CAR_Public/151023.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, October 23, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 212


                            Headlines


ALLIANZ ASSET: Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties
ANABI OIL: "Hodgkins" Suit Seeks to Recover Wages
ARAMARK SERVICES: "Mendoza" Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations
AUSTRALIA: Suit Mulled Against Health Service Over Baby Deaths
BIRMINGHAM, AL: Police Department Appeals Pepper Spray Suit Ruling

BOFI HOLDING: Dec. 14 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
BOFI HOLDING: May Face Class Action Over Disclosure Issues
CAMPBELL-EWALD CO: Court Hears Oral Arguments in Class Action
CANADIAN SOLAR: Jan. 15, 2016 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
CBS CORPORATION: "Hines" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation

CHECKSMART FINANCIAL: "Harrell-Davis" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
CHINA FINANCE: Suit Alleges Federal Securities Law Violations
CVS HEALTH: "Siegel" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
DDS ENTERPRISES: "Kaussen" Suit Alleges UCL Violation
DETROIT, MI: Order Denying DWSD Customers' Bid for TRO Affirmed

DIRECT AUTO: "Melchor" Suit Alleges Breach of Contract
DRAFTKINGS: Kentucky Customer Files Fraud Class Action
FACEBOOK INC: Israel Law Center Files Class Action in US
FARMERS INSURANCE: Faces Gender Discrimination Class Action
FIFTH STREET: Emerson Scott Files Securities Class Action

GENERAL MOTORS: Barra to Testify on Ignition Switch Recall Case
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Corvette V8 Engine
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Court Interprets Actavis Ruling in Antitrust Case
GOOGLE INC: Authors Guild Loses Copyright Infringement Suit
GUAM: Owes More Than $15 Mil. of Tax Refund Payments to Citizens

HERSHEY: Class Actions Aim to Raise Awareness on Child Slave Labor
ILLINOIS: Lottery Winners Mull Class Action Over Delayed Payouts
JAMES HARDIE: Faces Second Class Action Over Cladding System
KENNETH EMEZIEM: "Kidd" Suit Alleges Housing Law Violations
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Bogler" Suit Alleges False Advertisement

MANORCARE HEALTH: Blames Trinity Health for Hepatitis C Outbreak
MINNESOTA: Regional Treatment Center Counselor Files Overtime Suit
NAMIBIA: Hai//om San Community Members Mull Suit Over Etosha
NEWSCO INTERNATIONAL: "Alderman" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
OCEAN FRESH: Faces "Sevilla" Suit Over FLSA Violations

PETROBRAS BRASILEIRO: Challenges Standing of Opt-Out Plaintiffs
PIH HEALTH: "Maradiaga" Suit Alleges Labor Code Violation
PRESBYTERIAN HOMES: Residents File Class Action Over Eviction
PROVIDENCE COMMUNITY: Judge Issues Injunction in Probation Case
PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS: Faces $5-Mil. Robocall Class Action

REAL TIME: "Parsons" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violations
SINGING RIVER: Pension Plan Class Action Settlement Mulled
SIOUX CITY, IA: Council to Vote on Utility Class Action Payment
STANDARD HOTEL: "Thompson" Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations
STEVE CHEN: Suit Alleges Fraud and Breach of Contract

STEVE CHEN: "Geng" Suit Alleges Breach of Contract and Fraud
SUPER TRANSPORTATION: "Torres" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
TUCSON, AZ: Female Firefighter Wins Sexual Harassment Case
UBER: Drivers Set to Hold Strike Over Deceptive Practices
UFC: Athletes' Monopoly Class Action in Discovery Phase

UNITED STATES: Legality of Migrant Detention Facilities Questioned
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Paris Police Raids Main Office in Emissions Probe
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Faces "Barnard" Suit Over Fraud Allegations
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces GBP30-Bil. Shareholder Class Action
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Bancroft" Suit Alleges Fraud

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Bixler" Suit Over Constructive Fraud
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Bentham Plans to File EUR40-Bil. Emissions Claim
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Emissions Scandal to Hit Global Insurance Cos.
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces Suit on Unjust Enrichment
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: EPA Investigates Emissions-Control Software

WAL-MART STORES: Faces Suit Over False Statements
WONDRIES AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Suit Over Labor Code Violation

* CFPB Targets Class Action Waivers in Arbitration Clauses
* Class Action Challenges Egg Donation Pay Limit Guidelines
* Fantasy Sports Trade Group Receives Subpoena Amid Class Actions
* UK Introduces New US Style Antitrust Class Action Regime


                    Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Airco Wins Summary Judgment in "Herr"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 9th Circ. Affirms Summary Judgment in "Lannes"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Time to Appeal in "Porta" Enlarged to Feb.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurer's Reconsideration Bid Partially Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Fenicle" Remanded to Calif. State Court

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Stay of Trial in "Smith" Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Amicus Curiae Allowed in "Dummitt"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Excludes Settlement Offers in PI Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3d. Circ. Affirms Dismissal of "Mandelbrot"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers' Fibro Claims vs. Fieldcrest Junked

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shipowners Fail to Dismiss "Gillain"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shipowners Fail in Bid to Junk "Hadsock"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Couple Priced Out of Fibro Cancer Treatment
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Christchurch Arts Centre Faces Fibro Bill
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CSR to Contribute to Fibro Settlement

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Contractors Cited for Fibro Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aussie Contractor Claims Fibro Exposure



                            *********


ALLIANZ ASSET: Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties
------------------------------------------------------
Aleksandr Urakhchin and Nathan Marfice, and on behalf of the
Allianz Asset Management of America, L.P. 401(k) Savings and
Retirement Plan, v. Allianz Asset Management of America, L.P.,
Allianz Asset Management of America, LLC, Committee of the Allianz
Asset Management of America, L.P. 401(k) Savings and Retirement
Plan, John Maney, Allianz Global Investors Fund Management LLC,
Pacific Investment Management Company LLC, Allianz Global
Investors U.S. LLC, NFJ Investment Group LLC, and John Does 1-30,
Case No. 8:15-cv-01614 (C.D. Calif., October 7, 2015), seeks
damages, injunctive relief and restitution for Defendants' alleged
breach of fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974.

Defendant Allianz Asset Management of America, L.P. is the "plan
sponsor" of the Plan within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. section
1002(16)(B). AAM-LP is headquartered in Newport Beach, California.
Defendant AAM-LLC is the sole general partner of AAM-LP.

Defendant Maney is the Chief Operating Officer and Managing
Director of AAM. He is the sole member of the management boards of
both AAMLP and AAM-LLC.

The Defendant Committee is the administrator of the Plan.

Defendants Allianz Global Investors Fund Management LLC, PIMCO,
Allianz Global Investors U.S. LLC and NFJ Investment Group LLC
acts as the investment advisors and sub-advisors for the Plan's
investment options.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN
      324 Beverly Dr., #725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Tel: (877) 206-4741
      Fax: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com


ANABI OIL: "Hodgkins" Suit Seeks to Recover Wages
-------------------------------------------------
Bonnie Hodgkins, and all others similarly situated v. Anabi Oil
Corporation, TMSO, Inc. and Does 1-50, Case No. BC597364 (Cal.
Super., October 8, 2015), seeks compensatory damages for
Defendants' failure to pay all wages due in violation of the
California Labor Code.

The Defendants own and operate approximately 160 different 24-hour
gasoline stations/mini-markets across the State of California
including locations in the Cities of Pomona and South El Monte in
the County of Los Angeles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Donald Potter, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF DONALD POTTER
      776 East Green Street, Suite 210
      Pasadena, CA 91101
      Tel: (626) 744-1555
      Fax: (626) 389-0592
      E-mail: dp@donpottlerlaw.com


ARAMARK SERVICES: "Mendoza" Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ruben Mendoza, and all others similarly situated v. Aramark
Services, Inc. and Does 1 through 10, Case No. RG15788780 (Cal.
Super., October 7, 2015), seeks damages against the Defendants for
illegally withholding, deducting and diverting wages in violation
of the California Labor Code.

Aramark Services, Inc. provides food, facilities, and uniform
services to education, healthcare, business and industry, sports,
leisure, and corrections clients in the United States and
internationally.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Renuka v. Jain, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF RENUKA V. JAIN
      11377 West Olympic Blvd., Suite 508
      Los Angeles, CA 90064
      Tel: (310) 476-5788
      Fax: (213) 431-2360

          - and -

      Ira Spiro, Esq.
      SPIRO LAW CORP.
      10573 West Pico Blvd. #865
      Los Angeles, CA 90064
      Tel: (310) 235-2468
      E-mail: ira@spirolawcorp.com


AUSTRALIA: Suit Mulled Against Health Service Over Baby Deaths
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that parents of seven
babies who died at a Victorian hospital have been devastated all
over again after learning the deaths could have been avoided.

The Department of Health told the parents the deaths have been
blamed on a series of catastrophic clinical and governance
failures at the Djerriwarrh Health Service in Bacchus Marsh and
Melton.

Several babies died in potentially preventable circumstances while
director of obstetrics and gynaecology Surinder Parhar was being
investigated.

Legal action will now be launched against the service over the
cluster of infant deaths.

One mother whose baby died said she had a complicated labor that
should have prompted a transfer to another hospital.

"I feel absolutely devastated about this news," the mother said in
a statement to lawyers.

"I had got to a point where I thought I could move on after years
of questioning and now it's taken me right back."

A couple whose baby also died said: "We have been trying to move
on and we now can't help but feel angry because we now know that
there could have been a different outcome."

The parents talked of their pain after it was revealed Dr. Parhar
was investigated for 28 months after a complaint from a colleague
over a baby's death in February 2013.

Dr. Parhar, who worked in Victoria for 30 years, had conditions
placed on his ability to practice before he retired in July.

It is understood he has now left the country.

A separate review highlighted 11 baby deaths at the health service
from 2013 to 2015.

A review by obstetrics expert Euan Wallace determined seven out of
10 of those deaths, between 2013 and 2014, could have been
avoided.

Professor Wallace identified a "multi-system failure" but said no
one doctor was common to each case.

He found Djerriwarrh Health Service was a low-risk only facility,
staff were not trained to deal with complications in difficult
births and lacked the ability to adequately monitor babies' heart
rates.

Health Minister Jill Hennessy sacked the Djerriwarrh board after
learning about the deaths and promised a further investigation for
the families.

"They absolutely have a right to know what happened and what is
happening at their local health service," Ms. Hennessy said.

"This is nothing that will mend the loss of losing a child, and to
learn that that death may been avoidable -- but for a series of
system failures -- can only compound that loss and pain."

Maurice Blackburn Lawyers will go to the Supreme Court after a
baby was born with a hypoxic brain injury, and has a continuing
disability.

Lawyer Dimitra Dubrow said families that had made contact had
diverse cases, including issues around adequate monitoring of the
baby's heart rate and whether a mother undergoing a complicated
birth should have been transferred to another hospital.

It is too soon to say if a class action will be launched, Ms.
Dubrow said.

Senior staff at the Royal Women's Hospital have been seconded to
Djerriwarrh to provide expert oversight and better clinical
training for staff.

The government has established a support line (1800 675 398) for
anyone who has concerns about their maternity care.

CLUSTER OF 11 STILLBORN AND NEWBORN DEATHS AT DJERRIWARRH HEALTH
SERVICE:

   2013 - 7 deaths, 5 determined as avoidable.
   2014 - 3 deaths, 2 determined as avoidable.
   2015 - 1 unavoidable death.


BIRMINGHAM, AL: Police Department Appeals Pepper Spray Suit Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kent Faulk, writing for AL.com, reports that Birmingham police are
appealing a recent ruling by a federal judge that says officers'
use of pepper spray in city high schools to control non-violent,
non-physical, misbehavior was unconstitutional and constituted
excessive force.

U.S. District Court Judge Abdul Kallon's had also ordered the
police department and Southern Poverty Law Center attorneys to
meet and develop by Nov. 15 new training and procedures on how and
when the devices will be used.  Both sides also were ordered to
develop new decontamination procedures for when students are
sprayed with Freeze +P.

Michael Choy, an attorney for the police department, on Oct. 16
afternoon filed a notice that Birmingham Police Chief A.C. Roper
and six school resource officers were appealing the ruling to the
U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The notice of appeal states that they are appealing Judge Kallon's
final order on Sept. 30, the judge's various evidentiary rulings
in the case, his orders denying qualified immunity to officers,
and his certification of the lawsuit as a class action complaint
representing all current and future students.

"We will be filing a motion to stay the action in the Northern
District of Alabama pending the appeal to the 11th circuit court
of appeals in Atlanta," Mr. Choy told AL.com on Oct. 16.

If a stay is granted, that would mean the judge's orders setting a
deadline for developing the new policy would be put on hold while
the appeal proceeds before the 11th Circuit.

Judge Kallon stated in his order that he wouldn't entirely
restrict the use of pepper spray by Birmingham school resource
officers in city high schools because there were scenarios in
which it could be used.  But he ruled that Birmingham SROs use of
the spray on students for non-violent minor incidents was
unconstitutional.  He was critical in his 120-page opinion of what
he saw as Birmingham SROs "cavalier attitude" towards use of the
spray for minor infractions such as back-talking school officials.

Judge Kallon also ruled that six students sprayed by Freeze+P
during fights at different schools about seven years ago had their
constitutional rights violated and were entitled to $40,000 for
claims of excessive force and SROs failure to properly
decontaminate them in the aftermath of the incidents.

Judge Kallon issued his ruling Sept. 30 based on a trial he held
earlier this year on a SPLC federal lawsuit filed in 2010 against
the six Birmingham SROs and Roper.

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,
according to the SPLC. More than 1,200 others were exposed to the
spray during those incidents, the SPLC stated.

Birmingham police and their attorneys had argued pepper spray is a
less harmful option for getting unruly students under control.
They say they have more than adequate policies, training and
supervision.  Mr. Choy has said in the past that the Birmingham
Police Department is not required to provide SROs for the high
schools and one option is for the department to pull them from the
schools.

"We're obviously disheartened that Chief Roper opted to tak this
route," Ebony Howard, the SPLC's lead attorney in the case, said
of the appeal

The SPLC will continue to work on the case, Ms. Howard said.  "Our
main focus continues to be protecting children in Birmingham city
high schools," she said.

An appeal lengthens the time before there's a resolution to the
issue, said Ms. Howard, noting that the lawsuit has gone on for
nearly five years.

Ms. Howard had said after the ruling that the fact that pepper
spray is dangerous warrants its use in "extremely limited"
circumstances.  "The use of this weapon should be so rare that it
almost never happens," she said.


BOFI HOLDING: Dec. 14 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of BofI Holding, Inc. ("BofI Holding") between
September 4, 2013 and October 13, 2015.

You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has
been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California. If you purchased or otherwise
acquired securities of BofI Holding between September 4, 2013 and
October 13, 2015, your rights may be affected by this action.  To
get more information go to http://zlk.9nl.com/bofi-holdingor
contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com or
by telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972. There
is no cost or obligation to you.

According to the complaint, defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) BofI's
internal controls were frequently disregarded; (2) BofI's
borrowers included foreign nationals who should have been off-
limits under federal anti-money-laundering laws; (3) many BofI
accounts lacked required tax identification numbers; (4) BofI
fired an internal auditor who raised these issues to management
and to federal regulators; and (5) as a result of the above,
BofI's statements regarding its internal controls and other
financial statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On October 13, 2015, a former internal auditor of Bank of Internet
filed a federal lawsuit alleging that he was fired after revealing
wrongdoing at the bank to management and federal regulators.  As a
result of this news, shares of BofI have fallen from a close of
$142.54 per share on October 12, 2015, to a recent close of just
$118.36 per share on October 15, 2015.

If you suffered a loss in BofI Holding you have until December 14,
2015 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, New
Jersey, Connecticut and Washington D.C.  The firm's attorneys have
extensive expertise in prosecuting securities litigation involving
financial fraud, representing investors throughout the nation in
securities and shareholder lawsuits.


BOFI HOLDING: May Face Class Action Over Disclosure Issues
----------------------------------------------------------
Motley Fool reports that a former internal auditor, Matt Erhart,
filed a complaint alleging that BofI Holding hid important
information from regulators, among other issues.  BofI Holding
responded by hosting a conference call with analysts after the
market close.  During the call, the bank denied the allegations.

On Oct. 15, yet another article surfaced from The New York Times.
The most interesting revelation was that Jonathan Ball, a former
BofI auditor who isn't part of Mr. Erhart's suit, left the bank
because of "concerns about how the bank was responding to
regulators," according to an unnamed source quoted in the piece.

Class-action lawyers announced that they are investigating the
BofI Holding to determine whether its responses to Mr. Erhart's
claims were factual.  Frankly, if its explanations were
inaccurate, class-action lawyers are the least of BofI Holding's
worries, yet the selling seemed to intensify as the press releases
rolled out.


CAMPBELL-EWALD CO: Court Hears Oral Arguments in Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wystan Ackerman, Esq. of Robinson+Cole, in an article for JDSupra,
reports that Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez was argued on Oct. 15 in
the U.S. Supreme Court. It is one of several major class action
cases that will be decided by the Court this Term.  It presents
the question of whether a putative class action case becomes moot
when the defendant offers complete relief to the named plaintiff
(for more detail on the case, see my June 16 blog post). If the
Court rules that an offer of complete relief renders a case moot
(or otherwise dead), and that a named plaintiff cannot pursue a
class action in that circumstance, that could potentially put an
end to many small dollar value consumer class actions as we know
them.  Unless the plaintiffs' lawyers could assemble a very large
number of plaintiffs, the defendant could easily resolve the case
for far less then it will pay to defend it, simply by paying the
small claims of the named plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs might try for
declaratory or injunctive relief, but those remedies also may not
be viable where damages are an adequate remedy, the named
plaintiffs have been fully paid, and the plaintiffs cannot show
that they are likely to have another similar claim against the
defendant in the future for which declaratory or injunctive relief
would be an appropriate remedy.

Based on the transcript of the Oct. 15 oral argument, this is
shaping up as a very interesting case.  There were a few questions
about whether the offer in the case was really for complete
relief, but the Court seemed to move past that issue fairly
quickly.  Most of the justices seemed to agree that when a
defendant offers complete relief (the precise mechanism for which
was debated), the case must end.  Justice Ginsburg suggested that,
even in that circumstance, the plaintiff should be entitled to
pursue a judicial finding of liability, but based on other
justices' comments that position seemed unlikely to be adopted by
a majority.  There was a lot of debate about, when the defendant
offers complete relief, precisely how the case should end --
whether it should be a finding of mootness, or a judgment based on
the offer, or whether such a ruling should be made at the summary
judgment stage of a case (as Justice Sotomayor suggested).  Chief
Justice Roberts appeared to be strongly of the view that if the
plaintiff is getting everything he or she wants, there can be no
case or controversy, and the court system has an interest in not
issuing a ruling in that circumstance.  Justices Alito and Kennedy
appeared to suggest that if the defendant simply delivers cash or
a certified check, that should put an end to the case. Plaintiff's
counsel suggested that should be a merits issue or an affirmative
defense, but not render a case moot.  Justice Breyer suggested
that the defendant could simply pay the money into court, "[a]nd,
of course, if that person [i.e., the named plaintiff] now has all
he wants, he can't certify this is a class because he isn't
harmed."  Justice Breyer suggested that whether a judgment was
entered for the named plaintiff would not make any difference.
(Transcript, at 48.) Other than these comments from Justice
Breyer, and some from Chief Justice Roberts, there was not a lot
of discussion about the issue of whether a class action can
continue when the named plaintiff's claim has been fully paid.

"Attempting to read the tea leaves from the justices' comments and
questions (and that is always an effort at guesswork at which I
could be wrong), I'm seeing a distinct possibility that a majority
of the Court might recognize an avenue through which a defendant
can defeat a class action, at least by tendering a certified check
to the named plaintiff or paying that money into court. If
Justices Kennedy and Breyer are thinking along those lines, there
might be five votes on the Court for that position, although it's
not squarely presented by the facts of the Campbell-Ewald case.
And that proposition would certainly change class actions as we
know them," Robinson+Cole's Ackerman said.


CANADIAN SOLAR: Jan. 15, 2016 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE OF CERTIFICATION (AUTHORIZATION) AND THE GRANTING OF LEAVE
TO PROCEED WITH STATUTORY MISREPRESENTATION CLAIMS

Read this notice carefully as it may affect your legal rights

This notice is directed to:

All persons, wherever they may reside or be domiciled, who
acquired securities of Canadian Solar in the secondary market
during the opening of trading on October 15, 2009 to the close of
trading on June 1, 2010, and who continued to hold some or all of
those securities at the close of trading on the NASDAQ, on June 1,
2010, other than Excluded Persons, defined below.

(this group of individuals is known as the "Misrepresentation
Class")

All persons, wherever they may reside or be domiciled, who were
registered or beneficial security holders of Canadian Solar at any
time during May 26, 2009 to the close of trading on June 1, 2010
and who continued to hold securities of Canadian Solar at the
close of trading on the NASDAQ, on June 1, 2010, other than
Excluded Persons, defined below.

(this group of individuals is known as the "Oppression Class")

The Misrepresentation Class and the Oppression Class are defined,
collectively, as the "Class."

On January 5, 2015, Justice Taylor of the Ontario Superior Court
of Justice certified the action Abdulla v Canadian Solar Inc., et
al., Court File No.:  C-710-10 (the "Class Action") as a class
proceeding, and appointed Tajdin Abdulla as the representative
plaintiff (the "Certification Order").

The Class Action has been certified on behalf of the Class
(described above), composed of "Class Members" other than Excluded
Persons.

Excluded Persons are the Defendants, and Canadian Solar's past and
present subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, directors, legal
representatives, heirs, predecessors, successors and assigns, and
any member of the Individual Defendants' families, and any entity
in which any of the foregoing persons or entities has or had
during the Class Period any legal or de facto controlling
interest.

The Certification Order means that the proceeding may proceed to
trial as a Class Action on behalf of all Class Members for damages
and other relief arising out of misrepresentations in certain
Canadian Solar disclosure documents.

Certification is a procedural step that defines the form of the
litigation, allowing it to be pursued on behalf of the Class.

The substance of the litigation (the allegations made against the
Defendants) has not been finally adjudicated by the court.  The
Defendants deny that the allegations will be proven at trial.

