CAR_Public/151016.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, October 16, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 207


                            Headlines


AADG INC: Iowa Judge Grants Conditional Certification in "Behr"
ABBOTT LABS: Sues Distributors and Pharmacies Over Sales Fraud
ACTAVIS PLC: Faces "JM Smith" Suit Over Antitrust Violation
AGL RESOURCES: Faces Suit Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty
ALIBABA: Faces Class Suit Over $25BB IPO in San Mateo County

ALPHACARE OF NEW YORK: "Zaky" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
AMERIANA BANCORP: Suit Alleges Securities Exchange Violation
AMICUS THERAPEUTICS: Investors Sue Over Share Price Drop
ARCSTREAM INC: "Cannon" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
AT&T: Mississippi Consumers to Get Settlement Checks

BANK OF AMERICA: Settles Suit Over Alleged Credit Swap Conspiracy
BARNES AND NOBLE: E-Readers Have Defective Chargers, Suit Claims
BENTON COUNTY, WA: Runs "Modern-Day Debtors' Prison," Suit Says
BIRMINGHAM, AL: Use of Pepper Spray Violated Rights of Students
BLYTHE POST: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Business Practices

CHIMERA ENERGY: Andrew Farmer Liable for Securities Law Breach
CLS TRANSPORTATION: FAA Does Not Preempt "Iskanian Rule"
COCA-COLA CO: Loses Bid to Dismiss Data Breach Class Action
COMPTON, CA: Judge Denies Students' Bid for Class-Action Status
CYPRUS: Greek Investors File Arbitration Proceeding

DALLAS, TX: NEA-Dallas Files Grievance Over Evaluation System
DRAFTKINGS INC: Fantasy Sports Sites Sued Over Insider Trading
ENERGY EXPRESS: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Pay Practices
ESKATON VILLAGE: Judge Delays Class Action Until Next Year
FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE: 3 FIFA Officials Suspend Amid Scandal

FLINT, MI: Trend of Customers Not Paying Water Bills Continuing
GLOBUS MEDICAL: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
HYDRO ONE: Gravenhurst Property Owner Files Class Action
ILLINOIS: Home Day Care Workers Seek Refunds of Union Fees
INDONESIA: Walhi Urges Haze-Affected Residents to File Class Suit

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Canadian Woman Files Invokana Class Action
JPMORGAN CHASE: Shareholders Can Pursue London Whale Class Action
LAKEVIEW NEUROREHABILITATION: Sued in N.H. Over Fatal Neglect
MERRILL LYNCH: Must Face Shareholder Class Action Over Zale Buyout
MISSISSIPPI: Judge Allows Inmates' Class Action to Proceed

MORGAN STANLEY: Wants Employees to Give Up Right to Sue, Suit Says
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Compensation Rules Violate Antitrust Law
NAT'L HOCKEY: No Plans to Engage in Concussion Settlement Talks
NESTLE INDIA: Seeks Dismissal of Maggi Class Action
NEW YORK, NY: 911 Operators' Class Action v. NYPD Can Proceed

SANOFI SA: Judge Certifies Vaccine Illegal Bundling Class Action
STARBUCKS: Faces Suit Over Chaotic Working Environment
TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT: Faces Class Action Over Toll Debt Fees
UBER: Drivers File Class Action Over Compensation Terms
UNITED STATES: Mentally Ill Deportees Can Return Under Settlement

VOLKSWAGEN: Customers Express Concerns Over Emissions Test Scandal
VOLKSWAGEN: Jurisdiction Is Key Question in Emissions Litigation
VOLKSWAGEN: IMF Bentham Mulls Class Action Funding in Europe
VOLKSWAGEN: Montana Environmentalists File Emissions Class Action
VOLKSWAGEN AUSTRALIA: May Face Class Action Over Emissions Scam

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Gainsville Resident Joins Emissions Class Action
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Harris County Files Suit Over Emissions Tests
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Pierce County Woman Files Emissions Class Suit
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Susman Godfrey Files Emissions Class Action
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: 100+ Vehicle Owners Join Winnipeg Class Action

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Class Suit Approval Bid Filed in Tel Aviv Court
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces Class Suit Over Diesel Engine Manipulation
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Gardy & Notis Files Securities Class Action
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Hawaiian Vehicle Owners File Emissions Suit
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Italian Consumer Group Files Emissions Suit

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Keller Rohrback Files Emissions Class Action
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Motley Rice Files Consumer Fraud Class Action
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Nationwide Class Certification May Face Hurdles
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Tennessee Resident Files Emissions Class Action
WELCH'S FOOD: Faces Class Action Over "Real Fruit" Snack Claims

* Supreme Court Set to Tackle Future of Class Actions


                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3d Cir. Upholds Warehouse Owner's Conviction
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thompson Hine Shipowners Fail to Junk "Figueroa"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thompson Hine Shipowners Fail to Junk "Gaito"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Denies PI Plaintiff's Reargument Bid
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Consolidates PI Cases for Trial

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Fails in Bid to Dismiss "Ricci"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims Against American Re Severed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lockheed Wins Partial Dismissal of PI Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bids to Strike Testimony in MSA Suit Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Navy Sues CBS, et al., in California

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deere & Co. Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Amec Foster Wheeler Has GBP387MM Fibro Liability



                            *********


AADG INC: Iowa Judge Grants Conditional Certification in "Behr"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Leonard T. Strand, Magistrate Judge of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Iowa granted conditional class
certification in the case, DENNIS BEHR, and Employees Similarly
Situated to Him, Plaintiff, vs. AADG, INC., d/b/a Curries,
Defendant, No. C14-3075-LTS.

Dennis Behr filed this action against AADG, Inc., d/b/a/ Curries
(AADG), on November 21, 2014, alleging a violation of the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 621 et
seq.

On February 6, 2014, AADG implemented a reduction in force (RIF)
plan to cut $1.4 million in indirect personnel expenses at its
plant in Mason City, Iowa.  Behr was one of 14 employees laid off
as part of the RIF.  Thirteen of those 14 employees were over the
age of 40 at the time of the RIF.  This group of 13 former
employees is the class Behr seeks to certify.

Behr filed a motion for conditional class certification and court-
authorized notice.  AADG opposed.

The Court directed the parties to submit a scheduling order and
discovery plan for the remainder of this case on or before
November 16, 2015.


ABBOTT LABS: Sues Distributors and Pharmacies Over Sales Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Leonard, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Abbott Laboratories has taken on two dozen distributors and
pharmacies in a federal complaint in Brooklyn, N.Y., accusing them
of importing and selling products meant for the international
market that have not been cleared for sale in the U.S.

Abbott says the scheme is costing it millions of dollars in bogus
rebates for FreeStyle test strips that diabetic consumers use to
monitor their blood glucose levels.

"Millions of individuals with diabetes use FreeStyle test strips
on a daily basis to monitor their blood sugar and help them
control their disease," the Oct. 9 complaint states.

Abbott says a host of individuals and business have conspired to
divert international FreeStyle strips "that are illegal to sell in
the United States."

"The defendants are passing these unapproved test strips off to
unsuspecting U.S. consumers to receive insurance reimbursements
that they are not entitled to," the 74-page complaint states. "In
doing so, defendants have defrauded and continue to defraud
Abbott, other manufacturers of test strips, and insurance
companies, third-party payors, and Medicaid and Medicare."

Abbott says a series of wholesalers are "at the center of this
conspiracy."  These companies imported large volumes of "diverted"
test strips for pharmacies, which sell the products to
unsuspecting U.S. consumers and then submit fraudulent
reimbursement claims, the complaint states.

Abbott notes that it sells FreeStyle test strips outside the
United States "at markedly lower list prices" because of the
differences between U.S. and international insurance,
reimbursement, and rebate practices.

U.S. consumers meanwhile don't see any of these savings, since the
pharmacies dispense the diverted products to them "at higher U.S.
retail prices for the purpose of receiving fraudulent
reimbursement payments from the consumers' insurers," according to
the complaint.

A U.S. consumer's prescription benefit "covers the test strips'
full retail price -- minus any copayment by the consumer," Abbott
continues.

"The prescription benefit reimbursements then being paid by the
insurance companies are significantly higher than what Defendants
actually paid for the diverted international product," the
complaint states. "Defendants are reaping significant profits as a
result.

Abbott seeks punitive damages for federal trademark infringement,
violation of federal anti-racketeering law, fraud and several
other claims.  It is represented by Geoffrey Potter --
gpotter@pbwt.com -- with Patterson Belknap Web & Tyler in
Manhattan.


ACTAVIS PLC: Faces "JM Smith" Suit Over Antitrust Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
J M Smith Corporation dba Smith Drug Company, and all others
similarly situated v. Actavis, plc, Forest Laboratories, LLC, and
Merz Pharma GmbH & Co. KGaA., Case No. 1:15-cv-07488 (S.D.N.Y,
September 22, 2015), is a civil antitrust action seeking treble
damages arising out of the Defendants' unlawful scheme to maintain
a monopoly and to allocate to the U.S. market for branded and
generic versions of memantine hydrochloride.

Defendant Forest Laboratories, LLC is a Delaware corporation, with
its principal place of business at 909 Third Avenue, New York, New
York 10022. Forest is a company engaged in the development,
marketing, and distribution of branded pharmaceutical products. On
July 1, 2014, Forest was acquired by, and became a wholly-owned
subsidiary of, Actavis, plc.

Defendant Actavis, plc is incorporated under the laws of Ireland,
with its principal place of business at 1 Grand Canal Square,
Docklands Dublin 2, Ireland. Actavis, plc also has a place of
business at Morris Corporate Center III, 400 Interpace Parkway,
Parsippany, New Jersey, 07054. Actavis markets a broad portfolio
of branded and generic pharmaceuticals and has commercial
operations in more than 60 countries around the world.

Defendant Merz Pharmaceuticals GmbH & Co. KGaA is incorporated
under the laws of Germany, with its principal place of business at
Eckenheimer Landstrasse 100, D-60318 Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Merz is a company engaged in the development, production, and
distribution of branded pharmaceutical products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bruce E. Gerstein, Esq.
      GARWIN GERSTEIN & FISHER LLP
      88 Pine Street, 10th Floor
      New York, NY 10005
      Tel: (212) 398-0055
      Fax: (212) 764-6620
      E-mail: bgerstein@garwingerstein.com

          - and -

      David C. Raphael, Jr., Esq.
      SMITH SEGURA & RAPHAEL, LLP
      3600 Jackson Street, Suite 111
      Alexandria, LA  71303
      Tel: (318) 445-4480
      Fax: (318) 487-1741
      E-mail: draphael@ssrllp.com

          - and -

      Stuart E. Des Roches, Esq.
      ODOM & DES ROCHES, LLP
      650 Poydras Street, Suite 2020
      New Orleans, LA 70130
      Tel: (504) 522-0077
      Fax: (504) 522-0078
      E-mail: stuart@odrlaw.com

          - and -

      Rush Chorush, Esq.
      HEIM PAYNE & CHORUSH, LLP
      600 Travis, Suite 6710
      Houston, TX 77002
      Tel: (713) 221-2000
      Fax: (713) 221-2021
      E-mail: rchorush@hpcllp.com


AGL RESOURCES: Faces Suit Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty
-------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Morton, and all others similarly situated v. AGL Resources,
Inc., John W. Somerhalder II, James A. Rubright, Sandra N. Bane,
Thomas D. Bell, Jr., Norman R. Bobins, Charles R. Crisp, Brenda J.
Gaines, Arthur E. Johnson, Wyck A. Knox, Jr., Dennis M. Love, Dean
R. O'Hare, Armando J. Olivera, John E. Rau, Bettina M. Whyte,
Henry C. Wolf, The Southern Company, and AMS Corp., Case No. 1:15-
cv-03320 (N.D. Ga., September 22, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for violations of Sections 14(a) of the Exchange Act
and for breach of fiduciary duties.

This is a shareholder class action brought by Plaintiff on behalf
of himself and all other similarly situated public shareholders of
AGL Resources, Inc. against the Company's Board of Directors (the
"Individual Defendants"), among others, in connection with the
proposed buyout of AGL Resources by the Southern Company.

AGL is a Georgia corporation that maintains its principal
executive offices at Ten Peachtree Place NE, Atlanta, Georgia
30309. The Company's securities trade on the New York Stock
Exchange under the symbol "GAS." AGL is an energy services holding
company whose primary business is the distribution of natural gas
through its natural gas distribution utilities.

Southern is a Delaware corporation that maintains its principal
executive offices at 30 Ivan Allen Jr. Blvd, Atlanta, Georgia
30308. Southern operates companies that supply electric service in
the states of Alabama, Georgia, Florida, and Mississippi.

AMS Corp., a newly formed Georgia corporation, is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Southern Company ("Merger Sub"). The Merger
Agreement provides for the merger of Merger Sub with and into the
Company, with the Company surviving the Merger as a wholly owned
subsidiary of Southern Company.

The Individual Defendants are directors of AGL.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Corey Holzer, Esq.
      HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
      1200 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410
      Atlanta, GA 30338
      Tel: (888) 508-6832
      Fax: (770) 392-0029

          - and -

      Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      369 Lexington Ave., 10th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Tel: (212) 983-9330
      Fax: (212) 983-9331


ALIBABA: Faces Class Suit Over $25BB IPO in San Mateo County
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the latest securities class
action over the $25 billion initial public offering of the Chinese
e-commerce behemoth Alibaba quotes a recent stock price of $60 a
share, a decline of over 50 percent from last year's high.  The
case is filed in San Mateo County Superior Court.


ALPHACARE OF NEW YORK: "Zaky" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
Ahmed Zaky, and all others similarly situated v. AlphaCare of New
York, Inc. and Magellan Healthcare, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-05500
(E.D.N.Y., September 22, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid wages,
liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs of action
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

AlphaCare of New York, Inc. provides health maintenance
organization plans. The company was founded in 2012 and is based
in Brooklyn, New York.

Magellan is a foreign corporation organized under the laws of the
State of Delaware with its principal place of business located at
6950 Columbia Gateway Drive Suite 400, Columbia, MD 21046.
Magellan is a health care management company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Walker G. Harman, Jr., Esq.
      THE HARMAN FIRM, P.C.
      1776 Broadway, Suite 2030
      New York, NY 10019
      Tel: (212) 425-2600
      E-mail: wharman@theharmanfirm.com


AMERIANA BANCORP: Suit Alleges Securities Exchange Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
Darrell F. Ewing, and all others similarly situated v. Ameriana
Bancorp, Jerome J. Gassen, Jennifer P. Bott, Michael E. Bosway, R.
Scott Hayes, Michael E. Kent, Donald C. Danielson, Charles R.
Haywood, Michael W. Wells, Richard E. Hennessey, William F.
Mcconnell, Jr., Ronald R. Pritzke, and First Merchants
Corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-01491 (S.D. Ind., September 22,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for their violations of
Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule
14a-9.

Plaintiff claims arise out of the Board's attempt to sell the
Company to First Merchants Corporation.

Ameriana Bancorp operates as the bank holding company for Ameriana
Bank that offers a range of consumer and commercial banking
services in Indiana. It maintains its principal executive offices
at 2118 Bundy Avenue, New Castle, Indiana 47263.

First Merchants Corporation is the largest financial holding
company based in Central Indiana. It maintains its principal
executive offices at 200 East Jackson Street, Muncie, Indiana
47305.

The Individual Defendants are members of Ameriana's Board.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph N. Williams, Esq.
      RILEY WILLIAMS & PIATT, LLC
      301 Massachusetts Avenue
      Indianapolis, IN 46204
      Tel: (317) 633-5270
      Fax: (317) 426-3348
      E-mail: jwilliams@rwp-law.com

          - and -

      Shane T. Rowley, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Tel: (212) 363-7500
      Fax: (212) 363-7171


AMICUS THERAPEUTICS: Investors Sue Over Share Price Drop
--------------------------------------------------------
Shares dropped more than 50% to $6.39 after Amicus Therapeutics
corrected a press release that had misrepresented the progress of
its new Fabry disease treatment, migalastat, a class of investors
claims, Courthouse News Service reported.  The action was filed in
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.


ARCSTREAM INC: "Cannon" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
----------------------------------------------------
Chris Cannon, and all others similarly situated v. Arcstream Inc.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-00203 (N.D. Fla., September 22, 2015), seeks to
recover compensatory and liquidated damages, attorney fees, and
other relief for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Arcstream Inc. is a contractor for Cox Communications. It is an
affiliate of Central Florida Cable Communications.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew W. Birk, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF
      MATTHEW BIRK, LLC
      309 Northeast First Street
      Gainesville, FL 32601
      Tel: (352) 244-2069
      Fax: (352) 372-3464


AT&T: Mississippi Consumers to Get Settlement Checks
----------------------------------------------------
The Consumer Protection Division of the Mississippi Attorney
General's Office has received inquiries about checks received in
the mail recently by 500,000 Mississippi consumers.  The checks
are being sent following a 2011 settlement directed at taxes, fees
and surcharges that AT&T placed on users.  AT&T admitted no
wrongdoing in the 2011 settlement, but the company did agree to
pay benefits to affected consumers.  Consumers were not required
to take any action to receive the benefits.

"Because we frequently warn consumers about not cashing
unsolicited checks, we want to make sure that consumers are aware
of the possibility of receiving a check in this class action
settlement," said Attorney General Hood.  "Although this
settlement was not handled by our office, it is a court-approved
settlement."  This settlement is not related to the cramming
settlements Attorney General Hood, fellow attorneys general and
federal agencies entered into with AT&T and other mobile carriers
to address alleged cramming practices.

If the consumer paid taxes, fees or surcharges to AT&T Mobility on
internet access through certain services including iPhone data
plans, Blackberry data plans, other smart phone data plans, laptop
connect cards and pay-per-use data services on bills issued from
November 1, 2005 up to and including September 7, 2010, then
he/she are eligible for payment.  More general information about
the AT&T Mobility Settlement is available at
http://www.attmsettlement.com/FAQs.aspx

If you receive a check for this settlement, you can verify the
check by calling 877-905-8928 or you can visit
www.attmsettlement.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Settles Suit Over Alleged Credit Swap Conspiracy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Katy Burne, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that Wall
Street's biggest banks have agreed to pay $1.86 billion to settle
accusations that they conspired to prevent competition in the
credit-derivatives markets, according to plaintiff lawyers in the
private lawsuit.

Twelve banks and two industry groups have finalized the swaps
settlement, according to a statement by the plaintiffs' law firms
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP and Pearson, Simon & Warshaw
LLP.  That sum was slightly lower than the $1.87 billion
settlement that had been tentatively agreed a few weeks ago, as
earlier reported by The Wall Street Journal.

The case represents the latest headache for banks still reeling
from regulatory actions and private lawsuits alleging they rigged
markets ranging from interest-rate benchmarks and foreign exchange
to the price of precious metals. Those cases have resulted in
billions of dollars in fines.

Credit derivatives are contracts that allow users to speculate or
hedge against a corporate or sovereign debt default.  When a
borrower defaults, the contracts compensate buyers.  At the end of
2014, the Bank for International Settlements said the credit-
default-swaps market was $16 trillion, down from $58 trillion at
the end of 2007.

The defendants didn't admit fault in the civil case, said Daniel
Brockett, partner at Quinn Emanuel, in an interview.  The case was
originally filed in 2013, but is now in a federal district court
for the Southern District of New York, where Mr. Brockett said it
would be certified for class-action status as part of the
settlement.

As a result, between 9,000 and 12,000 institutions can put in
claims based on the amounts of credit swaps they had traded, Mr.
Brockett said.  The plaintiffs included the Los Angeles County
Employees Retirement Association, Salix Capital U.S. Inc., Value
Recovery Fund LLC and the Essex Regional Retirement System.

The statement from the plaintiff lawyers called the settlement
agreement "one of the largest recoveries ever for plaintiffs in an
antitrust class action."

The credit-derivatives lawsuit centered on whether the defendants
coordinated their efforts to delay or prevent exchanges from
trying to put the swaps contracts onto open, regulated platforms
where prices would be more transparent.

The defendant banks are: Bank of America Corp., Barclays PLC, BNP
Paribas SA, Citigroup Inc., Credit Suisse Group AG, Deutsche Bank
AG, Goldman Sachs Group Inc., HSBC Holdings PLC, J.P. Morgan Chase
& Co., Morgan Stanley, Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC and UBS
Group AG.

Spokespeople for the defendant banks declined to comment.  The
banks previously denied the accusations contained in the lawsuit.

The defendant industry groups are the International Swaps and
Derivatives Association and Markit Group Ltd.

A Markit spokesman declined to comment.  A spokesman for ISDA
reiterated an earlier statement that the group was "pleased the
matter is close to resolution" and that it "remains committed to
further developing [credit derivatives] market structure to ensure
the market functions safely and efficiently."

As part of the agreement, ISDA will overhaul a committee that
oversees how it licenses its proprietary information about credit-
default swaps, according to the plaintiff lawyers' statement.
They said this should help to open up the market to competition.

The U.S. Department of Justice and European Commission also have
been investigating the credit-derivatives markets for
anticompetitive practices.  The Justice Department probe, which
dates back to 2009, hasn't resulted in any charges.  In 2013, the
European authorities accused banks of colluding to prevent
competitors from entering the market.  Both probes are ongoing.


BARNES AND NOBLE: E-Readers Have Defective Chargers, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barnes and Noble sells Nook Color and Nook Simple Touch e-readers
with defective chargers that die in a few months, a class action
claims in Federal Court in Allentown, Pa., according to a report
by Courthouse News Service.


BENTON COUNTY, WA: Runs "Modern-Day Debtors' Prison," Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Benton County, Wash. runs a "modern-day debtors' prison" where
poor people who can't afford fines are sent to jail or put on work
crews, a class action claims in state court in Yakima, Wash.,
according to Courthouse News Service.

Benton County, pop. 176,000, is in south central Washington along
the Columbia River, whose twists and turns form the southern,
eastern and northern borders of the county. Only 6,000 people live
in the county seat, Prosser; the largest cities are Kennewick,
pop. 76,000, and Richland, with 48,000.

Three named plaintiffs claim Benton County courts
unconstitutionally imprison "scores of indigent persons" on any
given day, or partially confine them on work crews "simply because
they are too poor to pay the government."

Lead plaintiffs Jayne Fuentes, Gina Taggart and Reese Groves sued
Benton County in Yakima County Court, claiming its courts' fee-
generating system violates the Sixth and 14th Amendments.

All three claim they were jailed for inability to pay fines,
without meaningful assistance of counsel and without an ability to
pay hearing. All three still are indigent and face the prospect of
being jailed again or put on a work crew because they still owe
fines to the county.

The United States eliminated debtors' prisons under federal law in
1833, but did not take that power away from the states.

Benton County regularly imposes fines, fees and costs of more than
$1,000 per criminal offense, according to the complaint. Officials
assess legal financial obligations (LFOs) regardless of the
person's ability to pay.

"Benton County has created and implemented a standard operating
procedure that governs the assessment, imposition, and collection
of these LFOs," the complaint states. "At no point in the process
is a defendant's ability to pay taken into consideration. Indigent
persons who cannot afford the charges are subjected to draconian
collection proceedings without a meaningful opportunity to be
heard and without meaningful assistance of counsel. They are then
sentenced -- pursuant to the county's systemic policy, practice,
and custom -- either to sit in jail or to provide free manual
labor to the county (in and of itself a deprivation of liberty, as
well as a direct pathway to jail) for weeks or months."

Fuentes says Benton County's board of commissioners and district
court judges created the fine system to generate revenue for the
county "despite awareness of the adverse impact it has on some of
Benton County's poorest residents."

The ACLU and Columbia Legal Services last year published a report
on the state's system of LFOs and the burden it placed on the
poor. The ACLU is co-counsel in Fuentes' lawsuit.

After the report was published, Joe Burrowes, presiding judge of
Benton County District Court, told the Tri-City Herald that he had
not been consulted by either organization for the report, titled:
"Modern-Day Debtors' Prisons: How Court-Imposed Debts Punish Poor
People in Washington."

"We're not aware that we're doing anything wrong, and we're
following the law," the judge said. "We'll review the report and
take necessary actions if need be."

According to the 48-page lawsuit, policymakers failed to make
changes suggested in the ACLU report and "continued their
commitment to a system of debt collection that violates the rights
of indigent persons for the sake of generating revenue."

The plaintiffs say the county's "debtor's prison system" violates
the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth
Amendment and the Washington State Constitution's prohibition of
incarcerating a person for nonpayment of LFOs without a
meaningful, pre-deprivation, ability-to-pay hearing and
consideration of alternatives.

"The plaintiffs in this case and many other indigent people can
only come up with money to pay by forgoing basic living expenses
in order to pay LFOs," the ACLU of Washington said in a statement.
"Some of them are forced to choose between paying their child
support or an electric bill and paying their LFOs. Our criminal
justice system should not force people to forgo basic necessities
to satisfy LFO payments, and alternatives should be available to
those without financial resources."

