance policy issued by MLIC to public
entities in California between April 8, 2011 and April 8, 2015.

Plaintiff alleges that MLIC improperly reduced benefits by
including cost of living adjustments and employee paid
contributions in the employer retirement benefits and other
income that reduces the benefit payable under such policies.
Plaintiff asserts causes of action for declaratory relief,
violation of the California Business & Professions Code, breach
of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing.

The Company intends to defend this action vigorously.

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

MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through
five segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East
and Africa; and MetLife Holdings. The company is based in New
York.


METLIFE INC: Appeal in "Martin" Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------
Metlife, 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 in the case, Martin v.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, (Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Contra Costa, filed December 17, 2015),
is still pending.

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
themselves and all California persons who have been charged
compound interest by MLIC in life insurance policy and/or premium
loan balances within the last four years. Plaintiffs allege that
MLIC has engaged in a pattern and practice of charging compound
interest on life insurance policy and premium loans without the
borrower authorizing such compounding, and that this constitutes
an unlawful business practice under California law.

Plaintiff asserts causes of action for declaratory relief,
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and Usury Law,
and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive
relief, restitution of interest, and damages in an unspecified
amount. On April 12, 2016, the court granted MLIC's motion to
dismiss. Plaintiffs have appealed this ruling to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The Company intends to defend this action vigorously.

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

MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through
five segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East
and Africa; and MetLife Holdings. The company is based in New
York.


METLIFE INC: "Lau "Class Action Concluded
-----------------------------------------
Metlife, 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 case captioned as, Lau v. Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company (S.D.N.Y. filed, December 3, 2015) has
been concluded.

This putative class action lawsuit was filed by a single defined
contribution plan participant on behalf of all ERISA plans whose
assets were invested in MetLife's "Group Annuity Contract Stable
Value Funds" within the past six years. The suit alleges breaches
of fiduciary duty under ERISA and challenges the "spread" with
respect to the stable value fund group annuity products sold to
retirement plans.

The allegations focus on the methodology MetLife uses to
establish and reset the crediting rate, the terms under which
plan participants are permitted to transfer funds from a stable
value option to another investment option, the procedures
followed if an employer terminates a contract, and the level of
disclosure provided. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive
relief, as well as damages in an unspecified amount.

The parties settled on January 2, 2018 and the court has
dismissed the action.

MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through
five segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East
and Africa; and MetLife Holdings. The company is based in New
York.


METLIFE INC: 7th Circuit Revives "Newman" Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Metlife, 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 case, Newman v. Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company (N.D. Ill., filed March 23, 2016) has been
remanded by the Seventh Circuit to the district court

Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging causes of
action for breach of contract, fraud, and violations of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act,
based on MLIC's class-wide increase in premiums charged for long-
term care insurance policies.

Plaintiff alleges a class consisting of herself and all persons
over age 65 who selected a Reduced Pay at Age 65 payment feature
and whose premium rates were increased after age 65. Plaintiff
asserts that premiums could not be increased for these class
members and/or that marketing material was misleading as to
MLIC's right to increase premiums. Plaintiff seeks unspecified
compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, as well as
recessionary and injunctive relief.

On April 12, 2017, the court granted MLIC's motion, dismissing
the action with prejudice. Plaintiff appealed this ruling to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (the
"Seventh Circuit") and on February 6, 2018, the Seventh Circuit
reversed and remanded for further proceedings, ruling that
Plaintiff is entitled to relief on her contract claim.

Following MLIC's petition for rehearing, the Seventh Circuit
issued an amended opinion on March 22, 2018, holding that
plaintiff's claim survived MLIC's motion to dismiss but finding
that the policy is ambiguous as to MLIC's right to raise
plaintiff's premiums. The Seventh Circuit held that on remand to
the district court, the parties may introduce evidence to try to
resolve this ambiguity.

MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through
five segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East
and Africa; and MetLife Holdings. The company is based in New
York.


METLIFE INC: Dismissed from "Miller" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------
Metlife, 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 in the case, Miller, et al.
v. MetLife, Inc., et al. (C.D. Cal., filed April 7, 2017), have
dismissed the company, without prejudice, from the action.

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action against MetLife, Inc.
and MLIC in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, purporting to assert claims on behalf of all persons
who replaced their MetLife Optional Term Life or Group Universal
Life policy with a Group Variable Universal Life policy wherein
MetLife allegedly charged smoker rates for certain non-smokers.
Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, as
well as other relief.

On September 25, 2017, plaintiffs dismissed the action and
refiled the complaint in U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York. On November 9, 2017, plaintiffs dismissed
MetLife, Inc. without prejudice from the action. MLIC intends to
defend this action vigorously.

MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through
five segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East
and Africa; and MetLife Holdings. The company is based in New
York.


METLIFE INC: Julian & McKinney Suit Conditionally Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------
Metlife, 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 in the case, Julian & McKinney v.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (S.D.N.Y., filed February 9,
2017), has conditionally certified the case as a collective
action.

Plaintiffs filed this putative class and collective action on
behalf of themselves and all current and former long-term
disability ("LTD") claims specialists between February 2011 and
the present for alleged wage and hour violations under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the Connecticut
Minimum Wage Act. The suit alleges that MetLife improperly
reclassified the plaintiffs and similarly situated LTD claims
specialists from non-exempt to exempt from overtime pay in
November 2013.

As a result, they and members of the putative class were no
longer eligible for overtime pay even though they allege they
continued to work more than 40 hours per week.

On March 22, 2018, the Court conditionally certified the case as
a collective action, requiring that notice be mailed to LTD
claims specialists who worked for the Company from February 8,
2014 to the present.

The Company intends to defend this action vigorously.

MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through
five segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East
and Africa; and MetLife Holdings. The company is based in New
York.


MICHAEL C KOEHN: Faces "Long" Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Michael C Koehn.
The case is styled as Bruce Long, individually on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Michael C
Koehn, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00943 (E.D. Wis., June 21,
2018).

The Defendant is a lawyer in Eau Claire, Wisconsin.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Andrew T Thomasson, Esq.
   Stern Thomasson LLP
   150 Morris Ave-2nd Fl
   Springfield, NJ 07081
   Tel: (973) 379-7500
   Fax: (973) 532-5868
   Email: andrew@sternthomasson.com


MY BELLY'S: Court Approves Settlement in "Ortiz" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Henry Pitman of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York approved the settlement in the
case, TRANQUILLINO ORTIZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MY BELLY'S
PLAYLIST LLC, et. al., Defendants, Case No. 16 Civ. 2924 (HBP)
(S.D. N.Y.).

The Plaintiffs commenced the action pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") to
recover unpaid minimum wage, overtime premium pay and spread-of-
hours pay.  They also asserted claims that the Defendants failed
to keep certain records, provide certain notices and reimburse
them for equipment that they purchased in connection with their
employment.

The Plaintiffs brought the action as a collective action pursuant
to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) with respect to the FLSA claims, but
the parties reached a settlement prior to the matter being
conditionally certified.  The matter is currently before the
Court on the parties' joint application to approve a proposed
settlement agreement that they have reached.

The Plaintiffs are three individuals who were employees at the
Defendants' sandwich shop and catering service; they were listed
on the Defendants' payrolls as deliverymen, but they contend that
this job title does not accurately describe their actual duties.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants for varying
lengths of time between approximately February 2015 and February
2016.  They claim that the Defendants paid them below minimum
wage, and that the Defendants deducted tips from their wages
despite the fact that they were not entitled to do so.

Then Plaintiffs further argue that even if the Defendants were
entitled to pay them at the tip credit rate, the latter still
violated the FLSA because their hourly wages were less than the
proper tip credit rate.  The Plaintiffs also claim that they
consistently worked over 40 hours per week, but did not receive
any overtime premium pay.

The Plaintiffs' total alleged damages, exclusive of pre-judgment
interest and attorney's fees and costs, are $55,218.92.  In
particular, Ortiz claims that he is owed a total of $24,627.64,
Flores claims a total of $13,749.51 and Velasquez claims a total
of $16,841.77.  Using these damages figures, Ortiz's pro rata
share of the total damages claimed is 44.6%, Flores's pro rata
share is 24.9% and Velasquez's pro rata share is 30.5%.

The Defendants deny the Plaintiffs' claims, asserting that the
Plaintiffs were deliverymen who did not perform substantial non-
tipped duties.  In addition, they argue that they paid the
Plaintiffs correct and full wages under the FLSA and NYLL.

Under the proposed settlement agreement, the Defendants agree to
pay the Plaintiffs $20,000 in full and final satisfaction of the
Plaintiffs' claims.  The parties also agree that the Plaintiffs'
counsel will receive $6,600 of the settlement fund for attorney's
fees and costs.  The amount claimed by each Plaintiff, exclusive
of pre-judgment interest, and the net amount that will be
received by each after deduction of legal fees and costs are as
follows:

     Amount Net Settlement     Plaintiff     Claimed Amount
    ----------------------     ---------      -----------

         $24,627.64        Tranquillino Ortiz    $5,976.40
         $13,749.51        Fernando Flores       $3,336.60
         $16,841.77        Roberto Velasquez     $4,087.00

   Total $55,218.92                              $13,400

In determining whether a proposed FLSA settlement is fair and
reasonable, a court should consider the totality of
circumstances, including but not limited to the following
factors: (1) the plaintiff's range of possible recovery; (2) the
extent to which the settlement will enable the parties to avoid
anticipated burdens and expenses in establishing their claims and
defenses; (3) the seriousness of the litigation risks faced by
the parties; (4) whether the settlement agreement is the product
of arm's length bargaining between experienced counsel; and (5)
the possibility of fraud or collusion.  Magistrate Judge Pitman
finds that the settlement here satisfies these criteria.

First, the Plaintiffs' total settlement, after deduction of fees,
represents approximately 24.3% of their total alleged damages,
exclusive of pre-judgment interest.  Second, the settlement will
entirely avoid the expense and aggravation of litigation.  Third,
the settlement will enable the Plaintiffs to avoid the risk of
litigation.  Fourth, the counsel represents that the settlement
is the product of arm's-length bargaining between experienced
counsel and that counsel advocated zealously on behalf of their
respective clients during negotiations.  Fifth there are no
factors here that suggest the existence of fraud.

The settlement fund will be distributed to the Plaintiffs on a
pro rata basis based on the proportion of each the Plaintiff's
individual claim to the total of all four Plaintiff's claims.  In
light of number of hours worked by and the hourly rates paid to
each plaintiff, the allocation of the settlement fund is fair and
reasonable.  The parties have also agreed to a mutual general
release.  Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge finds the release
agreed to by the parties permissible.

Finally, the settlement provides that the Plaintiffs' counsel
will be awarded $6,600 as attorney's fees, which constitutes less
than one-third of the total settlement fund.

Accordingly, for all these reasons, Magistrate Judge Pitman
approves the settlement in the matter.  In light of the
settlement, the action is dismissed with prejudice and without
costs.  The Clerk is respectfully requested to mark the matter
closed.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 18, 2018 Opinion and Order
is available at https://is.gd/4J3wmn from Leagle.com.

Tranquilino Castillo Ortiz, individually, Tranquilino Castillo
Ortiz, on behalf of others similarly situated, Fernando Sanchez
Flores, individually, Roberto Velasquez, individually, Roberto
Velasquez, on behalf of others similarly situated & Fernando
Sanchez Flores, on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, represented by Michael Antonio Faillace, Michael
Faillace & Associates, P.C.

My Bellys Playlist LLC, doing business as My Belly's Playlist,
Tipp One LLC, doing business as Lili O'Brien's, Shawn Reilly, Ian
Behar, Ryan Sasson & John Carey, Defendants, represented by Kathy
Sue Marks, Yankwitt LLP & Russell Marc Yankwitt, Yankwitt LLP.


MYRIAD GENETICS: Faces "Kessman" Suit in Utah
---------------------------------------------
Myriad Genetics, 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 a purported
class action complaint in the United States District Court,
District of Utah, filed by Matthew Kessman.

On April 20, 2018, Matthew Kessman, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, filed a purported class action
complaint in the United States District Court, District of Utah,
against the Company, its President and Chief Executive Officer,
Mark C. Capone, its former President and Chief Executive Officer,
Peter D. Meldrum, its Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer, R. Bryan Riggsbee, and its former Chief
Financial Officer, James S. Evans.

This action is premised upon allegations that the defendants made
false and misleading statements regarding the company's business,
operational and compliance policies, specifically by allegedly
failing to disclose that the Company was allegedly submitting
false or otherwise improper claims for payment under Medicare and
Medicare for the Company's hereditary cancer testing.

The plaintiff seeks certification as the purported class
representative and the payment of damages allegedly sustained by
plaintiff and the purported class by reason of the allegations
set forth in the complaint, plus interest, and legal and other
costs and fees.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against this action.

Myriad Genetics, Inc. is a leading personalized medicine company
dedicated to being a trusted advisor transforming patient lives
through pioneering molecular diagnostics. The company is based in
Salt Lake City, Utah.


NATUS MEDICAL: Still Defends Against "Costabile" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Natus Medical Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2018, that the case entitled, Costabile v.
Natus Medical Incorporation, et al. is still ongoing.

In January 2017, a putative class action lawsuit (Badger v. Natus
Medical Incorporation, et al., No. 17-cv-00458-JSW) alleging
violations of federal securities laws was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
naming as defendants the Company and certain officers and a
director.

In July 2017, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint with a new
lead plaintiff (Costabile v. Natus Medical Incorporation, et al.,
No. 17-cv-00458-JSW) alleging violations of federal securities
laws based on allegedly false and misleading statements.

The defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint, and in
February 2018 the motion to dismiss was granted with leave to
amend. Plaintiffs re-filed an amended complaint in April 2018,
and Natus' response is due in May 2018. The Company continues to
believe that the plaintiffs' allegations are without merit, and
intends to vigorously defend against the claims.

Natus is a provider of newborn care, neurology, and hearing and
balance assessment healthcare products and services used for the
screening, diagnosis, detection, treatment, monitoring and
tracking of common medical ailments in newborn care, hearing
impairment, neurological dysfunction, epilepsy, sleep disorders,
neuromuscular diseases and balance and mobility disorders. The
company is based in Pleasanton, California.


NEW CITY LAWN: Faces "Flores" Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New City Lawn &
Landscape, Inc. The case is styled as Pedro Flores, on behalf of
all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. New City Lawn &
Landscape, Inc. and Joseph Monteferrante, Defendants, Case No.
7:18-cv-05456 (S.D. N.Y., June 18, 2018).

New City Lawn & Landscape Inc is a privately held company in New
City, NY and is a Single Location business. Categorized under
Landscape Contractors. Our records show it was established in
1999 and incorporated in NY. Current estimates show this company
has an annual revenue of 150000 and employs a staff of
approximately 2.[BN]


NEWPORT CORP: MKS Objects to Subpoena Duces Tecum
-------------------------------------------------
MKS Instruments, 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 has objected to a third-party
subpoena duces tecum it received in connection to the case
entitled, In re Newport Corporation Shareholder Litigation.