The claims being pursued on behalf of the Class are claims for
damages and compensation for losses suffered as a result of
Canadian Solar misrepresenting, implicitly or explicitly, that its
financial results were prepared and presented in accordance with
US generally accepted accounting principles in certain documents
it released between May 26, 2009 to the close of trading on
June 1, 2010 and certain public oral statements made by Canadian
Solar in respect of those documents during the same period of
time.  The Defendants dISPute all of the claims asserted, and no
Court has yet ruled on the merits of the claims.

The claims of all Class Members are being pursued through the
statutory oppression remedy.  In addition, certain claims are
being pursued on behalf of the Misrepresentation Class Members
through common law misrepresentation and the secondary market
civil liability provisions of the Ontario Securities Act.

The Securities Act provisions permit a person who acquires a
company's security after a misrepresentation has been made in a
company's public disclosure to recover damages without proof of
reliance on the misrepresentation, subject to certain Defences
which may be asserted in this case.

The Securities Act claims are subject to liability limits that
limit the amount of compensation that can be recovered from
defendants in all actions asserting similar claims.  Although the
total amount of damages suffered by Class Members is not known at
this stage, it is possible that total potential damages in this
case may exceed the statutory liability limits.

Class Members who want to participate in the Class Action are
automatically included and need not do anything at this time.

As a Class Member, you will not be required to pay any costs in
the event that the Class Action is unsuccessful.

Class Members who wish to pursue their own action or do not want
to be bound by the outcome of the Class Action must opt-out of the
Class Action.

Persons who opt out of the Class Action will not be entitled to
participate in the distribution of any settlement or judgment
obtained in the Class Action, or assert claims at the individual
issues stage of the Class Action.

If you wish to pursue other claims against the Defendants relating
to the matters at issue in the Class Action, you should
immediately seek independent legal advice.  If you do not exclude
yourself from participating in this Class Action, all of your
claims relating to the subject matter of this litigation will be
determined by the result obtained in the Class Action, whether by
settlement or judgment.

Please see "Additional Information" for directions to obtain
further detail on the scope of the Class Action and the claims
that will be advanced against the Defendants.

Class Members who do not want to participate in the Class Action
must opt out.  If you want to opt out of the Class Action you must
send a signed letter stating that you elect to opt out of the
class in the Canadian Solar Class Action.

In order for your opt out request to be valid, it must include all
of the following information:

If you are submitting an opt out request on behalf of a
corporation or other entity, you must state your position and
provide your authority to bind the corporation or entity.

In order for your opt out request to be valid, it must be
postmarked or received no later than January 15, 2016 and it must
contain all the requested information.

Each Class Member who does not opt out of the Class Action will be
bound by the terms of any judgment or settlement, whether
favourable or not, and will not be allowed to prosecute an
independent action.  If the Class Action is successful, you may be
entitled to share in the amount of any award or settlement
recovered.  In order to determine if you are entitled to share in
the award or settlement and the amount, if any, of your share, it
may be necessary to conduct an individual determination.  There
may be costs payable by you if you submit a claim and it is
determined that you are not entitled to share in the award or
settlement.

You will have the opportunity to decide if you wish to proceed
with your individual entitlement determination before it begins.

No person may opt out a minor or a mentally incapable member of
the class without permission of the courts after notice to The
Children's Lawyer and/or the Public Guardian and Trustee, as
appropriate.

The plaintiff and the class in the Action are represented by
Siskinds LLP.

Siskinds LLP is acting on a contingency basis, such that legal
fees, disbursements and applicable taxes will be payable only in
the event of success in the Action.  Siskinds LLP is also paying
all disbursements incurred in the Action.

In the event of success in the class action, class counsel will
make a motion to the court to have their fees and disbursements
approved.

As stated above, as a Class Member, you will not be required to
pay any costs in the event that the Class Action is unsuccessful.

This notice was approved by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
The court office cannot answer any questions about the matters in
this notice.  The order of the court and other information are
available on class counsel's website at www.classaction.ca.

Questions relating to the Class Action should be directed by email
or telephone to class counsel:

Please deliver this notice by email no later than November 16,
2015 to your clients who purchased Canadian Solar securities
between May 26, 2009 and June 1, 2010 and continued to hold
Canadian Solar securities through June 1, 2010, and for whom you
have valid email addresses.

If you have affected clients for whom you do not have valid email
addresses, please contact RicePoint Administration Inc. to obtain
hard copies of this notice for the purpose of mailing the notice
to those clients or provide RicePoint Administration Inc. with the
mailing addresses of those clients and RicePoint Administration
Inc. will mail the notices directly to those clients.

Brokerage firms may collectively request up to $10,000 in total
for the expenses relating to the distribution of this notice to
the Class Members.  If the amounts submitted in aggregate exceed
$10,000, each brokerage firm's claim shall be reduced on a pro
rata basis.  Brokerage firms must submit an invoice to RicePoint
Administration Inc. by December 11, 2015 to be eligible for
reimbursement.


CBS CORPORATION: "Hines" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
----------------------------------------------------
Kareem Hines, Priamo Fermin, Neftali Pellot, and all others
similarly situated v. CBS Corporation, CBS Television Studios,
Hill of Beans Productions, Inc., Timberman-Beverly Productions,
Inc., Showtime Entertainment, Inc., K/O Paper Products, Inc.,
Action This Day!, Inc., and Relativity Media, LLC, Case No. 1:15-
cv-07882 (S.D.N.Y., October 6, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York State Labor Law, and the
Wage Theft Prevention Act.

Defendant Columbia Broadcasting System Corporation ("CBS
Corporation") is a mass media corporation focused on commercial
broadcasting and television production. It airs various television
shows some of which are produced by the various other named
Defendant production companies.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      James Vagnini, Esq.
      VALLI KANE & VAGNINI, LLP
      600 Old Country Road, Suite 519
      Garden City, NY 11530
      Tel: (516) 203-7180


CHECKSMART FINANCIAL: "Harrell-Davis" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Harrell-Davis, Vanessa Nelson and Ieastsure Haynes, and all
others similarly situated v. Checksmart Financial LLC, Case No.
4:15-cv-01755 (N.D. Ala., October 6, 2015), seek injunctive and
declaratory relief, compensation, and credit for all unrecorded
and uncompensated work required or permitted by Defendant,
liquidated and/or other damages, and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant Checksmart Financial is a check cashing company with a
corporate office in Dublin, Ohio. Checksmart does business as
"easymoney cash centers" and it has locations throughout the state
of Alabama, including the two locations where named Plaintiffs
worked -- Anniston and Oxford, Alabama.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Jon C. Goldfarb, Esq.
      WIGGINS, CHILDS, PANTAZIS,
      FISHER, & GOLDFARB LLC.
      The Kress Building
      301 19th Street North
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Tel: (205) 314-0500
      Fax: (205) 254-1500


CHINA FINANCE: Suit Alleges Federal Securities Law Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Thuc Pham, and all others similarly-situated v. China Finance
Online Co., Limited, Zhiwei Zhao and Jun Wang, Case No. 1:15-cv-
07894 (C.D. Calif., October 5, 2015), seeks to recover compensable
damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities
laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

This is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired China Finance Online American Depository Shares
("ADSs") between May 6, 2014 and June 3, 2015, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period").

China Finance Online is a web-based financial services company in
China. The Company provides Chinese retail investors with online
access to securities and commodities trading services, wealth
management products, securities investment advisory services, as
well as financial database and analytics services to institutional
customers.

Defendant Zhiwei Zhao served as China Finance Online's Chairman of
the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer during the
Class Period.

Defendant Jun Wang served as China Finance Online's Director and
Chief Financial Officer during the Class Period.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CVS HEALTH: "Siegel" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
------------------------------------------------
Susan Siegel, and all others similarly-situated v. CVS Health
Corporation, Case No. 5:15-cv-00871 (W.D. Tex., October 7, 2015),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

CVS Health Corporation is an integrated pharmacy health care
provider.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jack Siegel, Esq.
      SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC
      10440 N. Central Expy.
      Suite 1040
      Dallas, TX 75231
      Tel: (214) 706-0834

          - and -

      J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
      LEE & BRAZIEL, LLP
      1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Tel: (214) 749-1400
      Fax: (214) 749-1010


DDS ENTERPRISES: "Kaussen" Suit Alleges UCL Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
Karl Kaussen, Patricia Kaussen, and all others similarly-situated
v. DDS Enterprises, Inc. dba Sunnyvale Volkswagen, Case No. CGC-
15-548359 (Cal. Super., October 8, 2015), seeks preliminary and
permanent mandatory restitution injunction and monetary
restitution against the Defendant for selling the fraudulent New
VW diesel vehicles in violation of the Business and Professions
Code sections 17200 et seq. (UCL).

The Defendant is a VW Dealer. Its principal place of business is
1025 E. El Camino Real, City of Sunnyvale, Santa Clara County,
California.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      William McGrane, Esq.
      MCGRANE LLP
      Four Embarcadero Center, Ste. 1400
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Tel: (415) 292-4807
      E-mail: william.mcgrane@mcgranellp.com

          - and -

      Frank B. Ubhaus, Esq.
      BERLINER COHEN
      10 Almaden Blvd., 11th Floor
      San Jose, CA 95113
      Tel: (408) 286-5800
      E-mail: frank.ubhaus@berliner.com


DETROIT, MI: Order Denying DWSD Customers' Bid for TRO Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Senior Judge Bernard A. Friedman of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan affirmed the Bankruptcy
Court's Order denying a motion for a temporary restraining order
filed by ten residents of the City of Detroit, Michigan, who are
residential customers of the Detroit Water and Sewerage
Department, and four organizations who claim to represent members
throughout the city who are redidential customers of DWSD.

The individual plaintiffs alleged that in 2013 or 2014 the DWSD
turned off their water, or threatened to do so, because their
water bills were in arrears and filed a motion for a TRO.  On
August 28, 2014, defendant filed a motion to dismiss.

On September 29, 2014, the Bankruptcy Court issued its bench
ruling denying plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining
order and granting defendant's motion to dismiss. And on November
19, 2014, the Bankruptcy Court issued its Supplemental Opinion in
which it clarified the reasons for its bench ruling and, in
addition, denying plaintiffs' motions for reconsideration and for
leave to amend their complaint.

The district court proceeding is MAURIKIA LYDA, et al.,
Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. CITY OF DETROIT, MICHIGAN, Appellee,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-CV-10038 (Bankr. E.D. Mich.).

The adversary proceeding is MAURIKIA LYDA, et al.,
Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. CITY OF DETROIT, MICHIGAN, Appellee,
ADV. PROCEEDING 14-04732(Bankr. E.D. Mich.).

The bankruptcy case is captioned In re: CITY OF DETROIT, MICHIGAN,
Debtor, NO. 13-53846 (CHAPTER 9)(Bankr. E.D. Mich.).

A full-text copy of Judge Friedman's Opinion dated September 16,
2015, is available at http://is.gd/vMh1Igfrom Leagle.com.

Appellants are represented by Alice B. Jennings, Esq. --  EDWARDS
& JENNINGS, Jerome D. Goldberg, Esq., Kurt Thornbladh, Esq. --
kthornbladh@gmail.com -- THORNBLADH LAW GROUP PLLC & Julie H.
Hurwitz, Esq., at GOODMAN AND HURWITZ, P.C.

City of Detroit, Appellee, represented by Marc N. Swanson, Esq. --
swansonm@millercanfield.com -- MILLER, CANFIELD, Timothy A. Fusco,
Esq. -- fusco@millercanfield.com -- MILLER, CANFIELD & Ronald A.
Spinner, Esq. -- spinner@millercanfield.com -- MILLER CANFIELD

Detroit Water and Sewerage Department, Appellee, represented by
Shanna M. Kaminski, Esq., KILPATRICK & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

Cary S McGehee, Amicus, represented by Cary S. McGehee, Esq.,
PITT, MCGEHEE.

                   About the City of Detroit

The City of Detroit, Michigan, weighed down by more than $18
billion in accrued obligations, sought municipal bankruptcy
protection on July 18, 2013, by filing a voluntary Chapter 9
petition (Bankr. E.D. Mich. Case No. 13-53846).  Detroit estimated
more than $1 billion in both assets and debts.

Kevyn Orr, who was appointed in March 2013 as Detroit's emergency
manager, signed the petition.  Detroit is represented by lawyers
at Jones Day and Miller Canfield Paddock and Stone PLC.

Michigan Governor Rick Snyder authorized the bankruptcy filing.

The filing makes Detroit the largest American city to seek
bankruptcy, in terms of population and the size of the debts and
liabilities involved.

The City's $18 billion in debt includes $5.85 billion in special
revenue obligations, $6.4 billion in post-employment benefits,
$3.5 billion for underfunded pensions, $1.13 billion on secured
and unsecured general obligations, and $1.43 billion on pension-
related debt, according to a court filing.  Debt service consumes
42.5 percent of revenue.  The city has 100,000 creditors and
20,000 retirees.

Detroit is represented by David G. Heiman, Esq., and Heather
Lennox, Esq., at Jones Day, in Cleveland, Ohio; Bruce Bennett,
Esq., at Jones Day, in Los Angeles, California; and Jonathan S.
Green, Esq., and Stephen S. LaPlante, Esq., at Miller Canfield
Paddock and Stone PLC, in Detroit, Michigan.

Sharon Levine, Esq., at Lowenstein Sandler LLP, is representing
the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
and the International Union.

Babette Ceccotti, Esq., at Cohen, Weiss & Simon LLP, is
representing the United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America.

A nine-member official committee of retired workers appointed in
the case is represented by Dentons US LLP.  Lazard Freres & Co.
LLC serves as the Retiree Committee's financial advisor.

Detroit filed a notice that the effective date of its
bankruptcy-exit plan occurred on Dec. 10, 2014.  Judge Steven
Rhodes on Nov. 12, 2014, entered an order confirming the Eighth
Amended Plan for the Adjustment of Debts of the City of Detroit.

Thomas Tucker, a federal bankruptcy judge since 2003, took over
Detroit's landmark bankruptcy case following the retirement of
Judge Rhodes.


DIRECT AUTO: "Melchor" Suit Alleges Breach of Contract
------------------------------------------------------
Gerardo Melchor, Maria Melchor, Gerardo Melchor Rodriguez Jr., and
all others similarly situated v. Direct Auto Insurance Company,
Todo Seguro AC LLC, Todo Seguro Premium Finance AC LLC, and Car
Outlet AC LLC, Case No. 2015L010253 (Ill. Cir., October 9, 2015),
seeks damages for Defendants' breach of contract.

The Defendants are insurance companies.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Michael Silverman, Esq.
      HORWITZ, HORWITZ AND
      ASSOCIATES, LTD.
      25 E. Washington, Suite 900
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 372-8822
      Fax: (312) 372-1673


DRAFTKINGS: Kentucky Customer Files Fraud Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Claude Rivera, writing for The WeatherSpace, reports that a daily
fantasy sports customer in Kentucky has filed a lawsuit against
DraftKings and FanDuel, accusing the companies of fraud because
they failed to disclose that their employees had access to insider
data the suit claims could help them help win millions at the
expense of regular customers.

"Because the goal is to beat the other players, a player with
statistical data about ownership percentages of competitors would
have an edge over players without this data".

The CEO of DraftKings announced several site changes to re-build
public trust in the company embroiled in controversy and cleared
an employee under fire of any wrongdoing while chastising reports
for dragging the employee's name "through the mud".

Both companies had banned players from playing on their own sites
but didn't restrict any other action.  Both companies said they
would permanently ban employees from playing in daily fantasy
contests for money, and would enlist attorneys to review their
processes.  Investors poured money into the top two USA companies,
DraftKings and FanDuel, ahead of the current National Football
League season, the busiest time of the year for fantasy sports.
Furthermore, it could lay the groundwork for fantasy sports
becoming regulated.

The fantasy-sports-gambling industry has faced a firestorm of
criticism since news broke that an employee at DraftKings won
$350,000 from a $25 entry in an American football contest on the
rival FanDuel site.

Johnson says he spent at least $100 playing at DraftKings, but
would not have done so if he had known "defendants were working in
concert to allow employees of DFS sites to play against them".
"It seems like a pretty troublesome practice, and rigging a
contest is right up the FTC's alley", said Joel Winston, a lawyer
at Hudson Cook LLP in Washington.

All users will also have to confirm that they are not employed by
any other third party fantasy site.  The league issued a statement
on Oct. 19 saying it was "surprised to learn" DraftKings employees
were allowed to play in these daily fantasy leagues.  "They can't
tell you who has access to what data and what controls they have
in place to ensure data isn't abused".

However, if this problem causes a short-term blip to the revenues
of DraftKings and/or FanDuel, a Sirius XM (SIRI - Get Report) -
type merger shouldn't be ruled out.  Daily fantasy sports
participants put together virtual teams based on real players and
compete for points based on the players' statistics.


FACEBOOK INC: Israel Law Center Files Class Action in US
--------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Blank, writing for Arutz Sheva, reports that Facebook's
offices in Israel were vandalized overnight on Oct. 17 and Oct. 18
amid growing anger over the slew of pages on the social media site
inciting and encouraging violence against Jews and Israelis.

Despite being flagged by users as offensive, Facebook has
reportedly declined to take down many such pages.

In response, a poster of giant red hand was pasted onto a wall
outside the company's offices on Rothschild Boulevard in Tel Aviv,
along with the graffiti "BLOOD ON YOUR HANDS" and
"STOP_FB_TERROR."

The initiator of the graffiti, Rotem Gaz, spoke with Channel 2 on
Oct. 18, asserting he wished to pass a message to the heads of the
social media giant.

"Facebook does not remove pages of incitement which call to murder
Israelis," Mr. Gaz charged.  "They don't like to take down these
pages because the more bells and whistles there are, the more time
people spend on the site which is worth money to them."

"I decided to go out and campaign against them to make it clear
our blood is on their hands."

"We decided to do this because you can't write anything on
Facebook's Wall (on the site), so we transferred the protest to
the company's physical wall, outside the network."

Facebook is also facing legal action from Israel over their
apparent refusal to take down pages authored by terrorists and
their supporters, which include practical ideas and suggestions on
how to carry out attacks against Israelis.

The Israel Law Center (Shurat Hadin) filed a class-action lawsuit
against Facebook in the US on Oct. 15, accusing the social media
site of being an accessory to terror.


FARMERS INSURANCE: Faces Gender Discrimination Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Caitlin Bronson, writing for Insurance Business America, reports
that Farmers Insurance could be facing a class-action lawsuit
involving nearly 300 of its female employees.

According to a complaint filed by Lori Andrus of Andrus Anderson
LLP and Lori Costanzo of Costanzo Law Firm, Farmers has engaged in
discriminatory practices against its female attorneys by paying
them significantly lower wages than their male counterparts.

The suit, which currently involves six women, will potentially be
open to any female attorneys who worked for Farmers from June 8,
2012 through the present.  Ms. Andrus and Ms. Costanzo have filed
for class-action status and hope to attract "hundreds of women."

"Farmers does not reward its female attorneys equally compared to
their male counterparts performing equal work," the lawyers wrote
in the filed complaint.  "Instead, Farmers systemically pays
female attorneys less than similarly-situated male attorneys."

Plaintiffs are also accusing Farmers of giving their male
colleagues higher-profile assignments, more frequent raises and
promotions, and greater recognition.  These practices have
supposedly been in place since the 1970s, and have cheated women
out of years of wages, annual bonuses and benefits like retirement
and Social Security.

"In general, Farmers advances the careers of its male attorneys
more quickly while treating its female attorneys more like support
staff," the complaint reads.  "According to our statistics, the
only reason is gender."

Andrus and Costanzo are planning to have a labor economist perform
a "multiple regression analysis" in order to support their claims.
This will isolate all competing compensation factors other than
gender, including education, geographic location, and years of
experience, to determine the size of the debt and damages to be
awarded.

The female attorneys joining in legal action are Lynne Coates --
the original plaintiff who says she was paid less than male staff
with "decades less" experience -- Angela Storey, Keever Rhodes,
Sandra Carter, Michele Morgan, Chiquita Hartman, Serena Neves,
Karen Wasson and Stephanie Torigian.

Several -- including Rhodes and Carter -- have worked for Farmers
for more than a decade.

A protective order in the case prevents the women's salaries from
being made public.

Farmers is the nation's third largest personal property/casualty
insurance.


FIFTH STREET: Emerson Scott Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Emerson Scott, LLP, on Oct. 17 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut, Waters-Cottrell v. Fifth Street Finance
Corp., et al., Civil Action No. 3:15-cv-01488, on behalf of
purchasers of common stock of Fifth Street Finance Corp. during
the period from July 7, 2014 through and including February 6,
2015.

FSC is a specialty finance company managed by Fifth Street Asset
Management, Inc. ("FSAM") that lends to and invests in small and
mid-sized companies, primarily in connection with investments by
private equity sponsors.  The complaint alleges that FSC, FSAM and
certain officers and directors of both companies violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The
complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants engaged
in a fraudulent scheme to artificially inflate FSC's assets and
investment income in order to increase FSAM's revenue in advance
of an initial public offering by FSAM.  Defendants are alleged to
have pushed FSC into increasingly risky, speculative investments
at unsustainable leverage levels and delayed writing down impaired
investments in order to create the appearance of increased
revenues for FSAM.

On February 9, 2015, shortly after FSAM's IPO, allegedly, FSC
reported its results for the quarter ended December 31, 2014,
revealing that it had moved $106 million of investments to
non-accrual status and that an additional $17 million was likely
to be designated as non-accrual in the following quarter.  The
Company further allegedly revealed that even though the total
assets of FSC's investment portfolio had continued to increase to
almost $3 billion by the quarter end (a 42% increase from the end
of fiscal 2013), net investment income declined by 6% compared to
the prior quarter.  The Company allegedly announced that it would
not issue a dividend for February 2015, after having announced a
10% dividend increase several months earlier.  Allegedly, on this
news, the price of FSC common stock fell by $1.27 per share to
close at $7.22 per share, a decline of nearly 15%.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
common stock of FSC during the Class Period.  The plaintiff is
represented by the Houston-based firm of Emerson Scott, LLP with
offices in Houston, Texas and Little Rock, Arkansas.  Emerson
Scott, LLP and its predecessor firms have devoted their practice
to shareholder class actions and complex commercial litigation for
more than thirty years and have recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for shareholders in class actions throughout the United
States.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than November 30, 2015.  To discuss your rights regarding
the appointment of lead plaintiff and for additional information
about your interest in this class action, please contact
plaintiff's counsel, Emerson Scott, LLP, at the following toll-
free number: 800-663-9817 free, or via e-mail to John G. Emerson
-- jemerson@emersonfirm.com -- or David G. Scott --
dscott@emersonfirm.com

A copy of the complaint is available from the Court or from
Emerson Scott, LLP.