Fuentes et al. seek class certification, declaratory judgment that
the county's LFO policies are unconstitutional, and an injunction
against their enforcement.  They also want the county's "custom of
failing to provide meaningful assistance of counsel to indigent
persons who face charges of nonpayment of LFOs imposed in district
court" declared unconstitutional.

Toby Marshall with Terrell Marshall Law Group is assisted by
Vanessa Hernandez with the ACLU of Washington, both of Seattle.

A 2010 report from the Brennan Center for Justice on the 15 states
with the highest prison populations found that all 15 had
jurisdictions that imprisoned people for debt. Washington state
was not listed among those 15. The ACLU has been challenging the
"modern-day debtors' prisons" in court since 2009.


BIRMINGHAM, AL: Use of Pepper Spray Violated Rights of Students
---------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Poverty law Center on Oct. 1 disclosed that a federal
judge in Alabama has found that the Birmingham Police Department
violated the constitutional rights of students in public schools
by using pepper spray to deal with minor discipline problems and
by failing to ensure that children were decontaminated afterward.

U.S. District Court Judge Abdul Kallon found that police resorted
to chemical spray to deal with "normal -- and, at times,
challenging -- adolescent behavior," a use of excessive force that
is unconstitutional.  The Sept. 30 decision did not ban the use of
chemical spray in circumstances such as fights or other violent
behavior.

"This is great a victory for students and their families in
Birmingham, and it sends a strong message to school officials
across the country that it's time to stop treating schoolchildren
like they're criminals," said Ebony Howard, the SPLC's lead
attorney in the case.  "The judge recognized that this is a
disturbing case and that the current system is flawed."

The SPLC's 2010 class action suit described how many students were
restrained or posed no threat when they were sprayed with an
aerosol weapon called Freeze + P, a mix of pepper spray and tear
gas.

"It's good to know that children can finally go to school and feel
safe -- and feel like the people that are there to protect them
are really going to protect them," said one of the plaintiffs,
identified in the suit as "B.D."

Judge Kallon wrote that he was "profoundly disturbed" by the
testimony during the three-week trial that began last January and
that the defendants in the case -- police stationed in Birmingham
schools -- "displayed a cavalier attitude" toward the use of
pepper spray.

"[T]he trial revealed that the defendant S.R.O.s [school resource
officers] believe that deploying Freeze +P is the standard
response even for the non-threatening infraction that is universal
to all teenagers -- i.e. backtalking and challenging authority,"
Judge Kallon wrote.  "Frankly, the defendant S.R.O.s' own
testimony left the court with the impression that they simply do
not believe spraying a student with Freeze +P is a big deal, in
spite of their own expert's testimony that Freeze +P inflicts
'severe pain.'"

The judge also wrote that it was "confounding" that even though
police had a clear legal obligation, they failed to decontaminate
children after using pepper spray, but "instead left them to
suffer the effects of the chemical until they dissipated over
time."

From 2006 to 2011, police in Birmingham public schools -- whose
students are predominantly African American -- used chemical spray
in 110 incidents in which about 300 students were sprayed. More
than 1,200 others were exposed to the spray during those
incidents.

A 2012 court order in the case noted that none of the students
named as plaintiffs committed a crime serious enough to warrant
such force.  In fact, no criminal charges were lodged against any
of the students, who had "only committed minor school
infractions," the court wrote.

In the final ruling, Judge Kallon wrote that schoolchildren had no
less protection from excessive force than adults.

"[T]he defendants seem to take the eyebrow-raising position that
school children are less deserving of protection from harm at the
hands of overzealous law enforcement officers than adults when the
harm occurs at school," Judge Kallon wrote.  He added: "[T]he
court declines to adopt the position that children in public
schools have a reduced expectation of being free from the
infliction of excessive force by law enforcement officers."

As part of the judgment in this case, the court has ordered the
SPLC and the police department to develop a training plan for
officers to ensure pepper spray is not used for basic school
discipline.  The plan must be submitted to the court on Nov. 15.

During the trial earlier this year, several former students
testified about being sprayed over minor infractions.  When "K.B."
was a 10th-grader in a Birmingham high school, she was walking to
class in tears after a boy made inappropriate sexual comments.
After being told to "calm down" by a police officer, K.B. -- who
was five months pregnant at the time - was sprayed in the face and
handcuffed.

"It felt like somebody cut my face up and poured hot sauce in,"
she testified.

The judge highlighted the incident in his ruling.

"[W]hile all of the facts in this case are disturbing, the court
is especially taken aback that a police officer charged with
protecting the community's children considered it appropriate and
necessary to spray a girl with Freeze +P simply because she was
crying about her mistreatment at the hands of one of her male
peers," he wrote.

K.B. had previously enjoyed school but began skipping class after
the traumatic incident.  She also testified that as a mother, she
didn't want her son to attend Birmingham schools.

"It could be any small thing and [the police officers] will abuse
their power," she said.

Another plaintiff, "G.S.," was chasing after a student who called
her friend a name when an officer grabbed her from behind.  The
pepper spray canister was only about five to six inches from her
face when the chemical was sprayed.


BLYTHE POST: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Business Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kim Steele, writing for Palo Verde Valley Times, reports that a
Blythe nursing home is one of 11 throughout California that has
been sued as part of a class action lawsuit.

The lawsuit, filed September 21 in Orange County Superior Court,
claims that Blythe Post Acute and the other 10 facilities
conceived and implemented a plan to "wrongfully increase business
profits at the expense of the health of residents."

It was filed on behalf of Robert Garcia, a former resident at one
of the other nursing homes, by Garcia, Artigliere & Medby, a Long
Beach, Calif., law firm representing victims of nursing home and
elder abuse.  The lawsuit includes more than 3,000 members who
have complaints against the 11 facilities.

The law firm is also seeking an injunction, which would require
the defendants to properly maintain staffing levels in accordance
with the law.

The nursing facilities listed in the complaint are Meridian
Management Services, LLC; Intelex Enterprises, LLC; Office Smart,
LLC; MMS Hesperia, LLC; MMS Green Tree, LLC; Bay View
Rehabilitation Hospital, LLC; Blythe Post Acute, LLC; Country
Crest, LLC; Knolls West Post Acute, LLC; and Spring Valley Post
Acute, LLC.

Officials at Blythe Post Acute, which used to be Blythe Nursing
Care Center and Rehabilitation Services but was sold in the last
six months to Blythe Post Acute, declined to comment on the
lawsuit.

"Mr. Garcia and more than 3,000 patients were fleeced and treated
as if they were inanimate objects undeserving of the medical
attention that the law mandated they receive," said attorney
Stephen Garcia.  "The infirmed had no idea of the substandard
living conditions that existed at these facilities and no doubt
would have sought care elsewhere if they had known they were at
risk."

The complaint alleges that for more than four years, the
defendants and their licensees defrauded their residents by
engaging in malicious and oppressive business practices to
wrongfully increase profits at the expense of patients.

Each facility was underfunded and understaffed solely for the
purpose of financial gain and failed to provide the proper health,
care and attention that the residents paid for, according to the
complaint.

It notes that for more than four years, Robert Garcia and more
than 3,000 patients were the victims of financial abuse by not
receiving the proper services paid for.  Even more egregious was
that their lives were placed in jeopardy.

As an example of the defendants' disregard for the welfare of the
patients, in the last few years, each facility paid the defendants
as much as $1 million for nursing supplies and office supplies,
but received little or nothing in return, said the complaint.
Instead, the money was used to benefit the defendants.

"Despite repeatedly being cited by the Department of Public Health
for deficiencies, the defendants continued to be non-compliant and
take advantage of the most vulnerable segment of our society,"
said Garcia, the attorney.


CHIMERA ENERGY: Andrew Farmer Liable for Securities Law Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Langford, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports a
Texan who made $4.1 million from a pump-and-dump scam fueled by
his shell company's "science fiction" oil drilling technology is
liable for securities violations, a federal judge in Houston,
Texas, ruled.

Andrew Farmer of Houston told financial regulators he never had a
business relationship with Chimera Energy, a Nevada company
incorporated in 2011. He claimed that as a favor to his longtime
friend, the company's CEO Charles Grob, he advised Grob how to
file Chimera's registration statement with the SEC and that was
the extent of his involvement.

In fact, Farmer was Chimera's de facto CEO who installed Grob as a
puppet executive and called all the shots, according to the SEC's
August 2014 lawsuit against Farmer.  Farmer negotiated Chimera's
startup funding, a $100,000 loan, he worked closely with the
attorney who prepared the company's Initial Public Offering, he
solicited his friends, associates, parents and wife to buy
Chimera's penny stock and financed their purchase of 2 million of
the 5 million offered in the IPO, which raised $75,000, the SEC's
investigation revealed.  Farmer also orchestrated an aggressive
marketing campaign in which Chimera issued 33 press releases,
claiming it had licensed China Inland Oil Exploration Company's
"environmentally friendly oil & gas extraction procedure" called
"nonhydraulic extraction," and had partnered with Mexico's state-
owned oil company Pemex, according to the SEC.

Farmer spent $346,000 on online advertising to raise Chimera's
profile with investors, the SEC said.

Before the marketing blitz, the SEC said, the typical daily
trading volume of Chimera's stock was 15,577 shares; afterward,
the trades soared to an average of 948,066 shares a day.  Farmer
sold at least 6.1 million shares of Chimera stock to the public in
unregistered transactions that netted him $4.58 million, according
to the SEC's lawsuit.  None of Chimera's marketing claims were
true, the SEC established in court hearings and filings.

"The summary judgment evidence establishes that Chimera's
purported agreement with China Inland and the nonhydraulic
extraction technology itself are both entirely fictitious. In
fact, China Inland appears to be a wholly fabricated entity, a
company that never existed," U.S. District Keith Ellison wrote on
Oct. 7.

"Furthermore, an expert in oil drilling technology, Dr. Fernando
Sebastian Flores Avila, has testified that nonhydraulic extraction
technology is 'science fiction.'"

Ellison granted the SEC's summary judgment motion and found Farmer
liable for violations of federal securities laws, unswayed by
Farmer's argument that he did not have "ultimate authority" over
Chimera's misleading statements.

The name Farmer chose for his company is revealing. A chimera is
"something that exists only in the imagination and is not possible
in reality," according to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary.

The SEC also sued Chimera Energy, Grob, Grob's successor Baldemar
P. Rios of Mexico City and Carolyn Austin of Houston and Lake
Charles, La., who sold Chimera stock.

The agency reached settlements with Grob, Rios and Austin in which
they agreed to injunctions. Ellison will decide the amount of
civil penalties or disgorgement they must pay, if any. Chimera, in
keeping with its name, did not file an answer, so Ellison granted
the SEC a default judgment against it on Oct. 7.

Farmer was the only defendant who challenged the SEC with cross-
summary judgment motions, which Ellison denied in the 35-page
order.

The SEC seeks disgorgement, penalties and wants Farmer permanently
barred from serving as officer of any business that files reports
with the SEC and from involvement in any penny stock offering.

Farmer's attorney Kevin Edmundson of Austin didn't return a phone
message seeking comment.


CLS TRANSPORTATION: FAA Does Not Preempt "Iskanian Rule"
--------------------------------------------------------
Sherry L. Swieca of Jackson Lewis P.C., in an article for The
National Law Review, reports that declining to enforce a
representative action waiver contained in an arbitration
agreement, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in San Francisco,
has held that the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") does not preempt
California's "Iskanian rule," which prohibits waiver of
representative claims under the state Private Attorneys General
Act of 2004 ("PAGA"), Cal. Lab. Code ? 2698 et seq. Sakkab v.
Luxottica Retail North America, Inc., No. 13-55184 (9th Cir. Sept.
28, 2015).

The PAGA "authorizes an employee to bring an action for civil
penalties on behalf of the state against his or her employer for
Labor Code violations committed against the employee and fellow
employees, with most of the proceeds of that litigation going to
the state." Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, 59
Cal.4th 348, 360 (2014).  Thus, a PAGA claim is a type of
government enforcement action where the representative employee
acts as the state's proxy.

Iskanian Rule

The California Supreme Court in Iskanian held that class action
waivers in arbitration agreements are enforceable under the FAA,
as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in AT&T Mobility LLC v.
Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011), but that representative PAGA
claims are unwaivable under California law.  The California
Supreme Court reasoned that waivers of representative PAGA claims
were against public policy, because they would "disable one of the
primary mechanisms for enforcing the Labor Code," and a private
agreement may not contravene a law established for a public
reason.

Split Resolved

California state courts have been following Iskanian, as required.
Several federal district courts in California, however, declined
to follow Iskanian, ruling that the FAA preempted it.  Sakkab
resolved this split between federal and state courts, at least for
the moment, in favor of the bar of representative PAGA waivers.

In upholding the Iskanian rule, the Court noted that while the FAA
permits arbitration agreements to be invalidated by "generally
applicable contract defenses, such as fraud, duress, or
unconscionability," it does not permit invalidation of such
agreements on account of state law contract defenses that apply
only to arbitration or "derive their meaning from the fact that an
agreement to arbitrate is at issue" (quoting Concepcion).  Even if
a state-law rule is "generally applicable," the Court said, it is
preempted if it "stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and
execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress"
(quoting Concepcion), which is to enforce arbitration agreements
according to their terms.

The Court held that the FAA does not preempt the Iskanian rule
because it is a generally applicable contract defense.  That is,
PAGA representative action waivers are unenforceable in any type
of contract, not just arbitration agreements.  The Court further
held that the rule does not conflict with Congress' objectives for
the FAA because it does not interfere with arbitration. PAGA
claims can be arbitrated.  The rule prohibits only a waiver of the
right to bring a representative PAGA claim in any forum.

The Court distinguished a state law prohibition on a class action
waiver, which the FAA preempts, from a PAGA representative action
waiver, which the FAA does not preempt.  A class action is a
procedural device for resolving the claims of absent parties on a
representative basis, it said.  Class procedures, which are
required to protect the due process rights of the absent parties,
sacrifice "the principal advantage of arbitration -- its
informality -- and makes the process slower, more costly, and more
likely to generate procedural morass than final judgment" (quoting
Concepcion).  In contrast, the Court said, representative PAGA
claims do not require these features because they do not vindicate
the absent employees' claims.  Instead, PAGA claims seek
penalties, not damages, which are measured by the number of state
Labor Code violations.  While this may increase the complexity of
a PAGA claim, it does so because of the measure of the recovery,
not required procedures that the parties can limit with their
arbitration agreement (e.g., discovery limitations).  The Court
held, "[a]n agreement to waive 'representative' PAGA claims --
that is, claims for penalties arising out of violations against
other employees -- is effectively an agreement to limit the
penalties an employee-plaintiff may recover on behalf of the
state." Therefore, the Court held that the PAGA waivers are
unenforceable.

Dissent

Judge N. Randy Smith would have applied Concepcion to PAGA
representative action waivers in the same manner as it applies to
class action waivers.  Judge Smith would have held Iskanian's PAGA
waiver ban is preempted by the FAA.

For now, PAGA representative action waivers will not be enforced
in both state and federal courts in California.  The Iskanian rule
applies unless and until there is an en banc or U.S. Supreme Court
ruling reversing the decision. Although the Supreme Court has
declined review in two cases, including Iskanian, it may have been
waiting for the Ninth Circuit to opine on the issue.  Now that the
Ninth Circuit has done so, a Supreme Court review may be more
likely.


COCA-COLA CO: Loses Bid to Dismiss Data Breach Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gina Passarella, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
the Coca-Cola Co. and several bottling companies have lost a bid
to dismiss a putative class action filed against them by a former
employee who said his identity was stolen after 55 laptops with
employee data went missing from the bottling company's possession.

Referring to the defendants collectively as "Coke," U.S. District
Judge Joseph F. Leeson Jr. of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
rejected Coke's argument that plaintiff Shane K. Enslin's
potential future damages were speculative and that any injuries
that have already occurred couldn't be causally linked to Coke's
loss of the laptops.

While Judge Leeson dismissed six of Mr. Enslin's nine claims
against Coke, he differentiated this case from others in the Third
Circuit when finding Enslin had standing to pursue the surviving
claims.

"Here, plaintiff's harms are not 'future harms,' but ongoing,
present, distinct and palpable harms," Judge Leeson said, noting
Mr. Enslin has already suffered alleged theft of funds from his
bank accounts, unauthorized use of credit cards and the
unauthorized issuance of a new credit card in his name.

Mr. Enslin, who worked as a service technician for Keystone Coca-
Cola Bottling Co. in the Poconos region, also claimed that someone
used his personally identifiable information (PII) to get a job
with United Parcel Service.

"Courts that have passed on claims arising out of the loss or
theft of PII have hesitated to find the existence of a
constitutional injury-in-fact before lost PII is actually misused,
but a number of courts have found that plaintiffs who have already
suffered identifiable identity attacks, by contrast, have standing
to advance their claims," Judge Leeson said.

Judge Leeson further rejected Coke's motion to dismiss
Mr. Enslin's claims based on damages he has suffered to prevent
future harm.  Judge Leeson differentiated this case from others
that have found the cost to protect against future events is no
more of an actual injury than the alleged increased risk of an
injury when PII is stolen.  Judge Leeson said the money and time
Mr. Enslin has put out to stop future identity theft was to combat
"actual, imminent and impending harms."

"Here, [Enslin] incurred an expense in connection with his action
to close his bank account in response to unauthorized access,"
Judge Leeson said.  Mr. Enslin "also expended time and effort
protecting other credit cards and bank accounts from the identity
thieves, which [Enslin] did in response to ongoing harms, not
harms that were merely 'hypothetical.'"

Coke further argued the timeframe between when Mr. Enslin stopped
working for Coke in 2007 and the time his PII was misused in 2014
was too great a span to show a causal connection.  It also argued
the information stolen couldn't have given rise to the harm
Mr. Enslin suffered.

"Although seven years passed between [Enslin's] employment and the
misuse of his information, the chain linking the loss of
[Enslin's] SSN, credit cards, and banking information, and the
subsequent identity attacks [Enslin] suffered, is plausible,"
Judge Leeson said.

Coke further argued none of the related Coke defendants aside from
Mr. Enslin's direct employer, Keystone Coca-Cola Bottling Co., had
any relation to Mr. Enslin or his personal information.  But
Judge Leeson rejected that argument, finding there was enough
evidence in the complaint to show a link between the various Coke
entities.  Judge Leeson also pointed out that it was Coca-Cola Co.
and Coca-Cola Refreshments that sent Mr. Enslin a letter informing
him of the data breach.

Judge Leeson further found for Mr. Enslin in that the PII
allegedly stolen was more than enough for his identity to be
compromised.  Mr. Enslin alleged in the complaint that he was
required to give Coke his full legal name, address, Social
Security number, bank account information, credit card
information, driver's license information, driving records and
date of birth.

                      Narrowing the Claims

Mr. Enslin's breach of express and implied contract claims
survived. He argued his employment contract equated to a "mutual
exchange of consideration" in which Mr. Enslin was entrusted with
the vehicles and equipment for the sale of a secure brand while
Mr. Enslin was promised, among other things, that his PII would be
kept safe.  Judge Leeson said Mr. Enslin sufficiently pleaded the
existence of the contract, the breach and the damages he suffered.

Judge Leeson also allowed to proceed Mr. Enslin's claim for unjust
enrichment.  Mr. Enslin argued Coke was "knowingly enriched" by
the savings in costs it should have expended in protecting
Mr. Enslin and the putative class members' data.  Judge Leeson
said Mr. Enslin sufficiently pleaded the claim and denied, "at
this juncture," Coke's motion to dismiss it.

Judge Leeson dismissed all of Mr. Enslin's other claims, however.
Judge Leeson dismissed Mr. Enslin's claim under the Driver's
Privacy Protection Act, which alleged the loss of his driving
information violated the act.  Judge Leeson said the loss of the
information did not constitute a knowing disclosure under the act.
That act provides for statutory damages of $2,500 per violation.
Judge Leeson rejected Mr. Enslin's negligence claim under the
economic loss doctrine, which bars such claims for purely economic
losses.

Judge Leeson was not persuaded by Mr. Enslin's argument that his
claim fell under a "special relationship" exception to the
doctrine, finding Mr. Enslin had an employment relationship with
Coke, any damages from which could be recovered under contract
claims, not negligence claims.  Judge Leeson similarly dismissed
the negligent misrepresentation claim.

Mr. Enslin's fraud claim was dismissed for failure to plead with
particularity.  His claim for breach of covenant of good faith and
fair dealing was dismissed because it overlapped with the breach
of contract claims.

Judge Leeson also rejected Mr. Enslin's claim under the law of
bailments, in which he argued Coke was a bailor of his PII and
failed to return it to him.

"While courts in Pennsylvania have yet to consider whether such a
claim could arise in connection with a loss of electronic
information, a number of courts have found that PII lost by a
party holding that information was not 'property' or 'personalty'
for the purposes of the law of bailment," Judge Leeson said.

Judge Leeson also dismissed Mr. Enslin's civil conspiracy claim
that alleged the Coke defendants conspired to keep the loss of his
information secret.

Donald Haviland of Haviland Hughes in Ambler represented
Mr. Enslin and Mark Melodia -- mmelodia@reedsmith.com -- of Reed
Smith in Princeton, New Jersey, led the defense team for Coke.

Mr. Haviland said the case was brought because Coke "refused to do
the right thing."  He said the one-year credit monitoring the
company offered the employees whose data was compromised "isn't
good enough."

According to the opinion, the 55 laptops contained PII of
approximately 74,000 people.  Unlike other large-company data
breaches of late, in which hackers were involved, Coke was able to
determine who took the laptops.  According to Judge Leeson's
opinion, Coke determined employee Thomas William Rogers was
allegedly responsible for the theft.  He was arrested in Cobb
County, Georgia, in June 2014 and has been charged with felony and
misdemeanor theft by taking, Judge Leeson said.  Coke has been
able to recover all of the stolen laptops, Judge Leeson said.

Mr. Melodia deferred comment to Coke.  A Coke spokesman said in a
statement, "We are pleased that the court dismissed six out of
nine claims and we are confident that we will ultimately show that
the remaining claims have no merit."


COMPTON, CA: Judge Denies Students' Bid for Class-Action Status
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cory Turner, writing for NPR, reports that students who experience
traumatic events while growing up in poor, turbulent neighborhoods
could be considered disabled, a federal judge has ruled in a high-
profile case involving the Compton, Calif., schools.

The ruling from U.S. District Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald,
released on Sept. 30, involves a class-action lawsuit filed
against the Compton Unified School District.  The plaintiffs
argued that students who have experienced trauma are entitled to
the same services and protections that schools must provide to
traditionally disabled students.

The ruling wasn't a complete win for the plaintiffs and the pro
bono firm representing them, Public Counsel.  Judge Fitzgerald
denied, for now, their request for class-action status because, he
said, they hadn't clearly established what's known as numerosity.

The plaintiffs estimate that roughly 25 percent of the 22,000
students who attend CUSD have experienced at least two or more
"severe traumas."  But the judge wrote that exposure to trauma
does not guarantee that a child (1) will suffer "from cognizable
trauma-induced disabilities for purposes of the proposed class
definition, and (2) have been denied meaningful access to their
education."

It's an important distinction Judge Fitzgerald is making here.
He's not questioning whether exposure to traumatic events can
disable a student.  He's saying that exposure to traumatic events
does not guarantee disability.  And that raises the bar for the
plaintiffs as they try to define the size of their aggrieved
class.

The court also refused a request to force Compton's schools to
provide additional, mandatory trauma training for staff.  The
district currently provides some training, but the plaintiffs
argued that the program is insufficient.

Legally, this kind of request is an uphill fight.  What's known as
a mandatory injunction -- ordering someone to start doing
something rather than to stop doing it -- comes with a much higher
standard, one the judge ruled the plaintiffs did not meet.

What happens next depends on both sides and whether the recent
ruling has encouraged any movement to the middle.  A settlement
between the plaintiffs and Compton Unified is still possible.  If
not, the lawsuit will move forward.


CYPRUS: Greek Investors File Arbitration Proceeding
---------------------------------------------------
Grant & Eisenhofer on Sept. 30 disclosed that a large group of
Greek investors formally filed an arbitration proceeding against
the Republic of Cyprus for losses arising from the global
financial crisis and the 2013 bailout of Cyprus.

Claimants include 676 individual and institutional investors
asserting 434 separate claims against Cyprus.  The investor
claimants, who are all Greek nationals, were depositors and
bondholders of Laiki Bank and the Bank of Cyprus, whose
investments were lost due to legislation passed by the Cypriot
government in connection with the country's EUR10 billion bailout
by the European Union, the European Central Bank and the IMF.
Many investors lost much of their life savings following the
bailout.

Leading financial litigation law firms Grant & Eisenhofer; Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check; and Kyros Law; along with international law
firm Volterra Fietta, have filed the claims on behalf of the Greek
investors to recover their losses, estimated at hundreds of
millions of euros.