On March 9, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit captioned Dixon
Chung v. Newport Corp., et al., Case No. A-16-733154-C, was filed
in the District Court, Clark County, Nevada on behalf of a
putative class of stockholders of Newport for claims related to
the Merger Agreement between the Company, Newport, and Merger
Sub. The complaint, filed on March 9, 2016, named as defendants
the Company, Newport and Merger Sub, and certain then-current and
former members of Newport's former board of directors.

The complaint alleges that the named directors breached their
fiduciary duties to Newport's stockholders by agreeing to sell
Newport through an inadequate and unfair process, which led to
inadequate and unfair consideration, and by agreeing to unfair
deal protection devices. The complaint also alleges that the
Company, Newport, and Merger Sub aided and abetted the named
directors' alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties. The
complaint seeks injunctive relief, including to enjoin or rescind
the Merger Agreement, monetary damages, and an award of
attorneys' and other fees and costs, among other relief.

On March 25, 2016, the plaintiff in the Chung action filed an
amended complaint, which adds certain allegations, including that
the preliminary proxy statement filed by Newport on March 15,
2016 (the "Proxy") omitted material information. The amended
complaint also names as defendants the Company, Newport, Merger
Sub, and then-current members of Newport's board of directors.

Also on March 25, 2016, a second putative class action complaint
captioned Hubert C. Pincon v. Newport Corp., et al., Case No. A-
16-734039-B, was filed in the District Court, Clark County,
Nevada, on behalf of a putative class of Newport's stockholders
for claims related to the Merger Agreement. The complaint names
as defendants the Company, Newport, and Merger Sub and the then-
current members of Newport's former board of directors.

It alleges that the named directors breached their fiduciary
duties to Newport's stockholders by agreeing to sell Newport
through an inadequate and unfair process, which led to inadequate
and unfair consideration, by agreeing to unfair deal protection
devices, and by omitting material information from the Proxy. The
complaint also alleges that the Company, Newport, and Merger Sub
aided and abetted the named directors' alleged breaches of their
fiduciary duties. The complaint seeks injunctive relief,
including to enjoin or rescind the Merger Agreement, and an award
of attorneys' and other fees and costs, among other relief.

On April 14, 2016, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion to
consolidate the Pincon and Chung actions and appointed counsel in
the Pincon action as lead counsel. Also on April 14, 2016, the
Court granted plaintiffs' motion for expedited discovery and
scheduled a hearing on plaintiffs' anticipated motion for a
preliminary injunction for April 25, 2016. On April 20, 2016,
plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the hearing on their
anticipated motion for a preliminary injunction and notified the
Court that they did not presently intend to file a motion for a
preliminary injunction regarding the Merger Agreement. On April
22, 2016, the Court vacated the hearing on plaintiffs'
anticipated motion for a preliminary injunction. In August 2016,
plaintiffs completed the expedited discovery that the Court
ordered.

On October 19, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
captioned In re Newport Corporation Shareholder Litigation, Case
No. A-16-733154-B, in the District Court, Clark County, Nevada,
on behalf of a class of Newport's stockholders for claims related
to the Merger Agreement. The complaint named as defendants the
Company, Newport, and the then-current members of Newport's
former board of directors. It alleged that the named directors
breached their fiduciary duties to Newport's stockholders by
agreeing to sell Newport through an inadequate and unfair
process, which led to inadequate and unfair consideration, by
agreeing to unfair deal protection devices, and by omitting
material information from the Proxy. The complaint also alleged
that the Company and Newport aided and abetted the named
directors' alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties. The
complaint sought monetary damages, including pre- and post-
judgment interest.

On December 9, 2016, both the Company and the Newport defendants
filed motions to dismiss. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the
motions to dismiss on January 13, 2017. On February 3, 2017, the
Company and the Newport defendants filed their reply briefs in
support of their motions to dismiss. A hearing on the motions to
dismiss was held on February 15, 2017.

MKS Instruments said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, that on June 22, 2017, the court
dismissed the amended complaint against all defendants but
granted plaintiffs leave to amend.

On July 27, 2017, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint,
which names as defendants certain former directors of Newport. On
August 8, 2017, the Court dismissed the Company and Newport from
the action pursuant to stipulations among the parties.  The
second amended complaint alleges that the directors breached
their fiduciary duties to Newport's stockholders by agreeing to
sell Newport through an inadequate and unfair process, which led
to inadequate and unfair consideration, and by omitting material
information from the proxy statement. The second amended
complaint seeks monetary damages, including pre- and post-
judgment interest.

On July 28, 2017, the Company and Newport each entered into a
stipulation and proposed order with plaintiffs whereby plaintiffs
agreed not to assert any claims against the Company or Newport in
an amended complaint and agreed to voluntarily dismiss the
Company and Newport from the action.  The Newport directors filed
a motion to dismiss on September 1, 2017, plaintiffs filed an
opposition to this motion to dismiss on October 6, 2017, and the
Newport directors filed a reply brief in support of their motion
to dismiss on October 27, 2017.  A hearing on the motion to
dismiss was scheduled for December 7, 2017.

In its recent SEC report, the Company disclosed that the Court
held a hearing on the motion to dismiss on December 7, 2017. On
January 5, 2018, the Court entered an order denying the motion to
dismiss.

The Newport directors answered the second amended complaint,
denying the material allegations of the complaint and asserting
defenses, on February 20, 2018. On April 13, 2018, the Company
received a third-party subpoena duces tecum requesting documents
and a deposition on various topics in the state of Nevada. The
Company served plaintiffs with objections and responses to the
subpoena on April 27, 2018.

MKS Instruments, Inc. is a global provider of instruments,
subsystems and process control solutions that measure, control,
power, monitor and analyze critical parameters of advanced
manufacturing processes to improve process performance and
productivity. The company is based in Andover, Massachusetts.


NICARAGUA: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Robertson" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the
district court's judgment dismissing the case, JOSEPHENIE
ROBERTSON, M.T.T., individually and as the Representative,
Officer and Matriarch of the Traditional Authority and Miskitu
Government-In-Exile, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE REPUBLIC OF
NICARAGUA; et al., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 17-17156 (9th
Cir.), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Robertson appealed pro se from the district court's dismissal of
her action.  Having reviewed de novo the dismissal under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), the Ninth Circuit held that the
district court properly dismissed Robertson's action for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction because Robertson alleged claims that
presented a political question.  It found that the district court
did not abuse its discretion by denying Robertson's motion for
appointment of counsel because Robertson did not demonstrate
exceptional circumstances.

To the extent that Robertson sought to maintain the action as a
class action lawsuit, it held that Robertson cannot do so because
she is not an attorney.  It rejected as unsupported by the record
Robertson's contentions regarding the district court's denial of
her motion for sanctions and treatment of Robertson's requests to
amend her complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 17, 2018 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/G6TtQj from Leagle.com.


NISSAN NORTH: Court Adds Leyva as Named Plaintiff in "Falk" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHELLE FALK, INDHU JAYAVELU, PATRICIA L. CRUZ,
DANIELLE TROTTER, CYNTHIA GARRISON, AND AMANDA MACRI,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
4:17-cv-04871-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
Oakland Division, approved the joint stipulation permitting
amendment of complaint to add a Plaintiff.

After filing the action on Aug. 22, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed
their First Amended Complaint ("FAC") on Sept. 27, 2017.  They
seek to represent a proposed class of all persons who purchased
and/or leased in the United States a model year 2013-2017 Nissan
Sentra equipped with a continuously variable transmission, and
subclasses of persons who purchased and/or leased such vehicles
in California, Ohio, New York, Colorado, Massachusetts, and
Illinois.

NNA moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs' FAC on Oct. 26, 2017.
Following hearing on Jan. 11, 2018, the Court has taken NNA's
motion under submission.  It issued a Scheduling Order on Jan.
12, 2018, which set a deadline of March 16, 2018 for further
amendment of the Complaint in the action.

Leyva filed on Sept. 11, 2017 a civil action in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, under caption Leyva
v. Nissan North America, Inc., Case No. 5:17-cv-01870 FMO ("Leyva
Action").  In his First Amended Class Action Complaint filed on
Dec. 18, 2017, Leyva seeks to represent a proposed class of all
individuals in the United States who purchased or leased any
2012-2017 Nissan Sentra equipped with an Xtronic CVT" and one or
more subclasses.

NNA moved to dismiss Leyva's First Amended Class Action Complaint
on Jan. 12, 2018, and the motion remains pending.

The putative class and one or more subclasses alleged in the
Leyva Action overlap with the alleged class and/or subclasses
alleged in Falk's action.  The Falk Plaintiffs, Leyva, and NNA
desire to avoid the expense of duplicative discovery, and the
potential waste of judicial resources.

Therefore, the stipulated to and agreed, and Judge Gilliam
approved, that on Aril 19, 2018, Leyva will dismiss the Leyva
Action without prejudice.  Upon dismissal of the Leyva Action,
the counsel for Leyva may file a notice of appearance in the Falk
action.  Leyva will be permitted to join the action as an
additional named Plaintiff via amended complaint after the Court
has ruled on the pending motion to dismiss.  If the Plaintiffs
determine to file an amended Complaint that is limited solely to
adding Leyva as an additional named Plaintiff, then the Defendant
will not oppose such amendment.

Leyva may not assert any claim for relief or cause of action not
asserted by the Plaintiffs in their FAC in the action.  Leyva
will be bound by the Court's ruling on NNA's pending motion to
dismiss in the action and may not assert any claim for relief or
cause of action dismissed without leave to amend.

The applicable limitations period for Leyva's claims will be
tolled for the period from the date of the filing of the
dismissal of the Leyva Action until the date that Leyva is added
to the action.  The deadline to amend the Complaint in the action
will be continued to and including 14 days following the Court's
ruling on NNA's pending motion to dismiss, or any other date that
the Court may set in its ruling.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 17, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/yfHyUg from Leagle.com.

Michelle Falk, Plaintiff, represented by Shimon Yiftach --
shimony@bgandg.com -- Bronstein Gewirtz & Grossman, Gary S.
Graifman -- ggraifman@kgglaw.com -- Kantrowitz Goldhamer &
Graifman, P.C., Gary E. Mason -- gmason@wbmllp.com -- Whitfield
Bryson & Mason LLP, Jason Samual Rathod -- jrathod@classlawdc.com
-- Migliaccio and Rathod LLP, Jay I. Brody -- jbrody@kgglaw.com -
- Kantrowitz, Goldhamer and Graifman, P.C., Jeffrey Laurence
Osterwise -- josterwise@bm.net -- Berger and Montague P.C.,
Jennifer Shari Goldstein -- jgoldstein@wbmllp.com -- Whifield
Bryson and Mason, LLP, Lawrence Deutsch -- ldeutsch@bm.net --
Berger and Montague P.C. & Nicholas A. Migliaccio , Migliaccio &
Rathod.

Indhu Jayavelu, Patricia L. Cruz, Danielle Trotter, Amanda Macri,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated &
Cynthia Garrison, Plaintiffs, represented by Shimon Yiftach ,
Bronstein Gewirtz & Grossman, Gary S. Graifman , Kantrowitz
Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C., Gary E. Mason , Whitfield Bryson &
Mason LLP, Jason Samual Rathod , Migliaccio and Rathod LLP, Jay
I. Brody , Kantrowitz, Goldhamer and Graifman, P.C., Jeffrey
Laurence Osterwise , Berger and Montague P.C., Lawrence Deutsch ,
Berger and Montague P.C. & Nicholas A. Migliaccio --
nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com -- Migliaccio & Rathod.

Nissan North America, Inc., Defendant, represented by E. Paul
Cauley, Jr. -- paul.cauley@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle & Reath,
LLP, Marshall Lee Benjamin Baker -- marshall.baker@dbr.com --
Drinker Biddle Reath LLP & Michael James Stortz --
michael.stortz@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP.


OCULAR THERAPEUTIX: Reply in Dextenza Suit Due July 6
-----------------------------------------------------
Ocular Therapeutix, 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' response to the
consolidated amended class action complaint is due July 6, 2018.

The Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, that on July 7, 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 District of New Jersey, captioned Thomas
Gallagher v. Ocular Therapeutix, Inc, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-
05011. The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of
shareholders who purchased the Company's common stock between May
5, 2017 and July 6, 2017.

The complaint generally alleges that the company and certain of
its current and former officers violated Sections 10(b) and/or
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange
Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly
false and/or misleading statements concerning the Form 483 issued
by the FDA related to DEXTENZA and the Company's manufacturing
operations for DEXTENZA.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, and
other costs.

On July 14, 2017, an amended complaint was filed; the amended
complaint purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders who
purchased the company's common stock between May 5, 2017 and July
11, 2017, and otherwise includes allegations similar to those
made in the original complaint.

On July 12, 2017, a second 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
District of New Jersey, captioned Dylan Caraker v. Ocular
Therapeutix, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-05095. The complaint
purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased
the Company's common stock between May 5, 2017 and July 6, 2017.
The complaint includes allegations similar to those made in the
Gallagher complaint, and seeks similar relief.

On August 3, 2017, a third 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
District of New Jersey, captioned Shawna Kim v. Ocular
Therapeutix, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-05704. The complaint
purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased
the Company's common stock between March 10, 2016 and July 11,
2017. The complaint includes allegations similar to those made in
the Gallagher complaint, and seeks similar relief.

On October 27, 2017, a magistrate judge for the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey granted the
defendants' motion to transfer the above-referenced Gallagher,
Caraker, and Kim litigations to the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts. On November 2, 2017, the
Caraker lawsuit was transferred to the United States District
Court of Massachusetts.  The other cases were transferred at a
later date.  These matters were assigned the following docket
numbers in the District of Massachusetts: 1:17-cv-12288
(Gallagher), 1:17-cv-12146 (Caraker), and 1:17-cv-12286 (Kim).

In its recent quarterly report, the Company disclosed that on
March 9, 2018, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to
consolidate the three actions and appointed co-lead plaintiffs
and co-lead counsel for the consolidated action.

On May 7, 2018, co-lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
class action complaint. The amended complaint makes allegations
similar to those in the original complaints, against the same
defendants, and seeks similar relief on behalf of shareholders
who purchased the company's common stock between March 10, 2016
and July 11, 2017.  The amended complaint generally alleges that
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  Defendants' response
to the consolidated amended complaint is due on July 6, 2018.

Ocular Therapeutix said "We deny any allegations of wrongdoing
and intend to vigorously defend against these lawsuits."

Ocular Therapeutix, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company focused
on the formulation, development and commercialization of
innovative therapies for diseases and conditions of the eye using
our proprietary, bioresorbable hydrogel platform technology. The
company is based in Bedford, Massachusetts.


OMNI HOTELS: Faces "Samaniego" Suit in S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Omni Hotels
Management Corporation. The case is styled as Armando Samaniego,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Omni Hotels Management Corporation, Omni Hotels Corporation
and TRT Development Company, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-01372-
L-BGS (S.D. Cal., June 21, 2018).

Omni Hotels & Resorts is an American privately held,
international luxury hotel company based in Dallas, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
   Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela & Carpenter, LLP
   1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603
   San Diego, CA 92101
   Tel: (619) 762-1910
   Fax: (619) 756-6991
   Email: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com


OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Faces Suit over tZERO Initial Coin Offering
--------------------------------------------------------------
Overstock.com, 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 purported
class action suits in Utah in connection to its disclosures made
in its tZERO's Initial Coin Offering.