GENERAL MOTORS: Barra to Testify on Ignition Switch Recall Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
WXYZ reports that General Motors CEO Mary Barra was scheduled to
testify under oath in Houston, Texas on Monday, Oct. 19.

She's being deposed to talk about GM's role in the faulty ignition
switch recall.  The deposition is part of a class action lawsuit
aimed at holding the automaker responsible for its delayed recall
which lead to dozens of deaths.  Ms. Barra's deposition is being
taken for multiple cases related to GM's recall.

GM delayed to recall more than 2.5 million cars.  They include the
Cobalt, Saturn Ion and others in the Chevy line up.

Ms. Barra denies having any knowledge of any problems with the
ignition switches. But 7 Action News has learned the CEO found out
by phone nearly two weeks after taking over the company that a
recall had been ordered.

Former GM CEO Dan Akerson was deposed, while another ex-CEO, Rick
Wagoner, will be deposed.

GM announced a settlement in a class-action lawsuit tied to more
than 1300 death and personal injury claims. Those settlements are
expected to total $575 million.


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Corvette V8 Engine
------------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Chevy
Corvette LS7 engine lawsuit has been filed alleging the 7.0 liter
V8 engines have problems with excessive wear of the valve guides
that can cause engine failure.

Named in the proposed class-action lawsuit are the 2006-2013 Chevy
Corvette 427 and Chevy Corvette Z06 equipped with LS7 7.0L V8
engines.

The proposed class-action lawsuit is for all U.S. residents who
purchased or leased a Chevrolet Corvette 427 or Corvette Z06 at
any time from 2006 to the present and who still own or lease a
vehicle, or sold a vehicle, at any time from 2006 to the present.

The lawsuit says General Motors advertised the LS7 7.0 liter V8
engine as being of the highest quality and durability while
allegedly knowing the engines had problems with the valve guides.

While allegedly knowing the engines were defective, GM ignored the
fact Corvette owners were always experiencing mechanical failures
with engines that weren't performing as designed and advertised.
Additionally, the plaintiffs say GM has taken no steps to correct
or recall the Corvettes even while owners kept experiencing engine
failures at a high rate.

According to the lawsuit, the 427 and Z06 engines have valve guide
clearances far beyond service limits even in cars with very low
mileage.  Using a test specified by GM itself, many cars were
found to have valve guides far out of specification on Corvettes
built between 2006 and 2014.

Even after owners kept complaining, GM allegedly said the valve
train noise was normal for the LS7 7.0 liter V8 engine and only
occurred because of a single supplier during a short period of
time.  The plaintiffs claim while GM was saying this, the
automaker maintained the problems weren't caused by the valve
guides being out of specification.

The lawsuit alleges that due to Corvette owner complaints, GM
created a technique known as the "wiggle method" to determine if
the valve guides were out of specification.  However, the
plaintiffs claim once GM saw the test would cause repairs and
investigations, the automaker stopped the test.

The engine lawsuit alleges GM and its associates concealed
information about the defects from the government, the public and
Corvette owners.  The plaintiffs further claim the purpose for the
deception was to sell more vehicles and keep from paying to repair
or replace the cars.  In addition, allegedly concealing the
defects helped to boost GM's brand name while avoiding negative
publicity due to recalls.

The Corvette engine lawsuit lists 72 claims against the automaker
ranging from negligence and consumer fraud to violations of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.

Named as plaintiffs are William D. Pilgrim, Walter Goetzman,
Jerome E. Federson, Michael F Ernandez, Roy Haleen, Howard K Opel,
Robert C. Murphy, Mike Peters, Christopher Constantine, John P
Arsons, Lyle Dunahoo, Aaron Clark, Edwin William Krause, David S
Heldon, Jared Kiley, Jeff Kolodzi, Morris Smith and Andres Frey.

The Chevy Corvette LS7 engine lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California -
William D. Pilgrim et al v. General Motors Company LLC.

The plaintiffs are represented by Knapp Petersen and Clarke.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Court Interprets Actavis Ruling in Antitrust Case
------------------------------------------------------------------
Amy M. Handler, Esq. -- ahandler@sillscummis.com -- of Sills
Cummis & Gross, in an article for The National Law Review, reports
that on June 26, 2015, the Third Circuit became the first circuit
court to interpret the United States Supreme Court's landmark
decision, FTC v. Actavis, 133 S. Ct. 2223 (2013), which held that
reverse cash or "pay for delay" payments from a patent holder to a
generic manufacturer are subject to antitrust scrutiny.  In King
Drug Co. of Florence, Inc. v. Smithkline Beecham Corp. d/b/a
GlaxoSmithKline, et al., 791 F.3d 388 (3d Cir. Jun. 26, 2015)
(Scirica, J.), the Third Circuit panel held that theActavis
holding is applicable beyond reverse cash payments, to non-cash
agreements.  Specifically, the court found that "a no-AG [no-
authorized generic] agreement, when it represents an unexplained
large transfer of value from the patent holder to the alleged
infringer, may be subject to antitrust scrutiny under the rule of
reason."

King Drug involved an appeal from the district court's dismissal
of plaintiffs' class action complaint against GlaxoSmithKline
("GSK") and Teva Pharmaceuticals ("Teva"). Plaintiffs, a putative
class of direct purchasers of the brand drug Lamictal (a drug for
the treatment of epilepsy and bipolar disorder), alleged that a
2005 non-cash settlement agreement between GSK and Teva, regarding
GSK's drug Lamictal, violated the Sherman Act.

In 2002, Teva filed an abbreviated new drug application ("ANDA")
with the FDA to market a generic version of Lamictal.  Soon
thereafter, GSK sued Teva for patent infringement under the Hatch-
Waxman Act.  The case went to trial in January 2005, and the
district court found that Claim 1 of the patent, for the invention
of the active ingredient Lamotrigine, was invalid.  Before the
remaining patent claims could be adjudicated, the parties entered
into settlement pursuant to which Teva agreed not to pursue its
invalidity and unenforceability claims against the patent and GSK
agreed to permit Teva early entry into the Lamictal chewables
market (valued at approximately $50 million annually) --
approximately three years prior to when the patent was set to
expire.  With respect to the Lamictal tablets market (valued at
approximately $2 billion annually), the settlement contained a
no-AG agreement, whereby GSK agreed that it would not market its
own generic version of Lamictal tablets until after Teva's first
filer 180-day exclusivity period expired.

Under the Hatch-Waxman Act, the generic manufacturer that is first
to file an ANDA with the FDA and tender a Paragraph IV
certification attesting that the pertinent patents are
unenforceable, or that its generic version of the drug will not
infringe the patents, is awarded a 180-day exclusivity period to
market its drug.  The 180-day exclusivity period runs from the
earlier of the date of a judgment of patent invalidity or
unenforceability, or from the date the generic manufacturer
receives FDA approval.  During this exclusivity period, no other
generic manufacturer may enter the market. Rather, only the patent
holder and the first filer have the right to market a generic
version of the subject drug during this period.  In a no-AG
agreement, the patent holder, often in exchange for the generic
manufacturer's delayed entry into the market, agrees to refrain
from marketing its authorized generic version of the drug during
the pendency of the exclusivity period.  No-AG agreements can be
of great value to a generic manufacturer as they mean the generic
manufacturer will not face any competition during that much-
coveted 180-day exclusivity period, permitting it to price the
drug accordingly.


GOOGLE INC: Authors Guild Loses Copyright Infringement Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jaikumar Vijayan, writing for eWeek, reports that the Authors
Guild had accused Google of copyright infringement by scanning
millions of books without permission of the rights-holders.

In a significant legal victory for Google, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled Oct. 16 that the company's
massive project to make digital copies of tens of millions of
books does not violate copyright laws.

The opinion, by a three-judge panel of the appellate court,
affirms an earlier decision by a New York district court that had
also rejected the copyright-infringement claims that the Authors
Guild and three writers had brought against Google.

The dispute involves Google's Library Project under which the
company is scanning and cataloging book collections from major
libraries so users can search for them via Google Books.
When an individual searches for a book, Google presents
information about the title, very often with snippets of texts
from the book.  Google Books also offers what it calls a Full View
option for books that are out of copyright or with author
permission.  As Google describes it, Full View allows searchers to
view the entire contents of a book and even download or save it on
their computers.

Google allows libraries that participate in its project to
download and retain a digital copy of the books they submit for
scanning to Google.

The Authors Guild, which represents working authors, sued Google;
the Guild claimed that scanning books without permission from
rights-holders constitutes copyright infringement.  Google
maintained that the copying fell under the definition of "fair
use" in copyright law.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
which heard the case, sided with Google's viewpoint, prompting the
appeal from the Authors Guild and other plaintiffs.  In the
appeal, they argued that Google's book-scanning project does not
really represent a "transformative use" and, instead, acts as a
substitute for the original works.  Among several other things,
they argued that Google's storage of digital copies of books
heightened the risk of hackers making the books available freely
on the Internet.

In its opinion Oct. 16, the appeals court, however, rejected the
arguments and upheld the district court's earlier ruling in the
case.

"Google's making of a digital copy to provide a search function is
a transformative use, which augments public knowledge by making
available information about Plaintiffs' books," Circuit Judge
Pierre Leval wrote on behalf of the Second Circuit panel.

Google's actions do not provide the public with an alternative for
matter protected by copyright.  The same holds true of the snippet
function, which allows searchers to see small samples of text from
a book without infringing on copyright protections, the court
held.

The appellate court also downplayed the risk of hackers exposing
copyrighted works for free on the Internet.  "Google's program
does not, at this time and on the record before us, expose
Plaintiffs to an unreasonable risk of loss of copyright value
through incursions of hackers," Judge Leval wrote in the court's
48-page ruling on the matter.

In a statement on its Website, the Authors Guild described the
ruling as leaving authors "high and dry" and hinted the case could
go before the Supreme Court.

Mary Rasenberger, executive director of the Authors Guild,
expressed disappointment at the ruling and warned of the "grave
impact" it would have on writers and their ability to continue
earning income from their works.  "Most full-time authors live on
the edge of being able to keep writing as a profession,"
Ms. Rasenberger said.  "A loss of licensing revenue can tip the
balance, particularly in this era when advances and royalties for
most authors are down."

The dispute between Google and the Authors Guild goes back to
2005.  The initial class action suit ultimately ended in a
proposed settlement between the two sides, with Google agreeing to
pay rights-holders in return for being able to use the scanned
text more extensively.

In 2011, the New York district court rejected the settlement on
the grounds that it was unfair to the class members represented by
the Authors Guild.  Following that decision, the Authors Guild in
October 2011 once again filed an amended class-action complaint,
setting off the chain of legal events that resulted in the Oct. 16
decision by the appeals court.


GUAM: Owes More Than $15 Mil. of Tax Refund Payments to Citizens
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Daily News reports that while Gov. Eddie Calvo's
administration has fulfilled its court-ordered obligation to
refund all status-A tax filings by Oct. 15, more than $15 million
worth of tax refund payments have yet to be paid to citizens whose
returns have either been processed or have errors.

Following a slow-paced summer for tax refund payments, in which
$10.4 million was released between June and August, the
administration paid out $54.5 million in tax refunds to cover all
status-A returns filed by the April 15 tax filing deadline.

A recent report the Department of Revenue and Taxation filed with
the District Court of Guam shows as of Sept. 30 the government
owes close to $15.7 million in tax refund payments for tax returns
filed as far back as 1995.

About $12.2 million of that total represents 1,980 claims that
have errors or deemed anything other than status A.  More than
1,000 of the returns with errors were filed this year, making up
$4.62 million in tax refunds pending.

Such returns need to be resolved before the administration can
issue a refund.

The oldest return filed that has yet to be resolved and processed
is from the 1994 tax year and amounts to $3,172.

898 not paid out yet

The remaining $3.45 million the government owes in tax refunds
comprises 898 tax returns that Rev and Tax has already processed
but hasn't paid out yet, according to the Sept. 30 report.

Close to 800 of those claims were 2014 tax returns and worth about
nearly $3.3 million in tax refunds.  One tax return awaiting a
refund was filed in 2010 while another two were filed in 2012.

The report filed with the court is another requirement under the
2013 federal injunction that orders the government of Guam to pay
out tax refunds for all status-A returns within six months of the
April 15 filing deadline.

Taxpayers whose filings had errors, such as missing information,
could get their tax refunds after the government's Oct. 15
deadline.  The administration is allowed to refund such returns
within six months from the date Rev and Tax identifies and fixes
the problem.

The injunction was the result of a class action lawsuit in which a
few citizens sued the government for decades of delayed tax refund
payments.

Tax refunds garnished

Another class action lawsuit involving tax refunds was filed in
federal court, this time against Guam Memorial Hospital Authority.

Tairin Atesom, a regional migrant from the Federated States of
Micronesia, is arguing that GMH wrongly garnished more than
$14,500 of her tax refunds to settle her family's outstanding
hospital bills.

According to the Internal Revenue Service, all or a portion of tax
refunds can be withheld to satisfy any unpaid or delinquent debt
to the federal or state government, including child support and
student loans.

With Guam's tax code mirroring the federal government's Internal
Revenue Code, Rev and Tax Deputy Director Marie Benito explained
the department is authorized to garnish tax refunds to pay
outstanding debts to the government of Guam.

"Rev and Tax will garnish refunds for debts, such as delinquent
taxes and other debts referred to us by other government agencies
such as GMH bills, child support payments and University of Guam
student debts," she wrote in an email to Pacific Daily News.

$10.6M for GMH

Benito said the department garnished a total of $18.3 million to
settle citizens' delinquent fees to the government in fiscal 2015.
About $10.6 million, or 58 percent, of that amount went to GMH.

Ms. Atesom's lawsuit states that under the Compact of Free
Association, it's the federal government's responsibility to
reimburse the local government and its agencies for costs
associated with providing services to regional migrants.

Ms. Atesom also claims the hospital didn't give her the
opportunity to dispute the charges nor did it sue her for the
delinquent payments.  The statute of limitations, she added, had
also expired for some of the fees she allegedly owes.

The hospital garnished all of Ms. Atesom's tax refunds over the
past three years, according to the lawsuit.  This year's tax
return was worth $7,036.  In 2014, Ms. Atesom made nearly $12,500
in income.


HERSHEY: Class Actions Aim to Raise Awareness on Child Slave Labor
------------------------------------------------------------------
Robin Baranyai, writing for The Kingston Whig-Standard, reports
that recently, a class action was launched against three chocolate
bar makers for tricking consumers into buying their candy.  This
complaint seeks protection for the most vulnerable: children
allegedly forced to work in slave-like conditions on cocoa farms.

Class-action suits launched by three California residents allege
chocolate makers Hershey, Mars and Nestle engage in false
advertising by failing to disclose the use of child slavery on
their packaging.  This omission, the plaintiffs argue, coupled
with corporate claims of social responsibility, makes their
customers unwitting supporters of child slave labour.

The plaintiffs are seeking damages and revised packaging that
clearly identifies if child slavery has been used at any stage of
production.

It's a novel approach to raising consumer awareness about an
intractable problem.

Two-thirds of the world's cocoa beans are harvested in West
Africa, where children are vulnerable to trafficking and slavery.
A 2015 report by Tulane University sponsored by the U.S.
Department of Labor assessed 2.26 million children working in the
cocoa industry in Ghana and C“te d'Ivoire.

Chocolate companies have known about allegations of child slavery
for more than a decade. They are doing something about it.  Each
of the defendants has committed to using 100 per cent certified
chocolate by 2020.  Each of them has an action plan to promote
sustainable farming practices. Nestle has invested in schools and
introduced child labor monitoring and remediation at its cocoa
co-operatives.

Their efforts have earned industry recognition.  In 2013, Hershey
was ranked among America's 100 best corporate citizens in
Corporate Responsibility magazine. The same year, Mars was named
Best Private Company by Ethical Corporation's Responsible Business
Awards.  And KPMG pronounced Nestle among the top 10 companies in
the world reporting on corporate social responsibility.

Notwithstanding their efforts, actual progress has been slow.  In
a five-year period, the Tulane report found child labour had
increased.

Some obstacles are outside the chocolate companies' control,
including conflicts in C“te d'Ivoire.  But perhaps the greatest
obstacle is a lack of public awareness.  Nothing drives consumer
behavior quite like outrage.

Congressman Eliot Engel was outraged. In 2001 he sponsored a
legislative amendment to introduce "no child slavery" labelling
for ethically sourced chocolate sold in the U.S.

Faced with a public relations crisis, the chocolate industry got
on board with promises of voluntary self-regulation.  The result
was the Harkin-Engel Protocol, a commitment to eliminate the
"worst forms of child labor" in cocoa production in Ghana and C“te
d'Ivoire by 2005.  The deadline came and went. In 2010 the
companies renewed their pledge with a goal of reducing the worst
forms of child labor by 70 per cent by the year 2020.  Even on
this watered-down commitment, the Tulane report notes, the goal
"has not come within reach."

Now, litigants hope to accomplish in labelling what U.S.
legislators failed to achieve.  While demand is growing, fair-
trade chocolate is largely a niche market.  Major brands tend to
use the logo discreetly; drawing too much attention would
highlight its absence on other products.  They don't want us
thinking the Hallowe'en candy we shell out could be made with the
forced labor of children who aren't free to go trick-or-treating.

If "no child slavery" were stamped on candy bars, who would buy
any other kind? Which, of course, is exactly the point.


ILLINOIS: Lottery Winners Mull Class Action Over Delayed Payouts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Angie Leventis, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that as of
Oct. 15, Illinois Lottery payments for any winnings over $600 are
being delayed until the state budget stalemate is resolved.
Lottery officials said the agency's check-writing account is
depleted and no authority can replenish it, though winnings under
$600 can still be retrieved immediately at retail kiosks.

The Illinois Lottery began delaying payments in July, at first
only for prizes larger than $25,000 due to state law barring
larger payouts because the legislature must authorize the state
comptroller to release the funds.

Two winners sued the Illinois Lottery in federal court, alleging
fraud.

Their attorney, Thomas Zimmerman Jr. of Zimmerman Law Offices,
said he plans to file an amended complaint, adding at least 20
other lottery winners whose payments have also been delayed.  He
expects more winners will join the class-action suit now that the
lottery has lowered the amount for immediate payouts.

"The state is violating the lottery law by using the money to pay
the lottery's operating costs and ongoing administrative expenses
. . . without first paying winnings," Zimmerman said. "Is the
lottery director not earning a paycheck? And all of the employees
who run the lottery, how are they getting paid?"

The lawsuit also named the lottery's acting director, B.R. Lane,
the lottery's private management company Northstar Lottery Group
and the Illinois Lottery Control Board. An Illinois Lottery
spokesman said he could not comment on pending legal action.

Joe Joost, 62, a truck driver from Chicago's Belmont Cragin
neighborhood, said he's joining the lawsuit.  He was in a pool of
25 Illinois Lottery players who won $1 million in early September,
with $28,500 in winnings for him after taxes, but the state hasn't
released the prize yet.

Mr. Joost said he and his pool intend to keep playing the lottery,
but they won't buy another ticket in Illinois. They're going to
cross state lines.

"We have one gentleman who goes to Michigan about once a week," he
said.  "If he's going up to Michigan, we'll play in Michigan.  We
have another gentleman who goes to Indiana a lot."

A worker at Red Roof Liquor & Lottery in Columbia, Ill., near the
Missouri state line, said about 80 percent of his clientele
typically come from Missouri.  With gas and cigarettes cheaper in
Missouri, the Illinois Lottery used to be the biggest draw for
patrons, but he said that's no longer the case.

"For the last two months we've seen a decrease, since September,"
said the worker, who did not want to be named.  "People are saying
the state won't pay them."

Casimir Soczyk, who works at Santori's Liquors in south suburban
Lansing, said ever since lottery payments were delayed, customers
keep talking about going to nearby Indiana to buy tickets.

"I've had people say 'I'm done with this,' but I've seen them come
back," he said. " More people are bringing it up."

Tom Remsen, 33, of Rockford, said he buys lottery tickets about
four times a year when there's a big jackpot.  He said he'll
continue to play in Illinois despite the payment delay, because it
would still be worth it to win big even if he has to wait for
payment.

"I'd just hope like heck that it would come," he said.

But he does wonder how Illinois officials would respond if the
situation were reversed.

"How would the state react if we told them we don't have the money
to pay taxes," he said, "but when it becomes available, we'll be
sure to give it to you?"


JAMES HARDIE: Faces Second Class Action Over Cladding System
------------------------------------------------------------
Radio New Zealand News reports that a law firm leading a class
action against a cladding manufacturer says many homeowners don't
know they have leaky homes until a decade or so after they are
built.

Parker and Associates has filed a second case against James Hardie
in two months, accusing the company of negligence in the design
and supply of its Harditex cladding system.

It's also asked the Wellington High Court to let it take on up to
500 other potential claimants that have come forward since August.
The firm's partner, Dan Parker, said Harditex was widely used in
construction between the 1980s and 2003, but the water damage it
caused was not immediately clear.

He said some homeowners were only now starting to find the damage.


KENNETH EMEZIEM: "Kidd" Suit Alleges Housing Law Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tanya Kidd, Nicole Kidd, Isayah Bailey, a minor, by and through
his guardian ad Litme Ashley Jackson, Laila Kidd, a minor, by and
through her guardian Litem Ashley Jackson, and all others
similarly situated v. Kenneth Emeziem and Does 1-30, Case No.
RG15788672 (Cal. Super., October 7, 2015), seeks damages for
Defendants' violations of applicable housing laws, including but
not limited to the Oakland Housing and Building Codes, California
Civil Code and Health and Safety Code.

Defendant Kenneth Emeziem is the owner, agent or lessor of the
premises located at 33 Peroly Court, Oakland, California 94601,
that the Plaintiffs rented.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Andrew Wolff, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW WOLFF, PC
      1970 Broadway, Ste. 210
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Tel: (510) 834-3300
      Fax: (510) 834-3377
      E-mail: andrew@awolfflaw.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Bogler" Suit Alleges False Advertisement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Bogler, Amanda Casali, Monica Hensen, Rae Ann McMeekin,
Christine Pettijohn, and all others similarly-situated v. Lumber
Liquidators, Inc., Lumber Liquidators Leasing, LLC, Lumber
Liquidators Holdings, Inc., and Lumber Liquidators Services, LLC,
Case No. 1:15-cv-00890 (W.D. Tex., October 7, 2015), seeks damages
for Defendants' alleged violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act and the Colorado Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants knowingly and
intentionally engaged in a scheme to source, manufacture, sell,
and distribute falsely advertised Chinese-manufactured laminate
wood flooring products that emits dangerously and unlawfully high
levels of formaldehyde to consumers across the United States.