The case has been filed with the International Centre for
Settlement of Investment Disputes, an international investor
tribunal affiliated with the World Bank; the dispute will be
adjudicated through binding arbitration.  In July 2014, investors
earlier had submitted a notice of dispute to the Cypriot
government, pursuant to an investment treaty between Greece and
Cyprus, which provides that the parties must first attempt to
settle their dispute for at least six months before arbitration
proceedings can begin.  Typically in the ICSID forum, one
arbitrator would be appointed by the Greek investors, one by
Cyprus, and the third would be appointed by agreement (or by ICSID
itself).

"We have formally brought suit before ICSID after the Cyprus
government failed to respond to our filing notice of the dispute
and made no effort to negotiate," said Grant & Eisenhofer co-
managing director Jay Eisenhofer.  "This is the first time that
Greece and Cyprus' bilateral treaty will be tested as a group
action for large numbers of investors.  We have since spent more
than a year identifying the hundreds of claimants in this action,
and anticipate additional claims of tens of millions of euros to
be brought in the coming year."

The investor claimants seek recovery of the value of their
deposits or bonds lost as a result of the Cyprus bailout.  Their
claims arose out of Cyprus' response to its financial crisis,
following Greece's default on its own bonds in 2012. Laiki Bank
and the Bank of Cyprus had purchased huge amounts of Greek bonds
and lost billions of euros once Greece defaulted.

By late 2012, certain European institutions began bailout
negotiations with Cyprus.  The institutions -- comprised of the
European Commission, the European Central Bank and the
International Monetary Fund -- became known as the Troika.

An initial bailout proposal by the Troika, which would have
required significant austerity measures and a levy on all bank
accounts in Cyprus, was rejected by the Cyprus Parliament.  As a
consequence, on March 25, 2013, Cyprus agreed to a revised bailout
deal with the Troika that only impacted bondholders or uninsured
depositors in Laiki Bank and Bank of Cyprus -- who were
overwhelmingly from countries other than Cyprus.  Further, in
connection with the bailout, a number of Cypriot entities --
including the government itself -- were exempted from the harsh
treatment imposed on foreign investors.

Mr. Eisenhofer stated, "We believe that Greek investors were
singled out and discriminated against during the bailout while
Greek depositors were subject to extreme bailout measures, many
public institutions of Cyprus were made exempt.  Our law firms
have been coordinating litigation efforts in Greece for more than
a year to work toward the recovery of investor funds."

Grant & Eisenhofer and Kessler Topaz regularly represent European
and international institutional investors.  The firms led a
coalition of global investors -- more than 50 institutions in
Europe, Australia and elsewhere -- in successfully bringing a
securities class action in the Netherlands against Royal Dutch
Shell, which was accused of vastly overstating its oil reserves in
financial disclosures.  The unprecedented action led to a payment
of more than $500 million from the oil giant -- the largest
securities fraud settlement ever in Europe.  G&E has also
litigated major shareholder cases in Germany, France and the UK.

Since 2013, G&E and Kyros Law have been working together under a
joint agreement on investor-driven litigation coming in and out of
Greece, including matters stemming from the country's economic
meltdown.  The collaboration benefits investors litigating in
Greece through Kyros' Athens office, as well as Greek investors
litigating in the United States via Grant & Eisenhofer.

                   About Grant & Eisenhofer

Grant & Eisenhofer -- http://www.gelaw.com-- is one of the top
litigation and arbitration firms in the United States.  The Firm
represents institutional investors from across the globe in U.S.
and international securities class actions, derivative lawsuits,
antitrust suits, bankruptcy litigation and other complex financial
litigation matters.  The Firm has more than 60 attorneys, with
offices in Wilmington, New York and Chicago, and an international
docket of high-profile cases. G&E has recovered more than $28
billion in the last 10 years and has twice been cited by
RiskMetrics for securing the highest average investor recovery in
securities class actions. G&E has been named one of the country's
top plaintiffs' law firms by The National Law Journal for the past
11 years, and was named one of the nation's "Most Feared
Plaintiffs Firms" by Law360 every year since the inception of the
list.

                      About Kessler Topaz

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check -- http://www.ktmc.com-- has
recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and
individual investors from the United States and around the world
and is a driving force behind corporate governance reform.  The
firm represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers in complex
litigation and has presented claims before various arbitration
tribunals.

                       About Kyros Law

Kyros Law -- http://www.kyroslawoffices.com-- specializes in a
wide range of complex litigation, corporate governance matters,
and mass torts, including the representation of whistleblowers,
shareholders and consumers in securities fraud, false claims act
and class actions.

                     About Volterra Fietta

Volterra Fietta is a team of public international lawyers, with a
top-tier global reputation in investment treaty arbitration.  The
only public international law boutique in the world, and the only
international arbitration boutique law firm in the United Kingdom,
the firm has one of the largest dedicated treaty dispute teams in
the world.  Volterra Fietta acts for States, international
organizations and private entities in every continent and region
of the world. Volterra Fietta is authorized and regulated by the
Solicitors Regulation Authority.


DALLAS, TX: NEA-Dallas Files Grievance Over Evaluation System
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tawnell D. Hobbs, writing for Education Blog, reports that an
attorney representing The National Education Association-Dallas
reports that the group on Sept. 30 filed a grievance against
Dallas ISD's new teacher evaluation system.

Angela Davis, president of NEA-Dallas, called the new system
"unfair."  She said some teachers received good evaluations but
didn't get raises.

Others want more information about their evaluations, but the
principals who evaluated them have left the district. (This school
year, 1 in 3 campuses have new principals.) And some teachers
achieved a "distinguished" rating but learned they are making only
slightly more than new teachers.

"It's just not right," Ms. Davis said.

The evaluation system, called the Teacher Excellence Initiative
(TEI), bases teacher pay on performance, student surveys and test
scores.  The old system mainly tied teacher pay to tenure.

Under the new system, teachers receive points to determine their
"effectiveness level."  Salaries for the 10 different levels can
range from $47,000 for teachers performing unsatisfactorily to
$90,000 for "master" teachers.  The top five levels are for
teachers who go through a "Distinguished Teacher Review," or DTR.

Teachers learned their effectiveness level on Sept. 18 and
subsequent complaints have run the gamut.  One of the concerns is
about experienced teachers who made around $47,000 last school
year.  The district capped raises at $5,000.  So they now earn
about the same amount as beginning teachers, who received this
year's new starting salary of $50,000.

Ms. Davis said the deadline to join her group's grievance was
5:00 p.m. on Oct.1.  She said that teachers who have already filed
individual grievances can still have their grievance included.

She said her group wants changes made to the evaluation system
and, at the very least, a cost-of-living increase for teachers who
didn't get raises.  She added that if the matter can't be settled
at the district level, her group will consider other action.

The evaluation system was briefly discussed at the board meeting.
A couple of trustees questioned interim Superintendent Michael
Hinojosa about teachers who did well but didn't get raises.

"Dr. Hinojosa that needs to be cleaned up, because that is not
correct," trustee Joyce Foreman said.  "We have employees who will
not receive an increase who did not have unsatisfactory
performance."

Trustee Dan Micciche asked Dr. Hinojosa if the district was
considering making adjustments for "distinguished" teachers who
did not get raises because they are already above their
compensation level.

Dr. Hinojosa said there were preliminary discussions but no
specific recommendations.  He said that the district has to be
careful with its budget because enrollment, which drives state
funding, is less than expected.

"We're not prepared for any modifications going forward,"
Dr. Hinojosa said.

DISD has about 10,000 teachers.  About 13 percent of 8,281
returning teachers were rated at the high distinguished levels,
according to DISD information.

Dr. Hinojosa said the board would receive a report about the new
pay system in October.  He told trustees that there has been a lot
of emotion over the new system, and principals met individually
with teachers who were most affected.

He noted that 71 percent of returning teachers got a salary
increase, and that the average raise was 4.5 percent, or $2,700.
More than 35 percent of returning teachers received a raise of
$4,000 to $5,000, according to a DISD news release.

Diane Birdwell, a 16-year DISD teacher, told trustees at the
meeting that the new pay scale "punishes veteran teachers."

"If you want to destroy a school from inside out, keep using TEI.
Most veteran teachers were leaving their school Friday feeling
that they were smacked in the face," Ms. Birdwell said, referring
to the day teachers learned what level they were place in under
the new system.

DISD officials say the earning potential over time is better for
teachers under the new system.

Paul Boyd, a six-year teacher, said that he sees the potential in
the new system.  Mr. Boyd made about $47,000 last year.  This year
he received the maximum raise after making it into one of the
"distinguished teacher review" levels, bringing his salary to
$52,000.

"I like how the system holds teachers accountable in ALL aspects
of their teaching responsibilities, not just student performance,"
he said in an email.  "Teachers deserve to be recognized for the
hard work they put in, and DTR [distinguished teacher review] does
that."


DRAFTKINGS INC: Fantasy Sports Sites Sued Over Insider Trading
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ann Babe, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
fantasy sports sites are facing real-world problems -- big ones --
as allegations of insider trading have prompted federal class
actions against DraftKings and FanDuel.

Adam Johnson and Cody Allgeier, both of Kentucky, each filed
complaints Oct. 8 in Manhattan and Kentucky, respectively, against
Boston-based DraftKings and Manhattan-based FanDuel. The New York
case is a federal complaint, but Allgeier filed his case in
Jefferson County Circuit Court.  They say the websites induced
football fans into wagering money on contests that they allowed
their own employees to play -- and win using insider information.

According to the complaints, Johnson "deposited and risked" $100,
and Allgeier $251, on DraftKings.  Had he known "defendants were
working in concert to allow employees . . . to play against them,"
however, Johnson says he would not have wagered the money.

"The biggest edges any player can have come from having data and
information. DraftKings and FanDuel employees have access to both
things, neither of which is public," the Manhattan suit states.
"For instance, DraftKings performs analytics to determine winning
strategies . . . and even how lineups on FanDuel would do if they
were entered into DraftKings contests." Information like this has
led DraftKings employees to win at least $6 million from FanDuel
contests, the complaints say.

Indeed, it was reported that DraftKings employee Ethan Haskell won
$350,000 in a FanDuel contest, coming in second out of 229,883
entrants.  The scandal prompted New York Attorney General Eric
Schneiderman to open an investigation into fantasy sports sites
like DraftKings and FanDuel.  A day later, DraftKings announced
that it had "permanently banned [its] employees from playing any
daily fantasy games for money, on any site."

Johnson is represented by Paul Whalen, of New York, and Jones Ward
PLC, in Louisville, Ky.

Allgeier is represented by Jones Ward as well. Alleging
negligence, fraud and false advertising, they seek damages,
restitution and a cease-and-desist order.

The players hope to represent a class of "all persons in the
United States who deposited money into a DraftKings account before
Oct. 6, 2015 and competed in any contest where other entries were
made by employees from DraftKings, FanDuel or any other [daily
fantasy sports] site."

When approached for comment, FanDuel responded with a statement
published on Oct. 7, distancing itself from the DraftKings
contest.

"Based on everything we know thus far, there is no evidence
indicating that the integrity of FanDuel's contest was in any way
compromised, or that non-public information was used for unfair
advantage," FanDuel said in the statement. "That said, the
incident has raised questions about the trust-based relationship
we have with our players so just relying on what we know right now
isn't enough."

FanDuel claims to have "permanently banned our employees from
playing any daily fantasy games for money, on any site."

"We will also require all customers to confirm that they are not
an employee of any other third party fantasy site, and if they
are, they will not be allowed to access our site," the statement
continues.

FanDuel says it has also asked U.S. Attorney General Michael
Mukasey, a former federal judge, "to review the facts and evaluate
our internal controls, standards and practices," with help from a
team of lawyers at Debevoise & Plimpton.

Another former U.S. attorney, Michael Garcia of the Kirkland and
Ellis law firm, meanwhile will lead a new internal advisory board
for FanDuel.

Though DraftKings declined to comment on the lawsuits, CEO Jason
Robins told Fortune in an interview that the company is addressing
the issue both by banning employees from playing and by
"engag[ing] Greenberg Traurig to do a full audit of all the
sensitive data available on DraftKings in the last several years
-- who accessed it, how and when they accessed it."

Robins also made a point distinguishing insider trading from what
happened at DraftKings and FanDuel.

"It's not at all the same thing," he said. "While we agree that
having that data can help your performance, the skillfulness of
the players on DraftKings and their ability to compete is much
more about an ability to synthesize a lot of data, not just one
data point like ownership. With insider trading, markets move on a
single data point in the world of securities trading."


ENERGY EXPRESS: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Pay Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Neville, writing for Texas Lawyer, reports that Energy
Express Services, a Houston-based oil field services company,
recently got hammered with a federal class action suit in
Pennsylvania brought by former employees who allege that the
company carried out illegal pay practices.  Express is active in
every major U.S. hydrocarbon basin and is a provider of products
and services through its multiple service lines, including well
construction and well testing services.

A group of former employees recently filed the class action suit,
Cornell v. Express Energy Services, in the U.S. District Court of
Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh Division.  The plaintiffs brought this
suit on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated employees
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage
Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act and the Ohio Prompt
Pay Act.

Plaintiff Russell Cornell worked for Express during the relevant
statutory time period as a wireline operator, according to the
complaint. He was paid a salary and a bonus and no overtime for
hours worked over 40 in a workweek.  Along the same lines, the
other name plaintiff, Jonathan Snyder, also worked for Express as
a wireline hand. Snyder was paid hourly plus a bonus, but his
bonus was not included in his regular rate calculation.

The plaintiffs allege in the complaint that Express improperly
classified plaintiffs Cornell, Jonathan Snyder, and all those
similarly situated putative class members as exempt from the FLSA,
and paid them a salary and bonus with no overtime for hours worked
over 40 in a workweek.  In addition, the plaintiffs claim that
Express paid Snyder and all those similarly situated putative
class members by the hour plus a nondiscretionary bonus, but
failed to include the bonus in the regular rate calculation. The
plaintiffs allege that neither pay practice complied with the
applicable state or federal overtime laws.

According to the complaint, Express employs numerous employees to
serve exploration and production companies by providing wireline-
related services.  These individuals constitute the classes in the
lawsuit.  Specifically, the primary job duties of the putative
class members include operating oil field machinery and tools,
collecting, relaying data, testing data, and making daily reports
to both field and remote supervisors for analysis.

The putative class members did not have any supervisory or
management duties, as stated in the complaint.  The putative class
members also worked similar hours and were both denied overtime as
a result of the same two illegal pay practices.  The putative
class members were generally scheduled to work 84 hours per
workweek, but often worked more.

The plaintiffs state that they are bringing the class and
collective action against Express in order to recover all back
wages, liquidated damages, attorney fees, and costs on behalf of
themselves and all similarly situated putative class members
employed by Express over the past three years, as stated in the
complaint.

Joshua Geist, a partner with the Pittsburgh firm of Goodrich &
Geist who represents the plaintiffs in the case, was unavailable
for comment.  In addition, the following attorneys with the
Houston law firm of Fibich, Leebron, Copeland, Briggs & Josephson
are representing the plaintiffs: Jessica Bresler, Michael
Josephson and Andrew Dunlap.  None of them returned a call seeking
comment.

Currently, Energy Express Services is not represented by counsel
in the case.  Wendy Hall, the Express Corporate Communications
representative, did not return a call seeking comment.


ESKATON VILLAGE: Judge Delays Class Action Until Next Year
----------------------------------------------------------
Alan Riquelmy, writing for The Union, reports that one of the
plaintiffs in the Eskaton Village Grass Valley lawsuit may proceed
to trial this December, though a judge has delayed a related class
action in the case until at least next year.

The lawsuit, which plaintiff Ronald Coley said he intends to take
to trial on Dec. 8 in Sacramento Superior Court, stems from claims
by Eskaton homeowners Coley and Karen Lorini of financial elder
abuse, unfair business practices and negligence.

Eskaton officials dispute the claims, saying at a Sept. 30
homeowner meeting that many residents are happy with the amount
they pay for the services provided.

One resident, who declined to be named, called the fees
"reasonable."

Additionally, Eskaton officials added they lose money on the Grass
Valley development by providing services at below cost.

"Obviously, it's frustrating for everyone," Eskaton CEO Todd Murch
said.  "Obviously, there's a lot of lawyers making a lot of
money."

Mr. Murch is a defendant in the case, as is COO Betsy Donovan,
Eskaton Village Grass Valley, Eskaton Properties Inc. and Eskaton
Village Grass Valley Homeowners Association.

Some members of the homeowners association on Sept. 30 pressed
Mr. Murch on how they'd benefit from the suit, or alternatively,
how the association could escape the litigation.

Mr. Murch and Ms. Donovan said those were questions for the
plaintiffs.  Mr. Murch noted, however, that Eskaton had made two
settlement offers in which it offered to pay the association's
legal fees.

Both offers have since been rescinded, Mr. Murch said, adding that
legal fees have likely doubled.

Mr. Coley said Eskaton knew about the complaints before he filed
suit. He pointed to a resolution brought before the homeowners
association board in October 2013 that details potential conflict
of interest.

According to Mr. Coley, Eskaton officials who serve on the board
should abstain from voting on issues in which they have a
financial interest, or that their votes not count.

The resolution failed to pass.  Mr. Coley and Ms. Lorini filed
suit the following year.

In August Mr. Coley filed a motion asking to accelerate the
proceedings, stating his health was at risk.

Mr. Murch said a judge agreed with Coley, and separated his case
from Ms. Lorini and the class action. More preparation is required
for the class action suit, which will be delayed until at least
March.

"Anything in the legal arena is a laborious process," Mr. Murch
added.

In an unrelated issue, a union of Eskaton Village Grass Valley
employees was scheduled to vote by Oct. 5 on disbanding.

Employees voted in June 2014 to form a union, said Larry King,
with Eskaton Village Grass Valley campus patrol.  Mr. Murch said
an employee opted this year to attempt the decertification of the
union.

The by-mail ballots were due on Oct. 5, and officials were set to
certify the election on Oct. 7, Mr. King said.


FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE: 3 FIFA Officials Suspend Amid Scandal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Lessmiller, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that three more FIFA officials were suspended Thursday, Oct. 8,
marking the latest development in the soccer authority's growing
corruption saga.

The suspension of Federation Internationale de Football
Association President Sepp Blatter comes less than two weeks after
Swiss authorities said they were investigating the embattled
soccer chief on suspicion of "criminal mismanagement and
misappropriation."

Blatter, who announced his resignation in June, has been banned
from all soccer activities for 90 days, FIFA said Oct. 8.

FIFA Vice President Michel Platini was also suspended Thursday for
90 days. Platini is the head of Europe's FIFA confederation and
was a top candidate to replace Blatter.

Soccer's governing body said the bans are related to ongoing
internal investigations. They can be extended by 45 days,
according to FIFA.

In addition to the two 90-day suspensions, FIFA said that South
Korean soccer official Chung Mong-joon has been banned for six
years. The soccer authority said he has been found guilty of
conduct violations related to the bidding process for the 2018 and
2022 World Cups.

Fourteen people, including high-ranking FIFA officials, were
indicted in May on corruption charges announced by U.S. Attorney
General Loretta Lynch, including accusations that they took
kickbacks for the broadcast of international soccer tournaments.
Lynch accused the defendants of having "corrupted the world of
soccer."

An election to decide Blatter's replacement will be held Feb. 26,
2016, according to FIFA. In the meantime, Issa Hayatou will act as
interim president of soccer's governing body.

Hayatou said in a statement that he will not be a candidate for
Blatter's permanent replacement. He promised his "best efforts"
until a new president is chosen.

"FIFA remains committed to the reform process, which is critical
to reclaiming public trust. We will also continue to cooperate
fully with authorities and follow the internal investigation
wherever it leads," Hayatou said.

Hayatou was appointed as acting president in accordance with
organization bylaws, according to FIFA's website.

In September, FIFA said that secretary general Jerome Valcke was
placed on leave after claims about World Cup tickets being sold
above face value.  The announcement on Oct. 8 clarifies that
Valcke's suspension is also 90 days.

A class action lawsuit filed in September claims that FIFA made
hundreds of millions of dollars by overcharging U.S. fans who
bought tickets to the 2014 Men's World Cup in Brazil. Lead
plaintiff Vicky Palivos said she paid $736 per ticket -- $2,944
total for four tickets -- each of which had a face value of $135.


FLINT, MI: Trend of Customers Not Paying Water Bills Continuing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Fonger, writing for MLive, reports that an average of about
100 fewer customers are coming into City Hall daily to pay water
bills since a judge ordered lower rates and an end to water
shutoffs because of past-due bills.

Chief Financial Officer Jody Lundquist told the City Council
today, Sept. 30, that the daily average number of people paying
bills has dropped from 447 before Genesee Circuit Judge Archie
Hayman's order to 344 after.

The result of the reduced foot traffic: collections are down
nearly $1.8 million in the current fiscal year, Ms. Lundquist
said.

"Word got out (that) they can't shut us off," Ms. Lundquist said.
As a result, "no one is paying."

The new report is consistent with what city officials said in the
days immediately following Hayman's verbal granting of a
preliminary injunction that lowered rates and forbid water
shutoffs.

The injunction is connected to a class action lawsuit against the
city which claims Flint has improperly raised water and sewer
rates in the past.

The lawsuit was originally brought by two Flint residents who sued
the city in 2014, but Hayman certified the class action about 30
days ago.


GLOBUS MEDICAL: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Sept. 30
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of Globus Medical, Inc. securities from February 26,
2014 through August 5, 2014, all dates inclusive.  The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for Globus Medical investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the Globus Medical class action, go to the firm's website
at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-621.htmlor call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements to investors
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Globus Medical's relationship
with a significant distributor was deteriorating; (2) such
deterioration was negatively impacting Globus Medical's financial
performance; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, defendants'
statements about Globus Medical's business, operations, and
prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.  When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit
claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed.  If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
November 30, 2015.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's
website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-621.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm
toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
kchan@rosenlegal.com

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.

The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
Kevin Chan, Esq.
Tel: 212-686-1060
Toll Free: 866-767-3653
Fax: 212-202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
kchan@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com


HYDRO ONE: Gravenhurst Property Owner Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Kim Goggins, writing for Muskoka Region, reports that a
Gravenhurst property owner has launched a class action suit for
$125 million against Hydro One.

In the statement of claim, dated Aug. 26, 2015, Bill Bennett's
lawyers allege Hydro One overcharged him and failed to make proper
corrections.

According to the claim, in May 2014, he received an envelope from
Hydro One containing four separate "catch-up" bills that disclosed
a significant increase in electricity costs and consumption for
the period between Nov. 8, 2013 and March 11, 2014.

Distressed by the significantly increased charges and consumption
of electricity reflected on these "catch-up" bills, the statement
of claim says Bennett contacted Hydro One on numerous occasions
but instead of acknowledging any billing issues or other problems,
Hydro One suggested these increased charges might reflect
unauthorized usage of his property during times he was away.
Bennett says he was unable to get any satisfactory explanation
from Hydro One regarding these charges.

On April 6, 2015, Bennett received an envelope from Hydro One
containing 40 "revised" bills dating back to the period between
October 2011 and February 2015.  Dated Feb. 26, 2015, these bills
reflected an increase of 185 per cent in Bennett's alleged
electricity bills and usage between the period of October 2011 and
July 2013.  Although the "revised" bills between July 2013 and
February 2015 did not show an increase in kilowatt-hour usage, the
electricity charges reflected on the bills increased approximately
190 per cent.

"He's sick and tired of being overcharged and mistreated by Hydro
One," said Garth Myers -- gmyers@kmlaw.ca -- a lawyer with Koskie
Minsky LLP in Toronto, one of the firms representing Bennett.  "He
opened his mail one day to 40 new bills billing him for
electricity he didn't consume. No explanation was provided."

Mr. Myers said a number of people from Muskoka have contacted
Koskie Minsky regarding problems with Hydro One billing, but
Bennett is the only person that has retained them and the law firm
of Lax O'Sullivan Scott Lisus.

"It's ordinary in a class action (that) one person commences the
class action.  It wouldn't make sense for another person to file
anything," he explained.  "What happens in a class action is one
person starts it and then everyone else sort of shelters under
that umbrella."

Daffyd Roderick, director of corporate affairs for Hydro One, said
about five per cent of the utility's customers were affected with
problems caused by the new billing system implemented in 2013.

"Where our focus has been in -- and I believe we're changing -- is
we understand that it's OK to have a technical problem; it's OK to
have a technology challenge, but what's really important is how
you treat people when you're having those types of issues and I
think that, as a company, is where our focus is now," he said.
"We're really much better and much more adept at helping our
customers get through these situations and we know we need to do
that in order to get people's trust back."

A statement of claim was submitted on Aug. 24 and is awaiting
certification by the court.  According to Mr. Myers, the
certification process involves a five-part test: it must prove
there is a claim in law for what the plaintiff is seeking; that
there is an identifiable class of people; that there are issues
common to the entire class; that a class action is the preferable
procedure for the resolution of the claims; and that there is an
appropriate resident plaintiff.