A purported class action complaint was filed against the company,
Patrick Byrne and Jonathan E. Johnson III, in the United States
District Court, District of Utah, Central Division. The lawsuit
alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act") in connection with allegedly false and misleading
statements made by the Company relating to tZERO's Initial Coin
Offering and the announcement of an SEC investigation. The
plaintiffs seek class certification, an award of unspecified
compensatory damages, and other relief as the Court may deem just
and proper.

Another substantially similar complaint was filed shortly
thereafter, also naming the company, Dr. Byrne and Mr. Johnson as
defendants, bringing the same claims under the Exchange Act, and
seeking substantially similar relief. Dr. Byrne and Mr. Johnson
are each executive officers of the Company and members of our
board of directors, and the company has indemnification
agreements and obligations with each of them.

Overstock.com said "Regardless of the outcome of this matter, we
expect to incur costs, and the costs may be material. An
unfavorable resolution of any substantial litigation matter,
including these lawsuits, could have a material adverse effect on
our financial results and business."

Overstock.com, Inc. is an online retailer and advancer of
blockchain technology. Through its online retail business, the
company offers a broad range of price-competitive products,
including furniture, home decor, bedding and bath, housewares,
jewelry and watches, among other products. The company is based
in Midvale, Utah.


PBF HOLDING: "Goldstein" Class Suit Still Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------
PBF Holding Co LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend a class
action suit entitled Arnold Goldstein, et al. v. Exxon Mobil
Corporation, et al.

On February 17, 2017, in Arnold Goldstein, et al. v. Exxon Mobil
Corporation, et al., the company and PBF Energy Company LLC, and
the company's subsidiaries, PBF Energy Western Region LLC and
Torrance Refining Company LLC and the manager of the company's
Torrance refinery along with Exxon Mobil Corporation were named
as defendants in a class action and representative action
complaint filed on behalf of Arnold Goldstein, John Covas, Gisela
Janette La Bella and others similarly situated.

The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles and alleges negligence, strict
liability, ultrahazardous activity, a continuing private
nuisance, a permanent private nuisance, a continuing public
nuisance, a permanent public nuisance and trespass resulting from
the February 18, 2015 electrostatic precipitator ("ESP")
explosion at the Torrance Refinery which was then owned and
operated by Exxon. The operation of the Torrance Refinery by the
PBF entities subsequent to the company's acquisition in July 2016
is also referenced in the complaint.

To the extent that plaintiffs' claims relate to the ESP
explosion, Exxon has retained responsibility for any liabilities
that would arise from the lawsuit pursuant to the agreement
relating to the acquisition of the Torrance Refinery.

PBF Holding said "This matter is in the initial stages of
discovery and we cannot currently estimate the amount or the
timing of its resolution. We presently believe the outcome will
not have a material impact on our financial position, results of
operations or cash flows."

PBF Holding Co LLC is one of the largest independent petroleum
refiners and suppliers of unbranded transportation fuels, heating
oil, petrochemical feedstocks, lubricants and other petroleum
products in the United States. The company is based in
Parsippany, New Jersey.


PERRIGO COMPANY: "Schweiger" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company 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 court in Schweiger et al. v. Perrigo
Company plc, et al., has approved plaintiffs' motion for
voluntary dismissal.

On May 22, 2016, shareholders filed a securities class action
against the company and five individual defendants: The company's
former CEO Mr. Papa, its former Executive Vice President and
General Manager of the BCH segment Marc Coucke, its then Chief
Executive Officer John Hendrickson, the Company's former Board
member Gary Kunkle, Jr., and its Board member Laurie Brlas
alleging violations of Israeli law in the District Court of Tel
Aviv-Jaffa (Schweiger et al. v. Perrigo Company plc, et al.).

On June 15, 2016, the company filed a motion to stay the case
pending the outcome of the securities class action pending in the
New Jersey Federal Court. The plaintiffs did not oppose the
motion. The Israeli court granted the motion on the same day, and
the Schweiger action was stayed.

In October 2017, the Schweiger plaintiffs dismissed their claims
without prejudice because of the pendency of another class action
case filed in Israel. The court approved the voluntary dismissal.

Perrigo Company plc is a leading global healthcare company,
delivering value to its customers and consumers by providing
Quality Affordable Healthcare Products(R).


PERRIGO COMPANY: "Keinan" Suit Concluded
----------------------------------------
Perrigo Company 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 court has dismissed the case entitled
Keinan v. Perrigo Company plc, et al.

On March 29, 2017, plaintiff Eyal Keinan commenced an action in
the District Court of Tel Aviv-Jaffa asserting securities claims
against two defendants: Perrigo and its auditor Ernst & Young LLP
("EY"). The case is styled Keinan v. Perrigo Company plc, et al.

The action sought certification of a class of purchasers of
Perrigo shares on the Israeli exchange beginning February 6,
2014. The proposed closing date for the class was not clear from
the complaint though it appeared to extend into 2017.

In general, the plaintiff asserted that the company improperly
accounted for its stream of royalty income from two drugs:
Tysabri(R) and Prialt. The court filings contended that the
alleged improper accounting caused the audited financial results
for Perrigo to be incorrect for the six month period ended
December 31, 2015, and the years ended June 27, 2015 and June 28,
2014 and the other financial data released by the company over
those years and 2016 to also be inaccurate.

The plaintiff maintained that the defendants are liable under
Israeli securities law or, in the alternative, under U.S.
securities law. The plaintiff indicated an initial, preliminary
class damages estimate of 686.0 million NIS (approximately $192.0
million at 1 NIS = $0.28 cent).

In January 2018, the Keinan plaintiff announced its intention to
dismiss his claims because of the pendency of another class
action case filed in Israel. The court granted the dismissal on
February 11, 2018.

Perrigo Company plc is a global healthcare company, delivering
value to its customers and consumers by providing Quality
Affordable Healthcare Products(R).


PERRIGO COMPANY: Israel Employees' Education Fund Suit Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company 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 court has approved the stay in the case
entitled Israel Elec. Corp. Employees' Educ. Fund v. Perrigo
Company plc, et al.

On June 28, 2017, a plaintiff filed a complaint in Tel Aviv
District Court styled Israel Elec. Corp. Employees' Educ. Fund v.
Perrigo Company plc, et al. The lead plaintiff seeks to represent
a class of shareholders who purchased Perrigo stock on the Tel
Aviv exchange during the period April 24, 2015 through May 3,
2017 and also a claim for those that owned shares on the final
day of the Mylan tender offer (November 13, 2015).

The amended complaint names as defendants the Company, EY (the
Company's auditor), and 11 current or former directors and
officers of Perrigo (Mses. Judy Brown, Laurie Brlas, Jacqualyn
Fouse, Ellen Hoffing, and Messrs. Joe Papa, Marc Coucke, Gary
Cohen, Michael Jandernoa, Gerald Kunkle, Herman Morris, and Donal
O'Connor).

The complaint alleges violations under U.S. securities laws of
Securities Exchange Act sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5) and 14(e)
against all defendants and 20(a) control person liability against
the 11 individuals or, in the alternative, under Israeli
securities laws. In general, the allegations concern the actions
taken by us and our former executives to defend against the
unsolicited takeover bid by Mylan in the period from April 21,
2015 through November 13, 2015 and the allegedly inadequate
disclosure concerning purported integration problems related to
the Omega acquisition, alleges incorrect reporting of organic
growth at the Company, alleges price fixing activities with
respect to six generic prescription pharmaceuticals, and alleges
improper accounting for the Tysabri(R) royalty stream.

The plaintiff indicates an initial, preliminary class damages
estimate of 2.7 billion NIS (approximately $760.0 million at 1
NIS = $0.28 cent).

Perrigo Company said "We intend to defend the lawsuit
vigorously."

Perrigo said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2017, that on July 12, 2017, the plaintiff in
the Israel Elec. Corp. Employees' Educ. Fund v. Perrigo Company
plc, et al. case filed a motion to have all three cases pending
in Israel either consolidated or the other two cases dismissed so
that the Israel Elec. Corp. Educ. Fund plaintiff can proceed as
the sole plaintiff.  In October 2017, the Schweiger plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed their securities class action without
prejudice as part of their response to the motion filed by the
Israel Elec. Corp. Educ. Fund plaintiff.

A variety of other procedural motions were also pending at this
time having to do with the timing of any response by defendants.
The court scheduled an initial conference on November 9, 2017 to
address the motion filed by the Israel Elec. Corp. Educ. Fund
plaintiff. The court indicated that other procedural motions will
be addressed after it has decided the Israel Elec. Corp. Educ.
Fund plaintiff's motion.

In its recent quarterly report, the Company disclosed that the
competing class plaintiffs subsequently held discussions and
informed the court in January 2018 that they had reached an
agreement among themselves such that the Education Fund case will
continue and the Keinan plaintiff dismissed its case. The court
approved this outcome. At the request of the parties, the court
has stayed the Education Fund case pending the final adjudication
of the class action case in D.N.J. (the Roofers' Pension Fund
case described above under Securities Litigation In the United
States). The court approved the stay.

Perrigo Company plc is a global healthcare company, delivering
value to its customers and consumers by providing Quality
Affordable Healthcare Products(R).


PERRIGO COMPANY: Attorney General's Opinion Due on May 30
---------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company 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 court has ordered the Attorney General
to submit its opinion to the settlement in the Eltroxin
settlement agreement by May 30, 2018.

During October and November 2011, nine applications to certify a
class action lawsuit were filed in various courts in Israel
related to Eltroxin, a prescription thyroid medication
manufactured by a third party and distributed in Israel by our
subsidiary, Perrigo Israel Agencies Ltd. The respondents included
the company's subsidiaries, Perrigo Israel Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
and/or Perrigo Israel Agencies Ltd., the manufacturers of the
product, and various healthcare providers who provide healthcare
services as part of the compulsory healthcare system in Israel.

One of the applications was dismissed and the remaining eight
applications were consolidated into one application. The
applications arose from the 2011 launch of a reformulated version
of Eltroxin in Israel.

The consolidated application generally alleges that the
respondents (a) failed to timely inform patients, pharmacists and
physicians about the change in the formulation; and (b) failed to
inform physicians about the need to monitor patients taking the
new formulation in order to confirm patients were receiving the
appropriate dose of the drug.

As a result, claimants allege they incurred the following
damages: (a) purchases of product that otherwise would not have
been made by patients had they been aware of the reformulation;
(b) adverse events to some patients resulting from an imbalance
of thyroid functions that could have been avoided; and (c) harm
resulting from the patients' lack of informed consent prior to
the use of the reformulation.

Several hearings on whether or not to certify the consolidated
application took place in December 2013 and January 2014. On May
17, 2015, the District Court certified the motion against Perrigo
Israel Agencies Ltd. and dismissed it against the remaining
respondents, including Perrigo Israel Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

Perrigo said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2017, that on June 16, 2015, the company
submitted a motion for permission to appeal the decision to
certify to the Israeli Supreme Court together with a motion to
stay the proceedings of the class action until the motion for
permission to appeal is adjudicated. The company has filed its
statement of defense to the underlying proceedings. The parties
engaged in mediation in an attempt to settle the matter. The
underlying proceedings were stayed pending the outcome of the
mediation process and, if necessary, a decision on the motion to
appeal.

In its recent quarterly report, Perrigo said that on November 14,
2017 the parties submitted the agreed settlement agreement to the
approval of the Supreme Court, which referred the approval back
to the District Court. During three hearings that took place on
November 29, 2017, December 13, 2017 and January 11, 2018 the
District Court opined that it would approve the settlement
agreement subject to certain amendments to be proposed by the
Court (which would not impact the monetary settlement reached)
and set a hearing for January 30, 2018 to discuss and finalize
the proposed changes.

Meanwhile, the Court ordered the settlement to be (1) provided to
the Attorney General for review (standard procedure); and (2)
published in the written media (newspapers), to enable the class
members to submit any objections or "opt-out" to the proposed
settlement by February 15, 2018.

On February 21, 2018, the District Court held a hearing to, among
others, review objections received from class members who had
notified the District Court of their desire to opt out of the
settlement.

In addition, a representative of the Israeli Attorney General's
office notified the District Court that, based upon their
preliminary examination of the settlement, they intend to object
to the settlement in its current form. The District Court
recommended that the parties continue to discuss and minimize
objections to the settlement and scheduled another hearing for
May 13, 2018.

The District Court Justice was appointed as a Supreme Court
Justice and ordered to move the case to a different panel. In an
effort to reach a decision before the appointment, an additional
hearing was held on March 12, 2018 in which the court urged the
parties to try and exhaust their negotiations to the fullest and
provide an update by May 13, 2018. In addition, the Court ordered
the Attorney General to submit its opinion to the settlement
agreement by May 30, 2018.

Perrigo Company plc is a global healthcare company, delivering
value to its customers and consumers by providing Quality
Affordable Healthcare Products(R).


PHH CORP: 3 Merger-Related Suits Filed in New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------
PHH 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 facing three class action
lawsuits following its announcement of a proposed merger with
Ocwen Financial Corporation.

Following the announcement of the proposed Merger with Ocwen on
February 27, 2018, three class actions were filed against the
company and each member of its Board of Directors in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The
plaintiffs purport to sue on behalf of a class consisting of all
of our common stockholders except for the defendants and their
affiliates.

In support of their request for injunctive and other relief, the
plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated various provisions
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, because the
public disclosures the Company has made concerning the proposed
Merger with Ocwen allegedly are false and misleading.

Additionally, one of the plaintiffs allege that the members of
the Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties by
approving the sale of the Company to Ocwen at an inadequate price
after an inadequate process.

PHH said Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, and
because these actions are at a preliminary stage, we cannot
accurately predict the ultimate outcome of these matters at this
time.

PHH Corporation is an American financial services corporation
headquartered in Mount Laurel, New Jersey which provides mortgage
services to some of the world's largest financial services firms.


PURDUE PHARMA: Faces National Roofers Suit in D. Arizona
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Purdue Pharma LP.
The case is styled as National Roofers Union & Employers Joint
Health & Welfare Fund, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Purdue Pharma LP, Cephalon
Incorporated, Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited, Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Endo International PLC, Endo Health
Solutions Incorporated, Endo Pharmaceuticals Incorporated,
Janssen Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, Insys Therapeutics
Incorporated, Mallinckrodt PLC, Mallinckrodt LLC, Amerisource
Bergen Corporation, Cardinal Health Incorporated and McKesson
Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-01949-BSB (D. Ariz.,
June 21, 2018).