Lumber Liquidators is a retailer of hardwood flooring in North
America. Lumber Liquidators operates as a multi-channel specialty
retailer of hardwood flooring and hardwood flooring enhancements
and accessories, and supervises and controls the manufacturing,
packaging, distribution, marketing, and sales of laminate wood
flooring products throughout the United States. The Plaintiffs are
represented by:

      Patrick Luff, Esq.
      LUFF LAW FIRM, PLLC
      1350 Bandera Highway, Suite 803
      Kerrville, TX 78028
      Tel: (830) 285-2071
      Fax: (830) 584-0628
      E-mail: luff@lufflaw.com


MANORCARE HEALTH: Blames Trinity Health for Hepatitis C Outbreak
----------------------------------------------------------------
McKnight's reports that ManorCare Health Services has filed a new
motion in federal court stating its contractor was responsible for
one of the largest outbreaks of Hepatitis C ever seen in the
United States.

More than 40 people were infected with the liver disease at the
114-bed facility in Minot, ND, in 2013.  ManorCare Health Services
has accused Trinity Health Services of failing to train its
phlebotomists and ignoring suspicions that employees were re-using
needles to draw blood, according to court documents filed in
federal court.  ManorCare is seeking punitive damages against
Trinity in the case, which is pending in the U.S. District Court
for the District of North Dakota.

"Trinity tolerated and concealed behavior by its employees and
contractors that violated the most fundamental standards of
infection control and patient safety, and presented an obvious
recipe for a hepatitis C outbreak," the document stated.

Plaintiffs originally filed a class action lawsuit against
ManorCare but withdrew it due to a new belief Trinity Health is
solely responsible and allowing drug diversion, a local television
station reported.

Trinity Health said it would not respond to questions due to
pending litigation.  However, "Trinity will be filing its
opposition to ManorCare's recent motion in accordance with the
rules of court," Randy Schwan, Trinity Health vice president, said
in a statement.

ManorCare also declined further comment due to ongoing legal
proceedings but thanked its supporters in a statement.

"At ManorCare Health Services-Minot, we remain committed to
supporting those affected by the outbreak, and are thankful for
the continued trust that our patients and their families place in
us," a statement sent to McKnight's said.

The outbreak made up a quarter of all hepatitis C cases since
2008, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
While injection drug users are often at highest risk of
contracting the disease, it can be spread through any re-used
needle or syringe.


MINNESOTA: Regional Treatment Center Counselor Files Overtime Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Suzy Rook and Dana Melius, writing for St. Peter Herald, reports
that a security counselor at the Regional Treatment Center in St.
Peter has filed a lawsuit alleging hourly employees at the state
hospital weren't properly compensated for working overtime.

In a suit filed Oct. 13 in federal court, Abu Kamara says his
employer, the state of Minnesota, violated federal and state law,
and seeks unpaid overtime wages.

Mr. Kamara, a St. Peter resident, brought the case on behalf of
hourly employees who have worked for the state within the past
three years.  In Minnesota, this class action is an "opt-out"
lawsuit, according to Mr. Kamara's attorney, Paul J. Lukas.  The
opt-out measure means the lawsuit is inclusive of all affected
state employees, unless they request out of the class action.

According to a release from Mr. Lukas, "the complaint alleges that
the state of Minnesota failed to properly calculate overtime
compensation for its hourly employees by including only their
lowest hourly rate in the overtime calculation, rather than also
including hours worked and paid at a higher 'premium' rate as
required by state and federal wage and laws.

"Specifically, the . . . plaintiff alleges that the state failed
to include higher 'premium' hourly rates of pay occasionally
earned by employees, when determining the employees' 'regular
rate' of pay, necessary to calculate overtime pay."

Mr. Kamara, a Sierra Leone native who currently resides in St.
Peter, is seeking unpaid overtime wages and liquidated damages.
In Mr. Kamara's case, the overtime issue becomes more significant
since the 33-year employee of the Minnesota Security Hospital in
St. Peter has averaged 74 hours weekly over the past several
years, Lukas confirmed.

"It is a fairly straightforward and common calculation error, but
in this case it affects tens of thousands of state employees, and
the state has been aware of it for over a year without fixing it,"
Lukas said.

Lukas is an attorney and partner with the Nichols Kaster law firm,
which has offices in Minneapolis and San Francisco.  According to
the company's website, Lukas is recognized for "aggressive and
creative litigation strategies" and is "a committed advocate for
employee and consumer rights."

Reached on Oct. 16 by telephone, Lukas again emphasized "this is
actually really a straightforward employee wage story.  They're
just doing their math wrong."

Mr. Lukas said Minnesota's payroll math error could end up costing
the state from $3 to $5 million.  While the refund to individual
state employees could be minimal, at about 65 cents for each
overtime hour over the affected period, cases like Mr. Kamara
would obviously run much higher.  However, Lukas said he has not
yet figured out a potential refund to his client, should a
successful case occur.

The state of Minnesota has up to 21 days to respond to the federal
lawsuit.  However, Mr. Lukas acknowledged he expects at least one
extension and, due to the extensive nature of the class action
lawsuit, wouldn't be surprised if it moved slowly through the
system.  But he believes the state might want to step up its pace
in this case.

"This is a case where I think they might want to talk early on,"
Lukas noted.

The case is also complicated, at least in the short term, by the
state's uncertainty over who will handle the matter.  Mr. Lukas
believes the case will be handled by the Minnesota Attorney
General's Office, but is not yet certain.

Commissioner Myron Frans, Minnesota Management and Budget, in a
statement, said, "We received a copy of the complaint and are
reviewing it.  Because this lawsuit alleges miscalculation of
overtime payments for state employees, we want our employees to
know that we will be in communication with them soon."

Lukas added his client is "a story in himself.  He's a fascinating
dude." Mr. Kamara has seven children, ages 9 to 33, living in the
United States, and has also used his earnings to support 27 nieces
and nephews in Sierra Leone, relatives whose fathers were killed
in the West African country's wars.

"He works the most overtime of anyone in the state of Minnesota,"
Lukas said.  "Plus, Abu is a very, very good employee.  It's a
really difficult job and it's difficult to keep good employees."

Lukas added his client first reached out to Mankato-based
attorney, Randy Knutson, of the Knutson and Casey law firm.
Knutson, in turn, contacted Lukas for employment law assistance.

Mr. Kamara was profiled by the Minneapolis Star Tribune in a July
18 story. In the story, Mr. Kamara claimed to have worked nearly
74 hours a week, year round.  According to the story, "Kamara made
$301,557 in overtime over five years, which amounts to about 54
percent of his $553,315 in total wages."

According to the Star Tribune story, there are also another 120
state employees who collected more than $100,000 in overtime wages
during fiscal years 2010 to 2014.

While Mr. Lukas says the state of Minnesota has "basically
admitted" this overtime wage payment practice, "this whole issue
on when they were informed of the problem and why they're (still)
doing it" is critical to the case.

And he also acknowledges his interpretation of wage law could be
proven wrong by the state of Minnesota.

"If they can show me I'm wrong, then the case could go away very
fast.  But I'm really confident I'm right," said Mr. Lukas.


NAMIBIA: Hai//om San Community Members Mull Suit Over Etosha
------------------------------------------------------------
Werner Menges, writing for The Namibian, reports that members of
the Hai//om San community have launched a potentially ground-
breaking court case through which they are trying to have their
ancestral rights over Etosha National Park and the Mangetti area
recognised and enforced.

In the first case of its kind in Namibian legal history, eight
members of the Hai//om community, represented by the Legal
Assistance Centre, are asking the High Court to allow them to
bring a class action lawsuit on behalf of their ethnic group
against Namibia's government and other parties with interests in
Etosha National Park and the Mangetti West area north of Tsumeb.

If they succeed with their application to be allowed to pursue a
class action against the government and the other envisaged
parties, which is the first legal hurdle in their path, the eight
applicants plan to lodge a case in which they will be asking the
High Court to confirm the Hai//om people's ownership of the land
comprising Etosha National Park and the Mangetti West area.  In
the alternative they will be asking he court to confirm that they
have the right to occupy and use the Etosha and Mangetti West
areas, or that they are entitled to financial compensation or
being awarded equivalent areas of land.

They will also then be asking the court to declare that the
Hai//om people, who lived in the Etosha and Mangetti areas before
they were evicted from Etosha about 60 years ago and saw Mangetti
being fenced off and taken over by a new owner in the form of the
state, have the rights to the wealth and resources of Etosha, or
that their consent should be required for all future decisions
regarding the use of the natural resources of Etosha.

They will further be asking the court to direct the government to
pay royalties to the Hai//om people for the future use of the land
and natural resources of Etosha, to compensate them for their past
loss of access to Etosha, and to declare that they are entitled to
have access to their ancestral land in Etosha.

In a last claim, based on allegations that the Hai//om had been
victims of genocide and had been subjected to apartheid, eviction
and marginalisation, the court is to be asked to declare that the
government and Namibia Wildlife Resorts, which runs tourist camps
in Etosha, have breached their legal obligations to redress the
racially discriminatory dispossession of the Hai//om of their
ancestral lands and should give an account of what steps they have
taken to redress the marginalisation of the Hai//om and their
eviction from their lands.

The government and the Hai//om Traditional Authority, which is one
of the other respondents in the application to be allowed to
pursue a class action, have given notice to the court that they
will be opposing the case.  On their request, Acting Judge Collins
Parker ordered on Oct. 16 that the time limits within which they
have to file answering papers with the court would be extended to
January 22, 2016.  The case was postponed to April 7 for a case
management hearing.

TOURISM SAFE

An elder from the Hai//om community, Jan Tsumib, who is the first
applicant in the case, states in an affidavit filed at the court
that it is not the intention of the Hai//om people, who are the
biggest San grouping in Namibia, to do away with current tourism
activities in Etosha National Park.

"We support tourism activities and the conservation measures in
place in Etosha, and particularly the anti-poaching measures
currently being implemented by the [government] in the park,
insofar as those activities and measures do not derogate from our
rights claimed in the proposed action," Mr. Tsumib says.  "We do
however wish to share in the running and control of these
activities and to benefit from the proceeds of the tourism and
wildlife conservation activities being conducted on our ancestral
land."

Mr. Tsumib states that the rights to natural resources and
development on which the Hai//om rely are guaranteed in the
African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.

He recounts that he was born in Etosha around 1945.  In those
days, his people were still living off the land where they had
been staying for generations, hunting with bows and arrows and
collecting food from edible plants.

Attempts were made to restrict the Hai||om's semi-nomadic
lifestyle during German and then South African colonial rule in
Namibia, when some of the land where the Hai//om were living was
parcelled off into farms, where some members of the community were
taken against their will to work under exploitative conditions,
Mr. Tsumib says.

By 1954, the Hai//om people still living in Etosha were ordered to
move out of the park, Mr. Tsumib recounts.  Although some of the
Hai//om were permitted to still live and work in Etosha, they were
no longer allowed to follow their traditional lifestyle and their
cultural history in Etosha was not acknowledged or respected, he
says.

Before Namibia's independence the Hai//om people were given
preference with regard to employment opportunities in Etosha, but
this did not continue after independence, Mr. Tsumib claims.

He says: "Following our removal from the park, the Hai//om people
have experienced great hardship while the park has been developed
into a world famous tourist destination, generating enormous
economic benefits, from which we have been excluded. We wish to
share in the wealth created from our lands and to have a say in
the management of the park."

He also says: "The Hai//om people want to be treated like all
other Namibians.  We want an opportunity to grow as people and to
prosper like all other people in Namibia.


NEWSCO INTERNATIONAL: "Alderman" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Alderman, Jr., and all others similarly situated v. Newsco
International Energy Services, USA, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-02948
(S.D. Tex., October 7, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant is a global oilfield service company with
significant operations in every major United States shale basin.
Newsco provides horizontal and directional drilling services
through MWD, LWD, directional drilling, and field support
professionals.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND,
      BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
      1150 Bissonnet
      Houston, TX 77005
      Tel: (713) 751-0025
      Fax: (713) 751-0030
      E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com

          - and -

      Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, Texas 77046
      Tel: (713) 877-8788
      Fax: (713) 877-8065
      E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


OCEAN FRESH: Faces "Sevilla" Suit Over FLSA Violations
------------------------------------------------------
Alberto Sevilla, and all others similarly-situated v. Ocean Fresh,
Inc. and Oscar De Lellis, Case No. 1:15-cv-23751 (S.D. Fla.,
October 7, 2015), seeks to recover monetary damages, liquidated
damages, interests, costs and attorney's fees for Defendants'
willful violations of overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Defendants distribute international seafood products such as
salmon roe, caviar and smoked fish to markets in USA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Isaac Mamane, Esq.
      MAMANE LAW LLC
      1150 Kane Concourse, Second Floor
      Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154
      Tel: (305) 773-6661
      E-mail: mamane@gmail.com

          - and -

      Ricardo J. Rodriguez Vacas, Esq.
      RODRIGUEZ VACAS LAW FIRM LLC
      7260 S.W. 8th Street
      Miami, FL 33144
      Tel: (305) 456-5105
      E-mail: RJRodriguezVacas@gmail.com


PETROBRAS BRASILEIRO: Challenges Standing of Opt-Out Plaintiffs
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Terry McMahon III, Esq. -- TMcMahon@mintz.com -- of Mintz
Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo, PC, in an article for
JDSupra, reports that a recent motion to dismiss filed by the
defendants in the In re Petrobras Securities Litigation, No. 14-
cv-9662 (S.D.N.Y.) consolidated litigation challenges the standing
of several institutional opt-out plaintiffs.  Defendants'
arguments on standing, if accepted, could have a far reaching
impact on an investment advisor's standing to sue on behalf of
funds it advises.

As background, Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. ("Petrobras"), a Brazil-
based energy multinational, is a target of a Brazilian police
investigation of alleged rampant corruption involving construction
contracts.  Allegedly, several large construction companies
colluded to avoid Petrobras's competitive bidding process, giving
kickbacks to Petrobras executives to allow the collusion.  As a
result, Petrobras allegedly significantly overpaid for the
construction of certain refineries.

In December 2014, investors who had purchased American Depository
Shares (ADSs) of Petrobras on the New York Stock Exchange filed a
securities class action in the Southern District of New York,
alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and (in an amended complaint) Brazilian
securities laws.  Plaintiffs allege that in regulatory filings and
public statements, Petrobras misrepresented its financial
condition, financial controls, and ethical practices.  A motion to
dismiss the class action was substantially denied.

However, on August 21, 2015, Defendants, i.e., Petrobras,
affiliated entities, and their underwriters, filed a Motion to
Dismiss certain Individual Opt-Out Complaints (the "Opt-Out Def.
Mem.").  Defendants' supporting memorandum makes a variety of
arguments in favor of dismissal against a variety of plaintiffs,
including arguments on standing.

As to standing, Defendants argue that certain plaintiffs "must be
dismissed" where those plaintiffs "are investment advisors who
have not adequately pleaded that they have standing to sue."
Opt-Out Def. Mem. at 2.  Instead of "alleg[ing] that they have
suffered a personal injury in their own right," these plaintiffs
"assert claims on behalf of others without . . . plausibly
alleging that they have received a valid assignment of those
claims."  Id.  According to Defendants, investment advisors who
purchased the relevant securities on behalf of others cannot
"demonstrate[] that they have suffered an injury-in-fact, as
required to establish standing."  Id. at 6.  For example,
Defendants argue that one such plaintiff only makes "the
conclusory assertion that it has standing and authority to sue
Defendants through a valid legal assignment," which is "a
factually bare legal conclusion."  Id.  Defendants argue that said
plaintiff should be dismissed for lack of standing because it
"failed to plead facts plausibly alleging that it has received a
valid legal assignment." Id. at 8. Defendants make similar
arguments about the standing of several other plaintiffs as well.
See id.

On September 18, 2015, the individual plaintiffs ("Plaintiffs")
filed a Joint Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the Motion to
Dismiss ("Pl. Mem."), responding to the standing issues.  First,
Plaintiffs call Defendants' argument that investment advisors lack
standing a "false premise."  Pl. Mem. at 1.  Plaintiffs argue
instead that "none of the challenged Individual Plaintiffs
purports to sue in its capacity as an investment advisor," and
instead each such plaintiff "either received a valid assignment of
the underlying investors' claims" or "is suing in its capacity as
the legal entity with authority to sue on behalf of Petrobras
investors who cannot bring claims except through the challenged
plaintiff."  Id.  Plaintiffs rely on the "prudential exception"
described in W.R. Huff Asset Mgmt. Co., LLC v. Deloitte & Touche
LLP, 549 F.3d 100 (2d Cir. 2008), which applies where "where the
plaintiff can demonstrate (1) a close relationship to the injured
party and (2) a barrier to the injured party's ability to assert
its own interests."  Id. at 4-5 (quoting Huff, 549 F.3d at 107-
109).  According to Plaintiffs, each plaintiff challenged on these
grounds "brings suit as a trustee or other responsible entity
under law on behalf of one or more injured investors in Petrobras
securities who cannot bring suit themselves--not as an investment
advisor on behalf of unaffiliated clients like the plaintiff in
Huff."  Id. at 9.  Further, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants
misread Cortlandt St. Recovery Corp. v. Hellas Telecomms.,
S.a.r.l., 790 F.3d 411, 418 (2d Cir. 2015), as requiring that a
plaintiff "must submit evidence of the assignment at the time of
pleading to prove Article III standing or face dismissal."  Id. at
5.  Plaintiffs argue that, instead, "the district court in
Cortlandt analyzed the assignment at issue, which was submitted
after the filing of the complaint," and none of the issues with
the assignment in Cortlandt apply to the Aura Capital assignment
in the instant dispute.  Id. at 5-6.

On October 5, 2015, Defendants filed their Joint Reply Memorandum
of Law in Further Support of Their Motion to Dismiss the
Individual Action Complaints (the "Opt-Out Def. Reply"), which
further addresses the standing issues.  Defendants do not
reiterate or expand upon their arguments that certain plaintiffs
were investment advisors and thus lacked standing to sue.
Instead, Defendants challenge the standing of specific plaintiffs
or groups of plaintiffs.  For one plaintiff who argued that it had
received an assignment of the Petrobras securities, Defendants
reply that the purported assignment documents do not identify "any
securities that are purportedly being assigned" or "list any
specific securities," with "no explanation for the purported
assignments," and bear the signature of only the assignor, not the
assignee.  Opt-Out Def. Reply at 1.  In regard to the "prudential
exception" referenced in Plaintiffs' opposition, Defendants argue
that a group of plaintiffs trying to assert the prudential
exception do so only by amending their complaint to include "bare
legal assertions that the entities that actually made the
investments do not have legal personality separate from the named
plaintiffs or that the named plaintiffs have the exclusive
authority to act on behalf of the actual investors."  Id. at 2
(internal citations omitted).  Defendants also ask why a third
group of plaintiffs, who expressed their intention to amend their
complaint, have not yet done so.  Id.

While some might argue that Defendants' arguments are technical,
the reality is that given the limitations and repose issues in the
litigation, amendments at this stage may not cure these issues.
Regardless of how the court rules on the motion to dismiss here,
this argument over standing reinforces the need to anticipate and
remediate potential standing issues early enough to avoid
dismissal risks.


PIH HEALTH: "Maradiaga" Suit Alleges Labor Code Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
Jaime Maradiaga, and all others similarly situated v. PIH Health
Downey Medical Group, Inc., Downey Regional Medical Center-
Hospital, Inc. and Does 1 through 100, Case No. BC597115 (Cal.
Super., October 8, 2015), seeks monetary damages against the
Defendants for failing to pay overtime wages in violation
California Labor Code.

The Defendants provide healthcare and hospital services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bruce Kokozian, Esq.
      KOKOZIAN LAW FIRM, APC
      9440 South Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 510
      Beverly Hills, CA 90210
      Tel: (323) 857-5900


PRESBYTERIAN HOMES: Residents File Class Action Over Eviction
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alexandra Kukulka, writing for Chicago-Sun Times, reports that a
group of low-income senior citizens filed a class action lawsuit
on Oct. 16 against the non-profit group that runs their
subsidized-rent apartment complexes in Chicago, claiming they are
being evicted despite having lifetime leases.

Six residents of Presbyterian Homes Inc. filed the breach of
contract suit on Oct. 16 in Cook County Circuit Court on behalf of
its 112 seniors.

On Aug. 14, Presbyterian CEO Todd Swortzel sent a letter notifying
all residents that they will have to move out by next November
because the program has become "financially unsustainable" for the
organization, the suit says.

The group plans to sell the buildings at market rate "instead of
an affordable housing developer," the suit claims.

"Presbyterian Homes promised these residents a home for life . . .
[They] cannot break the leases because they now want to sell these
buildings," attorney Matthew Piers said in a written statement.

A representative for Presbyterian Homes could not be reached for
comment on Oct. 16.

Presbyterian resident Linda Armitage said in the statement that
she and her neighbors were "stunned and angry" to receive the move
out notice.

"It's too much for us to handle.  None of us can afford a market
rate apartment, and really, we shouldn't have to, given the
charitable mission of Presbyterian Homes," Ms. Armitage said.

The three-count suit seeks an order requiring Presbyterian Homes
to honor the leases, an injunction to protect the seniors from
being evicted, and assistance for those who have already been
forced to leave.


PROVIDENCE COMMUNITY: Judge Issues Injunction in Probation Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stacey Barchenger, writing for The Tennessean, reports that a
federal judge in Nashville has issued an injunction stopping a
private probation company in Rutherford County from jailing two
men because they cannot pay court fines and fees.

Chief federal Judge Kevin H. Sharp's order also says the company
and county officials cannot arrest Fred Robinson and Steven Gibbs
for any other kind of violation and also hold them on bond, which
would require them to pay money before release.

Messrs. Robinson and Gibbs are two of seven people on probation in
Rutherford County who filed a class action lawsuit on Oct. 1.  The
lawsuit says Providence Community Corrections and Rutherford
County officials conspired to overcharge people on probation and
withhold payments that should have gone to pay for court fines and
fees.  The lawsuit says that practice left probationers in a cycle
of debt that often resulted in extended probation terms and
additional arrests.