"We have to file a motion record, which is evidence we're going to
rely on and the other side will get an opportunity to respond with
evidence and then there will be cross examinations and then there
will be a hearing," said Mr. Myers, explaining the next steps.
"We're hoping for a hearing next year.  The determination of
whether those criterion are met will occur at that hearing."

Mr. Roderick said Hydro One will vigorously defend any actions
should the class action proceed.

Those who want to join the class action can call Myers at 1-855-
595-2628 or email hydrooneclassaction@kmlaw.ca


ILLINOIS: Home Day Care Workers Seek Refunds of Union Fees
----------------------------------------------------------
Alan Scher Zagier, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
home day care workers in Illinois are seeking a refund of millions
of dollars in past payments in a federal lawsuit recently filed in
the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court decision that overturned a state
requirement for non-union home health workers to pay fair-share
union fees.

The class-action lawsuit was brought by home day care owners Laura
Baston of Casey and Sandy Winner of Jacksonville and names Gov.
Bruce Rauner and the Service Employees International Union
Healthcare Illinois & Indiana as defendants.

It comes as the first-term Republican governor aggressively aims
to curtail labor unions' political influence.

The lawsuit says Illinois should repay what the conservative
Illinois Policy Institute estimates was as much as $10 million in
annual withholding of "agency fees" that were deducted from
reimbursements for private contractors who cared for low-income
children eligible to receive state support.

The fees, which are not supposed to be used for political
activity, had been collected since 2005 under an executive order
by former Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

The Supreme Court ruled, 5-4, in June 2014 that the union dues,
which cover the costs of contract negotiations and grievance
disputes, could not be collected from people who provided in-home
care for people with disabilities who didn't want to join the
state employees' union.

Soon after, the administration of Gov. Pat Quinn, a Democrat and
Mr. Rauner's predecessor, stopped collecting the fees from child
care providers -- at the policy institute's request.

Baston and her attorneys declined comment on Sept. 30.

Officials with the governor's office and the Illinois Attorney
General's Office, which is representing Mr. Rauner, did not
immediately respond to requests for comment.

SEIU spokesman James Muhammad called the class-action suit a
politically motivated effort to weaken a union that has won better
wages and working conditions for its members.

"The lawsuit . . . is doing the same thing in the courtroom that
Gov. Rauner himself is doing at the bargaining table -- demanding
that workers give up their voice in a race to the bottom in wages,
benefits and protections," he said.

A status hearing in the lawsuit, which was filed in mid-August in
U.S. District Court in Chicago, is scheduled for Oct. 15.

The presiding federal judge granted a request by attorneys for
Mr. Rauner seeking more time to file their answer to the
complaint.

The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments later this
year in a similar case brought by California teachers challenging
a state requirement that non-union members pay fair-share fees.

In a separate federal suit, a judge in May dismissed Mr. Rauner as
a plaintiff in a case over forced fees paid by non-union state
workers who are nonetheless represented by their union bargaining
units.

Mr. Rauner also had sought to collect those dues and keep them in
a separate escrow account pending the legal fight.


INDONESIA: Walhi Urges Haze-Affected Residents to File Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tempo.co reports that the Indonesian Forum for the Environment
(Walhi) has encouraged haze-affected residents to file a class
action suit against the government.

The class action is needed as the government tends to ignore the
rights of the people affected by the haze caused by the land and
forest fires, Walhi Director for West Kalimantan Anton Widjaya
said at the Walhi Office in Jakarta on Thursday, October 1.

"Walhi is ready to act as a facilitator for the people filing a
suit against the government.  In West Kalimantan, we have opened
seven command posts to accommodate the peoples aspirations," he
said.

In West Kalimantan, the haze induced by land and forest fires have
disrupted the local economy, learning activities, and human
health.

Furthermore, the general pollution standard index once hit a level
of 1,300, or four times as high as the dangerous level of 300 to
500. On average, the index reached 600 to 800.

By early October, the Walhi office in West Kalimantan will have
gathered 500 identity cards from residents, who are seeking to
file a class action suit against the government.  "We want 1,000
residents to join the move," he said.

Meanwhile, the Walhi Office in Jambi province is also ready to
coordinate with local residents to file a class action suit
against the government.

"We demand that the state take legal responsibility over forest
fires in Jambi," Walhi Manager for Jambi, Rudiansyah said on
Oct. 1.

Besides filing a class action suit, the Walhi Office in Riau is
also planning to refer the issue of the haze disaster, which has
caused tens of thousands of people to suffer upper tract
respiratory infections, to the United Nations.

Forest fires are a result of corporate crime to which the state
has turned a blind eye, the Walhi Director for Riau Province,
Riko Kurniawan said.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Canadian Woman Files Invokana Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP on Oct. 1 disclosed that a new Invokana
lawsuit -- http://www.invokanalawsuitcenter.com/-- has been filed
in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice by a Canadian woman who
allegedly suffered kidney damage related to the use of the Type 2
diabetes medication.  According to the Statement of Claim, the
lawsuit seeks class action status on behalf of all Canadians who
were allegedly harmed by Invokana, and accuses the manufacturers
of the drug of failing to warn doctors of its potential side
effects. (Court File No. W-15-536111)

"This lawsuit was filed just months after regulators in the U.S.,
Canada and Europe announced safety reviews of Invokana and other
SGLT2 inhibitors because of a possible association with diabetic
ketoacidosis.  Our Firm is currently investigating a number of
Invokana claims, and we will be monitoring this matter closely,"
says Sandy A. Liebhard, a partner at Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a
nationwide law firm representing victims of defective drugs and
medical devices.  The Firm is investigating potential Invokana
lawsuits on behalf of Type 2 diabetes patients who were diagnosed
with ketoacidosis, allegedly due to their use of this or another
SGLT2 inhibitor.

FDA Safety Review

Approved in 2013, Invokana was the first SGLT 2 inhibitor to come
to market in the U.S. A number of other Type 2 diabetes drugs in
this class have since been approved by the U.S. Food & Drug
Administration (FDA), including Invokamet, Farxiga, Jardiance,
Xigduo XR and Glyxambi.  In May 2015, the FDA announced that it
was investigating a possible link between the use of these
medications and diabetic ketoacidosis, a dangerous condition that
can lead to diabetic coma and death.  According to the agency, its
adverse event database had logged 20 reports of the condition
among SGLT2 inhibitor patients between May 2013 and June 6, 2014.
In all cases, patients required emergency room treatment or
hospitalization.

In the weeks that followed, Health Canada and the European
Medicines Agency (EMA) announced similar safety reviews.  Health
Canada noted that its database had received one report of
ketoacidosis in an SGLT2 inhibitor patient, while the EMA revealed
that the EudraVigilance database had received 101 such reports as
of May 19, 2015.

Bernstein Liebhard LLP is currently evaluating potential Invokana
lawsuits on behalf of Type 2 diabetics who were hospitalized with
ketoacidosis while using this drug or any other SGLT2 inhibitor.
To learn more, please visit Bernstein Liebhard LLP's website, or
call the Firm directly at 800-511-5092.

                   About Bernstein Liebhard LLP

Bernstein Liebhard LLP is a New York-based law firm exclusively
representing injured persons in complex individual and class
action lawsuits nationwide since 1993.  As a national law firm,
Bernstein Liebhard LLP possesses all of the legal and financial
resources required to successfully challenge billion dollar
pharmaceutical and medical device companies.  As a result, our
attorneys and legal staff have been able to recover more than $3.5
billion on behalf of our clients.  The Firm was named by The
National Law Journal to the Plaintiffs' Hot List, recognizing the
top plaintiffs firms in the country, for 12 consecutive years.
Bernstein Liebhard LLP is the only firm in the country to be named
to this prestigious list for a dozen consecutive years.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Shareholders Can Pursue London Whale Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Alpher, writing for Seeking Alpha, reports that a federal
judge rejected JPMOrgan Chase & Co's arguments against class
action certification, allowing shareholders led by state pension
funds to continue to pursue their case over London Whale
collectively.

The class period runs from April 13-May 21 in 2012, a period in
which JPM lost about $40B, or roughly 25% of its value.


LAKEVIEW NEUROREHABILITATION: Sued in N.H. Over Fatal Neglect
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pamela Baker, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
before a series of abuse reports caused it to shut its doors, a
New Hampshire home for people with disabilities left a man to die
naked in a pool of urine, his estate claims in court.

Linda Anderson filed the 12-page complaint late September as
administratrix of the estate of Kory Horion, a 22-year-old who
"was in a state of metabolic starvation when he died on September
23, 2012, lying naked, on the floor, unattended, in a pool of his
own urine."

"It took only 72 days of neglect for Lakeview Neurorehabilitation
Center to kill" Horion, the complaint filed in Merrimack County
Superior Court states.

Anderson says three employees of the 88-bed residential facility
in Effingham had witnessed Horion's predicament on the morning of
his death but did nothing to help.

The first employee saw the urine-soaked young man lying on the
floor at 5 a.m., according to the complaint. Anderson says several
other employers walked right by Horion over the next few hours,
but a nurse noticed at 9 a.m. that the man's lips were blue and
that he was not breathing.

Horion, who had Asperger's syndrome, developmental disabilities
and a seizure disorder, was pronounced dead on arrival at the
hospital where Lakeview sent him.

Anderson notes that the resident had been managing successfully
before what was supposed to a short-term stay at Lakeview.  During
those 72 days he was there, however, the 6-foot-4 man lost 50
lbs., according to the complaint.

Anderson says the man's family was never informed that he was
refusing food and medication, or that he had been attacked and
bitten by another resident.

In fact, Lakeview wrote to the family that Horion was "adjusting
well to his residential setting," according to the complaint.

A damning investigation on Lakeview that the Disability Rights
Center published last year slammed state inspectors for failing to
spot signs of abuse in the short-term treatment center for people
with disabilities and traumatic brain injuries.

At the time, Lakeview was chronically understaffed by employees
who make less than fast-food workers.

The reports led New Hampshire Gov. Maggie Hassan to shut down new
admissions last fall, and the Department of Education closed
Lakeview's Special Education school in April.

As recently as June, however, a male resident was arrested on
charges that he raped another male resident while the staff on
duty slept.

Gov. Hassan ordered a review of how the Department of Health and
Human Services regulated Lakeview, and this study found that the
Health Facilities Licensing Unit concealed negative findings of
Lakeview by its poorly trained inspectors.

The governor is now working to better fund the understaffed
licensing unit.

Other states connected to residents of Lakeview have expressed
concern as well.

In 2014 the New York Justice Center alerted New Hampshire's
Department of Health and Human Services that Lakeview was not
reporting abuse by staff and charging for services it didn't
provide. This year the state of Maine pulled all of its residents
from Lakeview.

After Lakeview submitted a 55-page plan of correction, New
Hampshire agreed in February to let the facility stay open.

The CEO decided this spring, however, that the closure of its
special education school and the state's moratorium on new
residents made it economically impossible for the residential
center to continue operating. Lakeview Systems facilities in
Pennsylvania and Wisconsin remain open.

Horion's estate is represented by Kirk Simoneau with Nixon
Vogelman Barry in Manchaster.

The complaint names as defendants Lakeview, parent company
Lakeview Systems and medical director Dennis Badman.  Neither
Simoneau nor Lakeview have returned requests for comment.


MERRILL LYNCH: Must Face Shareholder Class Action Over Zale Buyout
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Hals, writing for Reuters, reports that Merrill Lynch must
defend its role in the $690 million sale of the Zale Corp jewelry
chain after a judge refused on Oct. 1 to dismiss a shareholder
class action that alleged the deal short-changed investors.

The preliminary ruling by the Delaware Court of Chancery, a
premiere venue for shareholder lawsuits, found Merrill Lynch could
have aided the Zale board breach their duties to investors.  It is
the latest ruling by the court that potentially exposes a Wall
Street bank to damages in a merger deal.

Zale agreed in 2014 to be acquired by rival Signet Jewelers for
$21 per share, or $690 million. TIG Advisors, which held nearly 10
percent of Zale stock, called the deal grossly unfair and
shareholders only narrowly approved the sale.

Soon after the deal was announced, shareholders filed a class
action challenging the deal price and named as defendants Zale's
board, Signet and Merrill, a unit of Bank of America (BAC.N).

The Oct. 1 ruling by Vice Chancellor Donald Parsons dismissed the
Zale board and Signet as defendants.

However, Vice Chancellor Parsons found Merrill could be liable to
shareholders because it failed to disclose potential conflicts.
Merrill Lynch never told Zale's board that a month before it was
hired by the board the bank made a presentation to Signet's chief
financial officer about acquiring Zales for $17 to $21 a share.

"I find it reasonably conceivable that this undisclosed conflict
hampered the ability of Merrill Lynch and, consequently, the board
to seek a higher price for Zale's stockholders," wrote Vice
Chancellor Parsons in a 59-page opinion.

Merrill Lynch said it disagreed with the ruling, which allows the
case to proceed toward trial.  "The investment banking
presentation at issue created no conflict of interest and had no
impact on Bank of America Merrill Lynch's efforts on Zale's
behalf," said Merrill spokesman Bill Halldin.

Last year, shareholders of ambulance company Rural/Metro won $76
million in damages against RBC Capital Markets, a unit of Royal
Bank of Canada (RY.TO).  Like Merrill with Zale, RBC was alleged
to have aided the Rural/Metro board breach its duty to
shareholders.

The Delaware Supreme Court heard oral arguments by RBC seeking to
overturn that ruling, which has prompted many shareholders to
expand their class actions beyond board members to include deep-
pocketed investment banks as defendants.


MISSISSIPPI: Judge Allows Inmates' Class Action to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Amy, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a federal
judge is allowing inmates to go forward with their lawsuit against
the Mississippi Department of Corrections and a private prison
operator.

U.S. District Judge William Barbour Jr. on Sept. 29 granted class
certification to a group of inmates at East Mississippi
Correctional Facility.  They are represented by the American Civil
Liberties Union and the Southern Poverty Law Center.  Utah-based
Management & Training Corp. operates the prison near Meridian.

The prisoners allege EMCF is plagued by violence against prisoners
by fellow inmates and guards, and that it's dark and filthy,
especially in solitary confinement.  Prisoners also say they
receive scanty food and inadequate medical care and mental health
care.  That's even though the prison is designated to house
Mississippi's mentally ill prisoners.

"The court finds there is sufficient evidence that defendants have
failed to act in the face of actual or constructive knowledge that
prisoners housed at EMCF were being denied humane conditions of
confinement, including adequate food, shelter, medical and mental
health care and safety," Judge Barbour wrote in his ruling.

That doesn't mean the plaintiffs have won.  Judge Barbour said
they must prove that prison officials' failure to act is why
prisoners face unconstitutional risks of harm.  He wrote that if
the state shows physical conditions and health care are sufficient
for a humane prison "all of plaintiffs' claims will be resolved at
once."

Still, the SPLC's Jody Owens said the ruling is a "major win" for
inmates.

"What it means is that the case can move forward protecting all
the individuals represented in this lawsuit," Ms. Owens said.

Judge Barbour agreed the individual inmates can represent all EMCF
prisoners.  The state had urged Judge Barbour to reject expert
reports filed by the plaintiffs on medical care and mental health
care, saying they catalogued isolated incidents, but Barbour
rejected that motion, saying the state could explore that issue at
trial.

"The issue here is not about the merits, but whether the cases
should proceed as one or several, and the judge has ruled that
these cases should be tried as one suit," Corrections Department
spokeswoman Grace Simmons Fisher said in a statement.  "We look
forward to trying the case as one lawsuit on its merits in court."

MTC didn't respond to a request for comment.  The company has said
in the past that it has made improvements at EMCF since it took
over in 2011, including new paint, enhanced maintenance, decreased
contraband and improved guard training.

Mississippi's Walnut Grove Correctional Facility, which MTC also
operates, is currently under federal court supervision.  MTC also
runs the Marshall County Correctional Facility and the Wilkinson
County Correctional Facility.

Judge Barbour ordered the parties to appear before United States
Magistrate Judge John C. Gargiulo on Oct. 15 to discuss scheduling
and other logistical issues in the case.  Ms. Owens said the
plaintiffs will seek to request more documents and take
depositions from more people in an expanded discovery phase.


MORGAN STANLEY: Wants Employees to Give Up Right to Sue, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Colby and Michael J. Moore, writing for Bloomberg News,
report that Morgan Stanley is asking employees to give up their
right to sue the firm in class actions for civil rights violations
including discrimination based on race, gender or age, according
to a former employee's lawsuit.

The firm sent an e-mail to workers saying it's expanding its
employment dispute resolution program, according to the complaint
by former Morgan Stanley financial adviser
Kathy Frazier.  Workers who don't respond to the message by Oct. 2
lose their right to sue or participate in class actions against
the company, according to the lawsuit seeking class-action status.

Ms. Frazier said she worked as a financial adviser at Morgan
Stanley until she was "constructively discharged" in 2013 because
she is black.  In her lawsuit filed on Sept. 30 in San Francisco
federal court, she accused the company of failing to root out
discrimination and instead seeking to prevent workers from joining
together to challenge unfair practices in court.  A company
spokesman said the claims lack merit.

"The sad thing is I don't think that the majority of Morgan
Stanley's financial advisers understand that they may lose this
right," said Suzanne Bish, a partner at Stowell & Friedman Ltd. in
Chicago representing Frazier.  "This is a big step backward."

Jim Wiggins, the spokesman for New York-based Morgan Stanley, said
in an e-mailed statement that the arbitration program "benefits
all parties by offering an impartial, confidential, cost effective
and timely mechanism for resolving employment disputes."

                           High Costs

Companies have been shifting more employee claims to arbitration
for years to reduce the cost of fielding group lawsuits in court,
said Mark Neubauer -- mneubauer@cfjblaw.com -- a lawyer at Carlton
Fields Jorden Burt who has defended businesses against class
actions.  Because of those expenses, employers often settle even
when they are in the right, he said.

"The cost of achieving victory is just too high," he said.  "No
one's saying you can't enforce your rights; the question is what's
the best vehicle for that."

Arbitration cases often are heard by lawyers or industry veterans
in private, rather than in court by a judge or jury.  That
distinction is especially important for women and minority
employees, because "they won't get a jury of their peers anymore,"
Ms. Bish said.

Morgan Stanley has more than 16,000 financial advisers.  While
arbitration is the norm for settling many types of disputes at
brokerages, either with employees or clients, curbing class
actions for alleged discrimination is different, said
Cliff Palefsky, a civil rights lawyer in San Francisco who has
argued arbitration cases.

"It strikes directly at the heart of the civil rights laws,"
Mr. Palefsky said.  "It's for no other reason than to suppress
claims."

                          Public View

The privacy of arbitration also means the public may never learn
of a case unless court approval is required.

"We would never have heard about Ellen Pao" and her gender-bias
claim against former employer Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers if
it had gone to arbitration, Mr. Palefsky said.  While that
litigation exposed a sexually charged atmosphere at the venture
capital firm, a San Francisco jury rejected Pao's claims in March.

"Morgan Stanley's e-mail does not inform employees that they will
lose their right to pursue claims of discrimination in court, or
even mention discrimination or civil rights claims," according to
Frazier's complaint.  "Nor does the e-mail inform employees that
they are being forced -- without compensation or consideration --
to waive and forgo forever their right to join with other
employees or participate in any class action, in arbitration or
court, challenging Morgan Stanley's policies and practices.  That
information can be gleaned only by clicking on a link and then
making it to page 19 of the firm's 22-page 'CARE Guidebook."'
Frazier now works for UBS Group AG, according to her industry
employment records.  Her complaint against Morgan Stanley seeks
class-action status on behalf of black financial advisers who
"have been harmed by its company-wide pattern or practice of race
discrimination and discriminatory policies and practices."  She is
seeking unspecified compensation and "injunctive and legal relief
as this court deems just and proper."

The case is Frazier v. Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, 15-cv-04512, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco).


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Compensation Rules Violate Antitrust Law
----------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that NCAA compensation rules for college athletes
violate antitrust law, a U.S. appeals court ruled on Sept. 30 in a
case brought by athletes seeking a slice of the billions of
dollars universities reap from football and basketball.

The case came amid mounting public pressure for colleges to give
athletes better benefits.  A California federal judge last year
had ruled against the NCAA, and said it should allow schools to
pay athletes up to $5,000 per year in compensation.

Critics say the NCAA's scholarship policy short-changes athletes
who risk injury and devote many hours to practice sessions, travel
and competition.  The majority of college athletes do not go on to
play professionally.

In its ruling on Sept. 30, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
ruled that the NCAA must permit schools to provide student-
athletes sums covering up to their cost of attendance.  However,
it reversed the lower court's order providing for $5,000 per year.

In a statement, NCAA president Mark Emmert said the association
has allowed schools to provide up to the full cost of attendance
since Aug. 1, and does not think that should be mandated by the
courts.

An attorney for the athletes could not immediately be reached for
comment.

More than 20 current and former athletes filed an antitrust class
action against the NCAA.  The NCAA says it is defending amateurism
in college sports.

Broadcasters including Walt Disney Co and CBS Corp have rallied
behind the NCAA, arguing in court filings that the idea each
participant in a team sporting event has an individual right of
publicity, which entitles them to compensation, "is simply wrong."


NAT'L HOCKEY: No Plans to Engage in Concussion Settlement Talks
---------------------------------------------------------------
According to Bleacher Reports' Adam Wells despite facing a class-
action lawsuit from a group of former players over concussion
safety measures, the NHL does not have plans to engage in
settlement talks.

According to an internal memo from the NHL that was obtained by
Greg Wyshynski of Yahoo Sports, the league feels it has taken the
proper initiative to protect its players:

"While recent signals suggest plaintiffs are anxious to begin
settlement discussions (similar to what transpired in the NFL), we
have indicated to them no desire to engage in such discussions,
primarily because we feel so strongly in the merits of our case
and the leadership role (among all sports leagues) we have taken
in the study, prevention, diagnosis and management of
concussions."

The memo also mentions the NFL's concussion settlement, in which
it could provide as much as $1 billion over the next 65 years to
former players dealing with injuries related to their playing
days, stating the league may have been concerned by "what
discovery in those cases might reveal."

"By contrast, despite extensive discovery to date, we have yet to
find any document or other evidence that would tend to support the
plaintiffs' theory of the case," the NHL memo states.

NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman raised eyebrows last May when he
told reporters, per Chris Emma of CBS Chicago, that "from a
medical science standpoint, there is no evidence yet" linking
hockey with chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE).

CTE is the disease that has been linked to numerous former NFL
players who have had their brains studied by doctors.

Mr. Wyshynski added the NHL and players who filed the lawsuit have
not had "substantive talks" about a settlement.

In February 2015, per Allan Muir of Sports Illustrated, a group of
29 former NHL players filed a lawsuit against the league alleging
it "failed to protect them against the risks of the repeated head
trauma they sustained during their pro hockey careers."

Mr. Muir's report notes an exact financial demand was not made,
though the lawsuit does state "the overall amount in controversy
exceeds $5,000,000.00, exclusive of costs, interest and attorneys'
fees."

There's no way for the NHL to come out of this situation looking
good, even if it believes its case is sound.  Concussion and head
injuries have become as much a part of the sports discussion as
anything in recent years, as more information has come out.


NESTLE INDIA: Seeks Dismissal of Maggi Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Ashpreet Sethi, writing for Bloomberg TV, reports that claiming
that the Company is being targeted and singled out, Nestle India
has told the National Consumer Court that the government's class
action suit against the company over alleged lead content and MSG
in Maggi should be dismissed.

"We are being targeted as the government does not intend to take
action against other manufacturers who are making wrong claims
about MSG and lead content in their products," said the Nestle
Counsel.

Terming the government's class action suit as a case of no
consideration with the Bombay High Court dismissing tests results
done by government agencies so far, Nestle India has urged the
National Consumer Court to junk Government's plea for fresh
testing of Maggi samples.

The food regulator FSSAI has informed the Court that fresh testing
is required for all Maggi samples considering new laboratories
have been identified for the same.

The national consumer court has been hearing Government's class
action suit seeking damages worth Rs 600 odd crores from Nestle
India for misleading consumers about Maggi's ingredients.

The Court is yet to decide whether FSSAI should be allowed to hold
fresh testing of Maggi samples.  The National Consumer Court was
set to hear the matter again on October 8.


NEW YORK, NY: 911 Operators' Class Action v. NYPD Can Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------
CBS New York reports that a group of 911 operators suing the NYPD
and the city scored a legal victory.

The employees sued two years ago, accusing the NYPD of forcing
them to work 16- and even 24-hour shifts with barely any breaks,
WCBS 880's Alex Silverman reported.

They accused supervisors of racial discrimination because 95
percent of the operators are black and Hispanic.

The city's attorneys say there's no proof race had anything to do
with it, but the plaintiffs point to comments NYPD supervisors
allegedly made, including, "You people are useless."

That could point toward bias, Judge Pamela Chen noted in granting
the case class-action status on Sept. 28.  That means more than
1,000 operators can join the lawsuit, said the plaintiffs' lawyer,
Sam Maduegbuna.

"Which means they can stop what they have considered to be
unlawful and discriminatory practices that's been going on for
years, even decades," he said.