Purdue Pharma L.P. is a privately held pharmaceutical company
owned principally by parties and descendants of Mortimer and
Raymond Sackler.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Carissa J Dolan, Esq.
   Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
   655 W Broadway, Ste. 1900
   San Diego, CA 92101
   Tel: (619) 231-1058
   Fax: (619) 231-7423

      - and -

   Carmen A Medici, Esq.
   Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
   655 W Broadway, Ste. 1900
   San Diego, CA 92101
   Tel: (619) 231-1058
   Fax: (619) 231-7423
   Email: cmedici@rgrdlaw.com

      - and -

   Thomas E Egler, Esq.
   Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
   655 W Broadway, Ste. 1900
   San Diego, CA 92101
   Tel: (619) 231-1058
   Fax: (619) 231-7423


QUANTUM CORP: Court Extends CMC, Related Deadlines in "Lazan"
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEVEN LAZAN, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. QUANTUM CORPORATION,
FUAD AHMAD, JON W. GACEK, and ADALIO T. SANCHEZ, Defendants, Case
No. 3:18-cv-00923-RS (N.D. Cal.), Judge Richaed Seeborg of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has
granted the parties' stipulated order extending the time to
respond to the complaint and postponing case management
conference and related deadlines.

On Feb. 13, 2018, Lazan, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, filed a Class Action Complaint for Violations
of the Federal Securities Laws  against Quantum and certain of
its current and former officers and directors, Gacek, Ahmad, and
Sanchez.  The Defendants waived service of the Complaint, and
their responses to the Complaint are currently due June 11, 2018.

On Feb. 13, 2018, the Court entered an Order Setting Initial Case
Management Conference and ADR Deadlines, which, among other
things, set an Initial Case Management Conference for May 17,
2018.  The CMC Order further set May 10, 2018 as the last day for
the parties to file a Rule 26(f) Report, complete initial
disclosures or state objection in Rule 26(f) Report, and file a
Case Management Statement per Standing Order re Contents of Joint
Case Management Statement, and set April 26, 2018 as the last day
for the parties to meet and confer regarding initial disclosures,
early settlement, Alternative Dispute Resolution ("ADR") process
selection, and a discovery plan, and file an ADR Certification
with either a Stipulation to ADR Process or a Notice of Need for
ADR Phone Conference.

The action is governed by the provisions of the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), and the
parties anticipate that the Court will appoint a lead plaintiff
and that the court-appointed lead plaintiff will file a
consolidated complaint superseding previously filed complaints,
including the Complaint.

The parties agree that efficiency for the Court and the parties
in proceeding under the PSLRA dictates that responding to the
current Complaint should be deferred.

Therefore, the parties stipulated and agreed, and Judge Seeborg
granted, that after the appointment of a lead plaintiff pursuant
to 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3)(B), the lead plaintiff and the
Defendants will promptly meet and confer regarding a schedule for
the filing of a consolidated complaint or designation of an
operative complaint, and a briefing schedule for the Defendants'
anticipated motion(s) to dismiss.  The parties will submit a
joint stipulation with a proposed schedule no later than 10
business days following the appointment of the lead plaintiff.

The Defendants will not be required to move to dismiss, or
otherwise respond to, the Complaint in the action, and will not
be deemed to have waived any rights, arguments, or defenses by
waiting to respond, until such time as the Defendants are
required to respond pursuant to the Court-approved schedule.

The Initial CMC currently set in the matter for May 17, 2018 is
vacated and will be rescheduled at a later date consistent with
the foregoing stipulation.  All related deadlines set forth in
the Court's Order Setting Initial Case Management Conference and
ADR Deadlines will be continued accordingly.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 18, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/s63vm1 from Leagle.com.

Steven Lazan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jacob Allen Walker --
Jake@blockesq.com -- Block & Leviton LLP, Joel Anderson Fleming -
- Joel@blockesq.com -- Block & Leviton LLP & Whitney E. Street --
whitney@blockesq.com -- Block & Leviton LLP.

Quantum Corporation, Fuad Ahmad & Adalio T. Sanchez, Defendants,
represented by Boris Feldman -- Boris.Feldman@wsgr.com -- Wilson
Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati Professional Corporation & Caz Hashemi
-- chashemi@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati.

Normane Gillmann, Movant, represented by Laurence M. Rosen --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.

Globis Capital Advisors L.L.C., Movant, represented by Robert
Vincent Prongay -- RProngay@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP.

David Andrews, Movant, represented by Rosemary M. Rivas --
rrivas@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky LLP.


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: West-Hopson Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------
SandRidge Energy, 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 itself
in a class action suit by Lisa West and Stormy Hopson.

On October 14, 2016, Lisa West and Stormy Hopson filed an amended
class action complaint in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Oklahoma against SandRidge Exploration
and Production, LLC, among other defendants. In their amended
complaint, plaintiffs asserted various tort claims seeking relief
for damages, including the reimbursement of past and future
earthquake insurance premiums, resulting from seismic activity
allegedly caused by the defendants' operation of wastewater
disposal wells. The court dismissed the plaintiffs' amended
complaint on May 12, 2017, but permitted the plaintiffs to file a
second amended complaint.

Sandridge Energy said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, that on July 18, 2017, the
plaintiffs filed a second amended class action complaint making
allegations substantially similar to those contained in the
amended complaint that was previously dismissed.

An estimate of reasonably possible losses associated with this
action cannot be made at this time. The Company has not
established any reserves relating to this action.

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

Sandridge Energy, Inc. is an oil and natural gas company with a
principal focus on exploration and production activities in the
U.S. Mid-Continent and North Park Basin of Colorado.


SANDRIDGE MISSISSIPPIAN: Continues to Defend Lanier Trust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
SandRidge Mississippian Trust I said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the trust continues
to defend itself against the Lanier Trust suit.

On June 9, 2015, the Duane & Virginia Lanier Trust, on behalf of
itself and all other similarly situated unitholders of the Trust,
filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against the Trust,
SandRidge and certain current and former executive officers of
SandRidge, among other defendants (the "Securities Litigation").

The complaint asserts a variety of federal securities claims on
behalf of a putative class of (a) purchasers of common units of
the Trust in or traceable to its initial public offering on or
about April 7, 2011, and (b) purchasers of common units of
SandRidge Mississippian Trust II in or traceable to its initial
public offering on or about April 17, 2012. The claims are based
on allegations that SandRidge and certain of its current and
former officers and directors, among other defendants, including
the Trust are responsible for making false and misleading
statements, and omitting material information, concerning a
variety of subjects, including oil and gas reserves.

The plaintiffs seek class certification, an order rescinding the
Trust's initial public offering and an unspecified amount of
damages, plus interest, attorneys' fees and costs. As a result of
its reorganization in bankruptcy in 2016, SandRidge is a nominal
defendant only.

SandRidge Mississippian Trust I said in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that on August 30,
2017, the Court entered an order dismissing the plaintiffs'
claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933. As a result of the Court's order, the only claims
remaining in the litigation are the plaintiffs' claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder (the "Exchange Act
Claims").

In addition, because of the Court's order, the only remaining
defendants in the litigation are SandRidge Mississippian Trust I,
James D. Bennett, Matthew K. Grubb, Tom L. Ward, and SandRidge as
a nominal defendant only.

On September 11, 2017, the Court entered a subsequent order
regarding the remaining defendants' motions to dismiss the
Exchange Act Claims, finding that the plaintiffs may pursue their
Exchange Act Claims against the respective remaining defendants.

In its recent quarterly report, the Trust disclosed that in
November 2017, the plaintiffs' counsel informed counsel to the
Trust that, notwithstanding the dismissal of all claims against
SandRidge Mississippian Trust II, the remaining claims in the
litigation against the Trust are being asserted not only by
purchasers of common units of the Trust, but also by purchasers
of common units of SandRidge Mississippian Trust II.

Regardless of the outcome of the litigation, the Trust may incur
expenses in defending the litigation, and any such expenses may
increase the Trust's administrative expenses significantly. The
Trust will estimate and, if the Trustee deems it appropriate,
start reserving funds for potential losses that may arise out of
litigation to the extent that such losses are probable and can be
reasonably estimated. Significant judgment will be required in
making any such estimates and any final liabilities of the Trust
may ultimately be materially different than any estimates.

The Trust is currently unable to assess the probability of loss
or estimate a range of any potential loss the Trust may incur in
connection with the Securities Litigation, and has not
established any reserves relating to the Securities Litigation.
The Trust may withhold estimated amounts from future
distributions to cover future costs associated with the
litigation if determined necessary. The Trust has not yet fully
analyzed any rights it may have to indemnities that may be
applicable or any claims it may make in connection with the
Securities Litigation.


SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Still Faces Morning Song Bird Food Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company 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
against a consolidated class action suit entitled, In re Morning
Song Bird Food Litigation, Lead Case No. 3:12-cv-01592-JAH-AGS.

In connection with the sale of wild bird food products that were
the subject of a voluntary recall in 2008, the Company, along
with its Chief Executive Officer, have been named as defendants
in four actions filed on and after June 27, 2012, which have been
consolidated, and, on March 31, 2017, certified as a class action
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California as In re Morning Song Bird Food Litigation, Lead Case
No. 3:12-cv-01592-JAH-AGS.

The plaintiffs allege various statutory and common law claims
associated with the Company's sale of wild bird food products and
a plea agreement entered into in previously pending government
proceedings associated with such sales. The plaintiffs allege,
among other things, a class action on behalf of all persons and
entities in the United States who purchased certain bird food
products.

The plaintiffs assert: (i) hundreds of millions of dollars in
monetary damages (actual, compensatory, consequential, and
restitution); (ii) punitive and treble damages; (iii) injunctive
and declaratory relief; (iv) pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest; and (v) costs and attorneys' fees.

The Company and its Chief Executive Officer dispute the
plaintiffs' assertions and intend to vigorously defend the
consolidated action. No accruals have been recorded in the
Company's consolidated financial statements as the likelihood of
a loss is not probable at this time. There can be no assurance
that future developments with respect to this action, whether as
a result of an adverse outcome or as a result of significant
defense costs, will not have a material adverse effect on the
Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows.

The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company is a manufacturer and marketer of
branded consumer lawn and garden products. The company is based
in Marysville, Ohio.


SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Initial Settlement Reached in EZ Seed Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company 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
captioned as In re Scotts EZ Seed Litigation have agreed in
principle to a preliminary settlement of outstanding claims.

The Company has been named as a defendant in In re Scotts EZ Seed
Litigation, Case No. 12-cv-4727 (VB), a New York and California
class action lawsuit filed August 9, 2012 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York that asserts
claims under false advertising and other legal theories based on
a marketing statement on the Company's EZ Seed grass seed product
from 2009 to 2012.

The plaintiffs seek, on behalf of themselves and purported class
members, various forms of monetary and non-monetary relief,
including statutory damages that they contend could amount to
hundreds of millions of dollars.

The Company has defended the action vigorously, and disputes the
plaintiffs' claims and theories, including the recoverability of
statutory damages. In 2017, the Court eliminated certain claims,
narrowed the case in certain respects, and permitted the case to
continue proceeding as a class action. On August 7, 2017, the
Court requested briefs on the Company's request for interlocutory
review of issues relating to the recoverability of statutory
damages in a class action by the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit and, on August 31, 2017, approved that
request.

On January 8, 2018, however, the Second Circuit denied the
interlocutory appeal request. The parties engaged in mediation on
April 9, 2018 and agreed in principle to a preliminary settlement
of the outstanding claims on April 10, 2018.

The preliminary settlement would require the Company to pay
certain attorneys' and administrative fees and provide certain
payments to the class members. The preliminary settlement will
not be finalized until after the court approves the settlement
and a claims process determines the payments to be provided to
the class members.

During the three months ended March 31, 2018, the Company
recognized a charge of $10.2 million for a probable loss related
to this matter within the "Impairment, restructuring and other"
line in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations.

The resolution of the claims process may result in additional
losses in excess of the amount accrued, however, the Company does
not believe a reasonably possible loss in excess of the amount
accrued would be material to, nor have a material adverse effect
on, the Company's financial condition, results of operations or
cash flows.

The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company is a manufacturer and marketer of
branded consumer lawn and garden products. The company is based
in Marysville, Ohio.


SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Gentry Homes Suit Underway in Hawaii
-----------------------------------------------------------
Simpson Manufacturing Co., 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 the case, Gentry Homes, Ltd. v. Simpson Strong-
Tie Company, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-cv-00566, in federal
district court in Hawaii against Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc.
and Simpson Manufacturing, Inc. on November 20, 2017.

The Gentry case is a product of a previous state court class
action, Nishimura v. Gentry Homes, Ltd., et al. which is now
closed.  The Nishimura case concerned alleged corrosion of the
Company's galvanized strap-tie holdowns and mudsill anchor
products used in a residential project in Honolulu, Hawaii, Ewa
by Gentry.

In the Nishimura case, the plaintiff homeowners and the
developer, Gentry, arbitrated their dispute and agreed on a
settlement in the amount of $90 million, with $54 million going
to repair costs and $36 million going to attorney fees.

In the Gentry case, Gentry alleges breach of warranty and
negligent misrepresentation related to the Company's "hurricane
strap" and mudsill anchor products. Gentry is demanding general,
special, and consequential damages from the Company in an amount
to be proven at trial. Gentry also seeks pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief.

The Company admits no liability and will vigorously defend the
claims bought against it. At this time, the Company cannot
reasonably ascertain the likelihood that it will be found
responsible for substantial damages to Gentry.  Based on the
facts currently known, and subject to future events and
circumstances, the Company believes that all or part of the
claims may be covered by its insurance policies.

Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc., through its subsidiaries,
designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells building construction
products. The company is based in Pleasanton, California.


SPRINT CORP: Bid to Enforce "McGlon" Deal Denied
------------------------------------------------
Judge Julie A. Robinson of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas denied Sprint's Motion to Enforce Settlement
Agreement and Impose Sanctions in the case, MICHAEL McGLON, On
behalf of himself and others Similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
SPRINT CORPORATION, et al., (A Kansas Corporation), Defendants,
Case No. 16-2099-JAR (D. Kan.).

On Feb. 16, 2016, McGlon filed the collective action Complaint
against Sprint, alleging that the Defendants violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), by failing to pay him, and BISO
Inside Sales Representatives similarly situated to him, minimum
wages and overtime required by the FLSA.  McGlon was represented
by Class Counsel Brent Hankins and Brendan Donelon.  The Court
granted McGlon's motion for conditional certification on Dec. 6,
2016, and 152 opt-in Plaintiffs joined the lawsuit.

The parties participated in mediation on July 6, 2017.  A
Settlement Agreement was negotiated and executed by Sprint on
Aug. 30, 2017.  On Sept. 1, 2017, the parties filed a Joint
Motion for Settlement Approval, and the Court granted the motion,
thereby approving the Settlement Agreement, on Sept. 6, 2017.

The Settlement Agreement was not filed under seal.  In
performance of the Settlement Agreement, Sprint paid a total
settlement sum of $365,000, with payments of $120,450 and $7,954
to the Class Counsel for attorneys' fees and costs, respectively,
incurred in the prosecution of McGlon's collective action claims.

On Dec. 6, 2017, Tijuana Mingo filed a complaint asserting a
collective class action under Section 216(b) of the FLSA against
the same Defendants, Mingo v. Sprint Corporation, et al., Case
No. 17-2688-JAR, which was assigned to the Court.  This case was
brought by individuals who did not opt into the McGlon case, but
are asserting the same claims.

The complaint in Mingo describes the class sought for
certification as all persons who worked as a BISO Inside Sales
Representatives (or persons with similar job duties) for Sprint
within three years prior to the filing of the Complaint.