Providence contracts with Rutherford County to supervise people on
probation for misdemeanor and traffic cases.  The company charges
an additional $45 to individuals per month of supervision and $20
per drug test, the lawsuit says.

Judge Sharp issued a temporary restraining order related to
Messrs. Robinson and Gibbs on Oct. 2. Since then, attorneys for
the people on probation, the company and the county agreed to the
terms of the more permanent injunction, leading Sharp to sign it.
The injunction is in place until the case ends or the attorneys or
judge change it.

Jonathan Cole, an attorney at the law firm Baker Donelson who
represents the people on probation, has said this injunction was
sought only for Robinson and Gibbs because they were imminently
facing arrest.

The probation officers and company have not filed a public
response to the lawsuit.  They have several weeks to do so.


PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS: Faces $5-Mil. Robocall Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a class-action lawsuit filed for
more than $5 million against Publix Super Markets Inc. claims the
supermarket chain made robocalls to customers' cellphones without
their consent.

According to The Lakeland Ledger, the lawsuit was filed on Oct. 15
in federal court in Tampa.

It alleges Publix's pharmacy made robocalls to customers to tell
them their prescriptions were ready for pickup.  But many of the
people said they never used Publix's prescription services and did
not have a prescription to be picked up.

The lawsuit said Publix violated the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

A spokesman with Publix declined comment, saying the company does
not comment on pending or active litigation.


REAL TIME: "Parsons" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violations
--------------------------------------------------
Orel Parsons, and all others similarly situated v. Real Time
Resolutions, Inc., Case No. CV 15 852228 (Ohio Com. Pleas.,
October 7, 2015), seeks actual and statutory damages against the
Defendant for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
and the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act by pursuing fraudulent,
dishonest and unconscionable debt collection activities.

Defendant Real Time Resolutions, Inc. is a Texas corporation
licensed to do business in Ohio. Real Time is engaged in the
business of collecting debts, including delinquent and defaulted
mortgage loans on behalf of mortgage loan investors.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Paul Bellamy, Esq.
      THE DANN LAW FIRM
      P.O. Box 6031040
      Cleveland, OH 44103
      Tel: (216) 373-0539
      Fax: (216) 373-0536
      E-mail: notices@dannlaw.com


SINGING RIVER: Pension Plan Class Action Settlement Mulled
----------------------------------------------------------
Doug Walker, writing for WLOX News, reports that Jackson County
supervisors were set to meet on Oct. 19 and a proposed settlement
with Singing River Health System could be debated.

WLOX News has obtained a draft copy of the proposed settlement,
which was worked out after several current retirees sued Singing
River Health System when the pension plan was almost terminated a
year ago.

Under the proposed agreement, the health system will contribute
$142 million to the pension fund between 2016 and 2051.  The
county will give the system $13.6 million to operate over the next
several years, and $4 million of that amount would be paid over
the next 90 days.

This settlement plan would not require a tax increase.

The plaintiffs attorneys who worked on the settlement plan are
asking for up to $6.4 million in fees.

Under the plan, the court would appoint a four-member authority to
to oversee the operation of the health system.  In order for the
agreement to stand, the retirees and current employees lawsuits
would have to be certified as a class action case by a federal or
state court.

However, not everyone is pleased with the plan.

Earl Denham, the first attorney to file lawsuits on behalf of the
retirees, says the plan is not financially viable.  Additionally,
Denham disputes the idea that a Mississippi court could certify a
class action case if the federal court declines to do so.

Jackson County supervisors were likely discuss the agreement on
Oct. 19.

The court hearing was set for Oct. 20 in Chancery Court.

WLOX News contacted several of the parties involved in the
negotiations; all declined comment citing a confidentiality
agreement.


SIOUX CITY, IA: Council to Vote on Utility Class Action Payment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kirby Kaufman, writing for Sioux city Journal, reports that the
Sioux City Council was set to vote on Oct. 19 on a resolution on
an expected payment with Rust Consulting Inc. for the city's class
action utility lawsuit.


STANDARD HOTEL: "Thompson" Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
Erica Thompson, and all others similarly situated v. The Standard
Hotel, Hotelsab Downtown Employees LLC, Standard Downtown Employer
LLC, AB Holdings, Andre Balazs Properties and Does 1 through 100,
Case No. BC597152 (Cal. Super., October 7, 2015), seeks damages
and penalties for Defendants' alleged failure to pay wages
including overtime compensation under the California Labor Code.

The Defendants own and operate a hotel chain.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard E. Quintilone II, Esq.
      QUINTILONE & ASSOCIATES
      22974 El Toro Road, Suite 100
      Lake Forest, CA 92630-4961
      Tel: (949) 458-9675
      Fax: (949) 458-9679
      E-mail: req@quintlaw.com


STEVE CHEN: Suit Alleges Fraud and Breach of Contract
-----------------------------------------------------
John Doe, and all others similarly-situated v. Steve Chen, John
Wuo, Solomon Yang aka Eiji Sakurada, Leonard S. Johnson, John
Zhang, Kun Jiang, US Fine Investment Arts, Inc., Alliance
Financial Group, Inc., US-China Consultation Association
Liaison/Consulting Services, Amkey, Inc., and Does 1 through 100,
Case No. BC596792 (Cal. Super., October 5, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for alleged fraud, breach of contract,
common counts, conversion, breach of fiduciary duties,
constructive fraud, securities fraud, Civil R.I.C.O., negligent
misrepresentation, breach of covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, unfair competition and negligence.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have run a Ponzi scheme
on investors in USFIA and Gemcoins. Defendant USFIA was and is,
for all intents and purposes, a Ponzi and pyramid scheme. It
promised its sales agents compensation based on money collected
from recruits, and from the recruits of recruits and so on. The
individual Defendants directed USFIA and used USFIA as a cash cow
to funnel money between the various Defendant Entities, themselves
and their close associates.

Defendant Entities, US Fine Investment Arts Inc. ("USFIA"), US-
China Consultation Association Liaison/Consulting Services
("UCCA"), and Amkey Inc., ("AMKEY") are corporations organized
under the laws of the State of California, and/or doing business
primarily in the County of Los Angeles.

Alliance Financial Group Inc., ("AFG") is a corporation organized
under the laws of the State of Delaware, and doing business
primarily in the County of Los Angeles. All of the above Defendant
Entities are located at the same address at 135 E. Live Oak Ave,
Arcadia, CA 91006.

Steve Chen owns and controls the Defendant Entities and is the
vice president of UCCA in charge of managing USFIA.

Solomon Yang is the president of USFIA.

Johnn Wuo is the Honorary Chairman of USFIA and co-founder of UCCA
along with Steve Chen, Solomon Yang and Chinese actor Kun Jiang.

Leonard S. Johnson is the Vice President of USFIA and has traveled
the world touting the merits of Gemcoins.

John Zhang is the alleged certified gemstone appraiser working for
USFIA who has also been espousing the value of USFIA and Gemcoins
alongside Leonard S. Johnson.

Kun Jiang co-founded the UCCA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Long Z. Liu, Esq.
      THE LIU LAW FIRM
      529 E. Valley Blvd., Suite 208-A
      San Gabriel, CA 91776
      Tel: (626) 570-8820
      Fax: (815) 331-0657


STEVE CHEN: "Geng" Suit Alleges Breach of Contract and Fraud
------------------------------------------------------------
Wei Geng, and all others similarly-situated v. Steve Chen, Coco Ke
Xu, Luyang Li, Maria Wei Wang Shu, USFIA, Inc., Ahome Real Estate
USA, LLC, Ahomeland, Inc., Aborell Reit II LLC, Ahome REal Estate,
LLC, Apollo Reit II LLC, Steamfont Investment Group, LLC, Amkey,
Inc., Amauction, Inc., and Does 1 through 100, Case No. BC596569
(Cal. Super., October 5, 2015), is brought against the  Defendants
for alleged breach of contract, fraud, fraudulent conveyance,
Civil R.I.C.O., unjust enrichment, violation of the California
Legal Remedies Act, and violation of the Unfair Competition Law.

All Defendants are engaged in multilevel marketing under the
auspices of USFIA and its affiliated or related or secondary
entities which are collectively just one big Ponzi scheme.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven P. Scandura, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN P. SCANDURA
      1609 N. Sepulveda Blvd., #730
      Manhattan Beach, CA 90266-5133
      Tel: (310) 473-6300
      Fax: (310) 629-9780


SUPER TRANSPORTATION: "Torres" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Orlando Torres, and all others similarly-situated v. Super
Transportation of Florida, LLC, Case No. 6:15-cv-01679 (M.D. Fla.,
October 7, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendant is a trucking company running freight hauling
business from Orlando, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      20 N. Orange Ave., 14th Flr.
      P.O. Box 4979
      Orlando, FL 32802-4979
      Tel: (407) 420-1414
      Fax: (407) 425-8171
      E-mail: cleach@forthepeople.com


TUCSON, AZ: Female Firefighter Wins Sexual Harassment Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Tucson.com reports that after 21 years with the Tucson Fire
Department, one of Tucson's first female firefighters fought for
10 years -- and won -- a sexual harassment case involving
inappropriate signs posted on her bathroom door and on her truck
at a fire station.

She never meant to make a statement about women's rights.

She definitely didn't intend for her career as a firefighter to
end with a small victory in a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
ruling.

"What I really want to come out of this is for people to know the
city doesn't do anything to stop these behaviors, and it's costing
taxpayers," Michelle Maliniak said.

She won $35,000 and $200,000 in attorneys' fees for her case in
the ruling.  The city also paid a contractor, Mesch, Clark &
Rothschild, for legal representation.

The city has also paid $125,000 and $60,000 settlements in recent
years for cases related to Fire Department employee misbehavior
and assaults.

City Attorney Mike Rankin said the Ms. Maliniak case was
fascinating but had a disappointing result.

She prevailed on a split decision in the Ninth Circuit and the
city opted to resolve the case by negotiating the attorneys' fees
and cutting a check instead of taking the case to the Supreme
Court, he said.

Mr. Rankin said the city takes employee complaints seriously and
the fire chief immediately addresses them.

'I LOVE TO HELP PEOPLE'

When Ms. Maliniak was applying for jobs fresh out of college,
firefighting was a career for men only.

"I was so clueless," she said in a recent interview about the
April court ruling.

"You know, I didn't go into this thinking I'm going to be an
activist for women's rights. I just wanted a good job that I'd
enjoy."

Her graduation from the University of Arizona was coming up.  She
would hold a degree in psychology and she was looking for a good
place to work.

"I saw a poster and I thought, 'This is perfect for me.' Because I
love to work hard, I love to be physical, I love to learn, I love
to help people," she said.  "I wanted to be of service."

She tried out for a job in Tucson but didn't make it.  Instead,
she was hired as the first female firefighter in Sierra Vista.  It
was 1989.

"Right off the bat, I was greeted with some hostility," Ms.
Maliniak said.  "I went out to my car after the first day and in
the dust on my window there was a woman symbol with a circle and a
slash through it."

"And I just thought, 'Well, if I work hard enough and show 'em I
can do it, then it shouldn't be a problem.'  But that's just not
the case.  You can be exemplary at the job and you're still not
considered worthy of it."

She was hired by the Tucson Fire Department in 1990.

The department was hiring women following a class-action lawsuit
settlement.  In the agreement, the city said it would try to
ensure that 7 percent of its personnel were women, take special
steps to recruit women and require the staff to take sensitivity
training.  Today, about 5 percent of firefighters are women.

When Ms. Maliniak came on board, "they told us we were going to
have to work twice as hard as the men to prove to them that we
could do the job, and I was fine with that," Ms. Maliniak said.

ALWAYS PROVING HERSELF

She loved the work.  As an engineer, a medic and a hazardous
materials technician, she found the work exciting and rewarding.

But for the first 10 years, the department didn't have separate
bathrooms for women in fire stations where no women had worked
before.  She was walked in on numerous times, and men used the
women's bathroom after one was provided, leaving it dirty.

So-called pranks, which had no business in a professional
workplace to begin with, Ms. Maliniak said, felt increasingly
threatening.  A "no men" sign on the bathroom door was changed to
say "no men for me."

Fire officials said they addressed the problems at the time
through memos and investigated the behavior.

In 2005, after finding a sign on a truck that said "Fu@# You Use
Reverse B!*tch," she filed sexual discrimination charges with the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regarding both signs.

The case was assigned to Judge John Roll, who wanted a trial by
jury.

After Roll was murdered in the 2011 mass shooting in Tucson, Judge
A. Wallace Tashima took over and overturned a jury's decision on
the harassment issue.

Ms. Maliniak lost a claim about retaliation.

She appealed the harassment decision to the Ninth Circuit Court in
2012 and won in a 2-1 decision this year.  The Ninth Circuit
reversed Tashima's decision and reinstated the jury's verdict.

Part of what she won was $35,000 in salary she didn't receive
while she stayed away from work for eight months on an unpaid
leave, and she used other money from the award to pay back her own
retirement account, which she borrowed from to pay attorneys'
fees.  It was what the jury originally awarded her.

During arguments, Judge Marsha Berzon said she could see a
progression in the harassment, from the bathroom incidents to
gender-derogatory signs.

In the ruling, Judge Berzon and Judge Richard Paez wrote, "it was
reasonable for the jury to conclude that the truck sign incident
was related to the earlier bathroom incidents because both
involved written signs that were denigrating to women, and the
supervisors and firefighters who allowed the sign to remain on the
truck knew of the offensive bathroom sign."

In his dissent, appeals court Judge Michael Daly Hawkins said the
signs weren't enough to constitute harassment.  "Considering all
of the relevant factors," he wrote, "the posted signs were not
very severe, the identity of those involved were different, the
signs were posted in different locations and were separated
temporally, and the conduct was not physically intimidating."

These days Ms. Maliniak is a licensed professional counselor who
runs a private practice offering cognitive behavioral therapy and
help with PTSD.

"I'm not a miserable, angry person. I'm having a joyous life," she
said.  "I didn't let this interrupt my joy for very long."

Still, she says, the odds are stacked against women in the
firefighting profession.

She's stopped encouraging girls to grow up to become firefighters.


UBER: Drivers Set to Hold Strike Over Deceptive Practices
---------------------------------------------------------
Annie Gaus, writing for San Francisco Business Times, reports that
there's no denying that some Uber drivers are unhappy with the
company they represent.  Thousands of drivers have opted into a
class-action lawsuit against the company, which accuses the
rideshare giant of illegally classifying its drivers as
independent contractors.

But a nationwide strike has little to do with the drivers'
classification status.

"My opinion is that myself and many other drivers don't want to be
considered employees," Scott Murphy, a Bay Area-based driver
sympathetic to the strike, wrote to me in an email.  "We want Uber
to stop exploiting its 'partners' with deceptive practices."

According to Mr. Murphy, those deceptive practices include the
company's mischaracterization of what drivers can earn.  He said
while Uber claimed initially that drivers could earn $1,300 per
week with the service, subsequent fare cuts, heavy recruitment of
additional drivers, and the practice of informing drivers that tip
is included are akin to a breach of contract.

"If we are truly contractors, then we should also hold some power
to negotiate the contract, for example, knowing a rider's
destination before we start a trip and having the option to not
accept or cancel trips that do not add to our earnings," he said.

"Currently we are under threat of deactivation because of our
acceptance rate when, clearly, some trips are money losers."

Arbitrary cancellations have been a frequent complaint among
drivers.  Uber says that drivers can be deactivated in cases of
fraud -- one example would be setting up fake accounts -- but from
the point of view of many drivers, reasons for deactivation are
not always obvious.

"It is very unclear what Uber considers fraud," says
Harry Campbell, a driver who blogs under the name The Rideshare
Guy.  "They see what Uber drivers are doing and if they don't like
it, they reserve the right to deactivate them."

Facebook groups publicizing the strike indicated demands as
follows: a 60 percent increase in rates nationwide, a $7 minimum
fare, a $7 cancellation fee and a tip option. (The Uber app now
instructs users not to tip.)


UFC: Athletes' Monopoly Class Action in Discovery Phase
-------------------------------------------------------
Steven Muehlhausen, writing for Sporting News, reports that
Jon Fitch isn't in the UFC anymore, but he is in a battle against
the mixed martial arts organization.

In December, Fitch joined former UFC fighter Nate Quarry and
retired UFC fighter Cung Le in a class-action lawsuit against the
UFC for "illegally maintaining monopoly and monopsony power by
systematically eliminating competition from rival promoters,
artificially suppressing fighters' earnings from bouts and
merchandising and marketing activities through restrictive
contracting and other exclusionary practices."

During his time in the UFC, Mr. Fitch says, there was a constant
battle for respect.  He believes the company became more like
professional wrestling than a sport.  While he understands the
entertainment aspect of UFC and parent company Zuffa LLC, Fitch
thinks how a fighter performs inside the cage should be what's
matters most.

"I've been battling with Zuffa from day one," Mr. Fitch told
Sporting News.  "Not really liking the way they do business, not
liking the way they treat people, not really liking the way they
treated me, not liking the way they control who goes where.  It's
the only sport in the history of the world that I've ever heard of
that winning doesn't matter.  It seems more like pro wrestling
than an actual sport.  Your entertainment value should and does
affect your pay scale and your sponsors.  But in no way should it
limit your ability to rise up through the ranks and get title
shots and win awards. I've been battling them since day one on
that."

A fighters union is something combatants have discussed behind the
scenes for years but have yet to form.  Fighters have told
Sporting News that is because they fear being blackballed from the
sport and not being able to provide for their families.
Establishing a union is easier said than done. Fighters must stick
together and remember they are fighting for the same cause.

"It's just education," Mr. Fitch said.  "Like I didn't think it
was even that possible until I went to the NFL Players Association
meeting last year.  Just the story they had, where they came from,
how they came up, what they went through to get to where they are
just made it all tangible and made it real.  One of the things
that happens a lot in mixed martial arts and fighting in general
is that fighters are played against each other all the time by the
promoters. It's hard to get that group to come together because we
are pitted against each other.  It's like we are against each
other fighting for these straps.  Really, if we all stick
together, we would be getting a seat at the table instead of
fighting for scraps.  As we go around and talk to more and more
fighters face to face and let them understand what benefits they
would get from an association they start turning around pretty
quickly."

The lawsuit brought by Fitch and cohorts is in the discovery
phase. A Las Vegas judge in September denied a UFC motion to
dismiss the case.  Legal and media analysts expect the UFC, a
private company, to settle out of court so its records aren't made
public.

To Mr. Fitch, it doesn't matter how the case ends.  All he wants
is for the UFC to change the way it operates.

"Whether it's settled or it goes all the way through to court,
settle, win or lose, if they do not change their business
practices, they will get sued again," Mr. Fitch said.


UNITED STATES: Legality of Migrant Detention Facilities Questioned
------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Tammy Kim, writing for Aljazeera, reports that when President
Obama took office, he vowed to curtail George W. Bush's policy of
detaining migrant children.  In August 2009, following extensive
litigation by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Department
of Homeland Security, or DHS, removed all minors from the T. Don
Hutto Residential Center, a facility in Taylor, Texas, run by the
same private prison corporation -- CCA -- that now operates
Dilley. But in response to the 2014 increase in child refugees,
Obama reversed course, adopting a "no-release policy" to deter
further migration across the U.S. border.  In 2013, ICE had just
95 beds in family detention units; that figure has now risen to
some 3,000, spread across three secure facilities: the center in
Dilley, the Karnes County Residential Center in Karnes City,
Texas, and the Berks Family Residential Center in Leesport,
Pennsylvania.

The legality of these facilities is now in question.  In July,
U.S. District Judge Dolly M. Gee of the Central District of
California ruled that ICE's policy of detaining children for weeks
and months, alone and with their mothers, violates a 1997
settlement in Flores v. Johnson, a class action lawsuit brought by
unaccompanied minors fleeing earlier violence in Central America.
That settlement holds that ICE must release immigrant children
"without unnecessary delay" to a legal guardian or adult custodian
and make "continuous efforts on its part toward family
reunification."  By Oct. 22, ICE must prove that it has devised
standards and procedures to ensure that children are only held for
short periods and in "facilities that are safe and sanitary,
consistent with concern for the particular vulnerability of
minors," never in "unlicensed or secure facilities" except in
extraordinary circumstances. "Our position is, [ICE] could comply
with the law and with Flores by releasing these mothers and kids
in a week at most," said Peter Schey, executive director at the
California-based Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law
and attorney for the plaintiff class in Flores.

Immigration attorneys, civil rights groups, the U.S. Civil Rights
Commission and the U.N. Human Rights Commission have all demanded
an end to family detention -- as have 136 Democrats in the House
of Representatives [PDF].  Yet the budget for fiscal year 2015
provides continued funding for these facilities, part of the $3.4
billion allocated to "detention, enforcement, and removal
operations, including transportation of unaccompanied minor
aliens."

Numerous complaints and lawsuits have been filed by former
detainees at Karnes, where mothers staged a hunger strike in April
and have alleged sexual and psychological abuse by staff.
Advocates argue that, in place of a system run by private prison
companies -- at a cost of $300 per detainee per day at Dilley --
migrants who wish to apply for asylum should be advised of their
rights and interviewed at the border, under the auspices of
international monitors, then released and provided legal counsel
to pursue their claims.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Paris Police Raids Main Office in Emissions Probe
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Kostov and Jason Chow, writing for The Wall Street Journal,
report that police have raided Volkswagen AG's main office in
France in connection with the probe into the company's rigging of
emissions tests, a company spokeswoman said on Oct. 18.

The raids, which took place on Oct. 16 but weren't reported before
Oct. 18, targeted the German car maker's France headquarters in
Villers-Cotterˆts and a second office near Paris.  "We cooperated
with full transparency," the spokeswoman said.  A spokeswoman for
the Paris prosecutor's office said computer hardware was seized in
the raids.

Similar searches have already been carried out at the company's
headquarters in Italy and Germany, showing its legal troubles are
spreading across Europe as the emissions-cheating scandal shows no
sign of abating.  Volkswagen has set aside $7.3 billion to deal
with the fallout, a figure the company's new chief executive,
Matthias Mueller, has said is expected to rise.

Europe's largest auto maker faces investigations by European and
U.S. authorities as well as class-action lawsuits from aggrieved
customers after admitting that it fitted 11 million vehicles
world-wide with so-called defeat devices to cheat emissions tests.

French prosecutors started a preliminary investigation into
Volkswagen over charges of "aggravated deception."