The city said it's evaluating the issues outlined in the court's
decision.


SANOFI SA: Judge Certifies Vaccine Illegal Bundling Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brendan Pierson, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal judge
has certified a class action brought by doctors who say they were
overcharged for vaccines by French drugmaker Sanofi SA through an
illegal bundling scheme.

U.S. District Judge Madeline Cox Arleo of the District of New
Jersey ruled on Sept. 30 that the effect of Sanofi's alleged
conduct on all of the roughly 26,000 doctors was similar enough
for the lawsuit to proceed as a class action.


STARBUCKS: Faces Suit Over Chaotic Working Environment
------------------------------------------------------
Hayley Peterson, writing for Business Insider, reports that
Starbucks is under fire for failing to improve working conditions
for baristas.

But baristas aren't alone -- store managers are also facing a
difficult environment, according to one Chicago-area Starbucks
manager who worked for the company for 10 years.

The manager, who asked not to be named, said she was under intense
pressure to reduce payroll costs, and that her supervisor
regularly asked her to manipulate time sheets -- which meant that
some employees weren't paid what they were owed.

"Starbucks was chaotic," she told Business Insider.  "The training
was chaotic.  I am a self-starter, so I managed to train myself
for the most part.  I had assigned classes that I took, which I
don't remember much from, but most of my training was on the
floor, learning from the baristas and shift supervisors."

The former manager asked not to be named because she said she is
in the process of suing Starbucks for alleged wrongful
termination.  Business Insider verified she was a manager through
public records.

During her first couple of years at Starbucks, the ex-employee
said she was repeatedly assigned a new supervisor.

In just the first four years, she had five different district
managers, she said.

Her fifth supervisor stuck around, but was extremely difficult to
work with, she said.

"Over the next six years, my relationship with her was volatile,"
she said.  "She would give me corrective actions for the most
absurd reasons.  She would make us train our shift supervisors to
do our job, yet they would not get compensated for it."

For example, she elaborated, "When it seemed the training hours
were used up, the [district manager] would tell us to put someone
who was clearly training under a different time code."

The supervisor also prevented employees from taking time off when
the store was busy.

"If your business requires it, then you have to work," the ex-
manager recalled her supervisor saying.

"I couldn't take Saturdays off, and I am part of a Messianic
Jewish Congregation.  I could not observe Shabbats," she said.
"My previous [District Managers] allowed me to do it, and I worked
on Sundays, but she said I have to work on Saturdays.  I was
terrified of her, so I did it without complaint, because I was
always under the threat of being fired by her."

The former manager said she was also under intense pressure to
reduce payroll costs.

At one point, she said she was reprimanded for logging too many
training hours when she was opening a new store and forced to ramp
up her staff from 12 people to 23 people over the course of three
months.

"Because the company 'overspent' in the first quarter on a roll
out of a new program, they were asking all of us to cut labor,"
she said.

When reached for a comment, a Starbucks spokesman said, "We deeply
care about all of our partners (employees) and are very concerned
to learn about this former partner's situation.  The experience
described in this case is not acceptable and is not consistent
with our values and practices.  We would like to learn more so we
can look into her situation and address her concerns."

During the course of her employment, the ex-manager signed onto a
class action lawsuit accusing Starbucks of failing to pay managers
overtime.

Starbucks settled the lawsuit for an undisclosed amount.

It's one of a number of lawsuits Starbucks has settled regarding
overtime pay.

In May 2013, for example, Starbucks agreed to pay $3 million to
resolve a class action lawsuit accusing the company of denying
employees required meal breaks and issuing inaccurate wage
statements.

Starbucks has vowed to do more to improve working conditions for
its employees, calling specifically on managers to give baristas
more consistent schedules.

"To our store managers, I want to stress that as we continue to
evolve and improve the usability of our system, we have to go the
extra mile to ensure partners have a consistent schedule -- free
of back-to-back close and open shifts that are less than 8 hours
apart -- that is posted 2 weeks in advance," Cliff Burrows,
Starbucks group president of the US and Americas, said in a memo
to employees, CNN Money reported.


TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT: Faces Class Action Over Toll Debt Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fraser, writing for Postmedia News, reports that a Burnaby
man has filed a class-action lawsuit over a $20 fee charged to him
for late payment of his toll debt on the Port Mann Bridge, a fee
that he claims amounts to a "criminal" interest rate.

Jasper Lui, 31, says he has made many trips over the bridge since
it opened in September 2012 and until September 2014, he paid his
toll invoices on time.

Starting in September 2014, he "inadvertently" failed to pay his
toll debt of $27.18 for a number of months and was charged, in
addition to his debt, a $20 "Refuse to Issue Processing Fee."

If a customer has an outstanding toll debt of more than $25 and
fails to pay that debt within 90 days, they are charged the $20
late payment fee.

"Such a fee constitutes 'interest' within the meaning of the
criminal interest rate provisions of the Criminal Code," Mr. Lui
says in a notice of civil claim filed in B.C. Supreme Court.  "In
many cases where such a fee is charged, the effective rate of
interest substantially exceeds the annual criminal rate of 60 per
cent.  The effective rate of interest charged to the plaintiff in
this case surpassed 180 per cent."

Mr. Lui, employed by what is only identified as a "large national
health insurance company," says that all customers who have paid
the fee in such circumstances are entitled to damages and
restitution.

"This is a proposed class action for damages and other relief
arising from late payment charges imposed by the defendant in
connection with the use of the Port Mann Bridge."  The suit
doesn't say how many people have paid the late payment penalties.

Mr. Lui's suit says that unlike other toll bridges where payment
is due at the time of passage, tolls on the Port Mann are
accumulated for individual accounts, with invoices then prepared
and sent to customers on a monthly basis.

"In effect, the defendant advances credit to users of the bridge."

While payment of invoices is due, it is not required and even if a
customer does not pay their overdue invoices, the bridge will
continue to advance credit and allow customers to cross the
bridge, says his lawsuit.

"Even after the "Refuse to Issue Processing Fee" is charged, the
defendant will continue to advance credit and allow customers to
cross the bridge."

The Transportation Investment Corporation, the Crown corporation
responsible for toll operations on the bridge, is named as the
defendant.  The corporation has not yet filed a response to the
lawsuit, which contains unproven allegations.

In an emailed statement, corporation spokesman Greg Johnson said
the vast majority of drivers pay their bills on time.  He said the
$20 late-payment fee is similar to an NSF fee charged by any
financial institution to a customer with an overdrawn account.

Mr. Johnson said tolls exist to pay for the bridge.  Making sure
drivers pay their tolls keeps the system fair and equitable for
all drivers.

"It's not fair to ask drivers who keep their accounts in good
standing to cover the extra costs that come from managing others'
overdue accounts," Mr. Johnson said.

"It's important to note before any customer's account is charged
this fee or gets sent to ICBC, they're sent at least five
notifications they have significantly overdue tolls."


UBER: Drivers File Class Action Over Compensation Terms
-------------------------------------------------------
Lia Eustachewich, writing for New York Post, reports that two more
Uber drivers have revolted against the app-based ride-hail
company, claiming that they're getting stiffed.

Jose Martinez, of the Bronx, and Jose Ortega, of Brooklyn, say
Uber has wrongfully denied them tips and forced them to pay for
car expenses, like gas and repairs, according to their class-
action lawsuit filed on Oct. 1 in Brooklyn Supreme Court.

The men say when they were first hired in 2014, each pocketed 75
percent of their total fare, with Uber collecting the remaining
quarter.

But then Uber "unilaterally" changed the terms of their
compensation and upped its share to 28 percent.

"Uber drivers are employees of this billion dollar company, not
independent contractors and deserve the same rights, benefits and
compensation as permitted under New York State Law," said
Marc Held, a partner at Held and Hines.

"These are hard working men and women who are being exploited.
Uber needs to recognize this and compensate them accordingly."
A similar class-action suit was filed in September.

"With Uber there is no need to tip," an Uber spokeswoman said.
"Once you arrive at your destination, your fare is automatically
charged to your credit card on file, making for a cashless and
seamless experience for riders and drivers."


UNITED STATES: Mentally Ill Deportees Can Return Under Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tatiana Sanchez, writing for The San Diego Union-Tribune, reports
that hundreds of immigrants with mental illnesses who were ordered
deported after representing themselves in immigration court may be
eligible to return to the United States under the terms of a
settlement between the American Civil Liberties Union and the
Department of Homeland Security.

The settlement, finalized in U.S. District Court, will allow
eligible immigrants with serious mental illnesses the opportunity
to reopen their cases, with the potential to return to the U.S.

"It gives a measure of fairness and dignity to people who were
denied it for years in our immigration system," said
Ahilan Arulanantham, a staff attorney with the ACLU's Southern
California office.

The settlement applies to immigrants with mental disabilities who
were detained in Arizona, California and Washington after Nov. 21,
2011, and were deported without legal representation in court and
without a proper competency determination, according to the ACLU.

Mental illnesses considered under the settlement include
psychosis, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia and major depressive
disorder, according to court documents.

Provisions of the settlement also encompass lawful permanent
residents or other visa holders who were deported during the given
time frame.

A spokeswoman for the Justice Department's Civil Division, which
is handling the case, declined to comment.

Robin Hvidston, executive director of the Claremont-based group,
"We the People Rising," which advocates for stricter immigration
enforcement, questioned the court decision.

Ms. Hvidston said officials need to focus their resources on U.S.
citizens across California.  Veterans, the homeless and the
disabled are in need of attention and tax-payer funded assistance.

"This is not a system that's working well for the citizens - to
have a judge ruling in favor of people in our country illegally
and who've already gone back home," she said.

Because the Otay Mesa detention facility has a judge assigned to
mental health cases, the immigration prison houses many of
Southern California's mentally ill detainees, said Bardis Vakili,
a staff attorney at the ACLU of San Diego.

Detainees who are San Diego residents and who have mental health
issues are held in Otay, and oftentimes mental health detainees
are transferred to the prison from Los Angeles and other cities in
the area.

They're ordered deported through the San Diego immigration court,
Mr. Vakili said.

The class-action lawsuit was originally filed by the ACLU and
other civil-rights groups in 2010 on behalf of Jose Antonio
Franco-Gonzalez and Guillermo Gomez-Sanchez, immigrants with
mental disabilities who were detained for several years after
being deemed mentally incompetent to represent themselves in
immigration proceedings.

Dr. David Folsom, vice chair of clinical affairs for the
department of psychiatry at UC San Diego Health, said that while
people with minor or moderate mental disabilities are typically
capable of representing themselves in court, those with serious
mental illnesses aren't.

"Deportation proceedings are extremely high stakes.  If you have
to represent yourself, you want to be able to do it with your full
ability," he said.

Following two federal orders, DHS and the Department of Justice
implemented several new procedures that protect unrepresented
detainees with mental illnesses, including screening immigration
detainees for possible mental health concerns; the availability of
competency hearings and independent psychological or psychiatric
evaluations; and qualified representatives for detainees who are
deemed mentally incompetent.

The settlement comes just weeks after 12 unauthorized immigrants
returned to the U.S. under the provisions of an earlier class-
action lawsuit settlement between the ACLU and DHS.

That lawsuit accused U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and
the Border Patrol in Southern California of using coercive tactics
to pressure unauthorized immigrants into voluntarily leaving the
United States.  The suit said the immigrants were deprived of
their right to be heard by an immigration judge, who might have
granted them legal status under certain programs.

ICE and Customs and Border Protection previously declined to
comment on the matter.

The ACLU has been fielding thousands of calls from potential
class-action members since preliminary approval of the settlement
was announced last year, though so far only "dozens" have
qualified, said Anna Castro, spokeswoman for the ACLU in San
Diego.

Ms. Castro declined to provide a specific number of eligible
deportees, saying some may choose to remain in Mexico after having
lived there for several years.


VOLKSWAGEN: Customers Express Concerns Over Emissions Test Scandal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Yuki Noguchi, writing for NPR, reports that out of the 250 million
cars and trucks on U.S. roads, the impending recall at Volkswagen
will involve just a half-million of them.  But VW's emissions
cheating scandal is receiving outsize attention because many of
the company's customers feel duped.  Now those customers are
weighing what it will take to make them feel whole again.

David Chien of Williston, Vt., was looking for a bigger, fuel-
efficient car that could power its way through Northeastern snow.
He says the 2013 Jetta SportWagen he bought "seemed to check all
the boxes."

He likes that his car drives well and that the mileage is better
than he expected, but he wonders whether the scandal has affected
its value.  What would insurance pay, for example, in the event of
an accident?

And then there's the prospect of a fix, which he hopes won't
affect all the things he likes about his car.

"I'd be willing to consider, I think, a minimal impact on
performance and fuel economy -- you know, less than 10 percent --
but if it's a significant impact, I won't be happy with that,"
Mr. Chien says.

In a video message to owners posted over the weekend, Volkswagen
America President Michael Horn apologized, saying, "We are
cooperating closely with regulatory authorities to develop a
remedy."

That remedy will involve software adjustments and, depending on
the vehicle, hardware as well.  Auto experts say it's unclear how
much all this will cost and how it will affect how the cars will
run.

Arvind Thiruvengadam is an engineering professor at West Virginia
University and part of the team that discovered Volkswagen's
cheating mechanism.  He says much depends on the reason the
carmaker implemented the cheat in the first place, and that it may
be possible to find a fix that cures the problems without
affecting performance or gas mileage.

"It's not unheard of to produce both low emissions and high fuel
economy," Mr. Thiruvengadam says.  "Of course there will be costs
associated with it, and that could be . . . the reasoning, too,
for why it wasn't done in the first place."

Because there are many different types of models, he says, in each
instance, the question is the complexity of the engineering
involved, and then the cost.

But others say they expect many consumers will remain unsatisfied.

Steve Berman, one of the first lawyers to file a class-action
lawsuit the day Volkswagen announced the problem, says: "It seems
unlikely to me, based on what I know, that the fix will properly
control emissions as advertised and not affect performance.
Because if that was the case, they wouldn't have cheated to begin
with."

Mr. Berman says he's gotten 8,000 inquiries from car owners in the
past two weeks -- far more than with any other car recall case
he's handled.  He says he was quick to jump on the case because he
owns three Volkswagen diesel cars himself.

"I was completely flabbergasted," he says.  "I mean, I really
bought into this concept that clean diesel is the best gas mileage
and the best air emission byproduct that you can do as a
consumer."

For some owners, it's not just about the money and potential
hassle of a recall.

Just over three months ago, David Whitcomb purchased his 2015 VW
Passat TDI.

"I wanted something that was clean because I consider myself to be
an environmentalist," he says.

Mr. Whitcomb, who lives in Waynesboro, Va., says he paid a premium
for the diesel engine because he thought it meant fewer emissions.
It seems unlikely, he says, that a fix won't affect the car's
value or performance.

"There's got to be some kind of compensation to offset that," he
says, "because if what you're sold is not what you actually have
because they broke the law and lied, then there's something wrong
there."

Beyond that, he says the wind's out of his sails.

"I have owned four Volkswagens.  I still currently own three," he
says.  "I was a promoter of Volkswagen.  It's hard to . . . I
can't speak like that anymore."

Much depends, Mr. Whitcomb says, on how well Volkswagen engineers
its fix.


VOLKSWAGEN: Jurisdiction Is Key Question in Emissions Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Margaret Cronin Fisk, writing for Bloomberg News, report that as
claims against Volkswagen AG for selling "clean diesel" cars that
cheated their way past emissions tests pile up across the U.S.,
the key question for lawyers is which court will wind up hearing
them.

Lawyers for car-owners are already jockeying for their preferred
venue in hopes that whichever judge winds up with the case will
name them as lead counsel, a role that could be worth millions in
legal fees.

More than 190 lawsuits -- with claims for billions of dollars --
have been filed as class actions in federal courts in at least 37
U.S. states with more certain to come. Seven jurisdictions have
been proposed already: two in California, as well as courts in New
Jersey, Virginia, Texas, Michigan and Ohio.  A panel of judges in
New Orleans will decide after a Dec. 3 hearing, weighing the
jurisdictions by their judges' skills and experience with complex
litigation, as well as their convenience for lawyers and
witnesses.

Callifornia is "the most obvious jurisdiction," said
Blair Nicholas -- blairn@blbglaw.com -- a Bernstein Litowitz
lawyer who filed one such request on Sept. 30.  "California has
the strictest emissions standard.  California had the biggest
impact."

Several law firms asked for California's central district, which
includes Los Angeles as well as Santa Ana, where the Toyota Motor
Corp. consumer and injury-and-death cases related to cars' sudden
acceleration were heard.  About 25 percent of the cases are in
California and drivers there own the largest share of the affected
Volkswagens and Audis, about 14 percent of the U.S. total,
according to Kelley Blue Book.

In addition, Volkswagen's largest emissions test center is in
Oxnard, just up the coast from Los Angeles, and California judges
have had "a tremendous amount of experience" in automotive cases,
Nicholas said.  Witnesses may include staff technicians with the
California Air Resources Board whose investigation at its lab in
El Monte helped uncover Volkswagen's cheating, another point in
the state's favor.

Still, there are solid arguments for other jurisdictions.

"This case really belongs in Virginia," said attorney Warren
Burns.  Volkswagen's U.S. headquarters -- with documents and
company witnesses -- would be near the federal courthouse in
Alexandria and the location would help foster coordination between
plaintiffs' lawyers and U.S. Justice Department investigators, one
group of lawyers including Burns argued in court papers.

What isn't in doubt is that the litigation is going to be very
expensive for Volkswagen AG.

Car Refunds?

Some attorneys are demanding the automaker buy back the 482,000
vehicles sold in the U.S. with the so-called defeat device that
allowed them to beat emissions tests.  That could reach $10
billion, according to Steve Berman, a lead attorney for the $1.6
billion settlement with Toyota for diminished car values.
Volkswagen at least should refund customers for the $1,000-to-
$7,000 premium they paid for the "clean diesel" technology and
cover the cars' lost value, consumer lawyers contend.

Brandon Barnes, a litigation analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence in
Washington, put the likely range for how much Volkswagen will have
to pay for the consumer suits at $2 billion to $4 billion.

"The rough estimate is about $1.5 billion just on your premium
damages," Mr. Barnes said. Volkswagen might also face triple or
punitive damages, he added.

Volkswagen, which admitted to systematically cheating on U.S. air-
pollution tests for years, could also face as much as $18 billion
in fines under the Clean Air Act in the U.S., based on the
Environmental Protection Agency's maximum per-vehicle penalty.
And there's the coordinated investigation by at least 27 state
attorneys general into suspected environmental and consumer-
protection laws.  The Texas county that includes Houston has
already sued seeking $100 million in penalties.

Authorities in Europe and South Korea are also conducting their
own investigations, which could result in further penalties.

Who's Who

The roster of lawyers suing Volkswagen is a who's who of the
plaintiffs' bar -- with a notable surprise: Mr. Berman, who filed
in San Francisco the day the EPA announced Volkswagen's cheating
admission, struck an unusual alliance with Quinn Emanuel Urquhart
& Sullivan LLP, a firm that's more often working for the defense
in class actions.  The Los Angeles-based firm also has three
offices in Germany, which could help in this case.

Multiple claims have been filed by Elizabeth Cabraser, another
lead lawyer in the Toyota case who is running the General Motors
Co. ignition-switch litigation in New York with Mr. Berman.  Joe
Rice, who led negotiations with BP Plc over the 2010 Gulf of
Mexico spill that led to an $11.3 billion settlement, has also
sued, as has former senator and presidential candidate
John Edwards, who jumped in on behalf of North Carolina consumers.

The key in determining the lead will ultimately be who has the
most -- and most relevant -- experience, said University of
Richmond law professor Carl Tobias.  Mr. Berman, Ms. Cabraser,
Mr. Rice and others with prior experience with multidistrict
litigation have a head start in gaining those leadership
positions.

"They can present strong cases for their appointment," Mr. Tobias
said.  "However, judges have the final say, so it depends on what
district and what judge is assigned the MDL."


VOLKSWAGEN: IMF Bentham Mulls Class Action Funding in Europe
------------------------------------------------------------
Marianna Papadakis, writing for Financial Review, reports that
Australian law firm IMF Bentham confirmed it was shoring up class
actions in Europe against Volkswagen through its European joint
venture with United Stated advisory firm Elliott Management
Corporation, called Bentham Europe.

It is a landmark case worth billions and if London-based Bentham
Europe can strike a deal with institutional investors it could
affirm the Australian listed company as an international leader in
large scale litigation funding.

It comes as the federal government holds critical discussions on
Oct. 2 with car makers Volkswagen and Audi that could dictate how
the government reacts to the emissions rigging scandal.

Volkswagen is facing a torrent of law suits and class actions
worldwide, including in Germany and United States, arising from
the scandal that has led to the resignation of several senior
executives, and the prospect of a worldwide vehicle recall.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has been vocal
about its frustration in Volkswagen's delays in notifying the
Australian market how many consumers here could be affected.

It has warned the carmaker it faces fines going into the millions
for every breach of the law, if Volkswagen is found to have used
an emissions-rigging device in Australia.

                     Market Cap Smashed

Meanwhile Volkswagen's market capitalisation has dropped by more
than EUR25 billion and investors have watched the share price
plummet from EUR160 to around EUR100.

Bentham Europe said it was in discussions with institutional
investors worldwide to fund a shareholder action in Germany
against Volkswagen.

Investors could seek compensation for losses arising from the car
maker's alleged breach of German securities law over an eight-year
period from 2007 to September 18, 2015.  The allegations could
include that the company failed to disclose to the market its use
of "defeat device" software in cars sold worldwide.

Bentham Europe's London-based chief investment officer Jeremy
Marshall said in a statement the scandal caused significant harm
to Volkswagen's reputation and financial position as well as
raising serious concerns about the corporate governance regime
within one of Germany's blue chip companies.

Ms Marshall said shareholders who saw billions wiped off the value
of Volkswagen deserved more than just an apology for what appeared
to be long-running and concerted cheating of the system.

            Shareholders Deserve More Than Apology

"Volkswagen shareholders are justifiably concerned that Volkswagen
has appeared to have allowed this practice to continue for what
may have been a number of years, in the assumed knowledge that its
disclosure to the market would be likely to cause them and their
shareholders significant financial harm," Ms. Marshall said.

"We expect a legal claim to reveal the true extent of the problem
and allow shareholders to seek compensation for the undoubted harm
that has been suffered."

Bentham Europe would instruct lawyers to commence the necessary
proceedings as soon as possible.  The shareholder action would be
conducted in Germany by a leading international commercial
litigation law firm, Ms Marshall said.

Managing director of Australian-based IMF Bentham Andrew Saker
told The Australian Financial Review on Oct. 1 the company was
investigating funding not only a consumer class action in
Australia, but consumer and shareholder actions in Europe where it
had bases.

IMF Bentham's portfolio of claims is worth over $2 billion and
Mr. Saker said the Australian listed company has both the
resources to fund legal action and cop any potential adverse costs
order if a case was lost.

It follows Bentham Europe's first foray into the European
litigation funding market with a shareholder class action against
British supermarket giant Tesco last year.

Class actions are being investigated in Australia by Maurice
Blackburn, which has received hundreds of calls from consumers
expressing concerns their cars -- including VW, Audi and Skoda
brands -- have been affected.

International firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, which has
lodged a claim in California with another law firm accusing
Volkswagen of misleading consumers, is also considering pursuing a
class action in Australia against the car manufacturer.


VOLKSWAGEN: Montana Environmentalists File Emissions Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jayme Fraser, writing for The Montana Standard, reports that
Missoula attorney Kristine Akland didn't feel so bad about her
twice-weekly commute to Superior after she bought a 2015
Volkswagen Golf Sportwagen, knowing its "CleanDiesel" engine was
designed for 43 highway miles per gallon and polluted less than
gasoline cars.

On Sept. 18, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced to
millions of Volkswagen drivers worldwide that those eco-friendly
promises were a lie.

The German car manufacturer later admitted that engine software
had been designed to detect emission tests, turning on pollution
controls that usually were off.  During normal driving, diesel
cars like Ms. Akland's released nitrous oxide at levels 10 to 40
times the legal limit.

"Holy moly, my fuel efficient car is probably emitting way more
pollution than . . . these huge trucks next to me," Ms. Akland
remembered thinking.  "I'm a new attorney.  This was my first car
I was able to afford on my own.  I spent a lot of time in the
buying process studying fuel efficiency and emissions.  I have a
pit in my stomach now because I have to drive it knowing I'm
emitting a bunch of pollution."

According to a lawsuit filed on Sept. 28 by Ms. Akland, along with
Richard Manning and Tracy Stone-Manning of Helena, Volkswagen
charged a premium for vehicles marketed as "CleanDiesel."  For
example, the suit says, the company charged $18,780 for a base-
model Jetta and $21,640 for a clean diesel Jetta, a markup of
$2,860.  Salesmen at Volkswagen dealerships sometimes held their
heads near the exhaust pipe while the engine was running to
demonstrate the cleanliness of emissions to prospective buyers.