On Dec. 8, 2017, The Kansas City Star published an article
entitled "After Sprint settles lawsuit for overtime pay, more
employees sue."  The article reported inter alia, that after
previously settling an overtime pay dispute with 153 employees, a
new collective class action lawsuit had been filed against Sprint
on the same complaint.

At the hearing, the Court heard testimony from Sprint's in-house
counsel and the Class Counsel, Brendan Donelon and Brent Haskins.

Sprint contends that the Class Counsel breached the Settlement
Agreement by making statements to The Star regarding the McGlon
settlement, in violation of Section 22.1, causing damage to
Sprint.  That section prohibits the Class Counsel and Named
Plaintiff McGlon from issuing any statements to the media
regarding the "Settlement" or any of its terms.  Section 1.19 of
the Agreement defines the term "Settlement" as the Stipulation of
Settlement Agreement and Release and the terms outlined therein.

Applying the principles used to interpret contracts under Kansas
law, Judge Robinson finds that the Class Counsels' interpretation
is correct.  The plain, unambiguous language of Section 22.1 is
that the Class Counsel is prohibited from issuing statements
regarding the "Settlement" specifically, not "settlement" in
general.  However, the record shows that the Class Counsel
declined to discuss the McGlon Settlement Agreement when
questioned by Davis; Hankins' comments about what he had been
told by the class members in the Mingo litigation who did not
participate in the McGlon litigation is not a statement regarding
the McGlon "Settlement" or its terms.  Accordingly, based on the
clear and unambiguous language in the Agreement, she finds there
was no breach.

Even if the Class Counsel breached the Settlement Agreement,
however, the Judge finds no basis to justify an award of
sanctions on these facts.  The Settlement Agreement does not
contain a liquidated damages or disgorgement provision for
violation of Section 22.1. As the parties note, the court has
"inherent power" to issue sanctions when a party has acted in bad
faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons.  The
cases cited by Sprint, however, are distinguishable from the
facts of the case.

For these reasons, Judge Robinson denied Sprint's Motion to
Enforce Settlement Agreement and Impose Sanctions.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 18, 2018 Memorandum and
Order is available at https://is.gd/AmJOTg from Leagle.com.

Michael McGlon, Miguel A. Berrios, Jordan Henry Brueckner, Justin
Sparks, Marquis Antwan Atkison, Jarel McAdoo, Derek Thomas,
Jacquelyn Brooks, Arvel Collins, Adam Christopher Smith, Jaimie
Sonnier, Lenwood E. Smith, Jr, Kristina Lynn Brown, Vincent John
Niglio, Yvette Pucheu, Edward Brown, Stefanie Johnson, William
Saunders, Kenneth James Dunbar, Jr, Gregory D. Hood, Nathaniel
Gould, Jeannie Elizabeth Crull, Thomeshea Annel Waters, Jennifer
Moss, Tara Farrell, David Alan Jordan, Eulando Hayes, Andrea
Troutman Coleman, Ariel Alberto Banos, Brian Cahill, Sturgis
Allen Stokes, Johnathon White, Sidell Britton, Jessica D. Walker,
Carlton J. Henry, Jr, Nise Cathey, Evangeline Danielle Small,
Dexter Jones, Yamir Perez, Gabrielle Bennett, Sema Sebastien,
Shari Valley, Jason Nixon, Nathalie Cruz, Barry Cummings, Logan
Stewart, David C. Whisman, Shannon Pace, Eric Robert Pugh, Lucas
W. Burroughs, Horace C. Prince, Andre Cruz, Karen Denise
Robinson, Jerell Little, Andre Denson, Blake Hopkins, Ramon L.
Colon, Core Henry, Victor Rosario, Clifford L. Clayton, Courtney
N. Pankey, Veronnica Kelly, Wayne C Francis, Chedrick Armond
Wilson, Samuel Tillman, Elisa Burke Gomez, Ariadne Gore, LaToya
Walton, Zachary Roussel, Kyndra Donelson, Larissa Patterson, Jon
P. Franke, Dennise Ramirez Hall, Debra D. Barnes-Chatman, Jasmine
Ford, Amy Bey, Taiyanna Evette Brown, ShaVonne Bonner, Sueann
Suzette Escalera, Alex Giberson, Todd Percy, Matthew Lane, Marvin
Hayes, Deborah Kopatz, Na'Gel Brock, Kimberly Floyd, Yashama
Cirilo, Justin Lane, Cole Hancock, Joseph Burley, Tim Cooper,
Ebony Coleman, Joan A. Butler, Jessica Baker, James Vincent
Scheel, III, Josiah D. Boeggeman, Alexander Brehm, Shannon Alexis
B. Case, Amanda Crawford, Maxxwell A. Davis, Brandyn Flowers,
Targhle Grant, Jasmin Meadows, Raul Otero, Zachary R. Ritter,
Richard J. Sparks, Menea Harrison, Hamza Ali, Jonathan Boullion,
Jennifer Datiz, Hilda E. Del Valle, Eugene Devaney, Mark Lake,
Jr, Daniel McManus, Shanece Newman, Reynaldo Pina, Demarvis M
Towles, Jonathan Angilussa, Angela Forge, Kenneth Ortiz, Ronald E
Brown, III, Daniel Garcia Munoz Castillo, Jentel Manigat, Na'im
Mujahid, J'mar O'Bannon, Marinee Vidal-Hernandez, Justin Lewis,
Gregory Ritchey, Joshua Trask, Evette Ray, Amanda Diaz, Michael
Conroy, Francisco Gonzalez, Reginald Miller, Brandon Astin,
Michele Mitchell, Stefen Jones, Stephanie Cook, Yasmin Serrano,
Tracy George, Rebecca Woodward, Steven Betelho, Manuel Lopez,
Aerion Miles, Wayne Evans, David Ayala, Javon Walker, Alex Ocaso,
Christian McShuster, Star Lester, Jeremy McNaughton, Staci Cox,
Anthony Noreiga, Caleb Hinton, Ashley Keuning & Angela Caravella,
Plaintiffs, represented by Brendan J. Donelon, Donelon, PC &
Richard B. Hankins -- rhankins@mcguirewoods.com.

Sprint Corporation & Sprint/United Management Company,
Defendants, represented by Katherine R. Sinatra --
ksinatra@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP - KC/Grand.


STANISLAUS COUNTY, CA: Ct. Strikes All Class Claims in "Osegueda"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ARMANDO OSEGUEDA; ROBERT PALOMINO, DABID LOMELI,
JAIRO HERNANDEZ Plaintiffs, v. STANISLAUS COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY
CENTER, STANISLAUS COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, ADAM CHRISTIANSON,
Stanislaus County Sheriff, BILL DUNCAN, Captain of Adult
Detention, LIEUTENANT GREG CLIFTON, Unit 1 and Unit 2 Commander,
LIEUTENANT RONALD LLOYD, Commander of Bureau Administrative
Services, SERGEANT STEVEN VERVER, and JAMES SHELTON Defendants,
Case No. 1:16-cv-01218-LJO-BAM (E.D. Cal.), Judge Magistrate
Barbara A. McAuliffe of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California struck all class allegations set forth in
the Second Amended Complaint.

The parties submit a stipulation to strike all class action
allegations set forth in the Second Amended Complaint.

The Magistrate Judge holds that striking of the class action
allegations is proper under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
Rule 12(f) because no motion for class certification has been or
will be filed, and no substantive issues have been litigated or
determined.  The matter should proceed solely upon the claims of
the four individual Plaintiffs Osegueda, Palomino, Lomeli, and
Hernandez as outlined in the District Court's order of April 11,
2017.

Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the Magistrate Judge struck
all class allegations set forth in the Second Amended Complaint
from the operative complaint and the matter will proceed solely
upon the claims of the four individual Plaintiffs as set forth in
the Court's Order of April 11, 2017.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 17, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/A4JafJ from Leagle.com.

Armando Osegueda & Robert Palomino, Plaintiffs, represented by
Loren L. Lunsford -- loren@thelunsfordlawfirm.com -- The Lunsford
Law Firm & Amber Lunsford -- amber.lunsford@lunsfordlegal.com --
Amber Lunsford, Attorney At Law.

Stanislaus County Public Safety Center, Adam Christianson,
Stanislaus County Sheriff, Bill Duncan, Captain of Adult
Detention, Greg Clifton, Lieutenant, Unit 1 and Unit 2 Commander,
Ronald Lloyd, Lieutenant, Commander of Bureau Administrative
Services, Steven Verver, Sergeant, James Shelton & Stanislaus
County Sheriff's Office, Defendants, represented by Jill B.
Nathan -- thefirm@jmr-law.net -- Rivera & Associates & Jonathan
B. Paul, Rivera & Associates.


SUNPOWER CORP: California Class Action Dismissed
------------------------------------------------
SunPower 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 dismissed the complaint for
failure to state a claim, with leave to amend.

On August 16, 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company and certain of its officers and directors (the
"Defendants") in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of a class consisting
of those who acquired the Company's securities from February 17,
2016 through August 9, 2016 (the "Class Period"). On December 9,
2016, the court appointed a lead plaintiff.

Following the withdrawal of the original lead plaintiff, on
August 21, 2017, the court appointed an investor group as lead
plaintiff. An amended complaint was filed on October 17, 2017.
The complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act, and Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC")
Rule 10b-5.

The complaints were filed following the issuance of the Company's
August 9, 2016 earnings release and revised guidance and
generally allege that throughout the Class Period, the Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.

On April 18, 2018, the court dismissed the complaint for failure
to state a claim, with leave to amend.

SunPower Corporation is a leading global energy company that
delivers complete solar solutions to residential, commercial, and
power plant customers worldwide through an array of hardware,
software, and financing options and through utility-scale solar
power system construction and development capabilities, O&M
services, and "Smart Energy" solutions. The company is based in
San Francisco, California.


TD AMERITRADE: Order Routing-Related Suits Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
TD Ameritrade Holding 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 against lawsuits over Order Routing.

Five putative class action complaints were filed between August
and October 2014 regarding TD Ameritrade, Inc.'s routing of
client orders and one putative class action was filed in December
2014 regarding Scottrade, Inc.'s routing of client orders. The
cases against TD Ameritrade were filed in, or transferred to, the
U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska: Jay Zola et al.
v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:14CV288; Tyler
Verdieck v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., Case No. 8:14CV289; Bruce Lerner
v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., Case No. 8:14CV325; Michael Sarbacker v.
TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation, et al., Case No. 8:14CV341;
and Gerald Klein v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 8:14CV396.

The case against Scottrade, Inc. was transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri: Nicholas
Lewis v. Scottrade, Inc., Case No. 4:15CV01255. The complaints in
Zola, Klein and Sarbacker allege that the defendants failed to
provide clients with best execution and routed orders to the
market venue that paid the most for its order flow.

The complaints in Verdieck, Lerner and Lewis allege that the
defendant routed its clients' non-marketable limit orders to the
venue paying the highest rates of maker rebates, and that clients
did not receive best execution on these kinds of orders. The
complaints variously include claims of breach of contract, breach
of fiduciary duty, breach of the duty of best execution, fraud,
negligent misrepresentation, violations of Section 10(b) and 20
of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, violation of Nebraska's
Consumer Protection Act, violation of Nebraska's Uniform
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, violation of the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act, aiding and abetting, unjust
enrichment and declaratory judgment.

The complaints seek various kinds of relief including damages,
restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, equitable relief
and other relief. The Company, including Scottrade, Inc., moved
to dismiss the putative class action complaints. On March 23,
2016, the U.S. District Court in Nebraska entered an order
dismissing all of the state law claims in the five actions
against TD Ameritrade, denying the motion to dismiss the federal
securities claims in the Klein case, and permitting the
plaintiffs in the other four actions to amend their complaints to
assert a federal securities claim. On August 29, 2016, the U.S.
District Court in Missouri entered an order dismissing without
prejudice all of the state law claims against Scottrade, Inc.
None of the plaintiffs in the actions filed an amended complaint.
The plaintiffs in the Zola, Sarbacker, Verdieck and Lewis cases
filed appeals.

The plaintiff in the Lerner case did not file an appeal and that
case is considered closed. On January 9, 2018, the Court of
Appeals, 8th Circuit, affirmed the District Court's dismissal of
the Lewis case. The Court of Appeals has not yet ruled on any of
the cases against TD Ameritrade. The Klein case is proceeding.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against these lawsuits
and is unable to predict the outcome or the timing of the
ultimate resolution of these lawsuits, or the potential losses,
if any, that may result.

TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation provides securities brokerage
and related technology-based financial services to retail
investors, traders, and independent registered investment
advisors (RIAs) in the United States. The company is based in
Omaha, Nebraska.


TD AMERITRADE: Continues to Defend Aequitas Securities Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TD Ameritrade Holding 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 Aequitas Securities Litigation.

An amended putative class action complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Oregon in Lawrence Ciuffitelli
et al. v. Deloitte & Touche LLP, EisnerAmper LLP, Sidley Austin
LLP, Tonkon Torp LLP, TD Ameritrade, Inc., and Integrity Bank &
Trust, Case No. 3:16CV580, on May 19, 2016. A second amended
putative class action complaint was filed on September 8, 2017,
in which Duff & Phelps was added as a defendant.

The putative class includes all persons who purchased securities
of Aequitas Commercial Finance, LLC and its affiliates on or
after June 9, 2010. Other groups of plaintiffs have filed five
non-class action lawsuits in Oregon Circuit Court, Multnomah
County, against these and other defendants: Walter Wurster, et
al. v. Deloitte & Touche et al., Case No. 16CV25920 (filed Aug.
11, 2016), Kenneth Pommier, et al. v. Deloitte & Touche et al.,
Case No. 16CV36439 (filed Nov. 3, 2016), Charles Ramsdell, et al.
v. Deloitte & Touche et al., Case No. 16CV40659 (filed Dec. 2,
2016), Charles Layton, et al. v. Deloitte & Touche et al., Case
No. 17CV42915 (filed October 2, 2017) and John Cavanagh, et al.
v. Deloitte & Touche et al., Case No. 18CV09052 (filed March 7,
2018).

FINRA arbitrations have also been filed against TD Ameritrade,
Inc. The claims in these actions include allegations that the
sales of Aequitas securities were unlawful, the defendants
participated and materially aided in such sales in violation of
the Oregon securities laws, and material misstatements and
omissions were made. While the factual allegations differ in
various respects among the cases, plaintiffs' allegations include
assertions that: TD Ameritrade customers purchased more than $140
million of Aequitas securities; TD Ameritrade served as custodian
for Aequitas securities; recommended and referred investors to
financial advisors as part of its advisor referral program for
the purpose of purchasing Aequitas securities; participated in
marketing the securities; recommended the securities; provided
assurances to investors about the safety of the securities; and
developed a market for the securities.

In the Ciuffitelli putative class action, plaintiffs allege that
more than 1,500 investors were owed more than $600 million on the
Aequitas securities they purchased. In the five non-class action
lawsuits, approximately 200 named plaintiffs collectively allege
a total of approximately $125 million in losses plus other
damages. In the Wurster and Pommier cases, the Court, on TD
Ameritrade's motion, dismissed the claims by those plaintiffs who
were TD Ameritrade customers, in favor of arbitration. Discovery
is ongoing. The Ramsdell and Layton cases have been stayed.