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Faces "Barnard" Suit Over Fraud Allegations
----------------------------------------------------------
Nicole M. Barnard, and all others similarly-situated v. Volkswagen
AG, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Audi AG, and Audi of
America, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-03051 (D. Md., October 7, 2015),
seeks compensatory and punitive damages for violations of the
Maryland Consumer Protection Act and fraud.

From approximately 2008 to 2015, Volkswagen AG, Volkswagen Group
of America, Inc., Audi AG, and Audi of America, Inc. directly and
by and through their management, engineers, and other agents,
servants, and employees, created, participated in, and aided and
abetted an elaborate and successful scheme to deceive and defraud
approximately 482,000 customers in the United States who purchased
vehicles with 2.0-liter TDI (Turbocharged Direct Injection) "Clean
Diesel" engines.

Defendant Volkswagen AG is the parent corporation of Defendants
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Audi AG, and Audi of America,
Inc. The Defendants designed, manufactured, imported, and sold the
Class Vehicles.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Gregory G. Hopper, Esq.
      SALSBURY, CLEMENTS, BEKMAN,
      MARDER & ADKINS LLC
      300 West Pratt Street, Suite 450
      Baltimore, MD 21201
      Tel: (410) 539-6633
      E-mail: hopper@scbmalaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces GBP30-Bil. Shareholder Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Natasha Roberts, writing for DigitalLook, reports that Volkswagen
could be slapped with a GBP30 billion lawsuit by shareholders
following the infamous emissions scandal, it has been revealed.

Litigation finance group Bentham has hired leading legal firm
Quinn Emanuel to prepare a class action in Germany for Volkswagen
investors for what it describes as the car-manufacturer's
"fundamental dishonesty".

Speaking in an interview with the Sunday Telegraph, Quinn
Emanuel's co-managing partner said: "We estimate shareholders'
losses could be EUR40bn as a result of VW's failure to provide
relevant disclosure to the market and gives rise to questions
about fundamental dishonesty."

"We don't think it will be very hard to find shareholders who have
suffered because of it. Institutional investors will be under
pressure from their own shareholders to act after the fall in VW
shares."

Bethan's chief investment officer Jeremy Marshall added that they
required "sufficient investor appetite" in order to proceed with
the action.

Quinn Emanuel is reportedly planning to argue that Volkswagen
management committed gross negligence by failing to reveal that it
used "defeat devices" to pass emissions tests.

It is not expected that 50% stakeholder Porche or German state
Lower Saxony, which owns a 20% controlling interest, will pursue
legal action.

Other stakeholders include Qatar's state investment fund with 17%,
and Axa, Blackrock and Norway's sovereign wealth fund, which all
each own 2% or less.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Bancroft" Suit Alleges Fraud
-----------------------------------------------
Reverend Anne B. Bancroft, John T. Coates, Judy, Marty Arick, and
all others similarly-situated v. Volkswagen Group of America,
Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-13522 (D. Mass., October 7, 2015), seeks
injunctive relief and damages as redress for the fraud perpetrated
against them by the Defendant.

Since 2008, Volkswagen has been part of an intentional scheme to
circumvent United States Environmental Protection Agency
automobile emissions laws and deceive consumers into believing
that certain Volkswagen and Audi vehicles equipped with "clean
diesel" turbo TDI 2.0 liter engines were compliant with federal
and state emissions laws -- all the time knowing that they were
not.

Volkswagen is a corporation doing business in all 50 states and is
organized under the laws of the State of New Jersey, with its
principal place of business located at 2200 Ferdinand Porsche
Drive, Herndon, Virginia 20171. As such, Volkswagen is a citizen
of New Jersey and Virginia. At all times relevant to this action,
Volkswagen was involved in designing, engineering, manufacturing,
assembling, testing, marketing, distributing and selling the
Affected Vehicles.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Norman Berman, Esq.
      BERMAN DEVALERIO
      One Liberty Square
      Boston, MA 02109
      Tel: (617) 542-8300
      Fax: (617) 542-1194
      E-mail: nberman@bermandevalerio.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Bixler" Suit Over Constructive Fraud
-------------------------------------------------------------
R. Patrick Bixler, Audrey Barrett, Haydn Schwedland, and all
others similarly-situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and
Volkswagen AG, Case No. 1:15-cv-00892 (W.D. Tex., October 7,
2015), seeks award of actual, general, special, incidental,
statutory, compensatory and consequential damages on claims for
constructive fraud, breach of express and implied warranties under
all relevant statutes or common law, and/or deceit in an amount to
be proven at trial.

The Defendants are automobile design, manufacturing, distribution,
and/or service corporations doing business within the United
States. Furthermore, Defendants design, develop, manufacture,
distribute, market, sell, lease, warrant, service, advertise and
repair passenger vehicles, including the Class Vehicles.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Guy Hohmann, Esq.
      HOHMANN, BROPHY & SHELTON, PLLC
      210 Barton Springs Rd., Ste. 250
      Austin, TX 78704
      Tel: (512) 596-3623
      Fax: (512) 532-6637
      E-mail: guyh@hbslawyers.com

          - and -

      William B. Federman, Esq.
      FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
      2926 Maple Ave., Ste. 200
      Dallas, TX 75201
      Tel: (214) 696-1100
      Fax: (214) 696-740-0112
      E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Bentham Plans to File EUR40-Bil. Emissions Claim
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kedar Grandhi, writing for IBT, reports that investors led by the
litigation funding group Bentham plan to file a EUR40 billion
(GBP29.4 billion, $45.4 billion) legal claim against troubled
German carmaker Volkswagen for its emissions-rigging scandal. They
are to be represented by the law firm Quinn Emanuel.

Bentham, which recently supported a lawsuit by Tesco shareholders
for overstating profits, has retained Quinn Emanuel to prepare a
case for VW shareholders, according to the Telegraph.  VW had
admitted to fitting so-called "defeat devices" in about 11 million
cars in order to pass emission tests. Since the news broke, the
company's market value has eroded more than EUR25bn.

Quinn hopes to start filing the lawsuit under Germany's Securities
Trading Act by February.  It has contended that VW's failure to
reveal to shareholders rigging of its engines constitutes gross
negligence by its management.

Had shareholders known about the same, they would not have held or
traded VW's shares, Richard East, co-managing partner of Quinn
Emanuel in London, said.  "We don't think it will be very hard to
find shareholders who have suffered because of it," he said.

Quinn and Bentham together will prepare a class action suit
following what they call "fundamental dishonesty" at Volkswagen.
They are urging the carmaker's biggest investors including
sovereign wealth funds of Qatar and Norway to join the lawsuit.
Chief investment officer at Bentham, Jeremy Marshall, said a joint
law suit by institutional investors was a more effective way of
suing VW.

"We have been in touch with a tremendous number of VW
shareholders. We would not be able to get it up and running unless
there was sufficient investor appetite," Mr. Marshall said.

While Bentham could gain about 20% to 25% of potential damages
paid, the lawsuit would cost them between EUR6 million and EUR7
million before it enters the courtroom, Marshall added.

VW's three largest shareholders are: Porsche, which holds a 50%
stake, the German state of Lower Saxony, which controls 20%, and
Qatar's state investment fund at 17%. Others who own 2% or lower
include Norway's sovereign wealth fund, Suzuki, Axa and BlackRock.

VW already faces a potential penalty of up to $18 billion from US
regulators, besides consumer lawsuits that could cost hundreds of
millions.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Emissions Scandal to Hit Global Insurance Cos.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kim Jae-won, writing for The Korea Times, reports that
Volkswagen's emissions cheating scandal will hit global insurance
companies hard because the German automaker bought insurance
policies covering the liabilities of its executives for hundreds
of millions dollars, a local think tank said on Oct. 18.

The Korea Insurance Research Institute (KIRI) said in a report
that AIG Group, Ace Group, Zurich Insurance Group and Allianz
among others would face claims from Volkswagen, which took out
directors and officers liability insurance (D&O) contracts.

D&O is a liability insurance payable to directors and officers of
a company as reimbursement for losses that a policy holder suffers
due to legal action for alleged wrongful acts.

AIG, Ace and XL Insurance cover liabilities worth up to $100
million for the automaker's directors and officers in the U.S.
while 12 insurers -- including Zurich Insurance Group, Allianz,
HDI-Gerling and R+V Versicherung -- will be responsible for
Volkswagen executives' liabilities worth 500 million euro ($560
million) in Germany, the report said.

The report quoted Insurance Insider and The Times for the data.

"The exact amount of the costs will vary on lawsuits against
Volkswagen," KIRI researcher Chae Won-young said in the report.

"The World's big general insurance companies, such as Zurich
Insurance Group, will be hit hard by the claims further, depending
on the results of the suits.

"Thirty-four federal lawsuits have been filed against Volkswagen
in over a dozen states in the U.S., and a handful of lawsuitshave
been filed in Canada as well.

"In the U.S., the class-action lawsuits involve drivers from all
50 states contending that Volkswagen defrauded customers who not
only paid extra for their clean diesel cars, but also will
probably now see declines in the resale value of their cars."

In Korea, two Volkswagen and Audi diesel car owners filed a
complaint against the two companies with a Seoul district court,
asking the companies to pay back their money.

The models are a 2014 Audi Q5 2.0 TDI (61 million won) and a 2009
Volkswagen Tiguan 2.0 TDI (43 million won).

Volkswagen set aside EUR6.5 billion for compensation, but market
watchers said the costs would reach more than EUR30 billion,
considering fines, recall costs and compensation for collective
lawsuits, according to the report.

It said costs in the U.S. were expected to account for the biggest
portion, with fines worth $18 billion and costs for recalls and
auto repairs totaling about $20 billion.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces Suit on Unjust Enrichment
-------------------------------------------------
Laura McNeil, Patrick Cutler, Amy Nelson, Alison Russo, Steven
Weise, John Impeduglia, Arthur Thexton, and all others similarly-
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
01317 (E.D. Va., October 9, 2015), seek injunctive relief and
damages for unjust enrichment and fraudulent concealment.

The Plaintiffs alleges that for over six years, Volkswagen has
intentionally and systematically deceived its customers, lied to
the government, and misled the public about the efficacy of its
four cylinder diesel-engine vehicles sold under the Volkswagen and
Audi brands. Volkswagen has marketed its so-called "clean diesel"
vehicles as high performing, fuel efficient, and environmentally
friendly. In truth, Volkswagen's clean diesel vehicles are
anything but clean.

Volkswagen is a corporation doing business in all 50 states and is
organized under the laws of the State of New Jersey, with its
principal place of business located at 2200 Ferdinand Porsche
Drive, Herndon, Virginia 20171. As such, Volkswagen is a citizen
of New Jersey and Virginia. At all times relevant to this action,
Volkswagen was involved in designing, engineering, manufacturing,
assembling, testing, marketing, distributing and selling the
Affected Vehicles.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Susan R. Podolsky, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF SUSAN R. PODOLSKY
      1800 Diagonal Road, Suite 600
      Alexandria, VA 22314
      Tel: (571) 366-1702
      Fax: (703) 647-6009
      E-mail: spodolsky@podolskylaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: EPA Investigates Emissions-Control Software
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Janes, writing for Mashable Asia, reports that it appears as
if the Volkswagen Group fit some of its diesel-powered cars with
more than emissions-cheating software.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has launched an
investigation into another emissions-control software Volkswagen
planned to use in EA 189 2.0-liter diesel engines for its 2016
models.  Those are the same engines it rigged to cheat emissions
testing, a scandal that has affected 11 million cars worldwide.

"We are investigating the nature and purpose of the additional
[auxiliary emissions control device]," an EPA representative told
Mashable.  The news was first reported by Bloomberg.

The EPA uncovered the secondary software in an application
submitted by VW for permission to sell the diesel-powered cars in
the U.S. for the 2016 model year.  VW subsequently retracted that
application. Regardless, the investigation continues.

While the EPA did not indicate if this newly-discovered software
was used on older models, an unnamed source familiar with the
matter told Bloomberg that the program has been used on EA 189
engines since 2009.

The software is apparently used during the engine warm-up period,
according to Bloomberg.  It's not yet clear whether the software
in question was also used to cheat emissions. Regardless,

VW apparently did not properly disclose the secondary software to
the EPA. While it might not have been used for nefarious purposes,
it still raises red flags for government regulators.  Having been
burned once now, the EPA is not about to take any chances.

If it turns out that the Volkswagen Group did indeed use another
emissions test-cheating software, it'd be a significant blow to
the already battered carmaker.  Not only does it face lawsuits
from West Virginia and Texas, it's also been slapped with more
than 250 class-action law suits.  And while no recalls have been
kicked-off here in the States, German officials forced VW to
recall the 2.4 million affected diesel models -- the largest
recall in German history.


WAL-MART STORES: Faces Suit Over False Statements
-------------------------------------------------
Matthew Tye, Harry Schmoll, Michael Wilcox, and all others
similarly-situated v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores
East, L.P., Case No. 8:15-cv-01615 (C.D. Calif., October 7, 2015),
seeks injunctive, declaratory and monetary relief from identical,
false, written affirmative statements on the Product label of
"Great Value Pork & Beans in Tomato Sauce".

The Defendants, as developers, manufacturers, and exclusive
sellers and distributors of "Great Value Pork & Beans in Tomato
Sauce" have been aware since the Product's inception that the
Product contains no pork whatsoever.

Defendants own and operate various Wal-Mart stores throughout the
United States, including California.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN
      324 Beverly Dr., #725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Tel: (877) 206-4741
      Fax: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com


WONDRIES AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Suit Over Labor Code Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
Ruben Ramos, and all others similarly situated v. Wondries
Automotive, Inc. and Does 1 to 50, Case No. BC597092 (Cal. Super.,
October 7, 2015), seeks penalties against the Defendant pursuant
to the Labor Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has failed to provide
accurate itemized wage statement in compliance with Labor Code
section 226(a).

The Defendant operates within California and does business within
Los Angeles County, California.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Eric B. Kingsley, Esq.
      KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
      16133 Ventura Blvd. Suite 1200
      Encino, CA 91436
      Tel: (818) 990-8300
      Fax: (818) 990-2903
      E-mail: eric@kingsleykingsley.com


* CFPB Targets Class Action Waivers in Arbitration Clauses
----------------------------------------------------------
Armstrong Teasdale LLP, in an article for The National Law Review,
reports that the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau (CFPB)
announced its intent to launch a rulemaking process that would
prohibit companies from using arbitration clauses that waive class
action lawsuits.  The CFPB's proposal would apply generally to all
of the consumer financial products and services that the CFPB
oversees, including credit cards, checking and deposit accounts,
certain auto loans, small-dollar or payday loans, private student
loans, and some other products and services as well.

A section of the Dodd-Frank Act directed CFPB to study "the use of
agreements providing for arbitration of any future dispute . . .
in connection with the offering or providing of consumer financial
products or services" and to provide a report to Congress on that
subject.  The CFPB published its Arbitration Study in March of
this year, and relied upon the study to support the rules
proposals it announced on October 7, 2015.

The CFPB's proposed rules will undo the U.S. Supreme Court's AT&T
Mobility v. Concepcion decision, and weaken the protections
afforded by the Federal Arbitration Act.  In Concepcion, the
Supreme Court ruled, by a 5-4 margin, that the Federal Arbitration
Act preempts state laws that prohibit contracts from disallowing
class-wide arbitration. As a result of Concepcion, and other
Supreme Court decisions on the subject over the past five years,
many companies have modified their arbitration agreements to
include specific language prohibiting class or mass action claims.
Businesses that include class action waivers in their arbitration
agreements can require consumers to bring claims only in
individual arbitrations, rather than in court as part of class
action litigation.

Under the CFPB's proposal, companies could still use an
arbitration clause, but only to the extent that the clause applies
on an individual basis.  Further, companies would have to say
explicitly that the arbitration clause does not apply to cases
brought on behalf of a class unless and until class certification
is denied by the court or the class claims are dismissed.  In
other words, at least at this time, the CFPB is not attempting to
prohibit the use of arbitration clauses totally, just those that
would preclude customers from bringing class-wide claims.

If adopted, the CFPB's proposed rules would have far reaching
effects on businesses that rely on arbitration clauses in their
contracts.  Companies that rely on arbitration agreements in their
contracts should seek legal counsel as to whether the scope of the
CFPB's proposed rules may impact their company's use of
arbitration clauses.  Companies subject to the CFPB's rules should
consider submitting comments to the CFPB on how the proposed rules
will impact their company.


* Class Action Challenges Egg Donation Pay Limit Guidelines
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tamar Lewin, writing for The Seattle Times, reports that on their
websites, next to glossy pictures of babies, some fertility
clinics and egg-donor agencies refer to eggs as a "priceless gift"
from caring young women who want to help people with fertility
problems.  There is a price tag for eggs, though, and it is the
subject of a legal battle.

In a federal lawsuit, a group of women is challenging industry
guidelines that say it is "inappropriate" to pay a woman more than
$10,000 for her eggs.  The women say the $10,000 limit amounts to
illegal price-fixing and note there is no price restriction on the
sale of human sperm.  A federal judge has certified the claim as a
class action, which will most likely go to trial next year.

The guidelines do not have the force of law, though they have been
widely followed. But demand for eggs has increased and put
pressure on their price. So some high-end fertility clinics and
egg-donor agencies are ignoring the guidelines and paying far more
-- on rare occasions six figures -- while donors are shopping
around to get the best price.

The case could shake up the $80 million egg-donor market by
spurring more negotiation. It is a reminder that egg donation is a
big business, though one with many more inherent ethical issues
than others.

"The lawsuit is raising awareness of the commodification of the
whole thing, and that's good," said Sierra Poulson, 28, a lawyer
in Nebraska not involved with the case, and a founder of the
online forum We Are Egg Donors.  "The guidelines are skewed toward
the intended parents, toward the industry making more money and
business," Ms. Poulson said.  "We're in America; the market would
take care of itself, without guidelines."

Ms. Poulson, a three-time donor, is an example of how the market
works. She was paid $3,000 for each of her first two donations, in
Kansas, but $10,000 in Chicago for the last.  "The third time I
donated, the only reason was for the money," she said.

Rise in demand

As women wait longer to start families and find their fertility
has waned, the demand for eggs from young donors -- typically,
donors are in their 20s -- has risen rapidly.  Women trying to get
pregnant, along with surrogates hired by gay men to carry their
children, used donor eggs in nearly 20,000 monthly cycles in 2012,
compared with fewer than 12,000 a decade earlier, according to the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which collects
statistics on assisted reproduction.

While many countries limit egg donation and the compensation that
is allowed, egg donation is essentially unregulated in the United
States.  But in 2000, the American Society for Reproductive
Medicine established the guidelines for how much women should be
paid.

The society said compensation of more than $5,000 requires
"justification," and more than $10,000 is "beyond what is
appropriate."  The amounts have never been adjusted.

The society argues that capping the price ensures that low-income
women are not drawn to donate by a huge payout without considering
how it may affect their lives.

"If the compensation became too high, there is a concern that it
might be incentive for donors to lie about their medical history,"
said Tripp Monts, a lawyer representing the society.

He also took issue with the idea that the guidelines represented
price-fixing.  "The guidelines are just that, guidelines," he
said. "They're not a cap as has been portrayed."

The question of compensation for eggs raises difficult
exploitation questions, of low-income young women by affluent
older women whose own eggs are past their prime, and by gay men,
in their quest for children.  Many cancer survivors also need eggs
after treatment leaves them infertile.

Reflecting a distaste in the United States for the idea of selling
body parts, the women providing the eggs are referred to as
donors, and at least theoretically are paid not for their eggs,
but for the inconvenience, discomfort and health risks involved in
the process of harvesting.  That process requires weeks of hormone
injections to stimulate the ovaries, and endurance of ultrasounds
and surgery.

Many egg donors and women's-health advocates say there is a
pressing need for more research on whether the high doses of
hormones that women must take increase the risk of cancer or
infertility, especially among repeat donors.  Some advocate the
creation of a database to track donors' health history; others
suggest urging them to freeze some eggs to use themselves should
they later develop cancer or become infertile.

But it is intrinsic to the process that doctors, clinics and
agencies who recruit donors and harvest the eggs focus less on
worrying about the donor's interests than on getting what the
recipients paid for.

"Our whole system makes no sense," said Debora Spar, the president
of Barnard College in New York and author of a book on the
assisted-reproduction industry.  "We cap the price because of the
yuck factor of commodifying human eggs, when we should either say,
'Egg-selling is bad and we forbid it,' as some countries do, or
'Egg-selling is OK, and the horse is out of the barn, but we're
going to regulate the market for safety.' "

Competitive market

Most first-time donors in California, New York and Chicago are
paid $4,000 to $7,000, more than in other parts of the country.
(The price generally includes all eggs harvested in a cycle.) The
pay can rise significantly for repeat donors whose first set of
eggs led to a birth.  But donors are becoming more savvy in
seeking compensation.  Mindful of the booming market, more
fertility clinics have started their own in-house egg programs.

"The market has exploded and become much more competitive, and you
see the same donor listed on several different sites," said
Lesa Slaughter, a reproductive lawyer in Los Angeles.

Some high-end fertility clinics and egg-donor agencies ignore the
guidelines and pay more for eggs from particularly attractive
donors: actresses, models, Asians, Jewish women and Ivy League
students with high SAT scores.

"For us, a first-time Asian donor might get $10,000 to $25,000,
and a repeat donor might get to $40,000, occasionally $50,000,"
said Darlene Pinkerton, a founder of A Perfect Match, in Southern
California.  "Maybe twice, it's been $75,000.  It's gotten much
more competitive now that there's a new agency opening almost
every week."

Andrew Vorzimer, a lawyer in Woodland Hills, Calif., who
specializes in reproductive law and formerly owned an egg-donation
business, said, "I've drafted contracts for egg donors in the six
figures. The guidelines are a joke."

Mr. Vorzimer said he believed some guidelines were necessary, to
prevent exploitation of younger women and to prevent prices from
rising so high that only the richest families would have access to
donor eggs.

Setting rates

Sperm donors typically receive $75 to $100 for their comparatively
carefree contribution: There is no shortage of attractive,
educated donors.  According to the complaint in the egg donors'
lawsuit, Kamahaki v. American Society for Reproductive Medicine,
the women's pay rates were originally set by taking the sperm-
donor compensation, calculating the amount of time men had to
spend in a medical setting, and multiplying it by the much longer
time women spent when donating eggs.

"Since the process of donating eggs is far more painful and risky
than is the process for donating sperm, a price paid for donor
services that does not account for those differences must be
artificially low," the complaint said.