The fraud could affect as many as 1,800 Montana drivers, according
to early 2015 estimates from Hedges & Company, an Ohio-based
market research firm.  The Montana Department of Motor Vehicles
said it is working to compile a count for state officials.

Attorney General Tim Fox announced on Sept. 30 that he was joining
at least 32 other states in a joint investigation of the emissions
cheating and encouraged owners of the affected vehicles to file a
complaint with the state's Office of Consumer Protection.

"Growing up, my folks owned a car dealership, and I know how
important it is for consumers to be treated fairly when they
purchase a big-ticket item like an automobile," Mr. Fox said in a
press statement.  "Emissions standards are important anti-
pollution features that Montana consumers seriously consider while
making their vehicle purchasing decisions.  Any required repairs
to correct emission problems may result in lower fuel economy and
higher fuel costs, which also may violate Montana's consumer
protection laws."

Lawyers across the country have so far filed dozens of class
action lawsuits against Volkswagen to seek monetary damages for
the fraud that led their clients to purchase the affected
vehicles: 2009-15 Jetta, 2009-14 Jetta Sportwagen, 2012-15 Beetle
and Beetle Convertible, 2010-15 Golf, 2015 Golf Sportwagen, 2012-
15 Passat, and 2010-15 Audi A3.  The cases will likely be
consolidated under one federal court and divided into a manageable
number of multi-jurisdictional groups with plaintiffs splitting
any monetary awards.

Ms. Akland, Mr. Manning and Ms. Stone-Manning filed a different
form of mass tort lawsuit against Volkswagen Group of America.
The suit was filed in Missoula District Court before Judge John
Larson and is not a federal class-action lawsuit but instead seeks
damages under state consumer protection laws, including the right
to return the vehicles for a full refund plus punitive damages.

"These plaintiffs are an environmental attorney, an environmental
journalist and a public official intimately involved in
environmental issues for the state of Montana.  Being good
environmental stewards, they bought their cars based on
Volkswagen's claim to have reduced emissions with groundbreaking
diesel technology," said Missoula attorney Tim Bechtold, who is
working with Billings attorney John Heenan on the suit.  "What
Volkswagen had touted as exemplary behavior turned out to be a
monumental example of fraud."

Ms. Akland served as President of the Environmental Law Group as a
student at The University of Montana before joining Matrium Law
Group and working as a Mineral County prosecutor.

The other two plaintiffs could not be reached for comment. Manning
is an award-winning journalist and author who writes about
agriculture and poverty.  He is the husband of Stone-Manning, who
served as Director of the Montana Department of Environmental
Quality before becoming Chief of Staff for Gov. Steve Bullock.


VOLKSWAGEN AUSTRALIA: May Face Class Action Over Emissions Scam
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that Volkswagen Australia
will be subject to immediate legal action if it doesn't come clean
over its emissions-cheating scam in the Oct. 2 meeting with the
federal government and the consumer watchdog.

Law firm Maurice Blackburn says it will begin preparing a class
action immediately if Volkswagen Australia does not give honest
answers over whether Australians have been sold cars fitted with
so-called defeat devices to cheat emissions testing.

The German auto maker has said it will repair 11 million vehicles
following revelations that the devices were fitted to diesel
vehicles, but its local arm has yet to confirm whether Australian
motorists will be affected.

More than 340 Australian consumers have contacted law firm Maurice
Blackburn and class actions principal Damian Scattini says he
could begin preparing the case immediately after Volkswagen's face
to face with the Department of Infrastructure and Regional
Development, and the Australian Competition and Consumer
Commission.

"We're a bit concerned it's going to be more weasel words, so
we're not going to wait beyond today to take the next step," said
Mr. Scattini, who said he could consider a freedom of information
request to prise the facts from Volkswagen.

"They've got this final opportunity to do the right thing."

Mr. Scattini said it is inconceivable that VW doesn't have all the
relevant information.

"Germans are good record keepers. If you wanted to find a part for
a 1972 Volkswagen Beetle, they'd have a way of finding that for
you very quickly," Mr. Scattini told AAP.

"I can't believe for a moment they don't know what's happening
here.  If they did not have those engines in Australia, they would
very quickly say `we don't have those here and it's not a
problem.'

"They didn't say that and it's very telling.  They're having
meetings about the best way to manage this for the least expense
and that's not good enough."

The ACCC has demanded Volkswagen hand over all marketing material
to see if it misled or deceived Australian car buyers, saying that
claims about environmental benefits could influence consumer
choice.

Action by the ACCC could involve fines of up to $1.1 million per
breach of the law and binding court orders enforced on Volkswagen
to ensure it complies with local standards.

"They could be for each vehicle, or for the advertising medium,
there are various ways to come at it," ACCC chairman Rod Sims
said.

"There's no doubt that the penalties could be significant."

The numbers involved could be huge, with Volkswagen selling more
than 200,000 new cars in Australia between the start of 2012 and
the end of August this year, according to PPB Advisory.

The 41,722 sold in the first nine months of the year accounted for
one in 20 of all new cars.

Since the start of 2012, 30 per cent of new vehicles across all
manufacturers are diesel.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Gainsville Resident Joins Emissions Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Clark, writing for Gainsville.com, reports that Gainsville
resident Stacey Tate has joined a class-action lawsuit against
Volkswagen Group of America and its German parent Volkswagen AG
filed in New Jersey Federal Court on behalf of 28 VW owners in
nine states, with more plaintiffs expected.

Ms. Tate planned to trade in her two-seat Volkswagen Beetle TDI
for a four-door VW Passat on her birthday to accommodate her
growing teenage son and his friends.

It would have been her fifth VW, but now she says she is done with
the automaker after finding out her Beetle is one of 11 million
diesel-fueled VWs equipped with "defeat devices" designed to meet
emission standards during tests but that spew up to 40 times the
legal limits during normal operation.

Now Ms. Tate says she's stuck with a car that has lost its value
and that nobody will want.

The lawsuit seeks to compensate the owners for the cost of the
vehicles, assess punitive damages against VW and compel measures
to prevent emissions fraud in the future, said attorney Diane
Sammons of the Nagel Rice law firm of Roseland, New Jersey.

Ms. Sammons said scores of attorneys have filed similar lawsuits
around the country that will be consolidated for gather pretrial
evidence and then go back to the district courts in which they
were filed if the case goes to trial.

Volkswagen has admitted that 11 million diesel cars -- including
482,000 in the U.S. -- have software that detects when they are
undergoing emissions testing and turn on full emissions controls
only during the test, the Detroit Free Press reported.  The models
include certain Jetta, Golf, Beetle and Passat during model years
2009 to 2015.

VW has stopped advertising the models and asked dealers to stop
selling the models.  The company announced that it is working with
government agencies to determine a remedy and compensation.

Volkswagen of Gainesville has heard from just a few customers
asking what VW is going to do, said Tom Moore, regional director
of Tampa Bay Automotive Management, which owns the dealership.

He said diesel sales are a "very small portion" of their sales.

"We're as disappointed as anybody, more so because we have a
tremendous investment in the Volkswagen dealership and are waiting
patiently for Volkswagen to announce how they're going to handle
the customers vehicles that were affected," he said.

"I'm sure Volkswagen will do the right thing until the customers
are completely satisfied.  We're as anxious as anyone to find out
what that's going to be."

Ms. Tate said she went ahead and bought a BMW X1 on Sept. 29.

"Hence I have two car payments and I just don't think it's fair.
I held up my end of the bargain.  I bought into the brand.  I
believed in them, been a loyal customer and they need to make this
right. They need to take this car back."



VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Harris County Files Suit Over Emissions Tests
---------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Seward, writing for KHOU-TV, reports that the county that
contains Houston has filed suit against Volkswagen, alleging that
the automaker has thrust unwarranted pollution on the USA's fourth
largest city.

Harris County is seeking up to $100 million in the lawsuit that
County Attorney Vince Ryan filed on Sept. 29.

"I think the fraud is going to be relatively easy to prove," said
Houston lawyer Richard Mithoff, who is representing the county in
the case.

Earlier in September, Volkswagen admitted to installing stealth
software that manipulated emissions tests in 11 million of its
diesel vehicles worldwide.  Controls would turn on during
emissions tests so the vehicles would pass but remain off during
regular use to improve customers' fuel economy.

"Volkswagen vehicles released nitrogen oxide at levels that far
exceed allowable standards," the lawsuit alleges.  "NOx is a
contributor to ozone formation, for which Harris County is
currently designated as non-attainment."

Dozens of lawsuits from several states already have been filed
against the German automaker, most often by diesel owners who face
uncertain repairs and whose vehicles have lost value because of
the revelations.  Most seek class-action status.

But independent car dealers in California also have filed suit,
and a Michigan pension fund alleges that holders of Volkswagen's
American depository receipts (VLKAY) have lost hundreds of
millions of dollars of their retirement investments.  Attorneys
general in more than half the states also are opening
investigations into the automaker and what appears to be
longstanding fraud.

"It kind of makes me question some things," said Riley Collins, a
Volkswagen owner who lives in the Houston area.  "That really
stirs up some ideas in my head like maybe I don't know what I'm
driving or the company that I had a lot of pride in."

In the United States, the deceptive software affects the
four-cylinder diesel versions of the 2009-15 Jetta TDI, the 2009-
14 Jetta SportWagen TDI, the 2010-15 Golf TDI, the 2012-15 Beetle
TDI, the 2012-15 Beetle Convertible TDI and the 2012-15 Passat
TDI.

In Texas, diesel owners don't have to pass emissions tests.
However, Mr. Ryan said at least 6,000 Harris County VW owners may
be in trouble out of state.

"Everybody in the world probably knows that the emissions override
that they have on their system isn't valid," the Harris County
attorney said.

Although Volkswagen has promised a remedy soon.  Harris County
hired extra lawyers to force Volkswagen to pay for years of
pollution.

"We want to get these cars fixed or replaced," Mr. Ryan said.
"Each of the consumers that bought one of these cars thought they
were buying that was environmentally a good car to buy to only
find out they were deceived."


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Pierce County Woman Files Emissions Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen Cooper, writing for The News Tribune, reports that a
Pierce County woman is the latest person to sue Volkswagen over
revelations that it installed devices in its diesel-powered cars
to cheat on emissions tests.

April Sims filed a lawsuit in federal court on behalf of all
Washington residents who own one of the diesel cars made by
Volkswagen.

Across the country, millions of cars made as far back as 2009 have
a "defeat device" installed, so that the car's emissions controls
are activated only when it's undergoing emissions testing.  The
rest of the time, the emissions controls are off.  The cars run
smoother, have more power and get better gas mileage while also
releasing pollutants 10 to 40 times greater than is legal,
according to Ms. Sims' lawsuit.

The company marketed these cars as "clean diesel."  The class-
action lawsuit refers to them as "the Dirty Diesels."

Ms. Sims sued Volkswagen and its parent companies, Volkswagen AG
and Audi AG, for breach of contract and violation of Washington's
consumer protection law, among other things.

The cheating scheme was announced Sept. 18 by the federal
Environmental Protection Agency, who was alerted to the problem by
a group of academic researchers.  Since then, the number of cars
involved has ballooned to 11 million worldwide and the Volkswagen
CEO resigned.  Authorities in Germany, where the company is
headquartered, have launched a criminal investigation.  In the
United States, the Justice Department, state attorneys general and
other regulators also are investigating.

Then there are the lawsuits.  So far, Ms. Sims' lawyer
Stephen Hansen estimates almost two dozen have been filed in
federal courts across the country.  They probably will be
consolidated and placed before one judge, given the length and
complexity of the litigation.

Ms. Sims' lawsuit is the first in Washington, Mr. Hansen said on
Oct. 1.  He and his legal partners made requests through social
media to find people affected by Volkswagen's actions, and April
Sims was one of the people who answered, he said.

Ms. Sims could not be reached for comment on Oct. 1.  According to
the lawsuit, she owns a 2012 Passat that she would not have bought
had she known the truth about the car's environmental issues and
true engine performance.

According to the lawsuit, more than 10,000 "Dirty Diesels" may
have been sold in Washington state.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Susman Godfrey Files Emissions Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Susman Godfrey, one of the nation's top law firms, on Oct. 1
disclosed that it has filed a nationwide class-action lawsuit
against Volkswagen Group of America for secretly using software
designed to cheat emissions tests and falsely advertising its
vehicles as environmentally friendly.

Filed Sept. 24, the suit claims Volkswagen deceived consumers into
purchasing "eco-conscious" "CleanDiesel" vehicles that actually
emit up to 40 times the legal limit of nitrogen oxide.  Buyers of
the 2009 to 2015 Jetta, Beetle, Audi A3 and Golf models and the
2014 to 2015 Passat models are alleged to have paid a significant
premium for so-called "CleanDiesel," but consumers actually
received vehicles that cannot even pass state and federal
emissions standards.

The firm is seeking information from affected owners.  If you own,
or lease, one of the vehicles listed above, contact John Dolan at
Susman Godfrey at: jdolan@susmangodfrey.com.

With a long track record of achieving substantial verdicts and
settlements for its clients in numerous high-profile cases, Susman
Godfrey has been recognized repeatedly for its prowess in
plaintiffs' litigation.  Law360, published by Portfolio Media,
named it for the third consecutive year to its "Most Feared
Plaintiffs Firms" list.  In addition, The National Law Journal,
published by American Lawyer Media, also named the firm to its
2014 "Plaintiffs Hot List."

"We have successfully taken on some of the biggest corporate
entities in the world -- and won -- securing large settlements on
behalf of class members," said Marc Seltzer --
mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com -- Susman Godfrey's lead attorney on
the Volkswagen case.

The firm's recent results include an historic $1.6 billion
settlement in the Toyota unintended acceleration class action,
where Marc Seltzer served as co-lead counsel for the class.  The
Toyota class received net benefits valued at approximately $1.4
billion.

The lawsuit filed by Susman Godfrey against Volkswagen alleges
that United States Environmental Protection Agency and California
Air Resources Board investigations found that Volkswagen secretly
installed emission "defeat devices" in over 482,000 vehicles in
the United States alone, and Volkswagen has now admitted to
installing similar devices in 11 million vehicles worldwide.  The
devices allow Volkswagen vehicles to defeat emissions tests by
engaging emissions controls only when testing is detected by the
vehicles in question.  When the vehicles are not undergoing
emissions testing, those emission controls are disengaged,
allowing the vehicles to emit pollutants in quantities up to 10 to
40 times the legal limit.

According to the lawsuit, Volkswagen concedes that it installed
the defeat devices in its "CleanDiesel" vehicles, and the head of
Volkswagen's United States Division gave the following confession:
"Let's be clear about this.  Our company was dishonest.  With the
EPA, and the California Air Resources Board, and with all of you.
And in my German words, we have totally screwed up."

Susman Godfrey is representing plaintiffs seeking to hold
Volkswagen accountable for the harm that it has caused to hundreds
of thousands of consumers.  For more information on the lawsuit,
including information on how to participate as a named plaintiff,
contact John Dolan at Susman Godfrey at: jdolan@susmangodfrey.com

                   About Susman Godfrey L.L.P.

For more than 35 years, Susman Godfrey --
http://www.susmangodfrey.com-- has focused its nationally
recognized practice on just one thing: high-stakes commercial
litigation. It is one of the nation's leading law firms, with
offices in Houston, Seattle, Los Angeles and New York.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: 100+ Vehicle Owners Join Winnipeg Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that the number of people signing on to a class
action lawsuit against Volkswagen is growing in Manitoba.

Recently it was discovered the German automaker installed software
on 11 million diesel vehicles worldwide that enabled them to cheat
emissions tests and evade Environmental Protection Agency
standards.

Winnipeg lawyer Norman Boudreau filed a class action suit on
behalf of local VW owners in Court of Queen's Bench on Sept. 23.

Mr. Boudreau has gathered more than 100 signatures for the suit.

"The numbers are very high in my opinion," said Mr. Boudreau.
"People that are interested enough to pick up the phone or send us
an email and actively want to be part of this class action . . . .
I think it's very positive, very encouraging."

Most of the people to have come forward in Manitoba are from
Winnipeg.  Some VW owners from outside of the province have also
joined Boudreau's suit, he said.

Many VW owners are growing concerned about the value of their
vehicles, Mr. Boudreau said.

"They still have their vehicle.  There is some value in what they
purchased," Mr. Boudreau said.  "Everybody is not going to get a
brand new car. Certainly it will be a monetary compensation."

Beyond the value of the vehicles, owners who purchased VWs based
on their apparent emissions record are irked by the nature of the
scandal.

"A lot of people are concerned with respect to the environment,"
Mr. Boudreau said.  "That they had consciously bought the
Volkswagen vehicle thinking that they were going to contribute
positively to have a clean environment and now they're
disappointed in that."

Mr. Bourdeau said that while other class action lawsuits are
popping up across Canada, it could take months for them to get
certified. Some may even end up getting settled out of court, he
added.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Class Suit Approval Bid Filed in Tel Aviv Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chen Ma'anit, writing for Globes, reports that a request for
approval for a NIS 300 million class action suit against
Volkswagen and Champion Motors was filed on Sept. 30 at the Tel
Aviv District Court.  The suit involves the fabrication of data
about pollution emissions from Volkswagen cars.

In his request, the man who filed the suit, Ben Zion Hershkovitz,
who owns a Volkswagen car, terms the affair "one of the worst
cases of fraud -- if not the worst -- in the history of the global
auto market."

Through his lawyers, Advocates Edan Aiden, David Tirosh, and Idan
Dayan, the prospective claimant is asking the court to order
Volkswagen to recall its vehicles in order to remove the
fraudulent software.  He is also asking the court to order
compensation for the vehicle owners for damage during the period
of time in which they drove the polluting vehicles without being
aware of the pollution.  He accuses the companies of being in
complete violation of their undertaking and declaration about the
vehicles' emissions, and accuses them of violating autonomy of the
will.

The request further states, "In the event that pollution values
without the fraudulent software deviate from the stipulations of
Israeli law, the respondent should be ordered to repurchase the
car from the group according to the known price list when the test
was conducted."

The request goes on to say that if the air pollution values do not
deviate from the stipulations of Israeli law, the respondent
should be ordered to compensate the members of the group for the
reduced value of the vehicle according to the level of pollution
found, and in accordance with the findings of the tests to be
conducted after the software is removed.

The affair became known when the US Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) issued a dramatic announcement accusing Volkswagen of
producing and installing special fraudulent computer software for
measuring the level of air pollution emitted from the diesel
models of the vehicles it manufactures.

This sophisticated software is capable of distinguishing when
vehicles are undergoing an air pollution test.  The software
activates special equipment designed to reduce the level of air
pollution emitted by vehicles only during testing, while the
equipment is deactivated during normal driving, raising the air
pollution levels emitted by the vehicles to 40 times the permitted
level.

The Volkswagen group admitted producing and marketing vehicles
with the fraudulent software, and later also admitted that other
Volkswagen group subsidiaries took part in the fraud.  First, Audi
admitted that 2.1 million of its vehicles sold included the
software, and Skoda later admitted that 1.2 million of its diesel
cars sold all over the world included the software.

Champion Motors, which imports vehicles from the Volkswagen group,
published the following announcement after the affair was exposed:
"Pursuant to the manufacturer's statements in recent days
concerning the measuring of pollutant emissions, what is involved
is some of the diesel engines from the previous generation."

In other words, the respondent does not deny that it sold vehicles
in Israel containing the fraudulent software.  On the contrary,
the working of the announcement indicates that the respondent is
in effect admitting it sold such vehicles, but says that these
were sold "in the past," and that it is now checking the exact
number of these vehicles that were sold.

The request filed with the court alleges that the factual basis
underlying its request is indisputable.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces Class Suit Over Diesel Engine Manipulation
------------------------------------------------------------------
Anita Sthankiya, writing for KamloopsBCNow, reports that a $2.5
billion class action lawsuit has been launched against Volkswagen
in Canada for diesel engine manipulation.

Toronto law firm Roy O'Connor LLP, announced that it will launch a
class action lawsuit against the automaker and a number of its
subsidiaries in Canada.  The lawsuit stems from the manipulation
of emissions data in a number of Volkswagen four cylinder turbo
diesel engines.

The proposed class action seeks damages in excess of $2.5 billion
and the plaintiffs' notice of action alleges that VW and its
subsidiaries incorporated a prohibited software defeat device into
a number of vehicles.

The proposed class action is brought on behalf of any person in
Canada who purchased any of the following vehicles equipped with a
four cylinder turbo diesel engine as well as anyone who leased any
of the following vehicles:

1. VW Jetta - model years 2009-15
2. VW Golf - model years 2010-15
3. VW Beetle - model years 2013-15
4. VW Passat - model years 2012-15
5. VW Golf Wagon/Sportwagon - model years 2009-15
6. Audi A3 - model years from 2009 - 2015

The claim refers to a variety of potential damages for class
members including: improperly inflated purchase prices or lease
payments; decreased resale values or residual lease values; and
increased fuel costs coupled with decreases in performance and
driving experience.

The next major step in this case will be the filing of affidavit
material by the plaintiffs in support of a motion to have this
case certified as a class action.  The date for the certification
motion has not yet been set by the Court.

Anyone wanting to learn more about the suit or to register as a
class member can do so at vwtdiclassaction.ca


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Gardy & Notis Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Gardy & Notis, LLP on Sept. 30 disclosed that it has
filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of American Depositary Receipts (ADRs) of VLKAY, which
are traded under the symbols "VLKAY" and "VLKPY," and "VLKAF."
The lawsuit concerns investors who bought ADRs during a class
period of November 19, 2010 and September 21, 2015.  The lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey, and names as defendants Volkswagen AG, and its U.S.
subsidiaries, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and Audi of
America, and executives Martin Winterkom, Herbert Diess, Michael
Horn, Jan Bures, Mark McNabb, Jonathan Browning and Scott Keogh.

The lawsuit alleges that Volkswagen issued a series of false and
misleading statements regarding vehicles equipped with clean
diesel engines, which served to artificially inflate the market
price of Volkswagen ADRs.  Volkswagen has since admitted that its
clean diesel engines used an unlawful defeat device to cheat on
emissions testing.

If you purchased ADRS of Volkswagen AG between November 19, 2010
and September 21, 2015, you may, no later than November 24, 2015,
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  A lead
plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation, and you must meet
certain legal requirements to serve as a lead plaintiff.

To learn more about the lawsuit or to obtain a copy of the
complaint, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Mark C. Gardy at
Gardy & Notis, LLP, 126 East 56th Street, New York, NY 10022,
Telephone: 212-905-0509, Fax: 212-905-0508, email:
mgardy@gardylaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Hawaiian Vehicle Owners File Emissions Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Gomes, writing for Star Advertiser, reports that a Honolulu
law firm is seeking to represent what it estimates to be more than
100 Hawaii owners of Volkswagen clean diesel "clean diesel" cars
in a lawsuit aimed at recovering damages from the automaker over
rigged emissions systems.

The firm, Starn O'Toole Marcus & Fisher, filed the class-action
complaint on Sept. 28 in U.S. District Court in Honolulu against
Volkswagen Group of America Inc., the Virginia-based U.S.
subsidiary of Wolfsburg, Germany-based Volkswagen AG.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Italian Consumer Group Files Emissions Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stefano Bernabei, writing for Reuters, reports that an Italian
consumer group said on Sept. 30 it had presented a class action
lawsuit against Volkswagen, accusing the company of deceiving car
owners and potentially harming the environment.

Marco Ramadori, co-president of the Codacons association, told
Reuters the case had been lodged with a court in Venice, whose
catchment area covers the city of Verona, where Volkswagen has its
Italian headquarters.

There was no immediate comment from the German carmaker.

Europe's largest carmaker has admitted to using software to rig
diesel emissions tests in the United States.  Germany's transport
minister says it also manipulated tests in Europe, where it sells
about 40 percent of its vehicles.

Codacons said it was initially representing one Volkswagen owner,
but indicated it did not have high expectations that any class
action litigation in Italy would generate massive fines.

"The class action law in Italy is a swindle and has nothing to do
with the real class action (cases) that you see in the United
States, which, first and foremost, inflict punitive damages that
have a concrete dissuasive effect," Mr. Ramadori said.

If the court decides that the case is admissible, all Volkswagen
owners in Italy impacted by the scandal will be able to sign up to
the law suit for free.

Mr. Ramadori said he had no idea when the Venice tribunal might
make a ruling.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Keller Rohrback Files Emissions Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys at Keller Rohrback L.L.P. on Oct. 1 filed seven
nationwide class action lawsuits on behalf of plaintiffs in 43
states and Washington D.C. against Volkswagen Group of America,
Inc. and Germany-based Volkswagen AG to promote truth in commerce
across the nation.

Keller Rohrback's most recent complaints, filed in federal court
in Michigan and New Jersey, allege that Volkswagen violated a
landmark federal anti-corruption law, the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act, or "RICO".