On February 23, 2018, the Court in the Wurster and Pommier cases
denied TD Ameritrade's motion to dismiss the claims by the
plaintiffs who were not TD Ameritrade customers.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against this litigation.
The Company is unable to predict the outcome or the timing of the
ultimate resolution of this litigation, or the potential losses,
if any, that may result.

TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation provides securities brokerage
and related technology-based financial services to retail
investors, traders, and independent registered investment
advisors (RIAs) in the United States. The company is based in
Omaha, Nebraska.


TRINITY HEATING: Ct. Denies Bids to Dismiss "Boger" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAN BOGER, On Behalf of Himself and Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. TRINITY HEATING & AIR, INC., d/b/a
TRINITY SOLAR, and MEDIA MIX 365, Defendants, Civil Action No.
TDC-17-1729 (D. Md.), Judge Theodore G. Chuang of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland denied the motions to
dismiss filed by Trinity and Media Mix.

Boger has brought the putative class action against the
Defendants, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA"), and the Maryland Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("MTCPA").  Boger alleges that Trinity and Media
Mix violated these laws by using an automatic telephone dialing
system ("ATDS") to call his cellular telephone without his
consent.

Trinity, a company that installs solar power systems, uses
telemarketing to reach new customers.  To that end, it hired
Media Mix to conduct a telemarketing campaign on its behalf.  As
part of this campaign, Media Mix used an ATDS, which places the
calls automatically, then transfers them to live operators only
when the calls are answered.  An ATDS thus allows telemarketers
to make thousands of calls in a cost-effective manner.

Media Mix called Plaintiff Boger on his cellular telephone at
least three times between January 2017 and May 2017.  All of
these calls were made without Boger's consent.  Boger had placed
that telephone number on the National Do Not Call Registry more
than five years earlier and did not otherwise consent to receive
calls from the Defendants.

Boger answered the calls on Jan. 31, 2017 and May 11, 2017.
Boger alleges that he was aware that both of these calls were
made with an ATDS because upon answering them, he heard a lengthy
pause and then a click before a live person came on the line and
told him that the call was made on behalf of the Solar Research
Group, which Boger alleges is a pseudonym for Trinity.  During
the May 11 call, the initial speaker asked Boger several
questions, then connected Boger to a Trinity employee, who
attempted to enroll him as a new Trinity customer.

Boger then filed the putative class action on behalf of the
thousands of persons who, he alleges, have received similar ATDS-
initiated calls from Defendants over the past four years.

Pending before the Court are two Motions to Dismiss, one filed by
Trinity and the other by Media Mix.  In their separate Motions,
they seek dismissal of the MTCPA claim on the grounds that it is
not an independent cause of action distinct from the TCPA claim,
such that Boger may not receive statutory damages under both the
TCPA and MTCPA for the same conduct.  They contend that the MTCPA
is merely an enabling statute that empowers the Plaintiffs to
bring a federal TCPA claim in a Maryland court.  The Defendants
thus argue that asserting both an MTCPA claim and a TCPA claim
based on the same conduct is inappropriate and duplicative.

Judge Chuang finds that based on the history of the TCPA and the
MTCPA, both the Maryland Court of Special Appeals and the
Maryland Court of Appeals have stated in dicta that it is likely
that the General Assembly enacted the MTCPA merely to enable a
private right of action under the TCPA, not to create new causes
of action.  The Defendants therefore argue that the MTCPA claim
must be dismissed because it is not a separate cause of action.

However, the Court of Appeals of Maryland has never held that a
plaintiff may not assert both a TCPA and an MTCPA claim arising
from the same factual basis.  Indeed, in a separate case decided
a year after Ehrlich, the Court of Special Appeals referred to
the MTCPA as a "similar, but distinct" statute from the TCPA.
Significantly, a comparison of the statutes reveals notable
differences that support the view that an MTCPA claim may be
asserted separately.  In particular, successful plaintiffs may
recover attorney's fees under the MTCPA, but such fees are not
available under the TCPA.  Finally, the TCPA and the MTCPA have
different statutes of limitations: a TCPA claim must be brought
within four years, while an MTCPA claim must be filed within
three years.

These differences, according to the Judge, undermine the claim
that the MTCPA is not a freestanding cause of action and is
nothing more than an enabling statute for bringing TCPA claims in
state court.  Here, where Boger correctly argues that dismissal
of the MTCPA claim would eliminate the only statutory basis for
the recovery of attorney's fees, the Court cannot conclude that
dismissal of the MTCPA claim would merely eliminate duplicative
claims.  The motion to dismiss will therefore be denied.

In so ruling, Judge Chuang does not decide whether Boger may
recover damages under both the TCPA and MTCPA for the same
alleged injury.  Although the Defendants sought to conflate this
question with the issue whether the MTCPA is a distinct cause of
action, these are separate questions.  Generally, a plaintiff may
not receive a double recovery under different legal theories for
the same injury.  At least one judge in the District has
expressed doubts that plaintiffs may recover statutory damages
under both the TCPA and MTCPA for the same violations.

The Judge needs not resolve the issue at this early stage of the
case.  As discussed, the MTCPA claim will not be dismissed, at a
minimum, to allow Boger to preserve a possible claim for
attorney's fees.  The elements of the TCPA and MTCPA claims are
effectively the same, leaving the scope of discovery unaffected
by the MTCPA claim's continued presence in this litigation.  The
question of entitlement to damages under both statutes can be
addressed through briefing at a later stage of the case when the
issue of the amount of damages must be decided.

For these reasons, Judge Chuang denied Trinity's Motion to
Dismiss, and Media Mix's Motion to Dismiss.  A separate Order
will issue.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 18, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://is.gd/4wunKi from Leagle.com.

Dan Boger, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Edward A. Broderick -- ted@broderick-
law.com -- Broderick and Paronich PC, pro hac vice & Stephen
Howard Ring -- shr@ringlaw.us -- Stephen H Ring PC.

Trinity Heating & Air, Inc., doing business as Trinity Solar,
Defendant, represented by Genevieve C. Bradley --
gbradley@rothjackson.com -- Roth Doner Jackson, PLC & Mitchell N.
Roth -- mroth@rothjackson.com -- Roth Jackson, pro hac vice.

Media Mix 365, LLC, Defendant, pro se.


TURNBULL & ASSER: Faces "Jorge" Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Turnbull & Asser
(USA), LLC. The case is styled as Carlos Jorge, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Turnbull
& Asser (USA), LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05654 (S.D. N.Y.,
June 21, 2018).

Turnbull & Asser (USA), LLC is a furniture store in Greenwich,
Connecticut.[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


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Court Dismissed "Gonzales" With Leave to Amend
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL GONZALES, Plaintiff, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES,
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-02264-JSC (N.D. Cal.),
Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California granted the
Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint
with leave to amend.

Gonzales brings the action on his own behalf and as a putative
class action for Lyft drivers whose electronic communications and
whereabouts were allegedly intercepted, accessed, monitored,
and/or transmitted by the Defendants.

Lyft App provides technology that operates similar to a taxi
company's dispatch system.  A rider requests a ride using this
application on his or her phone.  The locations of nearby Lyft
drivers are displayed to the rider as dots on a map, along with
the estimated price and wait time for arrival once the ride
request is submitted.  When a driver is ready to accept work, the
driver swipes a switch on the Lyft App, directing the Lyft App to
continuously transmit the driver's geolocation data and his or
her willingness to accept work to servers maintained by Lyft.
Lyft, acting as the driver's agent, forwards a driver's
geolocation and willingness to drive to those requesting a ride.

Uber offers technology that competes with the Lyft App and
operates in the same geographic regions as Lyft.  Starting in
2014 or earlier and continuing into 2016, Uber secretly used
'Hell spyware' to access servers and smartphones owned and
operated by the Plaintiff, the Class Members, and Lyft.  The
spyware extracted information from Lyft by posing as Lyft
customers in search of rides.  Uber used the fraudulently
received geolocation data and driver identifiers to create grid-
like detection nets over cities including San Francisco, Los
Angeles, and New York.

Uber used the data collected in conjunction with other databases
to learn personal details about Lyft drivers including, but not
limited to, the drivers' full names, their home addresses, when
and where they typically work each day and for how many hours,
and where they take breaks.  It was able to use this data to
determine the identities of the drivers' rider customers.  Uber
combined the data harvested by Hell with Uber's internal records,
including historical location data, to identify Lyft drivers who
also worked for Uber.

Uber used the information gleaned from Hell to direct more
frequent and more profitable trips to Uber drivers who also used
the Lyft App.  By inundating these drivers with Uber rides, Uber
was able to discourage drivers from accepting work on the Lyft
platform, reducing the effective supply of available Lyft
drivers.  With the supply of Lyft drivers reduced, Lyft customers
faced longer wait times.  As a result, Lyft riders would cancel
the ride requested with Lyft and request a new ride from Uber,
and Lyft drivers experienced decreased earnings.  Over time, this
would reduce the effectiveness of the Lyft App, thus harming
drivers such as the Plaintiff and the absent Class Members.

The Plaintiff filed an initial complaint seeking injunctive
relief and damages based on four claims: (1) Federal Wiretap Act
as amended by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, (2) the
California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"), (3) the California
Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), and (4) common law invasion of
privacy.  The Defendants moved to dismiss all four claims.  The
Court granted the Defendants' motion with leave to amend.

The Plaintiff then filed a First Amended Complaint seeking the
same relief under the same causes of action with two additional
claims: (1) the Federal Stored Communication Act and (2) the
California Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.  Thereafter, the
Defendants filed the now pending motion to dismiss.

The Plaintiff alleges that when he activates the Lyft App he
sends Lyft his unique Lyft driver identification, his precise
geolocation data, his affirmation that he is willing to provide
rides to drivers, and an estimated price for the ride.  With the
possible exception of the estimated price, Judge Corley finds
that this information does not qualify as the "contents" of a
communication within the meaning of the Wiretap Act.  In other
words, simply opening a webpage or mobile application is not a
communication with content.  Accordingly, she finds that the
Plaintiff has not alleged facts sufficient to satisfy the
"contents" prong of the Wiretap Act.

The Plaintiff also does not allege facts that plausibly suggest
that Uber "intercepted" any of his communications.  There were no
messages between existing Lyft drivers and Lyft riders that were
copied contemporaneously by Uber; instead, as alleged, the
acquired messages traveled directly and only between Lyft and
Uber acting as a Lyft rider.  Accordingly, the Judge finds that
the Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged an "interception" under
the Wiretap Act.

In light of the Plaintiff's failure to plausibly plead that Uber
intercepted the content of a communication from the Plaintiff,
the Judge declines to consider Uber's other arguments.  She
dismissed with leave to amend the federal Wiretap Act, but only
to the extent Plaintiff can allege consistent with Rule 11 that
Uber intercepted the content of a communication from the
Plaintiff.

As the Plaintiff has not alleged facts that plausibly suggest
that the communications Uber allegedly accessed without
authorization are "backups," the Stored Communications Act claim
must be dismissed.  The Judge holds that the dismissal will be
with leave to amend to allege facts that show that Uber accessed
communications in "electronic storage."

As with the Plaintiff's CIPA claim, the Judge explains that CIPA
is California's anti-wiretapping and anti-eavesdropping statute
that prohibits unauthorized interceptions of communications in
order to protect the right of privacy.  She finds that the
Plaintiff has not alleged that Uber "eavesdropped" on
communications between Lyft drivers and legitimate Lyft riders or
between Lyft drivers and Lyft. Accordingly, his Section 632 CIPA
claim fails.  Because the Plaintiff consented to the tracking of
his vehicle through his cellphone when he signed up to be a Lyft
driver, his Section 637.7 claim fails and will be dismissed
without leave to amend.

The Judge dismissed with leave to amend the Plaintiff' claim
under the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud
Act is dismissed with leave to amend to the extent Plaintiff can
allege facts that plausibly suggest Uber violated a particular
subsection of the Act.  Neither Uber nor the Court should have to
guess how the Plaintiff contends these subsections were violated.
The Plaintiff must allege that Uber accessed his computer,
computer system, etc.  He has not done so.

The Judge finds that the Plaintiff's reference to his allegation
that Uber obtained the names of Lyft's customers is puzzling as
he does not explain how that translates into a serious invasion
of his right to privacy.  Accordingly, she grants the Defendants'
motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's constitutional invasion of
privacy claim with leave to amend.

Finally, the Judge finds that the Plaintiff has alleged standing
to bring a UCL claim.  She is unpersuaded that at this stage of
the litigation the Plaintiff cannot pursue equitable relief.

For the reasons she described, Judge Corley granted Uber's motion
to dismiss as to all claims except the UCL claim.  She granted
the Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint as to all claims
except the CIPA section 637.7 claim as amendment as to that claim
would be futile.  She did not give the Plaintiff leave to add any
new claims; leave is only to correct, if possible, efficiencies
in the allegations of the claims already pled.  The second
amended complaint will be by May 18, 2018.

The Judge granted the Uber's request for judicial notice of
Lyft's terms of service given the document is referenced in the
FAC and its accuracy is not reasonably questioned.  She denied
the Plaintiff's request for judicial notice given the Jacobs
letter from the Waymo litigation is not discussed in the FAC, nor
relevant to the matter.  The Order disposes of Docket No. 38.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 18, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/2oziqx from Leagle.com.

Michael Gonzales, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Caleb Marker --
caleb.marker@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed LLP, Ling Yue Kuang -
- lkuang@audetlaw.com -- Audet & Partners, LLP, Mark Etheredge
Burton, Jr. -- mburton@audetlaw.com -- Audet and Partners, LLP &
Michael Andrew McShane -- mmcshane@audetlaw.com -- Audet &
Partners LLP.

Uber Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant,
represented by Patrick Leo Oot, Jr. -- oot@shb.com -- Shook,
Hardy and Bacon, LLP, pro hac vice, Elizabeth Anne Lee --
elee@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy Bacon L.L.P., John K. Sherk, III --
jsherk@shb.com -- Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP & Michael Kevin
Underhill -- kunderhill@shb.com -- Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP.

Uber USA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company & Raiser-CA,
a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants, represented by
Patrick Leo Oot, Jr., Shook, Hardy and Bacon, LLP, pro hac vice,
John K. Sherk, III, Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP & Michael Kevin
Underhill, Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP.


UNION BANKSHARES: "Rowe" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------
Union Bankshares Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2018, that Shannon Rowe has filed a notice
of voluntary dismissal, terminating her lawsuit without
prejudice.

On September 19, 2017, Shannon Rowe, a purported stockholder of
Xenith, filed a putative class action lawsuit (the "Rowe
Lawsuit"), in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, against Xenith and its directors. The
Company was not named as a defendant in the Rowe Lawsuit. The
plaintiff in the action alleged that the Company's registration
statement on Form S-4 filed with the SEC, as amended, relating to
the merger omitted certain material information in violation of
Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder, and further that the individual defendants were
liable for those omissions under Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act. The relief sought in the lawsuit included preliminary and
permanent injunctions to prevent the completion of the merger,
rescission or rescissory damages if the merger was completed,
costs and attorneys' fees. On February 20, 2018, Ms. Rowe filed a
notice of voluntary dismissal, terminating the Rowe Lawsuit
without prejudice.