Neither the egg donors named as plaintiffs in the case nor their
lawyers would discuss the case, which could affect potentially
thousands of women who have donated eggs since April 2007 at any
fertility clinic or egg-donation business that followed the
guidelines.

Maggie Eastman, 34, of Puyallup, donated her eggs 10 times before
being diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer in January 2014.
Each time a doctor called requesting her eggs, she said, she felt
uncomfortable turning down someone who needed her help to have a
baby -- and, she said, no one ever told her that six donations was
the recommended limit.

Eastman said she was paid $1,600 the first time she donated, and
$2,000 each time after.

"It paid off my undergraduate-student loans, almost," she said. "I
didn't know how much other people were getting.  There was no one
to ask."


* Fantasy Sports Trade Group Receives Subpoena Amid Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Drape, writing for The New York Times, reports that a federal
grand jury has issued a subpoena to the leading trade group for
fantasy sports as part of an investigation into the practices and
legality of the booming, unregulated daily fantasy sports
industry, according to two people involved in the industry.

The grand jury investigation is being conducted under the auspices
of the United States attorney's office in Tampa, Fla., which
declined to comment.  The group, the Fantasy Sports Trade
Association, which lobbies on behalf of leading sites such as
DraftKings and FanDuel, was the target of the subpoena, but a
spokeswoman declined to discuss it.

The scope of the investigation remained unclear, as did whether it
was connected to interviews that F.B.I. agents have been
conducting -- according to people contacted by them -- with
competitors at daily fantasy sites.

The subpoena requested, among other materials, copies of the
minutes from the organization's board meetings, according to the
two people, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were
not authorized to discuss the case publicly.

The trade association says it represents 300 members, and its
board includes the chief executives of DraftKings, Jason Robins,
and FanDuel, Nigel Eccles, as well as executives from investors
and participants in the industry such as CBS Sports Digital,
Yahoo, Gannett and ESPN.

The daily fantasy sites have quickly grown into a multibillion-
dollar business, attracting players who pay an entry fee to the
sites, draw up virtual rosters of players and win cash prizes --
up to $2 million but typically more than $20 -- in contests based
on the performance of athletes in real games.

But they have come under scrutiny for the way they handle
sensitive data and their aggressive recruitment of players, while
some lawmakers and state regulators see their games as a form of
gambling that is prohibited by law.  The New York attorney
general's office recently announced an inquiry into the sites.

The Illinois Gaming Board said on Oct. 16 that it believed the
daily fantasy sports sites were illegal and that it would ask the
state's attorney general, Lisa Madigan, for an opinion.

On Oct. 15, Nevada regulators ruled that daily fantasy sports
should be considered gambling, not a game of skill, as websites
like DraftKings and FanDuel have long claimed, and ordered them to
stop operating immediately in the state until the companies and
their employees received state gambling licenses.

The F.B.I. began contacting several prominent competitors in the
contests, the players said, shortly after an employee of
DraftKings admitted to releasing sensitive data before a game.
The employee, a midlevel content manager, then won $350,000 at a
rival site, although DraftKings said he did not have an advantage.

They also said that agents were examining whether the site
encouraged and accepted deposits and bets from states where the
contests were prohibited.

At least five class-action lawsuits have been filed as well,
alleging that fraud has been committed by the two companies as
they allowed employees with access to proprietary data to gain an
unfair advantage and prey on paying customers.  They also allege
that some of the industry's top players employed automated
computer programs that targeted weak players as well as high-speed
scripts that gave them a substantial edge.

While state and federal lawmakers call for hearings and more
stringent regulations, state attorneys general and law enforcement
officials are exploring whether daily fantasy sports operations
comply with existing laws.

The daily fantasy sites, worth billions of dollars on paper
because of a surge of investors, have exploded in popularity and
have blanketed broadcasts of football games with advertisements to
lure more participants.

Major League Baseball and the N.B.A., networks such as NBC and
Fox, and Comcast and the team owners Robert K. Kraft of the New
England Patriots and Jerry Jones of the Dallas Cowboys are among
the investors in the sites.

The controversy has not focused on so-called seasonal fantasy
games, in which players track made-up rosters over a season and
usually compete with friends, or not for money.


* UK Introduces New US Style Antitrust Class Action Regime
----------------------------------------------------------
Neil Baylis, Esq., Jane Harte-Lovelace, Esq., Zanda Romata, Esq.,
of K&L Gates LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that on
October 1, 2015 the UK introduced a new class action regime for
breaches of competition law (specifically cartel conduct or abuse
of dominant position) permitting collective proceedings for
damages claims which will be heard before the Competition Appeals
Tribunal ("CAT").  This will make class action type proceedings
for competition cases significantly easier to get off the ground
than a Group Litigation Order and also gives the CAT power to
grant injunctive relief.

Although, unlike in the US, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 ("CRA")
does not permit multiple or exemplary damages and has other
safeguards to deter unmeritorious claims (including the need for
the CAT to authorize any collective proceedings) the changes
introduced are likely to increase the attractiveness of the UK for
cartel damages claims.  A number of "plaintiff lawyers" are
already encouraging clients to bring claims, for example against
investment banks in relation to foreign exchange manipulation.

Claims can be brought by any person who has suffered loss or
damage, including both consumers and businesses, provided the
claims raise the same, similar or related issues of fact or law.
They are commenced by a proposed class representative who must be
approved by the CAT which must be satisfied that the
representative can act in the interest of the class members, does
not have a conflict of interest, can pay the defendant's costs if
so ordered and has a plan as to governance and consultation.  The
action can only proceed if the CAT has made a collective
proceedings order, which will specify whether the claims can be
brought on an opt-in or opt-out basis.  The first battle for
companies facing claims will be in the context of certification.

Claims can be based either on an alleged infringement of
competition law (so-called stand-alone actions which were prior to
the CRA coming into force out of the CAT's jurisdiction) or a
competition law infringement decision of the Competition and
Markets Authority, the sectorial regulators (for example Ofcom or
OFGEM), the CAT or the European Commission (so-called follow-on
actions).  This would include infringements of the prohibitions on
agreements, arrangements and concerted business practices which
prevent, restrict or distort competition within the UK or the EU
and abuse of a dominant position affecting trade within the UK or
between EU member states.  Companies that have been granted
immunity from fines or leniency for their cooperation with the
authorities in the investigations are not exempted from damages
actions.

Proceedings can be opt-in (brought on behalf of every member of a
class who opts in by notifying the class representative) or opt-
out (brought on behalf of each member of a defined class except
anyone domiciled in the UK who opts out and anyone not domiciled
in the UK unless they opt in).  This means that it will now be
possible for claims to be brought in the UK without needing to
identify every individual claimant.  This is familiar territory in
the US but a major change for the UK.

It remains to be seen how the CAT will exercise its judgment in
assessing the appropriateness of applications for collective
proceedings orders and who will and will not be approved to be the
class representative and rules and guidance are due to be issued.

Another significant change is that the CAT can award damages in
collective proceedings without assessing the amount of damages
recoverable by each individual class member which may well
increase the low value consumer claims.  Judgment in the
collective proceedings will bind all parties represented by the
class representative.  At the same time a right to make a claim in
collective proceedings does not affect the right to bring any
other proceedings in respect of the claim.

Where there are unclaimed damages in an opt-out case, they will be
paid to a charity, and not returned to the defendant.

In an effort to avoid some of the excesses of the "litigation
culture", damages based fee agreements, such as those common in
the US, by which the claimant's lawyers are paid out a percentage
of the damages awarded are not permitted in opt-out collective
proceedings and would be unenforceable.  However other alternative
fee arrangements, such as success fees (an uplift in the legal
fees) and third-party funding are allowed.  Such arrangements
reduce the risk for claimants although, as is usual in the UK, the
general rule that unsuccessful claimants will be ordered to pay
the defendant's costs should still deter the more speculative
claims.

The changes are likely to lead to a significant increase in the
risk of litigation for companies currently under investigation by
the authorities or in respect of which the regulator's
investigations have been concluded.  Infringing companies can try
to avoid litigation by establishing a voluntary redress scheme to
provide compensation to victims of their conduct.  Such scheme
will have to be approved by the CMA.

Conclusion

The ability of claimants to share their legal fees by bringing a
collective action, taken with the growth of third-party funding
and the arrival of aggressive "plaintiff" firms, gives rise to a
significantly increased risk to companies who may have breached
competition law to be sued as part of a class action with a
potentially considerable and unknown liability for damages where
those collective proceedings are on an opt-out basis.

The enhanced injunctive relief which the CAT can grant may
encourage competitors to take action as part of a tactical attack.

Companies need to pay particular attention to infringement
investigations by the regulators since the CAT is bound by an
infringement decision once it is final.

Companies should assess the risk of being pursued under the new
regime and seek to protect against it including reviewing their
competition compliance programs and contracts with customers and
competitors.

The costs of defending proceedings may be insured or insurable and
relevant insurance policies and what is disclosed to underwriters
in the run-up to renewal should be carefully reviewed.

                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Airco Wins Summary Judgment in "Herr"
------------------------------------------------------
In the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit captioned JANICE
J. HERR, individually and as Special Administrator on behalf of
THE ESTATE OF RICHARD J. HERR, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. LINDE LLC,
f/k/a the BOC Group, Inc. and/or Airco, Inc., et al., Defendants,
CASE NO. 10-C-1114 (E.D. Wis.), Judge Rudolph T. Randa granted
defendant Airco, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment, holding that
the plaintiff did not create an issue of fact as to whether
Richard Herr was exposed to asbestos-containing gloves distributed
by Airco.  Alternatively, Judge Randa held that Airco is entitled
to summary judgment on the strict liability claim because the
claim was released in the M&F litigation.

A full-text copy of Judge Randa's Oct. 9, 2015 decision and order
is available at http://is.gd/oDxxlcfrom Leagle.com.

Janice J Herr, Plaintiff, represented by Michael P Cascino,
Cascino Vaughan Law Offices Ltd & Robert G McCoy, Cascino Vaughan
Law Offices Ltd.

Estate of Richard J Herr, Plaintiff, represented by Michael P
Cascino, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices Ltd & Robert G McCoy, Cascino
Vaughan Law Offices Ltd.

Linde Inc, Defendant, represented by Clare Marie Maisano, Esq. --
cmmaisano@ewhlaw.com -- Evert Weathersby Houff, Gabrielle B Adams,
Whyte Hirschboeck Dudek SC, John J Laffey, Whyte Hirschboeck Dudek
SC & Sarah Thomas Pagels, Whyte Hirschboeck Dudek SC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 9th Circ. Affirms Summary Judgment in "Lannes"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed
summary judgment in favor of defendant Flowserve U.S. Inc.,
Jerguson Gage & Valve Co., and Warren Pumps, LLC, in the asbestos
lawsuits captioned JEFFREY J. LANNES, individually and as Personal
Representative of the Estate of Vernon P. Lannes; KRISTI JOHNSON,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. FLOWSERVE U.S., INC., sued individually
and as successor-in-interest to Edward Valve, Inc., Defendant-
Appellee, JEFFREY J. LANNES, individually and as Personal
Representative of the Estate of Vernon P. Lannes; KRISTI JOHNSON,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. FLOWSERVE U.S., INC., sued individually
and as successor-in-interest to Edward Valve, Inc., Defendant, and
JERGUSON GAGE & VALVE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. JEFFREY J.
LANNES, individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate
of Vernon P. Lannes; KRISTI JOHNSON, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.
FLOWSERVE U.S., INC., sued individually and as successor-in-
interest to Edward Valve, Inc. and JERGUSON GAGE & VALVE COMPANY,
Defendants, and WARREN PUMPS, LLC, Defendant-Appellee, NOS. 13-
56391, 13-56393, 13-56397 (9th Cir.), after holding that summary
judgment was proper.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's memorandum dated Oct. 14,
2015, is available at http://is.gd/iHd6wSfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Time to Appeal in "Porta" Enlarged to Feb.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, enlarged the time to perfect appeal in the case
captioned IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to
PORTA, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS - CRANE CO., 2015 NY Slip Op
86095(U)(N.Y. App. Div.), to the February 2016 Term.  A full-text
copy of the Decision dated Oct. 1, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/pAysZUfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurer's Reconsideration Bid Partially Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In a civil action, York International Corporation filed suit
seeking a declaration that Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, its
former insurer, owes a duty to defend and indemnify the Plaintiff
against asbestos-related actions.  On July 9, 2015, the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
entered partial summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff as to a
choice of law issue and struck certain portions of an affidavit
submitted by the Defendant in support of its motion for partial
summary judgment.

Presently before the court is the Defendant"s motion for
reconsideration brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e), wherein it asserts that the court made an error
of law in striking portions of the affidavit and granting partial
summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff.

In a memorandum dated October 13, 2015, U.S. District Judge Sylvia
H. Rambo granted in part and denied in part the Defendant"s
motion.  The Court finds that the testimony of Jerry McCullough, a
consultant and former longtime employee, does not establish the
requisite standard practice necessary to reasonably conclude that
Defendant acted in conformity with that practice on the occasion
in question, and Mr. McCullough has no basis upon which to testify
as to the practices of Plaintiff or Henry E. Wood.  Therefore, the
court granted the Defendant"s motion for reconsideration in part
and place Paragraph 14 of the McCullough Affidavit back on the
record.  The court denied the remainder of Defendant"s motion,
however, and Paragraphs 17 and 19 will remain stricken.  The
inclusion on the record of Paragraph 14 does not create a genuine
issue of material fact that would preclude summary judgment, and
the court"s choice of law analysis remains unchanged.

The case is YORK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Plaintiff v. LIBERTY
MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, CIV. NO. 1:10-CV-0692 (M.D.
Pa.).  A full-text copy of Judge Rambo's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/yoAsClfrom Leagle.com.

York International Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Lee M.
Epstein, Esq. -- lee.epstein@flastergreenberg.com -- at Flaster
Greenberg.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by John
C. Sullivan, Esq. -- jsullivan@christiesullivanyoung.com --
Christie Sullivan & Young, P.C. & Kathleen K. Kerns, Esq. --
kkerns@christiesullivanyoung.com -- Christie Sullivan & Young,
P.C..


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Fenicle" Remanded to Calif. State Court
---------------------------------------------------------
On May 22, 2012, Shirley Fenicle, et al., filed suit against
various defendants, including EECI Inc., in Alameda County
Superior Court.  The Plaintiffs allege that the defendants exposed
decedent George Fenicle to asbestos, and that the exposure was the
legal cause of his mesothelioma and wrongful death.  On April 28,
2015, the Plaintiffs amended their complaint to name Boise Cascade
Company and OfficeMax Incorporated.  On May 29, 2015, the
Defendants removed the matter to federal court under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1441, for putative federal question jurisdiction, and 28
U.S.C. Section 1452, as a bankruptcy-related action.  On June 29,
2015, the Plaintiffs moved to remand the case to state court,
contending: (1) the Defendants' Section 1441 removal was improper
because the District Court lacks federal question jurisdiction;
and (2) the Defendants' Section 1452 removal was improper in three
respects: (i) the Defendants did not seek the consent of all
defendants; (ii) the matter is not a bankruptcy-related action
under Section 1452; and (iii) the case should be remanded on
equitable grounds under Section 1452(b).

In an order dated Oct. 13, 2015, Judge Thelton E. Henderson of the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted the Plaintiffs' motion to remand and remanded
the case to the Superior Court of California, Alameda County for
further adjudication.

The case is SHIRLEY FENICLE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BOISE CASCADE
COMPANY, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 15-CV-02398-TEH (N.D.
Calif.).  A full-text copy of Judge Henderson's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/t9kKtjfrom Leagle.com.

Shirley Fenicle, Plaintiff, represented by Ian Wilfred Alido
Rivamonte, Kazan McClain Satterley & Greenwood, James Lyndon
Oberman, Kazan McClain Lyons Greenwood & Harley, Andrea Carol
Huston, Kazan McClain, Steven Kazan, Kazan McClain Satterley &
Greenwood & Ted William Pelletier, Kazan McClain Satterley &
Greenwood.

Mark Fenicle, Plaintiff, represented by Ian Wilfred Alido
Rivamonte, Kazan McClain Satterley & Greenwood, James Lyndon
Oberman, Kazan McClain Lyons Greenwood & Harley & Andrea Carol
Huston, Kazan McClain.

Mark Fenicle, Plaintiff, represented by Steven Kazan, Kazan
McClain Satterley & Greenwood.

Mark Fenicle, Plaintiff, represented by Ted William Pelletier,
Kazan McClain Satterley & Greenwood.

Laura Montgomery, Plaintiff, represented by Ian Wilfred Alido
Rivamonte, Kazan McClain Satterley & Greenwood, James Lyndon
Oberman, Kazan McClain Lyons Greenwood & Harley, Andrea Carol
Huston, Kazan McClain, Steven Kazan, Kazan McClain Satterley &
Greenwood & Ted William Pelletier, Kazan McClain Satterley &
Greenwood.

Pauline Marie, Plaintiff, represented by Ian Wilfred Alido
Rivamonte, Kazan McClain Satterley & Greenwood, James Lyndon
Oberman, Kazan McClain Lyons Greenwood & Harley, Andrea Carol
Huston, Kazan McClain, Steven Kazan, Kazan McClain Satterley &
Greenwood & Ted William Pelletier, Kazan McClain Satterley &
Greenwood.

Boise Cascade Company, Defendant, represented by Nicolas Peter
Martin, WILSON ELSER LLP, C. Todd Koebele, Esq. --
tkoebele@hkmlawgroup.com -- HKM Law Group, Molly Anne Landon
Friend, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP & William
Murray Hake, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP.

Officemax Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Nicolas Peter
Martin, Esq. -- nick.martin@wilsonelser.com -- WILSON ELSER LLP,
C. Todd Koebele, HKM Law Group, Molly Anne Landon Friend, Esq. --
molly.friend@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman &
Dicker LLP & William Murray Hake, Esq. --
bill.hake@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman &
Dicker LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Stay of Trial in "Smith" Denied
------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, in a decision dated October 15, 2015, denied stay of
trial in the case captioned IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS
LITIGATION relating to SMITH v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO. -
CLEAVER BROOKS, INC., 2015 NY Slip Op 87434(U)(N.Y. App. Div.).  A
full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/XLsmAc
from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Amicus Curiae Allowed in "Dummitt"
---------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of New York granted the motions separately
filed Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc., Environmental
Working Group et al., and United Steel, Paper and Forestry,
Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service
Workers International Union et al., for leave to appear amicus
curiae on the appeal in IN THE MATTER OF NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS
LITIGATION relating to DORIS KAY DUMMITT, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF RONALD DUMMITT, DECEASED, Respondent,
v. A.W. CHESTERTON, ET AL., Defendants, CRANE CO., Appellant, 2015
NY Slip Op 87412 (N.Y. App. Div.), only to the extent that the
proposed brief is accepted as filed.

A full-text copy of the Decision with respect to Product Liability
is available at http://is.gd/yrrOl4from Leagle.com.

A full-text copy of the Decision with respect to Environmental
Working Group is available at http://is.gd/MNKYY0from Leagle.com.

A full-text copy of the Decision with respect to the United Steel
Union is  available at http://is.gd/dTNPGUfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Excludes Settlement Offers in PI Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit captioned GERALD
D. McALVEY, Plaintiff, v. ATLAS COPCO COMPRESSORS, et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 14-CV-64-SMY-SCW (S.D. Ill.), Judge Staci M.
Yandle of the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois granted, among other things, defendant John
Crane's motion in limine to exclude evidence, testimony, or
reference to settlement offers and/or negotiations.

A full-text copy of Judge Yandle's memorandum and order dated Oct.
15, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/EW4JD3from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3d. Circ. Affirms Dismissal of "Mandelbrot"
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Mandelbrot, Esq., and the Mandelbrot Law Firm appeal
from the District Court's order granting the motion to dismiss of
Appellees Armstrong World Industries Asbestos Personal Injury
Settlement Trust, Babcock & Wilcox Asbestos Personal Injury
Settlement Trust, Owens Corning/Fibreboard Asbestos Personal
Injury Trust, Federal Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury Trust, United
States Gypsum Asbestos Personal Injury Settlement Trust, and
Celotex Asbestos Settlement Trust.  The District Court dismissed
Mandelbrot's suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding
that Mandelbrot lacked Article III standing because there was no
injury in fact.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the
District Court's dismissal of the action for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.

The appeals case is MICHAEL J. MANDELBROT; MANDELBROT LAW FIRM,
Appellants, v. ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES ASBESTOS PERSONAL INJURY
SETTLEMENT TRUST; BABCOCK & WILCOX ASBESTOS PERSONAL INJURY
SETTLEMENT TRUST; OWENS CORNING/FIBREBOARD ASBESTOS PERSONAL
INJURY TRUST; FEDERAL MOGUL ASBESTOS PERSONAL INJURY TRUST; UNITED
STATES GYPSUM ASBESTOS PERSONAL INJURY SETTLEMENT TRUST; CELOTEX
ASBESTOS SETTLEMENT TRUST, NO. 14-4173 (3d. Cir.).  A full-text
copy of the Decision dated Oct. 15, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/PbZsR8from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers' Fibro Claims vs. Fieldcrest Junked
------------------------------------------------------------
Dorothy Jane Ketchie and Clegg Lee Joines are appealing the Full
Commission's order denying their claims on the grounds that their
claims are not "covered claims," as that term is defined in N.C.
Gen. Stat. Section 97-130(4), because their last injurious
exposure to asbestos occurred before their employer, Fieldcrest
Cannon, Inc., was a member of the North Carolina Self-Insurance
Security Association.

After careful review, the Court of Appeals of North Carolina
affirmed, holding that when workers who suffer from occupational
disease incurred their last injurious exposure to asbestos prior
to a self-insurer joining the Security Association, the Court
cannot interpret the statute in a manner contrary to its plain and
unambiguous language, even if this interpretation bars recovery by
workers who have no other recourse due to the employer's
bankruptcy.

The case is DOROTHY JANE KETCHIE and CLEGG LEE JOINES, Employees,
Plaintiffs, v. FIELDCREST CANNON, INC., Insolvent Self-Insured
Employer, N.C. SELF-INSURANCE SECURITY ASSOCIATION, Defendants,
NO. COA15-140 (N.C. App.).  A full-text copy of the Decision dated
Oct. 6, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/g9jIzmfrom Leagle.com.