Specifically, the complaint alleges that former Volkswagen AG CEO
Martin Winterkorn and others "exploited their positions of
authority as well as the legitimacy and infrastructure of
Volkswagen AG and its subsidiaries to perpetrate fraud against
American consumers as well as state and federal regulators for
their own personal and professional gain."

That and other claims stem from Volkswagen's practice, since at
least 2009, of advertising and selling "clean" diesel cars that
are more accurately described as "dirty".  According to the
Environmental Protection Agency, Volkswagen equipped those
vehicles with "defeat devices" that cause them to emit up to 40
times the legal limit of nitrogen oxide, one of the leading causes
of childhood asthma in the United States.

"Volkswagen has admitted to nationwide deception and our clients
want and deserve what's fair," said Gretchen Freeman Cappio --
gcappio@kellerrohrback.com -- a partner and experienced litigator
at Keller Rohrback.  "We've had thousands of people contact us
since the EPA sent out a Notice of Violation, and we are working
tirelessly to hold Volkswagen accountable for its wrongdoing."

As stated in the complaints, Volkswagen "exploited its consumers'
trust in its brand and reputation for developing environmentally-
friendly vehicles."

Consumers paid a premium for TDI CleanDiesel vehicles, in some
cases up to 31% more than a gasoline model, according to
Keller Rohrback's lawsuit.  Consumers who believed they were
buying or leasing low-emission, fuel-efficient vehicles, instead
ended up with cars that pollute so much they violate the Clean Air
Act.

If you or someone you care about owns or leases any of the
affected vehicles described below, or if you are concerned that
your vehicle may be affected, please call attorneys Gretchen
Freeman Cappio, Matthew Preusch, Ryan McDevitt, or Daniel Mensher
at 866.560.4043 or via email at vw@kellerrohrback.com to discuss
our investigation and your potential claims against Volkswagen.
Additional information, including a link to Keller Rohrback's
informative Volkswagen Diesel Resource Center for consumers, is
available at www.krcomplexlit.com

According to the EPA, the affected models and model years ("MY")
include:

Jetta (MY 2009-2015)
Jetta Sportwagen (MY 2009-2014)
Beetle (MY 2012-2015)
Beetle Convertible (MY 2012-2015)
Audi A3 (MY 2010-2015)
Golf (MY 2010-2015)
Golf Sportwagen (MY 2015)
Passat (MY 2012-2015)

Keller Rohrback L.L.P. is a consumer protection firm with
extensive experience in environmental litigation.  Its nationally-
recognized complex litigation group serves as lead and co-lead
counsel in class actions throughout the country, obtaining
settlements in excess of seven billion dollars.  With offices in
Seattle, Phoenix, New York, Montana, and Santa Barbara, our trial
and appellate attorneys are proud to offer their expertise and
advocate on behalf of clients nationwide.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Motley Rice Files Consumer Fraud Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moultrie News reports that Motley Rice LLC, one of the nation's
largest plaintiffs' firms, has filed class actions in eight states
for alleged consumer fraud and breach of contract regarding German
automaker Volkswagen's emissions scandal.  Motley Rice filed
actions in New York, Rhode Island, South Carolina and together
with co-counsel in Florida, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia and
West Virginia.

Filed on behalf of both owners and lessees who have one of the
Volkswagen diesel cars in question, these punitive class actions
seek to hold Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. accountable for
lying to and knowingly deceiving its customers.

Admitting that the company did rig software in certain diesel or
TDI models to perform better on U.S. EPA emissions tests than they
would actually perform on the road, Michael Horn, chief executive
of the Volkswagen Group of America stated, "Our company was
dishonest, with the EPA and the California Air Resources board,
and with all of you and in my German words, we have totally
screwed up."

"Owners of VW diesel cars were duped and now they are stuck in
vehicles that do not perform as promised or intended. Rather than
being "clean diesel" they are spewing out pollution at alarming
rates and Volkswagen has no fix," said Motley Rice lawyer Jodi
Westbrook Flowers.  "Having spoken with many angry and concerned
VW owners, it is clear that these cars were marketed and sold
under blatantly false pretense.  Volkswagen has reaped the benefit
of ill-gotten financial gain by creating software designed to
cheat emission testing.  Sold at a higher price point than a
regular gasoline car, these cars do not live up to the hype or the
premium prices for which they were sold to many environmentally-
conscious consumers.  At a time when the need to seriously address
climate change is upon us, VW's conduct in intentional rigging of
emissions testing is beyond reprehensible."

Motley Rice LLC founder Joe Rice, also a member of the Plaintiff's
Executive Committee for the GM ignition switch litigation
consolidated in the Southern District of New York, is working with
Flowers on these cases.

"As a Volkswagen owner, I am very disappointed and concerned that
a company broke the promises that we relied upon. We trusted
Volkswagen and their commitment, and now find that our trust has
been violated.  All Volkswagen owners deserve answers to these
questions and should be compensated for our losses," said
Megan W. Strayhorn, Motley Rice client and claimant in Florida.

Fraud, false advertising, violation of unfair trade practices,
breach of contract and breach of warranty are the allegations
against Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Nationwide Class Certification May Face Hurdles
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sindhu Sundar and Jody Godoy, writing for Law360, report that the
unlikely tag team of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP and
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP have filed a 500-page proposed
class action over Volkswagen's "defeat device" software designed
to outwit emissions tests, but experts say differences in state
law and individual consumers' reliance on the embattled
automaker's advertising could impede nationwide class
certification.

The complaint, filed on Sept. 28 in California federal court, is
the first on behalf of Volkswagen AG's customers that includes
proposed class representatives from all 50 states and the District
of Columbia.  It is also the first time defense giant Quinn
Emanuel has teamed up with a leading plaintiffs firm to file a
consumer class action.

The plaintiffs target the German automaker's admissions that
several of its models with diesel engines showed "irregularities"
in their emissions -- the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
found that the vehicles contain software designed to trick
emissions tests while letting them spew up to 40 times the
permitted limit of nitrogen oxide during regular use, according to
the complaint.

Despite targeting the same conduct, the claims by dozens of
plaintiffs from different states make this a challenging case for
a court to certify, legal experts said.  The plaintiffs' fraud
claims on behalf of a nationwide class highlight the automaker's
"secret scheme to evade federal and state vehicle emissions
standards," but the class must also show that its members chose to
buy those vehicles because of Volkswagen's marketing, experts say.

Differences in state laws also make it difficult to prove the
class overcomes the predominance requirements of Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which sets rigorous criteria for
class certification, they say.

"The problem is if there are aspects of these claims that make it
necessary to delve into the individual circumstances of
plaintiffs, and that could be the case with fraud claims, which
require a showing of reliance," said Stephen Burbank, a professor
at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.

"In general, nationwide state law class actions are almost
impossible to certify these days, because the predominance
requirement can't be satisfied, given the differences in state
law," he said.

The complaint makes claims on behalf of a nationwide class and a
subclass under Virginia law -- there is no state-level class
action law in Virginia -- as well as claims on behalf of all the
other state subclasses.  Under Virginia law, the plaintiffs accuse
Volkswagen of fraud by concealment, detailing a scheme to sell
"clean diesel" vehicles with what the EPA calls a defeat device.

Like at least dozen similar suits against Volkswagen since the
EPA's Sept. 18 announcement about the automaker's Clean Air Act
violations, the suit claims that the software was "designed
nefariously" to activate emissions controls for nitrogen oxide
just during certification tests. The vehicles at issue include
four-cylinder Volkswagen and Audi diesel cars from model years
2009-15.

The suit alleges that Volkswagen's claims about the vehicles'
environmental friendliness boosted their value, and the plaintiffs
wouldn't have purchased the cars if not for the automaker's
deception.

"Had plaintiffs and class members been aware of Volkswagen's
emissions scheme, and the company's callous disregard for
compliance with applicable federal and state law and regulations,
plaintiffs and class members who purchased or leased new or
previously owned vehicles would have paid less for their vehicles
or would not have purchased or leased them at all," the plaintiffs
say.

The claims governing state subclasses revolve in part around
various state breach of contract and deceptive trade practices
laws.  Some legal experts say there may be different factual
issues that need to be resolved state by state, increasing the
challenge for the class to satisfy Rule 23's commonality
requirements.

"Each state has its own definition of fraud, and the elements of
proof may vary by state," said Alan Calnan, a professor at
Southwestern Law School, although he observed that the plaintiffs
may have anticipated that by detailing their claims under
different state laws.

"They're trying to cover all their bases here, showing that
they've got class representatives and that they've researched the
law in every state," Mr. Calnan said.  "They can also argue that
fraud is fraud, regardless of what specific statute or tort cause
of action you're suing under. So they can say that,
notwithstanding the variety here, there is good deal of
commonality."

Shon Morgan, the chair of Quinn Emanuel's national class action
practice, called it an unusual case where a company has already
admitted to some fault, and where the conduct alleged isn't
targeting a widespread industry practice.  He said other
automakers in fact are viewing Volkswagen as a potential target,
since its promotion of its vehicles' environmental friendliness
may have lured customers away from them.

"This is a unique set of circumstances where, at least based on
the facts that are currently emerging, this isn't an assault on
the industry as a whole," Morgan said. "We saw nothing
inconsistent with holding Volkswagen accountable here, with our
defense work for the auto industry in general."

The plaintiffs are represented by Steve W. Berman and Thomas E.
Loeser of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and John B. Quinn and
Shon Morgan of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP.

Law360 has confirmed that Volkswagen hired Kirkland & Ellis LLP to
represent it in the legal fallout from the scandal. Counsel in the
underlying suit couldn't be identified.

The case is Jess Hill et. al. v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc.,
case number 2:15-cv-07604, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Tennessee Resident Files Emissions Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fraud Mark P. Chalos, managing partner of the Nashville office of
the law firm Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, announced
that Jason Hess filed a nationwide class action lawsuit in federal
court in Chattanooga, Tennessee, against Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc.  The complaint charges that for over six years VW
intentionally and systematically cheated its customers, lied to
the government, and misled the public about the true emissions and
performance of four-cylinder diesel engine vehicles sold under the
Volkswagen and Audi brands.

Earlier this year, Mr. Hess, a resident of Nashville, Tennessee,
traded in his 2009 diesel-powered Volkswagen Jetta and purchased a
new, diesel-powered Volkswagen Passat from a dealer in Franklin,
Tennessee.  Mr. Hess' Passat was assembled in Volkswagen's
Chattanooga, Tennessee, plant.  "I have been a loyal VW customer
and like hundreds of thousands of other customers I am outraged by
VW's massive fraud," stated Mr. Hess.  "I travel extensively by
car for business and purchased VW diesel-powered cars because VW
promised low emissions, high fuel efficiency vehicles."

Diesel vehicles are generally more fuel-efficient and powerful
than gasoline engines, but diesel engines emit higher levels of
smog-making particulates and nitrogen oxide gases.  VW attempted
to address this problem with its so-called "clean diesel"
vehicles.

However, as explained in the recall notice from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, VW sold these vehicles with a
"defeat device." A defeat device is sophisticated software that
detects when a car is undergoing official emissions testing and
only then engages the car's full emissions control system. At all
other times, the emission controls are de-activated, and the cars
emit extremely high, and illegal, levels of pollutants.

"VW's claim that four-cylinder diesel cars were powered by 'clean
diesel' was a sham," stated attorney Chalos.  "For years, VW
failed to disclose to the public and to consumers the presence of
the defeat devices in its cars and failed to disclose their actual
performance and emissions."

Nearly 500,000 VW and Audi diesel cars sold in the U.S. since 2009
emit noxious pollutants at up to 40 times the legal limit allowed
under federal and state law.

The vehicles covered in the class action complaint are the
following:

-- 2010 - 2015 Audi A3

-- 2012 - 2015 Volkswagen Beetle

-- 2012 - 2015 Volkswagen Beetle Convertible

-- 2010 - 2015 Volkswagen Golf

-- 2015 Volkswagen Golf SportWagen

-- 2009 - 2015 Volkswagen Jetta

-- 2009 - 2014 Volkswagen Jetta SportWagen

-- 2012 - 2015 Volkswagen Passat

The class action lawsuit seeks statutory penalties and
compensatory, exemplary, and punitive damages for the class
members -- all persons who purchased or leased the recalled VW and
Audi diesel cars.

The lawsuit also seeks several orders, including:

1. An order compelling Volkswagen to buy back the vehicles listed
above on fair and equitable terms; and

2. A declaration that the Volkswagen must disgorge for the benefit
of the class, all or part of the ill-gotten profits received from
the sale or lease of the recalled vehicles, and make full
restitution to class members.


WELCH'S FOOD: Faces Class Action Over "Real Fruit" Snack Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sam P.K. Collins, writing for ThinkProgress, reports that for
years, Welch's Food, Inc., the makers of Welch's Fruit Snacks,
said their offerings contained real fruit.  A class action
lawsuit, however, disagrees.  The two women leading the legal
dispute say pictures of fresh fruit and catch phrases on the
packaging deceived health-conscious parents who purchased the
fruit snacks.

Though Welch's Food designates fruit purees, juices, and
concentrate as the primary ingredients of its products, the
lawsuit says that sugar and food coloring accounts for at least 40
percent of each serving of its fruit snacks.  Plaintiffs
Aliza Atik and Winnie Lau argue this constitutes misleading
advertising that violates New York, California, and federal laws.

"Welch Foods has deceived shoppers by engaging in a deceptive
marketing campaign to convince consumers that Welch's Fruit Snacks
contained significant amounts of the actual fruits shown in the
marketing and on the labeling of the products, were nutritious and
healthful to consume, and were more healthful than similar
products," Ms. Atik and Ms. Lau said in a statement.

This lawsuit comes three years after the Center for Science in the
Public Interest, a D.C.-based consumer advocacy group, threatened
legal action against Promotion in Motion, the company that
distributes Welch's snack products, for "false claims" about the
snacks' health benefits.  Another group brought a similar
complaint before a California court, claiming Welch Foods
inaccurately labeled its juice and spread products as "natural"
and "no sugar added."

Since litigation around the fruit labeling started, Welch Food
representatives have gone on the offensive, telling online news
site Quartz that its labels meet Food and Drug Administration
guidelines.

However, that may not be the case.  The FDA says claims related to
food products' health benefits must be accompanied by nutritional
labeling, ingredients list, name and address of distributor, along
with additional information that supports the assertion.  Some law
scholars contend that Welch's Food doesn't meet that criterion.

A point of contention is the use of "fruit" on the front of the
packaging without disclosure about how much of the food actually
contains that ingredient.

"If they called it junky happy joy chewy, that would be fine,"
Stephen Gardner, the attorney for the plaintiffs, told Fortune.
"But they're marketing this to people so they choose to buy it as
an alternative to fruit.  It's an alternative to M&Ms -- not to
use M&Ms pejoratively.  I love M&Ms."

Research suggests that misleading food packaging, particularly
labels touting a product's health benefits, influence consumer
habits.  For instance, a study conducted at the University of
Houston last year showed that healthy buzzwords -- like "gluten
free," "organic," "natural," whole grain," and "antioxidant" --
distract from the actual nutritional information and help convince
shoppers that products are healthier than is true.  Another study
found that when chocolate is labeled "fair trade" -- a reference
to ethical business practices, not nutritional quality -- people
assume it's healthier.  The same holds true for products with
green labels, according to Cornell University researchers.

Consumer advocacy groups also say this evidence reaffirms the need
for easy-to-read nutrition labels, which 42 percent of working-age
adults and 57 percent of older people rely on when they're
shopping.  Such information, when presented clearly and
accurately, can potentially debunk misleading advertisements on
the front of food packaging.

The FDA recently submitted a proposed label design to make
nutrition information easier to read.  However, critics say it
falls short of the ideal model, partly because of a reliance on
complex jargon, especially when it comes to information about
added sugar.  For now, it remains to be seen whether those issues
will be resolved.

Plaintiffs in the class action suit against Welch's, however, hope
to see the company cease its promotion of its products as fruit.
"Our goal is to find a way to let people (parents in particular)
know what they are buying," Mr. Gardner told Quartz.

Welch's Food isn't the only company to receive suffer
repercussions for allegedly misrepresenting the nutritional value
of its products.

Earlier in September, food producer Kashi reached a $3.99 million
settlement in a class action suit involving its use of the "all
natural" label for its genetically modified products.  ConAgra
Foods, the producer of Chef Boyardee, also had to explain its use
of the "preservative-free" label for pizza and pasta that contains
citric acid.  Earlier this year, a coalition of dietitians groups
shifted focused on Kraft Food Groups, which they said falsely
marketed its cheese product as authentic when each slide contained
less than 51 percent of unadulterated cheese.


* Supreme Court Set to Tackle Future of Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------
Jess Bravin, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that the
long-running battle over class-action lawsuits goes into full
swing in the Supreme Court term beginning with cases that could
shift the rules for group lawsuits against businesses.

The court will hear several cases involving a wide range of
disputes, from consumers alleging a pay-television provider
overcharged them to meatpacking workers claiming they were
underpaid.  Although the cases typically present questions of
legal procedure rather than broad conceptions of individual
rights, the practical impact of their outcomes could determine
whether many kinds of lawsuits can get into court at all.

Under Chief Justice John Roberts, the court has cast a skeptical
eye toward class-action litigation, nearly always splitting 5-4
along ideological lines when setting rules for how multiparty
litigation is conducted in the courts.  The dynamic has tended to
favor businesses, which have sought for decades to rein in class-
action cases.

Stephen Burbank, a University of Pennsylvania law professor who
has co-written a forthcoming book examining private lawsuits on
federal rights, said the split on questions about the mechanics of
litigation in part reflects the legal stakes involved.  "Ideology
is playing a much larger role than people would like to believe in
procedure cases. Everyone has woken up to the dirty little secret
that procedure is power," Mr. Burbank said.

Corporate defense lawyers say the court's conservative majority
has yet to fundamentally tilt the odds against plaintiffs.

"There's always this hope before the Supreme Court term that we
have these really great issues that are going to be decided, and
there will be a sweeping change in the way class actions work,"
said Paul Karlsgodt, who heads Baker & Hostetler LLP's national
class-action defense practice in Denver.  Instead, recent
decisions have included "sweeping statements, but not necessarily
a sweeping holding that had an impact on practice."

The court so far has granted four appeals from companies fighting
decisions that went against them in class-action cases.

On Oct. 2, the justices were set hear an appeal filed by DirecTV
to dismiss a class-action suit alleging the company improperly
charged California customers for early cancellation of a service
contract.

DirecTV, acquired by AT&T Inc. earlier this year, argues its
customer contract bars individuals from suing the company or
seeking a class remedy for disputes, instead requiring private
arbitration.  A state appeals court rejected DirecTV's argument.

On October 14, the court will hear argument on whether an
individual can lead a class of plaintiffs when he was offered full
restitution available under the law to settle a claim.

The case involves a complaint brought by Jose Gomez, a California
man who received unsolicited text messages on Navy recruitment
from Campbell-Ewald, Co., a marketing agency that held a Navy
contract.  He sought class-actions status against the recruiting
campaign under Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which set
maximum damages at $1,500 against companies that send unsolicited
test messages.  The company has unsuccessfully argued its
settlement offer to Mr. Gomez requires the suit to be dismissed.

The court's November 2 case involves a similar claim against
Spokeo Inc., Pasadena, Calif., which crawls the web to aggregate
data it finds about individuals in public records, social media
and other sources.  The Fair Credit Reporting Act, requires
consumer reporting agencies to "follow reasonable procedures to
assure maximum possible accuracy," and authorizes either actual
damages or up to $1,000 for violations.

A California man, Thomas Robins, filed suit, seeking class action
status, after finding Spokeo posted inaccurate information about
him. Spokeo argues Mr. Robins suffered no injury, since the
information wasn't derogatory: it described him as being wealthy,
when he actually was unemployed, and holding a graduate degree,
which he doesn't.  Mr. Robins argued the publication of those
inaccuracies impeded his job search, causing "anxiety, stress,
concern, and/or worry about his diminished employment prospects."

Should Mr. Robins prevail, "class actions presenting huge damages
exposure based on harmless conduct will proliferate," the company
argues in court papers.

On Nov. 10, the court hears a case experts believe could produce
the term's most significant class-action decision because it deals
with the statistical methods judges use to estimate the size of a
class.

The suit against Tyson Foods Inc. involves a perennial issue
before the high court -- whether employees are entitled to pay for
time spent suiting up for work. Employees claimed they were
underpaid for time spent donning and doffing protective gear and
clothing.

Because the company didn't maintain complete records of hours
worked.  The plaintiffs used projections based on a sample of 744
employees for a class of 3,000-plus current and former employees.
Tyson argued the class of employees was too large and included
workers whose jobs don't have enough in common to be considered a
single class.  A jury sided with the workers and the Eighth
Circuit, in St. Louis, upheld the decision.

Decisions in the cases are expected before July 2016.




                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3d Cir. Upholds Warehouse Owner's Conviction
-------------------------------------------------------------
Upon purchasing an old Philadelphia warehouse for the storage of
cars as part of a vehicle wholesale business, Gene Cornell Smith
authorized an amateur asbestos removal project on the property and
repeatedly failed to bring the renovation up to federal standards.
As a result, he was convicted of five counts of illegal removal of
asbestos, in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 7413(c)(1), and one
count of conspiracy to illegally remove asbestos, in violation of
18 U.S.C. Section 371.  Smith challenges his conviction, arguing
that there was insufficient evidence to support these counts and
that the District Court gave improper jury instructions, and he
challenges his sentence on the basis of the enhancements imposed
by the District Court.  The United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit, in an opinion dated Oct. 7, 2015, affirmed the
conviction.

The case is UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GENE CORNELL SMITH, a/k/a
CORNELL SMITH, Gene Cornell Smith, Appellant, NO. 13-4703 (3d.
Cir.).  A full-text copy of the Third Circuit's Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/d1wxXffrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thompson Hine Shipowners Fail to Junk "Figueroa"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In 1994, Alfredo Figueroa brought claims for non-malignant
asbestos-related disease against various defendants, including
shipowners represented by Thompson Hine LLP.  By way of Order
dated May 2, 1996, Judge Charles Weiner dismissed those claims
administratively, leaving open the possibility for the action to
be pursued at a later, unspecified date.  Approximately ten years
after he filed his asbestos action, and approximately eight years
after it was dismissed, on June 4, 2004, Mr. Figueroa filed for
bankruptcy pursuant to Chapter 7 of the bankruptcy code, without
listing his asbestos claims as an asset in the bankruptcy filing.
The bankruptcy case was closed approximately four months later, on
September 23, 2004.  Thereafter, on February 12, 2007, Mr.
Figueroa was diagnosed with lung cancer, giving rise to claim for
a malignant asbestos-related disease.  On January 24, 2011,
approximately fifteen years after the bankruptcy case was closed
and approximately seventeen years after Mr. Figueroa first filed
his asbestos action, the MDL Court reinstated Mr. Figueroa's
asbestos action, which had been dismissed by Judge Weiner in 1996.

The Thompson Hine Shipowners have moved for summary judgment,
arguing that (1) Plaintiff's non-malignancy claims are barred by
way of judicial estoppel because Mr. Figueroa failed to disclose
the asbestos action as an asset in his bankruptcy filing, and (2)
Plaintiff cannot pursue any of the asbestos claims in the asbestos
action (neither his initial non-malignancy claims nor his post-
petition malignancy claims) because the entire asbestos action is
now owned by the bankruptcy estate.

Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in a memorandum dated Oct.
6, 2015, denied the Defendants' motion.

The case is ALFREDO FIGUEROA, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. A-C PRODUCT
LIABILITY TRUST, ET AL., Defendants, MDL 875, CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:11-30255-ER (E.D. Pa.).  A full-text copy of Judge Robreno's
Decision is available at http://is.gd/l3S0SCfrom Leagle.com.

WILLARD E. BARTEL, Plaintiff, represented by DUANE C. MARSDEN,
JAQUES ADMIRALTY LAW FIRM, P.C., JOHN E. HERRICK, MOTLEY RICE LLC
& JOHN DAVID HURST, MOTLEY RICE LLC.

DAVID C. PEEBLES, Plaintiff, represented by DUANE C. MARSDEN,
JAQUES ADMIRALTY LAW FIRM, P.C., JOHN E. HERRICK, MOTLEY RICE LLC
& JOHN DAVID HURST, MOTLEY RICE LLC.

A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY, Defendant, represented by JOHN P.
PATTERSON, TUCKER ELLIS WEST.

GATKE CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by JOHN M. HERKE,
SPYRIDON PALERMO & DORNAN.

IMO INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant, represented by COLLEEN A.
MOUNTCASTLE, GALLAGHER SHARP, KEVIN C. ALEXANDERSEN, GALLAGHER
SHARP & STEPHEN M. BEAUDRY, GALLAGHER SHARP.

JOHN CRANE INC., Defendant, represented by EVAN J. PALIK, Esq. --
epalik@mdllp.net -- MCMAHON DEGULIS.

GLEN EAGLE SHIP MANAGEMENT, Defendant, represented by HAROLD W.
HENDERSON, THOMPSON, HINE LLP.