                          *     *     *

Union Bankshares said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, that the putative class action
lawsuit filed by Paul Parshall has been voluntarily dismissed
without prejudice.

On September 7, 2017, Paul Parshall, a purported shareholder of
Xenith, filed a putative class action lawsuit (the "Parshall
Lawsuit") in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia against Xenith, its current directors, and
the Company on behalf of all public shareholders of Xenith. The
plaintiff in the action alleged that the Company's registration
statement on Form S-4 filed with the SEC, as amended, relating to
the Pending Merger omitted certain material information in
violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder, and further that the individual
defendants were liable for those omissions under Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act.

The relief sought in the lawsuit included preliminary and
permanent injunction to prevent the completion of the Pending
Merger, rescission or rescissory damages if the Pending Merger
were completed, costs and attorneys' fees. On November 6, 2017,
Mr. Parshall filed a notice of voluntary dismissal, terminating
the Parshall Lawsuit without prejudice.

Headquartered in Richmond, Virginia, Union Bankshares Corporation
is the holding company for Union Bank & Trust, which has 150
branches, 39 of which are operated as Xenith Bank, a division of
Union Bank & Trust of Richmond, Virginia, and approximately 216
ATMs located throughout Virginia and in portions of Maryland and
North Carolina. Union Bank & Trust also operates Shore Premier
Finance, a specialty marine lender.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Court Dismissed "Gonzales" With Leave to Amend
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL GONZALES, Plaintiff, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES,
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-02264-JSC (N.D. Cal.),
Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California granted the
Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint
with leave to amend.

Gonzales brings the action on his own behalf and as a putative
class action for Lyft drivers whose electronic communications and
whereabouts were allegedly intercepted, accessed, monitored,
and/or transmitted by the Defendants.

Lyft App provides technology that operates similar to a taxi
company's dispatch system.  A rider requests a ride using this
application on his or her phone.  The locations of nearby Lyft
drivers are displayed to the rider as dots on a map, along with
the estimated price and wait time for arrival once the ride
request is submitted.  When a driver is ready to accept work, the
driver swipes a switch on the Lyft App, directing the Lyft App to
continuously transmit the driver's geolocation data and his or
her willingness to accept work to servers maintained by Lyft.
Lyft, acting as the driver's agent, forwards a driver's
geolocation and willingness to drive to those requesting a ride.

Uber offers technology that competes with the Lyft App and
operates in the same geographic regions as Lyft.  Starting in
2014 or earlier and continuing into 2016, Uber secretly used
'Hell spyware' to access servers and smartphones owned and
operated by the Plaintiff, the Class Members, and Lyft.  The
spyware extracted information from Lyft by posing as Lyft
customers in search of rides.  Uber used the fraudulently
received geolocation data and driver identifiers to create grid-
like detection nets over cities including San Francisco, Los
Angeles, and New York.

Uber used the data collected in conjunction with other databases
to learn personal details about Lyft drivers including, but not
limited to, the drivers' full names, their home addresses, when
and where they typically work each day and for how many hours,
and where they take breaks.  It was able to use this data to
determine the identities of the drivers' rider customers.  Uber
combined the data harvested by Hell with Uber's internal records,
including historical location data, to identify Lyft drivers who
also worked for Uber.

Uber used the information gleaned from Hell to direct more
frequent and more profitable trips to Uber drivers who also used
the Lyft App.  By inundating these drivers with Uber rides, Uber
was able to discourage drivers from accepting work on the Lyft
platform, reducing the effective supply of available Lyft
drivers.  With the supply of Lyft drivers reduced, Lyft customers
faced longer wait times.  As a result, Lyft riders would cancel
the ride requested with Lyft and request a new ride from Uber,
and Lyft drivers experienced decreased earnings.  Over time, this
would reduce the effectiveness of the Lyft App, thus harming
drivers such as the Plaintiff and the absent Class Members.

The Plaintiff filed an initial complaint seeking injunctive
relief and damages based on four claims: (1) Federal Wiretap Act
as amended by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, (2) the
California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"), (3) the California
Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), and (4) common law invasion of
privacy.  The Defendants moved to dismiss all four claims.  The
Court granted the Defendants' motion with leave to amend.

The Plaintiff then filed a First Amended Complaint seeking the
same relief under the same causes of action with two additional
claims: (1) the Federal Stored Communication Act and (2) the
California Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.  Thereafter, the
Defendants filed the now pending motion to dismiss.

The Plaintiff alleges that when he activates the Lyft App he
sends Lyft his unique Lyft driver identification, his precise
geolocation data, his affirmation that he is willing to provide
rides to drivers, and an estimated price for the ride.  With the
possible exception of the estimated price, Judge Corley finds
that this information does not qualify as the "contents" of a
communication within the meaning of the Wiretap Act.  In other
words, simply opening a webpage or mobile application is not a
communication with content.  Accordingly, she finds that the
Plaintiff has not alleged facts sufficient to satisfy the
"contents" prong of the Wiretap Act.

The Plaintiff also does not allege facts that plausibly suggest
that Uber "intercepted" any of his communications.  There were no
messages between existing Lyft drivers and Lyft riders that were
copied contemporaneously by Uber; instead, as alleged, the
acquired messages traveled directly and only between Lyft and
Uber acting as a Lyft rider.  Accordingly, the Judge finds that
the Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged an "interception" under
the Wiretap Act.

In light of the Plaintiff's failure to plausibly plead that Uber
intercepted the content of a communication from the Plaintiff,
the Judge declines to consider Uber's other arguments.  She
dismissed with leave to amend the federal Wiretap Act, but only
to the extent Plaintiff can allege consistent with Rule 11 that
Uber intercepted the content of a communication from the
Plaintiff.

As the Plaintiff has not alleged facts that plausibly suggest
that the communications Uber allegedly accessed without
authorization are "backups," the Stored Communications Act claim
must be dismissed.  The Judge holds that the dismissal will be
with leave to amend to allege facts that show that Uber accessed
communications in "electronic storage."

As with the Plaintiff's CIPA claim, the Judge explains that CIPA
is California's anti-wiretapping and anti-eavesdropping statute
that prohibits unauthorized interceptions of communications in
order to protect the right of privacy.  She finds that the
Plaintiff has not alleged that Uber "eavesdropped" on
communications between Lyft drivers and legitimate Lyft riders or
between Lyft drivers and Lyft. Accordingly, his Section 632 CIPA
claim fails.  Because the Plaintiff consented to the tracking of
his vehicle through his cellphone when he signed up to be a Lyft
driver, his Section 637.7 claim fails and will be dismissed
without leave to amend.

The Judge dismissed with leave to amend the Plaintiff' claim
under the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud
Act is dismissed with leave to amend to the extent Plaintiff can
allege facts that plausibly suggest Uber violated a particular
subsection of the Act.  Neither Uber nor the Court should have to
guess how the Plaintiff contends these subsections were violated.
The Plaintiff must allege that Uber accessed his computer,
computer system, etc.  He has not done so.

The Judge finds that the Plaintiff's reference to his allegation
that Uber obtained the names of Lyft's customers is puzzling as
he does not explain how that translates into a serious invasion
of his right to privacy.  Accordingly, she grants the Defendants'
motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's constitutional invasion of
privacy claim with leave to amend.

Finally, the Judge finds that the Plaintiff has alleged standing
to bring a UCL claim.  She is unpersuaded that at this stage of
the litigation the Plaintiff cannot pursue equitable relief.

For the reasons she described, Judge Corley granted Uber's motion
to dismiss as to all claims except the UCL claim.  She granted
the Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint as to all claims
except the CIPA section 637.7 claim as amendment as to that claim
would be futile.  She did not give the Plaintiff leave to add any
new claims; leave is only to correct, if possible, efficiencies
in the allegations of the claims already pled.  The second
amended complaint will be by May 18, 2018.

The Judge granted the Uber's request for judicial notice of
Lyft's terms of service given the document is referenced in the
FAC and its accuracy is not reasonably questioned.  She denied
the Plaintiff's request for judicial notice given the Jacobs
letter from the Waymo litigation is not discussed in the FAC, nor
relevant to the matter.  The Order disposes of Docket No. 38.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 18, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/2oziqx from Leagle.com.

Michael Gonzales, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Caleb Marker --
caleb.marker@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed LLP, Ling Yue Kuang -
- lkuang@audetlaw.com -- Audet & Partners, LLP, Mark Etheredge
Burton, Jr. -- mburton@audetlaw.com -- Audet and Partners, LLP &
Michael Andrew McShane --  mmcshane@audetlaw.com -- Audet &
Partners LLP.

Uber Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant,
represented by Patrick Leo Oot, Jr. -- oot@shb.com -- Shook,
Hardy and Bacon, LLP, pro hac vice, Elizabeth Anne Lee --
elee@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy Bacon L.L.P., John K. Sherk, III --
jsherk@shb.com -- Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP & Michael Kevin
Underhill -- kunderhill@shb.com -- Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP.

Uber USA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company & Raiser-CA,
a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants, represented by
Patrick Leo Oot, Jr., Shook, Hardy and Bacon, LLP, pro hac vice,
John K. Sherk, III, Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP & Michael Kevin
Underhill, Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP.


UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Bid to Drop Teamsters' Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Universal Health Services, 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 has filed
a motion to dismiss the case, Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund,
et al. v. Universal Health Services, Inc. et al.

In December 2016, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit
was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California against UHS, and certain UHS officers alleging
violations of the federal securities laws.

Plaintiff alleges that defendants violated federal securities
laws relating to the disclosures made in public filings
associated with practices at our behavioral health facilities.
The case was originally filed as Heed v. Universal Health
Services, Inc. et al. (Case No. 2:16-CV-09499-PSG-JC). The court
subsequently appointed Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund and
Teamsters Local 456 Annuity Fund to serve as lead plaintiffs.

The case has been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the style of the case has
been changed to Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund, et al. v.
Universal Health Services, Inc. et al. (Case No. 2:17-CV-02817-
LS). In September, 2017, Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund filed
an amended complaint. In December 2017, the company filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

Universal Health said "We deny liability and intend to defend
ourselves vigorously. At this time, we are uncertain as to
potential liability or financial exposure, if any, which may be
associated with this matter."

Universal Health Services, Inc., through its subsidiaries, owns
and operates acute care hospitals, outpatient facilities, and
behavioral health care facilities. The company operates through
Acute Care Hospital Services, Behavioral Health Care Services,
and Other segments. The company is based in King of Prussia,
Pennsylvania.


USANA HEALTH: Bid to Drop "Rumbaugh" Suit Shelved
-------------------------------------------------
Usana Health Sciences, 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 are awaiting the
court's decision on the defendants' motion to dismiss in
"Rumbaugh" suit.

On February 13, 2017, a purported shareholder class action
lawsuit (Rumbaugh v. USANA Health Sciences Inc., et al., Case No.
2:17-cv-00106) was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Utah by April Rumbaugh, a purported shareholder
of USANA, alleging that the Company failed to disclose that (i)
the Company's BabyCare subsidiary had engaged in improper
reimbursement practices in China, (ii) these practices
constituted violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act or
FCPA, (iii) as such, the Company's China revenues were in part
the product of unlawful conduct and unlikely to be sustainable,
and (iv) the foregoing conduct, when it became known, was likely
to subject the Company to significant regulatory scrutiny.

On behalf of herself and a putative class of purchasers of USANA
stock between March 14, 2014 and February 7, 2017, the plaintiff
asserted claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act")
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The plaintiff sought, among other things, an award of damages,
interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees, and other
costs. The lawsuit named as defendants the Company; is former Co-
Chief Executive Officer, David A. Wentz; and our Chief Leadership
Development Officer, Paul A. Jones. On June 2, 2017, the court
appointed Chi Wah On (another purported shareholder of USANA) as
lead plaintiff.

On August 4, 2017, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint seeking similar relief. This new complaint asserted
additional allegations and added the Company's Chief Executive
Officer, Kevin G. Guest, and Chief Financial Officer, G. Douglas
Hekking, as defendants. On September 18, 2017, the Company filed
a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and briefing was
completed on November 8, 2017. The motion to dismiss was argued
on April 25, 2018 and a decision is pending.

Usana Health Sciences said "The Company believes that the action
is without merit, and intends to vigorously defend against all
claims asserted."

                           *     *     *

According to a Minute Order, after arguments were heard and
discussion held, the Court takes under advisement the Motion to
Dismiss.

Judge Dee Benson presides over the case.

USANA Health Sciences, Inc. develops and manufactures high-
quality, science-based nutritional and personal care/skincare
products that are distributed internationally through a network
marketing system, which is a form of direct selling. The company
is based in Salt Lake City, Utah.


VONAGE HOLDINGS: Merkin & Smith, et al. Suit Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Vonage Holdings Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that a fifth joint status report has been filed
with the District Court in the case Merkin & Smith, et al.

On September 27, 2013, Arthur Merkin and James Smith filed a
putative class action lawsuit against Vonage America, Inc. in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles,
alleging that Vonage violated California's Unfair Competition Law
by charging its customers fictitious 911 taxes and fees.

On October 30, 2013, Vonage filed a notice removing the case to
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California. On November 26, 2013, Vonage filed its Answer to the
Complaint. On December 4, 2013, Vonage filed a Motion to Compel
Arbitration, which the Court denied on February 4, 2014. On March
5, 2014, Vonage appealed that decision to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

On March 26, 2014, the district court proceedings were stayed
pending the appeal. On February 29, 2016, the Ninth Circuit
reversed the district court's ruling and remanded with
instructions to grant the motion to compel arbitration. On March
22, 2016, Merkin and Smith filed a petition for rehearing. On May
4, 2016, the Ninth Circuit withdrew its February 29, 2016
decision and issued a new order reversing the district court's
order and remanded with instructions to compel arbitration. The
Ninth Circuit also declared as moot the petition for rehearing.

On June 27, 2016, the lower court stayed the case pending
arbitration. A joint status report was filed with the District
Court on December 23, 2016. A second joint status report was
filed with the District Court on March 23, 2017.

Vonage Holdings said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, that a third joint status report
was filed with the District Court on June 27, 2017. A fourth
joint status report was filed with the District Court on
September 26, 2017.

A fifth joint status report was filed with the District Court on
December 26, 2017, the Company said in its recent quarterly
report.

Vonage Holdings Corp. provides communications services connecting
people through cloud-connected devices worldwide. It offers
various business services, including basic dial tone, call queue,
conferencing, call groups, mobile functionality, CRM integration,
and detailed analytics, as well as Vonage Business Cloud and
Vonage Enterprise services. The company is based in Holmdel, New
Jersey.


WESTERN DIGITAL: Continues to Defend Calif. Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Western Digital Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 30, 2018, that the Company continues to defend
a consolidated securities class action filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.

Beginning in March 2015, SanDisk and two of its officers, Sanjay
Mehrotra and Judy Bruner, were named in three putative class
action lawsuits filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California. Two complaints are brought on
behalf of a purported class of purchasers of SanDisk's securities
between October 2014 and March 2015, and one is brought on behalf
of a purported class of purchasers of SanDisk's securities
between April 2014 and April 2015.

The complaints generally allege violations of federal securities
laws arising out of alleged misstatements or omissions by the
defendants during the alleged class periods. The complaints seek,
among other things, damages and fees and costs. In July 2015, the
District Court consolidated the cases and appointed Union Asset
Management Holding AG and KBC Asset Management NV as lead
plaintiffs. The lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in
August 2015.

In January 2016, the District Court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss and dismissed the amended complaint with leave
to amend. In February 2016, the District Court issued an order
appointing as new lead plaintiffs Bristol Pension Fund; City of
Milford, Connecticut Pension & Retirement Board; Pavers and Road
Builders Pension, Annuity and Welfare Funds; the Newport News
Employees' Retirement Fund; and Massachusetts Laborers' Pension
Fund (collectively, the "Institutional Investor Group").

In March 2016, the Institutional Investor Group filed an amended
complaint. In June 2016, the District Court granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissed the amended complaint
with leave to amend. In July 2016, the Institutional Investor
Group filed a further amended complaint. In June 2017, the
District Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss.

The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in this matter.

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

Western Digital Corporation is a developer, manufacturer and
provider of data storage devices and solutions that address the
evolving needs of the information technology ("IT") industry and
the infrastructure that enables the proliferation of data in
virtually every industry. The company is based in San Jose,
California.


WILLIAMS-SONOMA INC: Revised Briefing Sched in "Rushing" OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WILLIAM RUSHING, Individually and on Behalf of all
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAMS-SONOMA, INC.,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-01421-WHO (N.D. Cal.), Judge
William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Francisco Division, granted the
parties' briefing schedule regarding the Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment ("MSJ").

On April 10, 2018, the Defendants filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment with a hearing date of May 16, 2018.

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules of the
Northern District of California, and the deadlines set forth on
CM-ECF, the Plaintiff's Response to the Defendants' MSJ is due by
April 24, 2018, and the Defendants' Reply is due by May 1, 2018.

The Plaintiff has requested additional time to potentially
conduct discovery and respond to the Defendants' MSJ.  Since that
extension would cause the Reply date to conflict with Memorial
Day, the parties have agreed upon a briefing schedule which
accommodates the Plaintiff's request and the Memorial Day
holiday, subject to the Court's approval.

Therefore, the parties stipulated and Judge Orrick granted that
the briefing schedule on the Defendants' MSJ will be revised as
follows: (i) May 18, 2018 - the Plaintiff's Response to the
Defendants' MSJ; (ii) June 1, 2018 - the Defendants' Reply in
support of their MSJ; and (iii) June 13, 2018 - Hearing on MSJ.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 18, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/Z7849e from Leagle.com.

William Rushing, Individually and on Behalf of all Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by George Richard
Baker, Esq. --
richard@bakerlawpc.com -- BAKER LAW PC, Audra Elizabeth Petrolle,
Esq. -- apetrolle@roselawgroup.com  -- Kathryn Honecker, Esq. --
khonecker@roselawgroup.com -- Lauren Marie Nageotte, Esq. --
lnageotte@roselawgroup.com -- ROSE LAW GROUP, pc, pro hac vice.

Williams-Sonoma, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Williams-Sonoma
Advertising, Inc., a California corporation & Williams-Sonoma
DTC, Inc., a California corporation, Defendants, represented by
Eric James DiIulio, Esq. -- ediiulio@sheppardmullin.com --
Benjamin Okhaifo Aigboboh, Esq. -- baigboboh@sheppardmullin.com -
- Dylan John Price, Esq. -- dprice@sheppardmullin.com -- P. Craig
Cardon, Esq. -- ccardon@sheppardmullin.com -- SHEPPARD MULLIN
RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP.


WILLIS TOWERS: Bid to Dismiss Proxy Litigation Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Willis Towers Watson 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 the company's motion
to dismiss in the case entitled, In re Willis Towers Watson plc
Proxy Litigation, is pending.

On November 21, 2017, a purported former stockholder of Legacy
Towers Watson filed a putative class action complaint on behalf
of a putative class consisting of all Legacy Towers Watson
stockholders as of October 2, 2015 against the Company, Legacy
Towers Watson, Legacy Willis, ValueAct Capital Management
('ValueAct'), and certain current and former directors and
officers of Legacy Towers Watson and Legacy Willis (John Haley,
Dominic Casserley, and Jeffrey Ubben), in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

The complaint asserts claims against certain defendants under
Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
'Exchange Act') for allegedly false and misleading statements in
the proxy statement for the Merger; and against other defendants
under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act for alleged "control
person" liability with respect to such allegedly false and
misleading statements. The complaint further contends that the
allegedly false and misleading statements caused stockholders of
Legacy Towers Watson to accept inadequate Merger consideration.
The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

On February 20, 2018, the court appointed the Regents of the
University of California ('Regents') as Lead Plaintiff and
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP ('Bernstein') as Lead
Counsel for the putative class, consolidated all subsequently
filed, removed, or transferred actions, and captioned the
consolidated action "In re Willis Towers Watson plc Proxy
Litigation," Master File No. 1:17-cv-1338-AJT-JFA.

On March 9, 2018, Lead Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. On
April 13, 2018, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
Amended Complaint, which motions are currently pending.

Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company operates as an
advisory, broking, and solutions company worldwide. Its Human
Capital and Benefits segment provides actuarial support, plan
design, and administrative services for traditional pension and
retirement savings plans; plan management consulting, broking,
and administration services for health and group benefit
programs; and benefits outsourcing services. The company is based
in London, England.


WILLIS TOWERS: Faces City of Fort Myers Pension Fund Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Willis Towers Watson 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 the company is
defending against a putative class action suit entitled, City of
Fort Myers General Employees' Pension Fund v. Towers Watson &
Co., et al., C.A. No. 2018-0132, and Alaska Laborers-Employers
Retirement Trust v. Victor F. Ganzi, et al.

On February 27, 2018 and March 8, 2018, two additional purported
former stockholders of Legacy Towers Watson filed putative class
action complaints on behalf of a putative class of Legacy Towers
Watson stockholders against the former members of the Legacy
Towers Watson board of directors, Legacy Towers Watson, Legacy
Willis and ValueAct, in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned
City of Fort Myers General Employees' Pension Fund v. Towers
Watson & Co., et al., C.A. No. 2018-0132, and Alaska Laborers-
Employers Retirement Trust v. Victor F. Ganzi, et al., C.A. No.
2018-0155, respectively.

Based on similar allegations as the Eastern District of Virginia
action, the complaints assert claims against the former directors
of Legacy Towers Watson for breach of fiduciary duty and against
Legacy Willis and ValueAct for aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty.

The defendants have not yet responded to the complaints.

Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company operates as an
advisory, broking, and solutions company worldwide. Its Human
Capital and Benefits segment provides actuarial support, plan
design, and administrative services for traditional pension and
retirement savings plans; plan management consulting, broking,
and administration services for health and group benefit
programs; and benefits outsourcing services. The company is based
in London, England.


WILLIS TOWERS: Regents' Bid for Lead Plaintiff Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Willis Towers Watson 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 the motion of The
Regents of the University of California for appointment of Lead
Plaintiff and Lead Counsel in a class action lawsuit remains
pending.

On March 9, 2018, Regents filed a putative class action complaint
on behalf of a putative class of Legacy Towers Watson
stockholders against the Company, Legacy Willis, ValueAct, and
Messrs. Haley, Casserley, and Ubben, in the Delaware Court of
Chancery, captioned The Regents of the University of California
v. John J. Haley, et al., C.A. No. 2018-0166.

Based on similar allegations as the Eastern District of Virginia
action, the complaint asserts claims against Mr. Haley for breach
of fiduciary duty and against all other defendants for aiding and
abetting breach of fiduciary duty. The defendants have not yet
responded to the complaint.

Also on March 9, 2018, Regents filed a motion for consolidation
of all pending and subsequently filed Delaware Court of Chancery
actions, and for appointment as Lead Plaintiff and for the
appointment of Bernstein as Lead Counsel for the putative class.

On April 2, 2018, the court consolidated the Delaware Court of
Chancery actions and all related actions subsequently filed in or
transferred to the Delaware Court of Chancery.

Regents' motion for appointment of Lead Plaintiff and Lead
Counsel remains pending.

Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company operates as an
advisory, broking, and solutions company worldwide. Its Human
Capital and Benefits segment provides actuarial support, plan
design, and administrative services for traditional pension and
retirement savings plans; plan management consulting, broking,
and administration services for health and group benefit
programs; and benefits outsourcing services. The company is based
in London, England.


WILLIS TOWERS: Settlement in "Sanchez" Litigation Now Final
-----------------------------------------------------------
Willis Towers Watson 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 the settlement in the
Elma Sanchez, et al., litigation is now final.

On August 6, 2013, three individual plaintiffs filed a putative
class action suit against the California Public Employees'
Retirement System ('CalPERS') in Los Angeles County Superior
Court. On January 10, 2014, plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint, which added as defendants several members of CalPERS'
Board of Administration and three Legacy Towers Watson entities,
Towers Watson & Co., Towers Perrin, and Tillinghast-Towers Perrin
('Towers Perrin').

Plaintiffs' claims all relate to a self-funded, non-profit Long
Term Care Program that CalPERS established in 1995 (the 'LTC
Program'). Plaintiffs' claims seek unspecified damages allegedly
resulting from CalPERS' 2012 decision to implement in 2015 and
2016 an 85 percent increase in the premium rates of certain of
the long term care policies it issued between 1995 and 2004 (the
'85% Increase').

The amended complaint alleges claims against CalPERS for breach
of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. It also includes a
single cause of action against Towers Perrin for professional
negligence relating to actuarial services Towers Perrin provided
to CalPERS relating to the LTC Program between 1995 and 2004.

Plaintiffs principally allege that CalPERS mismanaged the LTC
Program and its investment assets in multiple respects and
breached its contractual and fiduciary duties to plaintiffs and
other class members by impermissibly imposing the 85% Increase to
make up for investment losses. Plaintiffs also allege that Towers
Perrin recommended inadequate initial premium rates at the outset
of the LTC Program and used unspecified inappropriate assumptions
in its annual valuations for CalPERS. Plaintiffs claim that
Towers Perrin's allegedly negligent acts and omissions, prior to
the end of its retainer in 2004, contributed to the need for the
85% Increase.

In May 2014, the court denied the motions to dismiss filed by
CalPERS and Towers Perrin addressed to the sufficiency of the
complaint. On January 28, 2016, the court granted plaintiffs'
motion for class certification. The certified class as currently
defined includes those long term care policy holders whose
policies were "subject to" the 85% Increase. The court thereafter
set an October 2, 2017 trial date.

In May 2016, the case was reassigned to a different judge. The
court agreed that Towers Perrin may file a motion for summary
judgment which was initially scheduled to be heard on February 3,
2017. The motion was then fully briefed, and the hearing date was
thereafter moved to March 8, 2017.

On March 1, 2017, Towers Perrin and Plaintiffs participated in a
mediation and reached a settlement in principle. Pursuant to the
settlement in principle, in exchange for a dismissal of the
claims of all class members and a release of Towers Perrin by all
class members, Towers Perrin would pay a total of $9.75 million
into an interest-bearing settlement fund, to be used to reimburse
class counsel's costs, and for later distribution to class
members as approved by the Court. This proposed settlement amount
was accrued during the three months ended March 31, 2017.

A formal settlement agreement was submitted to the Court for its
preliminary approval on May 18, 2017. On October 25, 2017, the
Court preliminarily approved the settlement and granted the
Company's unopposed motion for a good faith settlement
determination.

At the hearing on final approval held on January 26, 2018, the
Court granted final approval of the settlement. Class members who
properly objected to the settlement had standing to appeal by
April 9, 2018. No class members filed an appeal and, therefore,
the judgment is now final. The settlement amount was scheduled to
be paid by June 8, 2018.

Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company operates as an
advisory, broking, and solutions company worldwide. Its Human
Capital and Benefits segment provides actuarial support, plan
design, and administrative services for traditional pension and
retirement savings plans; plan management consulting, broking,
and administration services for health and group benefit
programs; and benefits outsourcing services. The company is based
in London, England.


ZIMMER BIOMET: Continues to Defend "Shah" Suit in Indiana
---------------------------------------------------------
Zimmer Biomet 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 company continues to defend
itself in the lawsuit, Shah v. Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. et
al.

On December 2, 2016, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Indiana (Shah v. Zimmer Biomet
Holdings, Inc. et al.), naming the company, two of its officers
and one of its now former officers as defendants. On June 28,
2017, the plaintiffs filed a corrected amended complaint, naming
as defendants, in addition to those previously named, current and
former members of the company's Board of Directors, one
additional officer, and the underwriters in connection with
secondary offerings of the company's common stock by certain
selling stockholders in 2016.

On October 6, 2017, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the
underwriters without prejudice. On October 8, 2017, the
plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, naming as
defendants, in addition to those current and former officers and
Board members previously named, certain former stockholders of
ours who sold shares of the Company's common stock in secondary
public offerings in 2016.

The second amended complaint relates to a putative class action
on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's common stock
between June 7, 2016 and November 7, 2016. The second amended
complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by making materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or omissions about the Company's compliance with
FDA regulations and our ability to continue to accelerate the
Company's organic revenue growth rate in the second half of 2016.

The defendants filed their respective motions to dismiss on
December 20, 2017, and plaintiffs filed their omnibus response to
the motions to dismiss on March 13, 2018. The plaintiffs seek
unspecified damages and interest, attorneys' fees, costs and
other relief.

According to the case docket, these entities filed on May 18,
2018, their Reply to the response to the Motions to Dismiss:

     -- GS Capital Partners VI Fund, L.P., GS Capital Partners VI
        GMBH & CO. KG, GS Capital Partners VI Offshore Fund,
        L.P., GS Capital Partners VI Parallel, L.P., GS LVB
        Co-Invest, L.P., Goldman Sachs BMET Investors, L.P.,
        Goldman Sachs BMET Investors Offshore Holdings, L.P., PEP
        Bass Holdings, LLC, Private Equity Partners 2004 Direct
        Investment Fund L.P., Private Equity Partners 2005 Direct
        L.P., Private Equity Partners IX Direct L.P.;

     -- KKR Biomet LLC, Michael W Michelson, Jeffrey K Rhodes,
        TPG FOF V-A, L.P., TPG FOF V-B, L.P., TPG LVB Co-Invest
        LLC, TPG Partners IV, L.P., TPG Partners V, L.P.; and

     -- Christopher B Begley, Betsy J Bernard, Paul M Bisaro,
        Gail K Boudreaux, Tony W Collins, David C Dvorak, Michael
        J. Farrell, Daniel P. Florin, Larry Glasscock, Robert A
        Hagemann, Arthur J Higgins, Robert J. Marshall, Jr, Cecil
        B Pickett PhD, Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc.

Zimmer Biomet said "We believe this lawsuit is without merit, and
we and the individual defendants are defending it vigorously."

Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
designs, manufactures, and markets musculoskeletal healthcare
products and solutions in the Americas, Europe, the Middle East,
Africa, and the Asia Pacific. The company is based in Warsaw,
Indiana.



                            *********


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  * * *