Wallace and Graham, P.A., by Michael B. Pross, Edward L. Pauley,
and Cathy A. Williams, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Stuart Law Firm, PLLC, by Catherine R. Stuart, Esq. --
cstuart@stuartlawfirm.com -- and Susan J. Vanderweert for
Defendants-Appellees.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shipowners Fail to Dismiss "Gillain"
-----------------------------------------------------
At some point in 1996, Lee E. Gillain brought claims against
various defendants, including various shipowners represented by
Thompson Hine LLP and North American Trailing Company.  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
eleven years after filing his asbestos action, on October 10,
2007, the Plaintiff filed a voluntary petition under Chapter 7 in
the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of
Florida.  The bankruptcy case was closed approximately four months
later, on February 12, 2008.  On February 7, 2011 -- approximately
three years after the bankruptcy case was closed and approximately
fifteen years after Plaintiff first filed his asbestos action --
the MDL Court reinstated the asbestos action, which had been
dismissed by Judge Weiner in 1996 or 1997.

The Defendants have moved for summary judgment, arguing that (1)
the Plaintiff's claims are barred by way of judicial estoppel
because he failed to disclose the asbestos action as an asset in
his bankruptcy filing, and (2) the Plaintiff cannot pursue the
asbestos action because it is now owned by the bankruptcy estate.

In a memorandum dated Oct. 1, 2015, Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, denied summary judgment in favor of the Defendants
on grounds of the real party in interest/standing without
prejudice.

The case is LEE E. GILLAIN, Plaintiff, v. A-C PRODUCT LIABILITY
TRUST, et al., Defendants, CONSOLIDATED UNDER MDL 875, CIVIL
ACTION NO. 2:11-CV-32215-ER (E.D. Pa.).  A full-text copy of Judge
Robreno's Decision is available at http://is.gd/NLRLwIfrom
Leagle.com.

LEE E. GILLAIN, 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.

A-C PRODUCT LIABILITY TRUST, Defendant, represented by WILLIAM A.
VISCOMI.

ARGO INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by MARIA A.
KORTAN, GOODRICH CORPORATION.

AUBURN MFG. CO., Defendant, represented by EDWARD J. CASS,
GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN.

AURORA PUMP DIVISION OF GENERAL SIGNAL CORP., Defendant,
represented by ERNEST W. AUCIELLO, JR., TUCKER, ELLIS & WEST LLP.

BOYD CO., A.B., Defendant, represented by EDWARD J. CASS,
GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN.

BRYAN STEAM CORP., Defendant, represented by EDWARD J. CASS,
GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN.

CHESTERTON CO., A.W., Defendant, represented by THOMAS P. ERVEN,
YOUNG ALEXANDER LPA & JOHN P. PATTERSON, TUCKER ELLIS WEST.

CROWLY RED STACK TOWING CO. C/O CROWLEY -, Defendant, represented
by HAROLD W. HENDERSON, THOMPSON, HINE LLP.

FEDERAL-MOGUL CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by EDWARD J.
CASS, GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN.

GATKE CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by EDWARD J. CASS,
GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN & JOHN M. HERKE, SPYRIDON PALERMO &
DORNAN.

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant, represented by REGINALD S.
KRAMER, OLDHAM KRAMER.

GLOBE SEAWAYS INC., Defendant, represented by HAROLD W. HENDERSON,
THOMPSON, HINE LLP.

GOODALL RUBBER CO., Defendant, represented by EDWARD J. CASS,
GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN.

HAJOCA CORP., Defendant, represented by EDWARD J. CASS, GALLAGHER
SHARP FULTON NORMAN.

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

INGERSOLL-DRESSER PUMP, Defendant, represented by EDWARD J. CASS,
GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN.

INGERSOLL-RAND CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by EDWARD J.
CASS, GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN.

JANOS INDUSTRIAL INSULATION CORP., Defendant, represented by
EDWARD J. CASS, GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN.

JOHN CRANE INC., Defendant, represented by STEPHEN H. DANIELS,
MCMAHON DEGULIS LLP.

MARITIME OVERSEAS CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by RICHARD
C. BINZLEY, THOMPSON, HINE AND FLORY & HAROLD W. HENDERSON,
THOMPSON, HINE LLP.

MELRATH GASKET, INC., Defendant, represented by WILLIAM A.
VISCOMI.

NOLAND COMPANY, Defendant, represented by EDWARD J. CASS,
GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN.

NORTH AMERICAN TRAILING CO., Defendant, represented by ROBERT T.
CONIAM, RAY ROBINSON CARLE & DAVIES, SANDRA MAURER KELLY, RAY
ROBINSON CARLE & DAVIES, CHRISTOPHER D. KUEBLER, RAY ROBINSON
CARLE & DAVIES P.L.L. & JULIA R. BROUHARD, RAY, ROBINSON, CARLE &
DAVIES PLL.

PPG INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant, represented by DONALD A. POWELL,
HANNA CAMPBELL & POWELL, LLP.

PECORA CORP., Defendant, represented by EDWARD J. CASS, GALLAGHER
SHARP FULTON NORMAN.

PHOENIX SPECIALTY MANUFACTURING CO., INC., Defendant, represented
by EDWARD J. CASS, GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN.

PREFERRED UTLITIES MFG. CORP., Defendant, represented by EDWARD J.
CASS, GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN.

PUERTO RICO MARINE MANAGEMENT INC., Defendant, represented by
RICHARD C. BINZLEY, THOMPSON, HINE AND FLORY.

RHOPAC INC., Defendant, represented by ERNEST W. AUCIELLO, JR.,
TUCKER, ELLIS & WEST LLP.

SKINNER ENGINE COMPANY, INC., Defendant, represented by EDWARD J.
CASS, GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN.

WARREN PUMPS, INC., Defendant, represented by JAMES T. MILLICAN,
II, GALLAGHER SHARP.

ZIMMERMAN PACKING & MFG., INC., Defendant, represented by EDWARD
J. CASS, GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN.

FIBREBOARD CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by DONA L. ARNOLD,
BENESCH FRIEDLANDER COPLAN ARONOFF & ERIC LARSON ZALUD, BENESICH
FRIEDLANDER COPLAN & ARONOFF.

NORTH AMERICAN TRAILING CO., Cross Claimant, represented by
CHRISTOPHER D. KUEBLER, RAY ROBINSON CARLE & DAVIES P.L.L., JULIA
R. BROUHARD, RAY, ROBINSON, CARLE & DAVIES PLL, ROBERT T. CONIAM,
RAY ROBINSON CARLE & DAVIES & SANDRA MAURER KELLY, RAY ROBINSON
CARLE & DAVIES.

NORTH AMERICAN TRAILING CO., Cross Defendant, represented by
CHRISTOPHER D. KUEBLER, RAY ROBINSON CARLE & DAVIES P.L.L., JULIA
R. BROUHARD, RAY, ROBINSON, CARLE & DAVIES PLL, ROBERT T. CONIAM,
RAY ROBINSON CARLE & DAVIES & SANDRA MAURER KELLY, RAY ROBINSON
CARLE & DAVIES.

FEDERAL-MOGUL CORPORATION, Cross Defendant, represented by EDWARD
J. CASS, GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN.

FIBREBOARD CORPORATION, Cross Defendant, represented by DONA L.
ARNOLD, BENESCH FRIEDLANDER COPLAN ARONOFF & ERIC LARSON ZALUD,
BENESICH FRIEDLANDER COPLAN & ARONOFF.

GATKE CORPORATION, Cross Defendant, represented by EDWARD J. CASS,
GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN & JOHN M. HERKE, SPYRIDON PALERMO &
DORNAN.

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Cross Defendant, represented by REGINALD
S. KRAMER, OLDHAM KRAMER.

GLOBE SEAWAYS INC., Cross Defendant, represented by HAROLD W.
HENDERSON, THOMPSON, HINE LLP.

GOODALL RUBBER CO., Cross Defendant, represented by EDWARD J.
CASS, GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN.

HAJOCA CORP., Cross Defendant, represented by EDWARD J. CASS,
GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN.

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

INGERSOLL-DRESSER PUMP, Cross Defendant, represented by EDWARD J.
CASS, GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN.

INGERSOLL-RAND CORPORATION, Cross Defendant, represented by EDWARD
J. CASS, GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN.

JANOS INDUSTRIAL INSULATION CORP., Cross Defendant, represented by
EDWARD J. CASS, GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN.

JOHN CRANE INC., Cross Defendant, represented by STEPHEN H.
DANIELS, MCMAHON DEGULIS LLP.

MARITIME OVERSEAS CORPORATION, Cross Defendant, represented by
RICHARD C. BINZLEY, THOMPSON, HINE AND FLORY & HAROLD W.
HENDERSON, THOMPSON, HINE LLP.

MELRATH GASKET, INC., Cross Defendant, represented by WILLIAM A.
VISCOMI.

NOLAND COMPANY, Cross Defendant, represented by EDWARD J. CASS,
GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN.

PECORA CORP., Cross Defendant, represented by EDWARD J. CASS,
GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN.

PHOENIX SPECIALTY MANUFACTURING CO., INC., Cross Defendant,
represented by EDWARD J. CASS, GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN.

PPG INDUSTRIES, INC., Cross Defendant, represented by DONALD A.
POWELL, HANNA CAMPBELL & POWELL, LLP.

PREFERRED UTLITIES MFG. CORP., Cross Defendant, represented by
EDWARD J. CASS, GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN.

PUERTO RICO MARINE MANAGEMENT INC., Cross Defendant, represented
by RICHARD C. BINZLEY, THOMPSON, HINE AND FLORY.

RHOPAC INC., Cross Defendant, represented by ERNEST W. AUCIELLO,
JR., TUCKER, ELLIS & WEST LLP.

SKINNER ENGINE COMPANY, INC., Cross Defendant, represented by
EDWARD J. CASS, GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN.

WARREN PUMPS, INC., Cross Defendant, represented by JAMES T.
MILLICAN, II, GALLAGHER SHARP.

ZIMMERMAN PACKING & MFG., INC., Cross Defendant, represented by
EDWARD J. CASS, GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shipowners Fail in Bid to Junk "Hadsock"
---------------------------------------------------------
Parnell Hadsock alleges that he was exposed to asbestos while
working aboard various ships.  The Plaintiff asserts that he
developed an asbestos-related illness as a result of exposure to
asbestos aboard those ships.  Various shipowners represented by
Thompson Hine LLP have moved for summary judgment, arguing that
(1) the Plaintiff's claims are barred by way of judicial estoppel
because the Plaintiff failed to disclose the asbestos action as an
asset in his bankruptcy filing, and (2) the Plaintiff cannot
pursue the asbestos action because it is now owned by the
bankruptcy estate.

In a memorandum dated Sept. 28, 2015, Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania denied the Defendants' motion, holding that none of
the cases relied upon by the Defendant support the conclusion that
the Plaintiff's asbestos claims are property of the bankruptcy
estate.

Judge Robreno held, "Applying the rationale of Segal, the Court
concludes that, given the facts of the present case, and the
standard set forth by maritime law for determining accrual of an
asbestos cause of action (including, specifically, its utilization
of the "discovery rule"), Plaintiff's malignancy asbestos claims
are not "sufficiently rooted in his pre-bankruptcy past to
constitute property of the bankruptcy estate (pursuant to the
exception to 11 U.S.C. Section 541(a)(1) set forth in In re
O'Dowd). Instead, the general rule of Section 541(a)(1), as
discussed in In re O'Dowd, 233 F.3d at 202 (limiting bankruptcy
estate property to that in existence at the time of the filing of
the petition), is applicable. Plaintiff's malignancy asbestos
claims (which did not accrue until after the bankruptcy petition
was filed and the bankruptcy action closed) are, therefore, not
property of the bankruptcy trustee (and not subject to pursuit by
creditors in the bankruptcy action)."

The case is PARNELL HADSOCK, Plaintiff, v. AMERADA HESS CORP., ET
AL., Defendants, CONSOLIDATED UNDER MDL 875, E.D. PA CIVIL ACTION
NO. 2:11-33182-ER (E.D. Pa.).  A full-text copy of Judge Robreno's
Decision is available at http://is.gd/DpcZFRfrom Leagle.com.

PARNELL HADSOCK, 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.

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

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

JOHN CRANE INC., Defendant, represented by STEPHEN H. DANIELS,
MCMAHON DEGULIS LLP.

AMOCO SHIPPING CO., Defendant, represented by JOHN G. GAUL, MARON,
MARVEL, BRADLEY & ANDERSON, P.A., LINA M. CARRERAS, MARON MARVEL
BRADLEY ANDERSON PA & WAYNE A. MARVEL, MARON MARVEL BRADLEY &
ANDERSON PA.

TRINIDAD CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by HAROLD W.
HENDERSON, THOMPSON, HINE LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Couple Priced Out of Fibro Cancer Treatment
------------------------------------------------------------
Stuart Cumming, writing for The Chronicle, reported that former
Toowoomba couple Kim and Linda Stokes are being priced out of an
asbestos cancer treatment that could extend their precious time
together.

Mr and Mrs Stokes met as children while living in Toowoomba and
have been married for the past 38 years.

They now live in Currimundi.

While some patients coping with melanoma pay $6.10 for a treatment
of immunotherapy drug Keytruda, Mr Stokes' bill is in the order of
$11,300.

The difference is the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme only covers
Keytruda for the treatment of unresectable or metastatic melanoma
in adults, despite growing evidence it has had positive effects
for people fighting mesothelioma.

Ironically, Mr Stokes is a former melanoma patient, having had a
cancerous mole removed from his back more than a decade ago.

The 59-year-old and his wife had known for years that his
boilermaker apprenticeship at Alcoa of Australia aluminium plant
in Geelong could one day catch up with him.

It was common for him to pull on asbestos gloves and welding
jackets during his late teens to shield himself from the heat of
molten aluminium.

His contact with the deadly substance ended when he completed the
apprenticeship but its remnants stayed in his body.

Pain in his chest earlier this year was initially thought to be a
broken rib but he could not remember a heavy impact to cause it.

Scans initially showed a shadowed area, which further tests
indicated was a tumour.

Mrs Stokes recalled her reaction when it was confirmed in April as
malignant plural mesothelioma.

Patients have an average life expectancy of less than a year after
diagnosis.

"I can just remember a groan coming out of my mouth because we
knew that was the worst possible diagnosis," Mrs Stokes said.

Mr and Mrs Stokes' two children and six grandchildren are among
those who have rallied to give Mr Stokes a boost in the face of
his grim outlook.

He has completed the second of six scheduled rounds of
chemotherapy at Sunshine Coast Haematology and Oncology Clinic in
Buderim.

His oncologist advised him if he were to try Keytruda treatment,
it would cost $11,500 every three weeks for an undetermined
period.

That was a cost the Stokes could not bear.

Mr Stokes learned of the drug through a campaign by a Tasmanian
mesothelioma patient to have it added to the Pharmaceutical
Benefits Scheme.

The woman, Louise Williams, has had a remarkable return to health
since beginning Keytruda treatment earlier this year.

Mr Stokes is supporting her push.

"If it slows things up, other drugs and other things may become
available."

Member for Fisher Mal Brough said he had requested a briefing on
Keytruda in relation to the scheme.

"I do sympathise with Mr Stokes and other sufferers of
mesothelioma as I have seen first-hand the impacts on those who
are diagnosed," Mr Brough said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Christchurch Arts Centre Faces Fibro Bill
----------------------------------------------------------
Conan Young, writing for Radio New Zealand News, reported that the
Christchurch Arts Centre is counting the cost of the recent
discovery of asbestos in one of its buildings.

The collection of historical buildings that used to serve as the
city's university is undergoing a massive $290 million repair job.
The asbestos was found in six rooms in the building that used to
serve as the original Christchurch Boys High School.

Arts Centre chief executive Andre Lovatt said some workers may
have been exposed to the material, which was in a thin layer of
plaster on the walls, when blackboards were removed in the 1960s.
"That work that was being done was not really in the location
where some of this material was but the main contractor had been
involved in cutting strips into the walls, which creates dust, and
so there's definitely potential for it to have been asbestos-
containing material."

Mr Lovatt said the impact of exposure to asbestos is not seen
until many years later and the matter was being treated seriously.

Decontaminating the building will add a six-figure sum to the
overall cost of the project and put it up to eight weeks behind
schedule, he said.

"We're trying to upgrade and modernise the Arts Centre in so many
other ways and so it does have an implication on our restoration
programme but it's important we don't leave a legacy downstream."

Anxious wait for centre's re-opening

The restoration of the buildings is due to reach the halfway mark
in March 2016, at which point tenants including Canterbury
University will start moving in.

Jude Gibson, an actor at the Court Theatre, one of the Arts
Centre's most well-known tenants before the earthquakes, attended
a recent open day for the repair project.

"It was the most amazing building to be around and to work in and
to have lunch nearby and it was a real privilege coming to work --
so I was absolutely gutted by the earthquake and the damage."

Another Court Theatre actor, Tim Bartlett, said he could not wait
to see the buildings back up and running as a centre for the arts.
"There was all of the performance spaces and the restaurants and
the bars and it was a real swirling hub of pleasant activity in
the evenings -- and to see it finally, the light's come on again."

One of the stonemasons brought over from the northern hemisphere
to work on the project, Tristan Delpouve, was kept busy showing
off his skills as part of the open day.

"It's good to leave a legacy of yourself somewhere," he said.
"Maybe if I come back one day with my kids I can say look, I did
that when I was young."

His work was not just about replicating the buildings' original
decorations, he said.

"Some you can analyse what they did and say 'that's a mistake, I'm
going to do it differently' or you could just copy it because it's
just amazing."

Buildings due to open by March include the Great Hall, the clock
tower and the old Boys' High rooms.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CSR to Contribute to Fibro Settlement
------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reported that a leading building
products company must contribute thousands toward settlements for
asbestos-related illnesses contracted at State Electricity
Commission of Victoria facilities in the 1960s and 1970s.

Building product company CSR, Bradford Insulation -- also under
the CSR banner -- and James Hardie in the 60s and 70s manufactured
and distributed Hardie-BI asbestos insulation which was supplied
to the SECV and its contractors.

Between 1997 and 2003 James Hardie -- now Amaca Pty Ltd --
contributed money toward settlements for asbestos exposure at SECV
sites, and last year went to the Victorian Supreme Court to make a
claim against the other two companies.

Justice Cameron Macaulay ordered CSR and Bradford to make
contributions in respect of five people who were exposed to
asbestos.

The money is expected to go to the Asbestos Injuries Compensation
Fund, which owns Amaca and manages claims for people with
asbestos-related diseases.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Contractors Cited for Fibro Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------
Construction companies cited for exposing workers to asbestos

Alexandra Kukulka, writing for Chicago Sun-Times, reported that a
contractor and subcontractor have been cited by the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration for exposing workers to asbestos
hazards while replacing a commercial roof in Chicago.

Continental Contractors was cited for 11 serious violations, and
Local Roofing Inc., which had been subcontracted to demolish,
remove and replace the roofing system, was issued nine serious
violations after workers were exposed to asbestos while working in
the 4200 block of North Knox, according to a statement from OSHA.

The companies were cited for failing to conduct an exposure
assessment for asbestos, establish a respiratory protection
program, use engineering controls to remove material likely to
contain asbestos, train workers on asbestos hazards, and provide
personal protective clothing, according to OSHA.

"Asbestos exposure can cause chronic lung disease and cancer. No
worker should be exposed to this potentially life-ending substance
without being trained and provided protective equipment," Angeline
Loftus, an OSHA representative, said in the statement.

OSHA proposed that Continental Contractors, located in Niles,
should pay $21,600 in penalties; and Local Roofing, located in
Gurnee, pay $48,510, the agency said.

Continental Contractors and Local Roofing Inc. could not be
immediately reached for comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aussie Contractor Claims Fibro Exposure
--------------------------------------------------------
Ainslie Drewitt-Smith, writing for ABC News, reported that a
contract plumber has spoken out after he was exposed to asbestos
while working on a development at HMAS Albatross on the South
Coast.

Dave Ahrens was employed by Axis Plumbing to cut pipes, as part of
the new Helicopter Aircrew Training System (HATS) being built on
the naval air station near Nowra.

He claims the asbestos was discovered in August after developer,
Lend Lease, had the pipes swabbed.

However Mr Ahrens said workers weren't told the result of the
tests until September.

"My biggest concern is did I bring it home, and the timeframe," he
said.

"We cut it on the 16th [August], I bought my clothes home, chucked
it in the laundry with everyone else's and two weeks later we get
a result.

"It was tested on the 24th [August] and positive on the same day,
and then [the result] sat on the shelf for five days until
September 1st," Mr Ahrens said.

He's slammed Lend Lease and the Department of Defence for not
acting sooner to protect workers.

"They knew where we were working, and the footprint of the
building. Why wasn't it checked."

"I would like to know why we were put in there and exposed.

"There was five or six areas within this HATS project that we had
dug, cutting off water mains, capped them and we were walking
around freely.

"But after Comcare arrived there was all exclusions zones and no
one was allowed in there and all of the areas got remediated," Mr
Ahrens said.

A SafeWork NSW spokesperson has confirmed Mr Ahren's allegations.

"An investigation found that workers were exposed to low levels of
asbestos while cutting underground pipes that contained bonded
asbestos during remediation works on the site," the SafeWork NSW
Spokesperson said.

"An occupational hygienist conducted sample testing which returned
a positive result for asbestos containing material, however air
monitoring at the site returned a negative result for asbestos
fibres.

"Worker's vehicles were also tested and no asbestos was found.

"All workers involved in the incident received health monitoring
by a registered health professional and they have been encouraged
to register on the National Asbestos Exposure Register," the
spokesperson said.

SafeWork NSW has also said it will continue to monitor the
situation, "to ensure the systems of work used by the principal
contractor are appropriate."

Comcare said it is also aware of the incident at HMAS Albatross.

A spokesperson for Comcare said it was notified of the incident by
the Department of Defence and has conducted a workplace
inspection.

A spokesperson for Lend Lease said there is no ongoing risk or
imminent threat to the workers on the site.

"Comcare and SafeWork (NSW) both determined that the processes and
procedures in place at the time of the incident complied with the
Work Health and Safety Act 2011 and the Work Health and Safety
Regulations 2011."

The Department of Defence said it was aware of the matter.

"Defence's contractors are required to comply with all relevant
State and Federal Legislation," a spokesperson said.

"Comcare and SafeWork (NSW) investigations regarding this incident
confirmed that Lend Lease has complied with the relevant WHS Act
and Regulations."

The ABC has sought a response from Axis Plumbing.



                            *********

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  * * *