MOORE MCCORMACK BULK TRANSPORT INC., Defendant, represented by
HAROLD W. HENDERSON, THOMPSON, HINE LLP.

UNITED FRUIT COMPANY, Defendant, represented by HAROLD W.
HENDERSON, THOMPSON, HINE LLP.

PETROLANE, INC., Respondent, represented by BRIAN W. SHAFFER,
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thompson Hine Shipowners Fail to Junk "Gaito"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Willard E. Bartel and David E. Peebles, Administrators of the
Estate of Dominic Gaito, allege that Mr. Gaito was exposed to
asbestos while working aboard various ships.  The Plaintiffs
assert that the Decedent developed an asbestos-related illness as
a result of his exposure to asbestos aboard those ships.

On September 5, 1995, Mr. Gaito brought claims for non-malignant
asbestos-related disease against various defendants, including
shipowners represented by Thompson Hine LLP.  Less than three
weeks earlier, on August 16, 1995, Mr. Gaito had filed for
bankruptcy pursuant to Chapter 7 of the bankruptcy code, without
listing his asbestos claims as an asset in the bankruptcy filing.
The First Bankruptcy action was closed shortly thereafter, on
March 15, 1996. By way of Order dated May 2, 1996, Judge Charles
Weiner dismissed those claims administratively, leaving open the
possibility for the action to be pursued at a later, unspecified
date.  Approximately five years later, on September 20, 2001, Mr.
Gaito again filed for bankruptcy pursuant to Chapter 7 of the
bankruptcy code, again without listing his asbestos claims as an
asset in that bankruptcy filing.  The Second Bankruptcy action was
closed January 31, 2002.  During the Second Bankruptcy, on
December 4, 2001, Mr. Gaito was diagnosed with lung cancer, giving
rise to claims for a malignant asbestos-related disease. On
January 24, 2011, the MDL Court reinstated the asbestos action,
which had been dismissed by Judge Weiner in 1996.

The Thompson Hine Shipowners have moved for summary judgment,
arguing that (1) Plaintiff's claims are barred by way of judicial
estoppel because Plaintiff failed to disclose the asbestos action
as an asset in his bankruptcy filings, and (2) Plaintiff does not
have standing to pursue the asbestos action because it is now
owned by one (or both) of the bankruptcy estates.

Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in a memorandum dated
October 5, 2015, denied the Defendants' motion.

The case is DOMINIC M. GAITO, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. A-C PRODUCT
LIABILITY TRUST, ET AL., Defendants, MDL 875, CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:11-30281-ER (E.D. Pa.).  A full-text copy of Judge Robreno's
Decision is available at http://is.gd/k9b9VTfrom Leagle.com.

WILLARD E. BARTEL, Plaintiff, represented by DONALD A. KRISPIN,
THE JAQUES ADMIRALTY LAW FIRM, P.C., DUANE C. MARSDEN, JAQUES
ADMIRALTY LAW FIRM, P.C., JOHN E. HERRICK, MOTLEY RICE LLC, JOHN
DAVID HURST, MOTLEY RICE LLC & ROBERT E. SWICKLE, THE JAQUES
ADMIRALTY LAW FIRM, P.C..

DAVID C. PEEBLES, Plaintiff, represented by DONALD A. KRISPIN, THE
JAQUES ADMIRALTY LAW FIRM, P.C., DUANE C. MARSDEN, JAQUES
ADMIRALTY LAW FIRM, P.C., JOHN E. HERRICK, MOTLEY RICE LLC, JOHN
DAVID HURST, MOTLEY RICE LLC & ROBERT E. SWICKLE, THE JAQUES
ADMIRALTY LAW FIRM, P.C..

A.W. CHESTERTON CO., Defendant, represented by JOHN P. PATTERSON,
TUCKER ELLIS WEST.

GATKE CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by JOHN M. HERKE,
SPYRIDON PALERMO & DORNAN.

IMO INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant, represented by COLLEEN A.
MOUNTCASTLE, GALLAGHER SHARP, KEVIN C. ALEXANDERSEN, GALLAGHER
SHARP & STEPHEN M. BEAUDRY, GALLAGHER SHARP.

JOHN CRANE INC., Defendant, represented by EVAN J. PALIK, MCMAHON
DEGULIS & STEPHEN H. DANIELS, MCMAHON DEGULIS LLP.

MATHIASEN TANKER IND. INC., Defendant, represented by HAROLD W.
HENDERSON, THOMPSON, HINE LLP.

SUN OIL CORP., Defendant, represented by HAROLD W. HENDERSON,
THOMPSON, HINE LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Denies PI Plaintiff's Reargument Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth
Department, in a decision dated October 2, 2015, denied Appellant
Beth Ann Pienta's motion for reargument of or, in the alternative,
leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals from the order of this
Court entered June 12, 2015.

IN THE MATTER OF EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ASBESTOS LITIGATION
relating to BETH ANN PIENTA, AS SUCCESSOR EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE
OF LEE HOLDSWORTH, DECEASED, AND AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF
CAROL A. HOLDSWORTH, DECEASED, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. A.W.
CHESTERTON COMPANY, ET AL., Defendants, AND CRANE CO., Defendant-
Appellant, MOTION NO. 651-15, DOCKET NO. CA 14-02303 (N.Y. App.
Div.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/UPFg97from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Consolidates PI Cases for Trial
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge Cynthia S. Kern of the Supreme Court, New York County, in a
decision and order dated Oct. 2, 2015, granted the motion to
consolidate the cases of: (1) Group 1: John Cuzzolino and Ardeshir
Ommani; (2) Group 2: Vincent A. Geritano, Walter Hazard and John
Negri; and (3) Group 3: Carlton Johnson, Michael Koulermos and Eli
Petrovich, for trial.

The case is IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to
JOHN CUZZOLINO AND CONCETTA CUZZOLINO, Plaintiffs, v. A.O. SMITH
WATER PRODUCTS, et al., Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190270/2014 (N.Y.
Sup.).  A full-text copy of Judge Kern's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/WFT9tbfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Fails in Bid to Dismiss "Ricci"
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Mark Ricci was diagnosed with pleural mesothelioma in
2014.  He claims his disease is connected to his secondhand
exposure to asbestos through his father Aldo Ricci's work
designing and overseeing the installation of heating, air
conditioning and ventilation systems.  Throughout his career, Aldo
Ricci testified that he was exposed to asbestos from, among other
things, working around others handling asbestos-containing valves
manufactured by defendant Defendant Crane Co.  Aldo Ricci further
testified that asbestos dust associated with Crane valves would
get on his clothes.  His son, in turn, would be exposed to that
dust when Aldo Ricci returned home wearing those work clothes.

Crane is alleged to have manufactured and sold valves in which the
asbestos-containing materials were installed.  The Plaintiff
asserts that Crane was negligent in failing to warn about the
known dangers of those products, and that Crane encouraged them to
be used in conjunction with its valves.  Crane moves for summary
judgment dismissing the plaintiff's complaint and all claims and
cross-claims against it.  The Defendant argues that the plaintiff
has failed to prove that he was "exposed to asbestos from any
asbestos-containing product that was manufactured or supplied by
Crane Co."  Crane states that because Aldo Ricci did not identify
a Crane product as the source of his alleged asbestos exposure
during lead examination at his deposition, it should be entitled
to judgment as a matter of law regarding the plaintiff's
secondhand exposure.  Furthermore, citing Matter of New York City
Asbestos Litig. (Konstantin) (121 A.D.3d 230 [1st Dept 2014]), the
defendant asserts that "there is no record evidence that Crane Co.
placed into the stream of commerce any of the asbestos-containing
materials that may have been used near Aldo Ricci during his
career."  In short, there was nothing unsafe about the defendant's
"bare metal" product.

Judge Peter H. Moulton of the Supreme Court, New York County, in a
decision dated Oct. 5, 2015, denied the Defendant's motion in its
entirety.  Judge Moulton held that issues of fact exist in the
case with respect to the defendant's failure to demonstrate that
its values "could not have contributed to the causation of
plaintiff's injury."

The Court noted that Aldo Ricci testified that he was exposed to
Crane valves that released asbestos dust into the air.  Crane does
not categorically refute this testimony or the catalogs submitted
by plaintiff in support of it.  Instead, defendant surmises that
it would be "sheer guesswork" to conclude that Aldo Ricci came
into contact with asbestos materials purportedly associated with
Crane, and that he was exposed to asbestos fibers emitted from
those materials.  The Defendant's argument has not merit, Judge
Moulton ruled.  A fair reading of Aldo Ricci's testimony regarding
his alleged exposure to asbestos-containing Crane valves does not
support an inference that he was unsure about what he saw, Judge
Moulton noted.  When asked whether he observed people doing dust-
generating valve insulation and replacement work on Crane valves,
Aldo Ricci responded by saying "Yes, Crane valves."  In that
sense, the product identification here is more forceful and less
equivocal than in Berensmann, where the court nevertheless denied
judgment in the defendant's favor.  In any event, the defendant's
efforts to characterize and mold plaintiff's testimony regarding
the identification of Crane valves in a light most favorable to it
merely raises credibility issues for the jury.

IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to MARK RICCI.
Plaintiff, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS, CO., et al Defendants,
DOCKET NO. 190224/2014, MOTION SEQ. 010 (N.Y. Sup.).  A full-text
copy of Judge Moulton's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/G7Xns0from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims Against American Re Severed
---------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth
Department, in a memorandum dated Oct. 9, 2015, affirmed an order
of the Supreme Court, Oneida County, entered December 4, 2014,
granting the motion of defendant American Re-insurance Company,
now known as Munich Reinsurance America, Inc., to sever the claims
against it from the claims against defendant Transatlantic
Reinsurance Company.

The Appellate Division held that, in this case, although the
claims against both defendants relate to insurance payments made
by the plaintiff to the same insured for asbestos-related losses,
the defendants have no relationship to one another, and the claims
arise from different reinsurance contracts, were triggered by
different underlying umbrella polices, and involve different time
periods.  Moreover, the defendants asserted different affirmative
defenses, and a finding of liability against one defendant will
not impact the liability of the other, the Appellate Division
further held.  Under those circumstances, the Appellate Division
concluded that the court did not abuse its discretion in granting
Munich's severance motion.

The case is UTICA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. AMERICAN RE-INSURANCE COMPANY, NOW KNOWN AS MUNICH REINSURANCE
AMERICA, INC., AND TRANSATLANTIC REINSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants-
Respondents, 1078 CA 15-00408 (N.Y. App. Div.).  A full-text copy
of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/6o6f2xfrom
Leagle.com.

HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP, McLEAN, VIRGINIA (SYED S. AHMAD, Esq. --
sahmad@hunton.com -- OF THE VIRGINIA AND DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
BARS, ADMITTED PRO HAC VICE, OF COUNSEL), AND FELT EVANS, LLP,
CLINTON FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.

PETRONE & PETRONE, UTICA (MARK CHIECO OF COUNSEL), AND RUBIN,
FIORELLA & FRIEDMAN LLP, NEW YORK CITY, FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT
AMERICAN RE-INSURANCE COMPANY, NOW KNOWN AS MUNICH REINSURANCE
AMERICA, INC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lockheed Wins Partial Dismissal of PI Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Glenn and Betty Hassebrock originally filed a Complaint in this
matter on November 3, 2014, in King County Superior Court.  The
case was subsequently removed to the Western District of
Washington on December 3, 2014.  On January 30, 2015, the Court
set deadlines in this case, with discovery to be completed on
April 14, 2015, and dispositive motions due on April 21, 2015.
Following the death of Mr. Hassebrock on May 2, 2015, the Court
issued a revised scheduling order setting trial for November 11,
2015, and a dispositive motion deadline of August 7, 2015.
Defendant Lockheed Shipbuilding Company filed a Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment seeks to dismiss all product liability claims
asserted against it by the Plaintiffs.

Judge Ricardo S. Martinez of the United States District Court for
the Western District of Washington, Seattle, in an order dated
Oct. 8, 2015, granted the Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment.

The case is GLENN M. HASSEBROCK and BETTY HASSEBROCK, husband and
wife, Plaintiffs, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. C14-1835RSM (W.D. Wash.).  A full-text copy
of Judge Martinez's Decision is available at http://is.gd/0U8z1X
from Leagle.com.

Glenn M Hassebrock, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica Dean, Esq. -
- jdean@dobllp.com -- DEAN OMAR & BRANHAM, LLP, Kristin M Houser,
Esq. -- houser@sgb-law.com -- SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER & Thomas
J. Breen, Esq. -- breen@sgb-law.com -- SCHROETER GOLDMARK &
BENDER.

Glenn M Hassebrock, Plaintiff, represented by William Joel
Rutzick, SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER.

Betty Hassebrock, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica Dean, DEAN
OMAR & BRANHAM, LLP, Kristin M Houser, SCHROETER GOLDMARK &
BENDER, Thomas J. Breen, SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER & William
Joel Rutzick, SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Defendant, represented by Barry
Neal Mesher, Esq. -- barry.mesher@sedgwicklaw.com -- SEDGWICK LLP,
Brady L Green, WILBRAHAM LAWLER & BUBA, Megan Maria Coluccio, Esq.
-- megan.coluccio@sedgwicklaw.com -- SEDGWICK LLP & Rachel Tallon
Reynolds, Esq. -- rachel.reynolds@sedgwicklaw.com -- SEDGWICK LLP.

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Christopher S Marks,
Esq. -- chris.marks@sedgwicklaw.com -- SEDGWICK LLP.

CBS Corporation, aDefendant, represented by R Dirk Bernhardt, Esq.
-- dirk.bernhardt@sedgwicklaw.com -- SEDGWICK LLP.

Crane Co, Defendant, represented by Michele C Barnes, Esq. --
michele.barnes@klgates.com -- K&L GATES LLP & G William Shaw, Esq.
-- bill.shaw@klgates.com -- K&L GATES LLP.

Crown Cork & Seal Company Inc, Defendant, represented by Barry
Neal Mesher, Esq. -- barry.mesher@sedgwicklaw.com -- SEDGWICK LLP,
Megan Maria Coluccio, SEDGWICK LLP & Rachel Tallon Reynolds,
SEDGWICK LLP.

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant, represented by R
Dirk Bernhardt, SEDGWICK LLP.

Fraser's Boiler Service Inc, Defendant, represented by James
Edward Horne, Esq. -- jhorne@gth-law.com -- GORDON THOMAS
HONEYWELL.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Christopher S
Marks, SEDGWICK LLP & R Dirk Bernhardt, SEDGWICK LLP.

IMO Industries, Inc, Defendant, represented by James Edward Horne,
GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL & Michael Edward Ricketts, Esq. --
mricketts@gth-law.com -- GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL.

Ingersoll Rand Company, Defendant, represented by Kevin J Craig,
GORDON & REES LLP & Mark B Tuvim, GORDON & REES.

Lockheed Shipbuilding Co., Defendant, represented by Brian Thomas
Clark, GLAZIER YEE LLLP, Guy Glazier, GLAZIER YEE, Robert Gregory
Andre, OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE PLLC, Geoff J M Bridgman, OGDEN MURPHY
WALLACE PLLC & Jeffrey D Dunbar, OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE PLLC.

Metropolitan Casualty Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Richard G Gawlowski, Esq. -- gawlowski@wscd.com -- WILSON SMITH
COCHRAN & DICKERSON.

Saberhagen Holdings Inc, Defendant, represented by Timothy Kost
Thorson, Esq. -- thorson@carneylaw.com -- CARNEY BADLEY SPELLMAN.

Warren Pumps LLC, Defendant, represented by Allen Eraut, Esq. --
aeraut@rizzopc.com -- RIZZO MATTINGLY BOSWORTH PC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bids to Strike Testimony in MSA Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Mine Safety Appliances Company manufactured, distributed
and sold products designed to protect miners from inhaling
asbestos, silica and coal dust.  Mine Safety purchased general
liability and excess insurance policies from numerous insurers.
MSA filed a declaratory judgment action seeking coverage for tort
actions alleging bodily injuries from the use of MSA products.

On June 29, 2015, the Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle
County, heard argument on thirteen separate motions.  The analysis
involves certain common legal authorities and public policy
considerations.  The parties agree that Pennsylvania law governs
the disputes that are the subject of these motions.

In a memorandum opinion dated Oct. 1, 2015, the Court denied
Hartford Defendants' motion to strike the affidavit of William J.
Berner in support Of MSA's motion for partial summary judgment on
the ambiguity of its excess policies' follow-form provisions, and
the Hartford Defendants' motion to strike the affidavit of william
j. berner in support of msa's motions for partial summary judgment
that certain policies exclude coverage for defense costs.

The Court also directed that each Defendant may file only one
Phase II brief.  The page limitations as provided in the Superior
Court Civil Rules will apply.  Because of the numerical disparity
between one Plaintiff and several Defendants, the Plaintiff may
request page extensions to equal the number of pages filed by
Defendants collectively.  The Court strongly encouraged the
parties to confer to avoid motions involving duplicative legal
issues.  Appendices should contain only materials necessary for
the Court's consideration of the motions, the Court ruled.

The case is MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. AIU
INSURANCE COMPANY, et al. Defendants, C.A. NO. N10C-07-241
MMJ(Del. Sup.).

A full-text copy of the Court's memorandum opinion on the Hartford
Defendants' motion to stike the Berner Affidavit is available at
http://is.gd/xrNercfrom Leagle.com.

The Court also denied Hartford Defendant's Motion to Strike Expert
Report of Paul David McKnight.  A full-text copy of the Court's
memorandum opinion dated Oct. 1, 2015, with respect to the
McKnight Report is available at http://is.gd/XY76kUfrom
Leagle.com.

Jennifer C. Wasson, Esq. -- jwasson@potteranderson.com --
(Argued), Michael B. Rush, Esq. -- mrush@potteranderson.com --
Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Mark A. Packman, Esq. --
packmanm@gotofirm.com -- (Argued), Jenna A. Hudson, Esq. --
hudsonj@gotofirm.com -- (Argued), Joao Santa-Rita, Esq. -- santa-
ritaj@gotofirm.com -- Gabriel Le Chevallier, Esq. --
lechevallierg@gotofirm.com -- (Argued), Todd T. Itami, Esq. --
itamit@gotofirm.com -- Ivan J. Snyder, Esq. --
snyderi@gotofirm.com -- (Argued), Gilbert LLP, Attorneys for
Plaintiff Mine Safety Appliances Company.

Megan T. Mantzavinos, Esq. -- mmantzavinos@moodklaw.com -- Emily
K. Silverstein, Esq. -- esilverstein@moodklaw.com -- Marks,
O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Ellen G. Margolis, Esq. -
- emargolis@moundcotton.com -- Pamela Minetto, Esq. --
pminetto@moundcotton.com -- (Argued), Mound Cotton Wollan &
Greengrass, Attorneys for Defendants American Home Assurance
Company, Granite State Insurance Company, Insurance Company of the
State of Pennsylvania, Lexington Insurance Company, National Union
Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, AIU Insurance Company,
Chartis Property Casualty Co f/k/a Birmingham Fire Insurance Co.

Peter B. Ladig, Esq. -- pladig@morrisjames.com -- David J. Soldo,
Esq. -- dsoldo@morrisjames.com -- Meghan A. Adams, Esq. --
madams@morrisjames.com -- Morris James LLP, Alan S. Miller, Esq. -
- amiller@psmn.com -- (Argued), Henry M. Sneath, Esq. --
hsneath@psmn.com -- Bridget M. Gillespie, Esq. --
bgillespie@psmn.com -- Katherine C. Dempsy, Esq. -- Picadio Sneath
Miller & Norton, PC, Dennis O. Brown, Esq. --
dbrown@gordonrees.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP, Attorneys for The
North River Insurance Company.

Richard M. Beck, Esq. -- rbeck@klehr.com -- Sean M. Brennecke,
Esq. -- sbrennecke@klehr.com -- Klehr Harrison Harvey Branzburg
LLP, James P. Ruggeri, Esq. -- jruggeri@goodwin.com -- and Joshua
D. Weinberg, Esq. -- jweinberg@goodwin.com -- (Argued), Michele L.
Backus, Esq. -- mbackus@goodwin.com -- Shipman & Goodwin LLP,
Attorneys for Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, First State
Insurance Company, and Twin City Fire insurance Company.

Neal J. Levitsky, Esq. -- nlevitsky@foxrothschild.com -- Seth A.
Niederman, Esq. -- sniederman@foxrothschild.com -- Fox Rothschild
LLP, Daren S. McNally, Esq. -- daren.mcnally@clydeco.us --
(Argued), Barbara M. Almeida, Esq. -- barbara.almeida@clydeco.us -
- (Argued) Clyde & Co US LLP, Attorneys for Travelers Casualty and
Surety Company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Navy Sues CBS, et al., in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Norman sued CBS Corporation and several companies in the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Central
District, alleging that his mesothelioma was caused by exposure to
asbestos from products used or manufactured by the defendants.

Mr. Norman asserted that he was exposed to asbestos while serving
the U.S. Navy from 1951 to 1953, from doing work as laborer at
Mobil Oil in Torrance, California, from doing personal brake work
from the 1960s into the 1980s, and from home construction in 1972.

The case is BRUCE NORMAN, Plaintiff, vs. CBS CORPORATION, a
Delaware corporation, formerly known as VIACOM INC., successor by
merger to CBS Corporation, a Pennsylvania corporation, formerly
known as WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION; FOSTER WHEELER LLC;
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY; GEORGIA-PACIFIC LLC, formerly known as
GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION; HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC., ALLIED
SIGNAL, INC., as successor in interest to the BENDIX CORPORATION;
KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC.; METALCLAD INSULATION, LLC, as
successor in interest of METALCLAD INSULATION CORPORATION;
OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC.; THE PEP BOYS MANNY MOE & JACK OF CALIFORNIA;
SANTA FE BRAUN, INC., as successor-in-interest to C.F. BRAUN,
INC.; SEQUOIA VENTURES, INC., individually and as parent, alter
ego and equitable trustee of BECHTEL CORPORATION; UNION CARBIDE
CORPORATION; METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, and DOES ONE
through ONE HUNDRED, inclusive, JCCP Case No. 4674.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Mark Swanson, Esq.
         KAZAN, MCCLAIN, SATTERLY & GREENWOOD, APC
         Jack London Marker
         55 Harrison Street, Suite 400
         Oakland, CA 94607
         Tel: (510) 302-1000
         Fax: (510) 835-4913


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deere & Co. Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Deere & Company continues to defend itself against various
unresolved legal actions, the most prevalent of which relate to
product liability, including asbestos related liability, retail
credit, software licensing, patent and trademark matters,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
July 31, 2015.

The Company believes the reasonably possible range of losses for
these unresolved legal actions in addition to the amounts accrued
would not have a material effect on its consolidated financial
statements.

Headquartered in Moline, Ill., Deere & Company's equipment
operations generate revenues and cash primarily from the sale of
equipment to John Deere dealers and distributors.  The equipment
operations manufacture and distribute agricultural equipment;
commercial, consumer and landscapes equipment and products; and
equipment for construction and forestry.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Amec Foster Wheeler Has GBP387MM Fibro Liability
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amec Foster Wheeler plc reported that it has GBP387 million
asbestos-related liabilities as of June 30, 2015, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2015.

Certain of the Company's subsidiaries in the UK and US are subject
to claims by individuals who allege that they have suffered
personal injury alleged to have arisen from exposure to asbestos
primarily in connection with equipment allegedly manufactured by
certain of our subsidiaries during the 1970s or earlier.

As of June 30, 2015, the group recognised:

   * asbestos-related liabilities of GBP387 million, which
included estimates of indemnity amounts and defence costs for open
and yet to be asserted claims expected to be incurred in each year
in the period to 2050; and

   * insurance recoveries of GBP105 million.

The net liability of GBP(282)million in respect of asbestos-
related obligations is presented on the balance sheet within other
non-current receivables (GBP93 million); trade and other
receivables (GBP12 million ); trade and other payables
(GBP(37)million) and provisions (GBP(350)million).

There was a net cash outflow of GBP13 million during H1 2015 due
to the excess of forecast indemnity payments and defence costs
over insurance proceeds.

A copy of the Company's regulatory filing is available at:

http://goo.gl/dSemmx

Amec Foster Wheeler plc is engaged in designing, delivering and
maintaining infrastructure assets across various markets that
include mining, clean energy, power generation and infrastructure
markets. The Company has the following operating segments:
Americas; Northern Europe & CIS; Asia, Middle East, Africa &
Southern Europe (AMEA); Global Power Group, and Investment
Services. The Company's Americas segment is engaged in Oil & Gas,
Mining, Clean Energy, and Environment and Infrastructure. The
Company's Northern Europe & CIS segment is engaged in the Oil &
Gas, Clean Energy, and Environment and Infrastructure areas. The
Company's AMEA segment is engaged in projects, which include
providing asset support for gas facilities in East Timor Sea,
operational readiness services in offshore Australia, and onshore
turnaround and maintenance support in Australia.





                            *********

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, Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala,
Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2015. 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 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *