CAR_Public/151030.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, October 30, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 217


                            Headlines


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Summary Judgment Bid in "Boundas" Denied
AEROHIVE NETWORKS: Defending Suits Over Alleged Misleading Report
AIR LINE PILOTS: Ruling on Atty. Fees in "Brady" Case Upheld
AMERICAN TOBACCO: Trial Ct. Ruling in State's Suit Reversed
ANGLO AMERICAN: Says Silicosis Suit Lacks Common Issues

ANHEUSER-BUSCH INBEV: Beck's Settlement to Benefit Consumers
ASHLEY MADISON: May Need to Update Online Terms & Conditions
AUDIOEYE INC: Shareholder Suits Filed Against Company, Officers
BARCLAYS: Settles Foreign-Exchange Rigging Class Action for $1.2BB
CALIBER HOME: Objector Must Post $38,000 Appeals Bond

CAMERON MUTUAL: Settlement in "Adams" Wins Final Approval
CANADA: Labrador Residential Class Action Lawsuit Ongoing
CELLADON CORP: Consolidation of 3 Securities Class Actions Seen
CF MARTS: Faces Overtime Class Action in Pennsylvania
CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Defending Naylor Farms Case

CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Discovery Has Not Yet Commenced in "Dodson"
CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Discovery Has Not Yet Commenced in "Donelson"
CHEMICAL & MINING: S.D.N.Y. Judge Consolidates Class Suits
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss Moved to Jan. 14
CONOCOPHILLIPS PIPE: 8th Cir. Decertifies Environmental Suit

DAIRYAMERICA INC: Nov. 16 Hearing on Bid to Amend "Carlin" Suit
ECOLAB INC: Wins Summary Judgment in "Charlot" Case
EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Feb. 17 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Robb Says Settlement Not Enough Restitution
EL POLLO: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action

ELECTRONIC ARTS: To Seek Further Court Review in "Davis" Case
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Court Granted Bid to Dismiss Shareholder Action
ENOVA INTERNATIONAL: "Kristensen" Suit in Nevada Still Open
EPIRUS BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Agreed-to $400 Fee and Expense Paid
EQUIFAX INC: Dismissal Bids in "Jones" Case Denied

FACEBOOK INC: Motion to Compel Discovery in "Campbell" Granted
FIRST ACCEPTANCE: Mediation in Class Action Held
FIRST SOLAR: To File Appeal From "Smilovits" Ruling
HOUSTON AMERICAN: $7MM Settlement in Shareholder Case Now Paid
ILLINOIS: Deaf Inmates' Suit Obtains Class Action Status

INDIANAPOLIS BUSINESS: Faces Class Action Over Katina Powell Book
INOGEN INC: Securities Class Action Closed
INSULET CORP: Class Suits Filed Over Inflated Share Price
INTERCLOUD SYSTEMS: No Decision Yet on Motion to Dismiss Suit
IQOR HOLDINGS: Minn. Judge Certifies Class of Call-Center Workers

IRADIMED CORP: Accrued Insignificant Amount Related Class Action
JINKOSOLAR HOLDING: March 11 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: "Ferrar" Baby Power Suit Remanded
LAS VEGAS, NV: Police Union Sues Over New Law on Paid Time Off
LONGS DRUG STORES: Pre-Certification Discovery Order Vacated

LOS ANGELES, CA: LAUSD Makes Bogus Claims v. Teachers, Suit Says
MARICOPA, AZ: Contempt Hearings on Hold Until End of October
MARSHALL SQUARE: Faces Class Action Over Resort Fire
MEMPHIS, TN: Cops Awarded Monetary Damages, Attorneys' Fees
MMA CAPITAL: Hearing to Approve Class Action Settlement Set

MOTORS LIQUIDATION: 100 Recall Suits Filed v. New GM at July 20
NABORS COMPLETION: Must Defend Against "Ridgeway" Action
NAUGATUCK VALLEY: Jury Trial Sought in Maryland Class Actions
NEW YORK, NY: Ex-Police Commissioner Appears Before Judge
NEW YORK, NY: Damages Trial in Parole Class Suit to Start Dec. 7

NORTHLAND INVESTMENT: Attorney Mulls Class Suit Over Church Street
NPC INTERNATIONAL: Denial of Arbitration Bid Affirmed
ON DECK: Faces Class Actions in S.D.N.Y. Over IPO
ORBITAL ATK: Agreed to Settle Stockholder Litigation
PENNSYLVANIA: DOC's Preliminary Objections Partly Overruled

PORSCHE: Car Owners File Class Action Over Windshield Glare
PROFESSIONAL MANAGEMENT: Dist. Ct. Order in Szczurek Case Affirmed
PRESBYTERIAN HOMES: Faces Class Action Over Leases
QC HOLDINGS: Settlement in "Lee" Case to Be Completed by Yearend
QC HOLDINGS: Settlement Talks Urged in "Stemple" Litigation

QC HOLDINGS: Faces "Marquez" Class Action in C.D. Cal.
RCS CAPITAL: ARCH Trust Litigation Still Pending
RCS CAPITAL: To Defend Against "Weston" Amended Complaint
RCS CAPITAL: Dismissal of ARCP Shareholder Class Action Sought
RUSHCARD: Prepaid Debit Card Customers May Opt for Arbitration

SAM'S WEST: Won't Honor Fresh Food Refund Guarantee, Suit Says
SCO FAMILY: Charity Workers Underpaid, Class Suit Alleges
SIERRA HIGH SCHOOL: Calif. School Sued Over Lesbian T-Shirt
SNYDER'S-LANCE: Tentative Settlement Agreement Reached
SNYDER'S-LANCE: Continues to Defend IBOs Class Action

SONY PICTURES: Settles Class Suit by Hacked Employees
SPRINT SPECTRUM: "Emilio" Plaintiff May Amend Complaint
SQUARE 1: 3 Class Actions Filed Over PacWest Merger
STRATEGIC REALTY: $5MM Settlement in IPO Suit Approved
STUART PETROLEUM: "Dyson" Case Wins Conditional Certification

SWATCH GROUP: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss "Reed" Class Action
TOBIRA THERAPEUTICS: Engaged in Confirmatory Discovery
TRUECAR INC: Faces "Mahapatra" Class Action in C.D. Cal.
TRUECAR INC: Faces Participating Dealer Litigation
UNITED STATES: EBCI Among Tribes to Receive Settlement Funds

UNITED STATES: Dist. Ct. Narrows Claims in "Jarita" Suit
UNITED STATES: Class Certification Bid Granted in "Hart" Case
VALEANT PHARMA: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
VENAXIS INC: Defending "Bolt" Action in Colorado
VERISMA: Class Action Over Medical Records Copying Costs Proceeds

VERSACE: Faces Suit Over Misclassification of Fashion Interns
VERTEX ENERGY: Proposed Class Yet to Be Certified
VIRGINIA: Plaintiffs Challenge Bid to Dismiss Jail Class Action
VIVINT SOLAR: Class Action Settlement Remains Pending
VIVINT SOLAR: Defending Class Action by Technicians

VIVINT SOLAR: Dismissal of IPO Related Class Actions Sought
VIVINT SOLAR: Expects Consolidation of Suits Over SunEdison Deal
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Mass Tort MDL Deals Need More Judicial Review
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Wants Emissions Class Actions Heard in Virginia
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Plaintiffs Seek to Stop Monthly Car Payments

WAFFLE HOUSE: Sued Over Unfair Use of Background Checks
WARNER BROS: Hollywood Studios Discriminate v. Deaf, Suit Says
WEIGHT WATCHERS: Continues to Defend Securities Litigation
WESTPORT FUTURES: Received Final Court Approval of Settlement
ZAFGEN INC: Faces Securities Class Action in Massachusetts

ZEOBIT: Thousands of MacKeeper Buyers File for Refunds

* Class-Action Threats Number One Concern for In-House Attorneys
* Cos. Respond to Suits Over Moldy Front-Loading Washing Machines
* FDA Has Yet to Decide on "Diet" Soft Drinks Labeling Issue
* Gold Mining Cos. No Realistic Alternative to Silicosis Suit


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Rozumek" Remanded to Illinois State Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MACo Fails to Dismiss Libby Worker's Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5th Cir. Affirms Ruling in "Bartel"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shipowners' Fail in Bid to Junk 14 PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate's Bid for Insurance Arbitration Stayed

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleaver-Brooks Fails to Dismiss "Ricci"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alcoa Withdraws Appeal in "Andrucki"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plumber Gets Positive Fibro Results
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Construction Company Exposes Workers to Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Veterans, Teachers Oppose FACT Act

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Settlement Reached Over Victoria Fibro Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Causes County Workers to Leave Bldg.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found in Christchurch Arts Centre
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dunedin Hospital Closed for Fibro Clean-up
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Guam On-Island Toxic Dust Disposal Proposed

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firefighters Bear Burden of Fibro Deaths
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro-hit School Forced to Close
ASBESTOS UPDATE: UK Calls Eradication of Fibro-Infested Areas
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family, 3-Yr. Old Exposed to Dangerous Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers Exposed to Fibro in WA Wheatbelt

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Seeks Better Fibro Demolition Rules
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aussies At Risk from Fibro in Imported Cement
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Hospital Staff Could Be Exposed to Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: School Fibro Problems May Cost EUR10MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Soldiers with Mesothelioma Unfairly Treated

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Dies After 18 Months of Fibro Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ACT Spends 26K for Acton Tunnel Fibro Clean-Up
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Delays Tyne Tunnels' Re-Opening
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro-Ridden Ruins of Hotel Left Uncovered
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oregon Fibro Rules Lags Behind Minimum Standards

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found in Dubai, Abu Dhabi New Bldgs.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Killed by Fibro 50 Years After Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: More Deadly Dust Found at Bulla Tip
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Infests Tobribridge McDonald's Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nauru Buildings Need $20MM to Remove Fibro

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carpenter Has Mesothelioma Due to Fibro Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oregon DEQ Mandates Fibro Test Before Demolition
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Realtor Exposses Untrained Laborers to Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Energy Continues to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Int'l. Continues to Defend Fibro Suits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Katy Industries Has Pending Fibro Claims


                            *********


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Summary Judgment Bid in "Boundas" Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John J. Tharp, Jr. denied Plaintiff's motion for
summary judgment in the case captioned GS TIFFANY BOUNDAS,
individually and on behalf of a class, Plaintiff, v. ABERCROMBIE &
FITCH STORES, INC., an Ohio corporation, Defendant, No.: 10 C
04866, (N.D. Ill.)

GS Tiffany Boundas, individually and on behalf of a class, alleges
that Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. breached a contract it had
made with all members of the class when it voided the value of a
number of promotional gift cards that Abercrombie had given class
members in late 2009 in exchange for their purchases of at least
$100 worth of goods.

Boundas moved for summary judgment.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated August 28, 2015
available at http://is.gd/N4mKjjfrom Leagle.com, Judge Tharp, Jr.
denied Boundas' motion to dismiss.  According to the Court, denial
of Boundas's summary judgment motion is warranted, not because
there are disputed issues of material fact, but because the legal
theory on which Boundas' breach of contract claim is based is
fatally flawed.  Because the only legal theory she has advanced is
untenable, it may be appropriate to require Boundas, pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f), to show cause why judgment should not be
entered against her and in favor of Abercrombie.

A status hearing was set in the case for September 10, 2015.

Vincent Louis DiTommaso, Esq. -- vdt@ditommasolaw.com -- Andrew
Charles Murphy, Esq. -- acm@ditommasolaw.com -- Patrick Doyle
Austermuehle, Esq. -- paustermuehle@ditommasolaw.com -- and Peter
Scott Lubin, Esq. -- psl@ditommasolaw.com -- of DiTommaso Lubin,
P.C. -- James S. Shedden, Esq. -- Matthew Scott Burns, Esq. --
mattburns@dawnforwomen.com -- and Tony Kim, Esq., of Schad,
Diamond & Shedden, P.C. serve as counsel for Plaintiff GS Tiffany
Boundas

Brian Joseph Murray, Esq. -- bjmurray@jonesday.com -- and
Elizabeth P. Kessler, Esq. -- ekessler@jonesday.com -- of Jones
Day serve as counsel for Defendant Abercrombie & Fitch Stores,
Inc., an Ohio corporation


AEROHIVE NETWORKS: Defending Suits Over Alleged Misleading Report
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aerohive Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a class action
complaint was filed in June 2015 in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of San Mateo, against the Company and
certain of its current and former officers and directors. This
action was subsequently related to two follow-on complaints and is
captioned Hunter v. Aerohive Networks, Inc., et al., Case No.
534070 (filed June 2, 2015), Mahajan v. Aerohive Networks, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 534294 (filed June 17, 2015), and Silverberg v.
Aerohive Networks, Inc., et al., Case No. 534505 (filed July 2,
2015). The complaints allege that the Registration Statement which
the Company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
Form S-1 in connection with its initial public offering in March
2014 contained false and/or misleading statements or omissions.
The actions also name as defendants the investment firms who
underwrote the Company's initial public offering.

The complaints allege that the Registration Statement failed to
disclose, among other things, product deficiencies, poor sales,
and a decline in sales-related personnel. The complaints
additionally allege that the Company improperly recognized
revenue, including by booking certain sales with rights of return.
The complaints, which have been consolidated, bring claims under
the federal securities laws and seek unspecified compensatory
damages and other relief. The Company is advancing certain defense
costs with respect to individual defendants, including the
underwriting investment firms, under written indemnification
agreements.

The Company intends to defend these lawsuits vigorously.
The Company is not able to predict or estimate any range of
reasonably possible loss related to these lawsuits. If these
matters have an adverse outcome, they may have a material impact
on the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash
flows.


AIR LINE PILOTS: Ruling on Atty. Fees in "Brady" Case Upheld
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit affirmed the
District Court's (a) denial of Cureton Clark, P.C.'s application
for compensation, and (b) order granting attorneys' fees and award
of class representative incentive awards in connection with the
approved class action settlement in the case captioned, PATRICK
BRADY; SALLY YOUNG; HOWARD HOLLANDER; THEODORE CASE; MICHAEL
FINUCAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION CURETON CLARK P.C. f/k/a
Cureton Caplan P.C., Appellant. PATRICK BRADY; SALLY YOUNG; HOWARD
B. HOLLANDER; THEODORE A. CASE; MICHAEL V. FINUCAN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AIR LINE PILOTS
ASSOCIATION Theodore Case, Appellant, Case Nos. 14-2961, 14-3128.

In August 2002, Cureton undertook representation of Leroy W.
Bensel as representative of a putative class of pilots formerly
employed by Transworld Airlines and later employed by American
Airlines. The representation involved claims on behalf of the
class against the Air Line Pilots Association, American Airlines,
and the Allied Pilots Association.

The District Court made incentive awards to the twelve current and
former class representatives, totaling $640,000. These included an
award of $81,702.13 to appellant Theodore Case. Case was one of
three current or former class representatives who objected to the
proposed incentive awards. He argued that "it would be not be
unjustified to award, at a minimum, $250,000 per Class
Representative." Case did not submit evidence to support this
assertion and did not appear personally or by counsel at the
fairness hearing. The District Court noted that, unlike attorneys'
fees, there is no established metric for determining class
representative incentive awards. Based on the record and after
considering the arguments made by the objectors, the District
Court increased the total award amount from $440,000 to $640,000.
After the District Court announced this revised award at the
fairness hearing, the two other objectors announced that they no
longer objected to the incentive awards.

In the Opinion dated September 23, 2015, available at
http://is.gd/cBJVrVfrom Leagle.com, Judge Chagares found that the
District Court did not abuse its discretion in awarding fees in
the instant case and have made reasonable factual findings. Both
Case and Cureton had been appropriately compensated and were not
entitled to additional fees.


AMERICAN TOBACCO: Trial Ct. Ruling in State's Suit Reversed
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals of Missouri, Eastern District,
Division Four reversed a trial court ruling entered in the case
captioned, STATE OF MISSOURI, Appellant/Cross-Respondent, v.
AMERICAN TOBACCO CO., ET AL., Respondents/Cross-Appellants, Case
No. ED101542.

Missouri filed suit against several tobacco companies for health
care costs and other damages imposed upon the state by cigarette
smoking. Around the same time, more than forty states commenced
similar litigation, asserting various consumer protection claims
for monetary, equitable, and injunctive relief against certain
tobacco product manufacturers and others as defendants. In
November 1998, more than forty states and territories ("States")
reached a "landmark agreement," known as the MSA, with four major
manufacturers in the cigarette industry, known as the "original"
Participating Manufacturers ("OPMs"). The "Signatory States"
settled their consumer protection claims against the tobacco
companies in exchange for monetary payments and permanent
injunctive relief, designed to reduce cigarette smoking in the
U.S. and compensate, in part, for the health care costs associated
with treating tobacco-related diseases under state Medicaid
programs
Missouri filed a motion on December 10, 2013, asking the circuit
court to vacate the Partial Settlement to the extent that it
affects Missouri, vacate Missouri's final award, and order related
declaratory relief through a single-state arbitration involving
only Missouri and the PMs. Missouri moved for the trial court to
compel the PMs to arbitrate in a single-state proceeding on the
question of whether Missouri diligently enforced its Qualifying
Statute in 2004 and is therefore exempt from the 2004 NPM
Adjustment. Because Missouri and other Non-signatory States did
not agree to such amendment of the calculation of their annual
payment, the court modified the settlement award and ordered the
IA to treat the 20 Signatory States whose diligence was contested,
but not proven, as non-diligent when calculating the NPM
Adjustment applicable to the amount owed to Missouri for 2003.
Further, the court denied Missouri's motion to vacate the final
award, finding that Missouri had not shown that the arbitration
Panel was "unduly influenced by any ex parte communication in
other states' hearings," and the "abundant evidence in the
Missouri record" supported the finding that Missouri failed to
diligently enforce its escrow statute in 2003.

On appeal, the PMs, including OPMs and SPMs, argued that the trial
court erred in its modification of the arbitration Panel's
settlement award with regard to the 2003 NPM Adjustment.
In its Order dated September 22, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/HhSTVvfrom Leagle.com, the Missouri Appeals Court
found that the trial court erred in concluding that a nationwide
arbitration was envisioned by the parties in drafting the MSA.
Moreover, the trial court erred in denying Missouri's motion to
compel the PMs into single-state arbitration for Missouri's 2004
diligent enforcement dispute. The parties agreed to arbitrate, so
the trial court was required to grant the motion to compel
arbitration, which was requested as a single-state proceeding.

"The judgment of the trial court is reversed and remanded. The
trial court is instructed to enter its judgment affirming the
arbitration Panel's direction to the IA to implement the
provisions of the "Term Sheet" partial settlement and order the
2003 NPM Adjustment to be allocated among the Non-signatory States
using a pro rata method. The trial court is further instructed to
grant Missouri's motion to compel single-state arbitration between
Missouri and the PMs for a determination of diligent enforcement
of a Qualifying Statute for 2004," ruled the Missouri Appeals
Court.


ANGLO AMERICAN: Says Silicosis Suit Lacks Common Issues
-------------------------------------------------------
Daily Maverick reports that attempts by lawyers for mining giant
Anglo American to play the race card in the silicosis case were
rebuffed by the South Gauteng High Court on Oct. 21.

Lawyers for the gold mining companies which are respondents in the
case wrapped up their clients' arguments on Oct. 21.  The mining
companies are asking the court not to grant an application by
former mineworkers affected by silicosis and tuberculosis (TB) to
be allowed to represent other affected mineworkers and the
dependents of dead mineworkers in a class action.

Representing Anglo American, advocate Michael Cooper reiterated
the argument that the lack of common issues among mineworkers
would mean the class would have to be broken down into so many
subclasses that it would no longer be a class action.

He said one reason why the proposed class was not homogeneous was
that it contained members of more than one race.  Mr. Cooper
pointed to expert testimony by Dr. Jonny Myers of the University
of Cape Town, in support of the mineworkers' claim, that under
apartheid white mineworkers had benefitted from much better
protective measures, occupational health services and compensation
for silicosis and TB than black mineworkers.  Mr. Cooper said
that, as a result, black and white mineworkers should be in
separate classes.

"In addition," said Mr. Cooper, "black mineworkers who made
depositions to their attorneys about their work histories and
conditions of work, criticized white miners as treating them with
contempt, and made statements such as "they ordered us back into
the stopes after a blast often after only two hours, even though
the waiting time should have been four hours because of the dust
after a blast".

"If we add to that the fact that white miners had much higher
levels of compensation for silicosis/TB than black mineworkers,
this would cause conflict over any settlement that is reached in
the trial.

"Black workers would say they want more than white workers," said
Cooper.

Judge Phineas Mojapelo responded: "In this current South Africa,
black workers and white workers are entitled to the same
treatment.  The different treatment meted out to black mineworkers
is only part of the claim, and does not create conflict over
settlement."

Mr. Cooper reiterated his concern that black mineworkers might ask
for additional compensation because of previous discrimination.

Said Judge Mojapelo: "This is my last engagement on this matter.
Why should race be an issue here? Black mineworkers' compensation
in the past has also been very differentiated."

Mr. Cooper also took issue with the proposal by lawyers for the
mineworkers that the certified class should be an "opt-out class",
so that all potential claimants would be considered part of the
action unless they specifically indicated that they did not want
to participate.  He said the supposed advantage for all concerned
of the "opt-out" method was that there would be "one big battle"
over compensation for the mineworkers.  But this did not apply to
his client, said Cooper, since Anglo American was already involved
in arbitration over the issue.

Responding to arguments that an "opt-out" system would make it
easier to reach a settlement during trial, Mr. Cooper said Anglo
American would have to know how many mineworkers were in the class
before putting forward any sum for settlement.  He said the
mineworkers' attorneys had estimated that a typical settlement
would be R200,000, but estimates of the numbers of claimants
involved ranged from 17,000 to 500,000.  An 'opt-in' class would
make it easier to judge the amounts involved accurately and make a
settlement more likely.

"Surely your client has its own records from which it could
estimate the likely number of claimants?" asked Judge Mojapelo.

Cooper said Anglo American did have records but these were not
complete and it would be impossible for the company to say how
many workers were affected.

He said lawyers for the mineworkers had expressed concern that an
"opt-in" system would exclude many people who could be legitimate
members of the class.  But, said Mr. Cooper, Richard Spoor and the
Legal Resources Centre, who are representing the mineworkers, had
been working on similar cases for many years.

"They have had plenty of time for active recruitment of class
members, who could then opt in.  Why are they asking for costly
publicity in the form of a widely disseminated notice and another
six months to identify the class members? I understand that they
have extensive networks in the powerful trade unions.  These
networks would surely work for an opt-in class as well?"

Mr. Cooper said an "opt-out" class would be huge, and would lead
to misunderstandings and unexpected problems.  It would also lead
to a cottage industry of people "bilking people of their damages
by giving payment up front and pocketing the actual damages".

On the question of negligence, Mr. Cooper took issue with
arguments by the mineworkers' lawyers that the mines did not
implement a 1970s international standard on silica dust limits
until 2002; that they did not use the sampling measures
established in the 1970s until 1988; and that there had been a
systemic failure in the entire gold mining industry to take
sufficient measures to protect miners' health.  He said all that
mattered was whether or not the mines had adhered to South African
laws and regulations, and that Anglo American had done so and
more.

He argued that information on average dust levels on 20 mines
submitted by the miners' lawyers as evidence of 'systemic failure'
was not admissible as evidence because it hid differences between
mines.

By using data from unnamed mines, he said, the mineworkers'
lawyers were importing the notion of 'guilt by association' into
the "systemic failure" argument, which was not legally admissible.

The miners' own affidavits, Cooper argued, did not indicate any
breach attributable to Anglo American, which was not the employer,
and so had no day-to-day control over workplace practices.  The
mines were not subsidiaries of Anglo American because Anglo
American never had a controlling share in them, only a stake of
between 10% and 30%.

Anglo American had never employed mine managers and its
involvement in operations was limited to the provision of medical
services to the mines and ventilation design.  As a result, he
said, there was no case against Anglo American.

Representing African Rainbow Minerals (ARM), advocate
Theo Beckerling agreed with lawyers for other mines on the
'systemic failure' issue.  If that was the main argument for
commonality in the class, the certification application should
fail, he said.

He pointed out that only four of the class members who had been
identified to date had any work experience at ARM.  Of these, one
had only had one year of service.  What would happen, he asked, if
a mineworker was diagnosed years after working at ARM? Would ARM
have any liability in such a case?

The court's decision on the certification of the class action was
expected on Oct. 23.


ANHEUSER-BUSCH INBEV: Beck's Settlement to Benefit Consumers
------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Gershman, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
plaintiffs' lawyers say a class-action settlement involving Beck's
beer will provide considerable benefits to consumers who were
allegedly tricked into believing the St. Louis-brewed beer was a
German import.

In court papers, lawyers representing the plaintiffs who sued
Anheuser-Busch InBev said the settlement approved by a judge on
Oct. 20 "confers over $20 million in cash benefits" to class
members.

Lawyers for both sides, though, don't expect the actual payout to
class members to approach anywhere near that dollar figure.

The way the $20 million was calculated isn't out of the ordinary
in these types of cases.  Judges and plaintiffs often rely on
estimates of maximum value when assessing the fairness of a
settlement and the requested attorneys' fees.

But the method has attracted criticism, including recently from a
prominent federal appeals court judge who said the calculations
used by the plaintiffs' attorneys in another class action led to a
"scandalous" attorneys' fee award.

Anheuser-Busch agreed to give Beck's drinkers 10 cents back for
every individual bottle purchased; 50 cents for a six-pack or
$1.75 per 20-pack.  Consumers who back up their claims with
receipts can get refunds up to $50 a household.  Claims without
receipts are capped at $12. The agreement also awards up to $3.5
million in attorneys' fees.

The $20 million figure is based on an analysis by an economist at
Anderson Economic Group LLC who used sales data to estimate the
number of Beck's consuming households.  That number, 1.7 million,
was then multiplied by 12, representing the maximum payoff if
every claim lacked proof of purchase and sought the maximum $12.

Plaintiffs attorney Thomas A. "Tucker" Ronzetti of Miami firm
Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton LLP told Law Blog that they're hoping
for 170,000 claims but said 60,000 claims so far had been filed
with the claims deadline less than a month away.

Neither side in the case would guess what the final payout would
be.  But the general counsel for Anheuser-Busch's U.S. operations,
Katherine Barrett, made this prediction to Law Blog.  "It's
certainly possible that the $3.5 million fee collected by the
plaintiffs' attorneys will outsize the benefit paid to consumers,
an outcome that is increasingly more common in class action suits
such as this," she said in a statement.

Mr. Ronzetti said the benefits to consumers "extend beyond the
money they get back," noting that Anheuser-Busch also agreed to
packaging and marketing changes that he said would prevent
consumer deception. (AB InBev didn't admit any wrongdoing by
settling the lawsuit.)

In court papers, he and co-counsel described the $3.5 million
attorneys' as "modest" and based on a federal appeals court
precedent.  "The requested fee is only 10.9% to 15.3% of the
estimated value of the Settlement to the Class," they wrote.

Judge Richard Posner of the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
drew attention to how class-action settlements are valued in an
opinion last year involving a class action case against a company
that allegedly sold defective windows.

The final settlement directed the company to pay $11 million in
attorneys' fees based on claims that the settlement was worth $90
million to the class. Judge Posner said the aggregate value of
benefits was at most $8.5 million, labeling the settlement
"inequitable -- even scandalous."

Litigator and class-action activist Ted Frank raised similar
concerns last year when he objected to a settlement of allegations
that Gillette Co.'s Duracell unit misled consumers about the
battery life of a premium battery line.

While approving the settlement, the federal trial court judge in
Florida questioned the plaintiffs' assertion that their request
for $5-plus million fee was more than reasonable.  The lawyers
said it was only 10% of the estimated value of the settlement.
"[T]he $50 million calculation is somewhat illusory, because the
parties never expected that Gillette would actually pay anything
close to that amount," wrote Judge Gregory A. Presnell.

Mr. Frank told Law Blog that inflated estimates of settlement
value are common in class actions and help plaintiffs' lawyers
make their fee requests "seem more reasonable."  He said he's
hoping the U.S. Supreme Court will take up the issue, saying he
plans to ask the justices to review the battery settlement, which
was affirmed by a federal appeals court.


ASHLEY MADISON: May Need to Update Online Terms & Conditions
------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Powers, writing for Forbes, reports that in the wake of the
hacking of the extramarital affair website Ashley Madison and the
exposure of identifiable user data online, the company is being
sued in Canada, the U.S., and likely other places around the
world.  These class-action lawsuits, seeking over $500 million in
damages, will likely take years and millions of dollars in legal
fees to get sorted out. Over that time, a majority of the focus
will be on the online "Terms and Conditions" and "Privacy Policy"
between Ashley Madison and its customers.  Those legal documents
are filled to the brim with terms that Ashley Madison will attempt
to rely on to minimize or eliminate its liability, and avoid a
class action lawsuit altogether.

Recently, a federal judge in California granted Lyft's motion to
dismiss a class action lawsuit filed against it by its drivers.
The reason? A provision in Lyft's Terms of Service waives class
actions and forced arbitration.  That provision saved Lyft from a
potentially very long and costly class action lawsuit.

Ashley Madison, however, might not be as lucky: some ridiculous
and self-imposed update procedures are likely to get those Terms
and Conditions completely thrown out!

Ashley Madison's Terms and Conditions are clearly intended to
protect Ashley Madison.

Most online Ts&Cs are incredibly one-sided -- drafted with the
sole purpose of protecting one party and shifting as much
liability away from that party as possible.  This T&C is no
exception; it is meant to protect Ashley Madison from almost any
liability whatsoever.

Ashley Madison makes several direct and bold disclaimers, which in
summary state:

Use our site, and it's not our problem if your data gets hacked.

If you use our site, we are not liable for damages, and if we are,
you can't sue us for more than $5,000.

You may be interacting with fembots and not actual human beings
seeking to have affairs.

If you sue us, you must do it via arbitration and you may not do
it as part of a class action lawsuit.

None of these are surefire get-out-of-jail-free cards, but they
could all certainly prove helpful as Ashley Madison tries to get
itself out of this mess.

Plaintiff's lawyers will have all sorts of strategies to get
around these protective terms, one of which will be getting the
terms thrown out altogether.  And one big glaring weakness
surrounds how Ashley Madison manages the updates to these Terms
and Conditions.

Ashley Madison gives itself the right to update its Terms and
Conditions at anytime, and expects users to check for updated
terms on their own.

Check out this very aggressively worded language at the very
beginning of the Terms and Conditions (bold emphasis added, caps
as originally presented by Ashley Madison, and commentary
sprinkled in)

WE RESERVE THE RIGHT, AT OUR DISCRETION, TO MODIFY THESE TERMS AT
ANY TIME. ANY UPDATED VERSION SUPERSEDES AND REPLACES ANY PRIOR
VERSIONS UPON POSTING AND THE PRIOR VERSION IS OF NO FURTHER FORCE
AND EFFECT UNLESS WE SPECIFICALLY STATE OTHERWISE.

Translation: Pretty straightforward, we can change these terms
whenever we want.

WE WILL INDICATE THE LAST UPDATE DATE AT THE END OF THESE TERMS.
YOU AGREE TO NOTE THAT LAST UPDATE DATE OF THE REVISION YOU READ
AND AGREE TO PERIODICALLY CHECK THESE TERMS FOR CHANGES. IF THE
LAST UPDATE DATE HAS BEEN CHANGED, THEN YOU WILL KNOW WE HAVE MADE
CHANGES TO THESE TERMS AND THAT YOU MUST REVIEW THE TERMS TO
DETERMINE HOW YOUR RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER THE TERMS
HAVE CHANGED.

Translation: Say what? So you need to write down the date of the
terms, and then compare that to the date at the end of the terms,
and if it is different, search the terms for changes?

YOUR CONTINUED USE OF THIS SITE FOLLOWING THE POSTING OF CHANGES
TO THESE TERMS WILL MEAN YOU ACCEPT THOSE CHANGES. YOU ALSO WILL
BE REQUIRED TO AFFIRMATIVELY AGREE TO THE TERMS AND ANY MATERIAL
MODIFICATIONS TO THE TERMS.

Translation: If you keep using the site, you automatically accept
any changes to terms.

There are so many problems with this it's difficult to know where
to even begin.

First, don't even think about playing this game in California.
Why? Ask Safeway, who was just ordered to pay out $31M in a class
action lawsuit, due in a part to never having provided conspicuous
notice of changes to its own online Terms and Conditions.  If an
Ashley Madison customer signed up in 2013, and a change was made
that might have some bearing on these lawsuits, that change may be
difficult to enforce.

Second, if Ashley Madison can make changes to the terms any time
it wants to, what would prevent it from changing, say, a term that
requires binding arbitration? This is the exact issue that led a
court to render an arbitration provision in the Zappos Term of Use
meaningless, which allowed a massive data breach class action
lawsuit to proceed (as opposed to forcing arbitration and avoiding
the formation of a class).

But here is where things get potentially shady.

Finally, in reference to that whole noting the "last update date
of the revision", that is difficult to do when those dates seem to
change with no rhyme or reason.  Thanks to the incredible Internet
Wayback Machine, you can see the different versions of the Ashley
Madison Terms and Conditions.  By no means should this be
considered 100% reliable nor an insinuation that all versions are
archived there, but a quick review revealed some curious timeline
inconsistencies.

The timeline shows 2 different sets of Terms and Conditions (one
dated 11/21/2013 and one date 11/18/2013) and the dates on which
they were archived by the Wayback Machine.

Dates on the Terms and Conditions move forward from 11/18/2013 to
11/21/2013, then BACK to 11/18/2013.  A quick comparison of all of
these archived Terms and Conditions reveals:

The terms dated 11/21/2013 COMPLETELY CHANGED the arbitration
provisions to require arbitration in Cyprus! What!? That would
make the judge in the Zappos case really, really mad, and likely
throw the entire Terms and Conditions out!

In addition, the terms marked by Ashley Madson with the date
11/18/2013 and archived on 8/20/2014 are NOT THE SAME as the terms
that are also marked by Ashley Madison with the date of
11/18/2013, but archived on 3/19/2015.  So if you followed Ashley
Madison's mandate of noting the "last update date of the
revision", you would have no idea that anything had changed
because the dates for 2 different sets of Term and Conditions are
the same! One of the major differences pertains to the "fembots"
that have received some media attention recently; that reference
was completely removed in the more recent set of Terms and
Conditions marked by Ashley Madison with the date of 11/18/2013.

Where does this leave Ashley Madison?

What is outlined creates some pretty serious issues for Ashley
Madison and is very contrary to some established principles for
how to make sure online Terms and Conditions are enforceable (just
ask Safeway and Zappos).  It could be that Ashley Madison gave its
users lots of notice regarding changes to its terms, potentially
via email or maybe they had to accept the revised terms when they
logged in.  If so, that could help Ashley Madison, but only if it
can support such a claim with good records.  If the date snafu is
any indication of how Ashley Madison manages updates, it would not
be surprising if they simply made the changes and relied on their
absurd directive that customers monitor and discover any changes
themselves.

The plaintiffs' attorneys in these cases are going to dig even
deeper as part of the discovery process, and that could spell
trouble for Ashley Madison if it wants to rely on its Terms and
Conditions to minimize its liability here.  That could spell
trouble.


AUDIOEYE INC: Shareholder Suits Filed Against Company, Officers
---------------------------------------------------------------
AudioEye, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that two purported
shareholder class action lawsuits were filed in April 2015,
against the Company and its officer Nathaniel Bradley and former
officer Edward O'Donnell in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona.

"The plaintiffs allege various causes of action against the
defendants arising from our announcement that our previously
issued financial results for the first three quarters of 2014 and
the guidance for the fourth quarter of 2014 and the full year of
2014 could no longer be relied upon," the Company said.  "The
complaints seek, among other relief, compensatory damages and
plaintiff's counsel's fees and experts' fees. The Court has not
yet appointed a lead plaintiff or lead counsel, and we have not
yet responded to the complaints."

"We believe that the lawsuits have no merit and intend to mount a
vigorous defense. Given the current stage of the proceedings in
this case, our management currently cannot assess the probability
of losses, or reasonably estimate the range of losses, related to
these matters," the Company said.


BARCLAYS: Settles Foreign-Exchange Rigging Class Action for $1.2BB
------------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Goodway, writing for Evening Standard, reports that three
British banks, Goldman Sachs and BNP Paribas have agreed to pay a
total of $1.2 billion (GBP780 million) in a class action
settlement in the United States over foreign-exchange rigging.

The case could pave the way for a swathe of similar class actions
in London, Europe and further cases in the US.

The American settlements, which need final approval from a federal
court, were a result of the class action brought by US law firm
Scott & Scott on behalf of individuals and institutions who bought
foreign currencies and forex derivatives from the banks.

The agreed payouts were $384 million from Barclays, $285 million
from HSBC, $255 million from Royal Bank of Scotland, $135 million
from Goldman Sachs and $115 million from BNP Paribas.

Scott & Scott, which acted for victims of the BP Gulf of Mexico
oil spill, is hoping to get the go-ahead for a class action in the
High Court in London by the end of this year or early next.

Managing partner, David R Scott, said: "Our work is far from done.
Given our in-depth knowledge based on our success against [four
other] banks in the US, Scott & Scott is gearing up to bring the
action to Europe.

"Compensation figures today should serve as an indication of the
scale of the potential European action, as the UK forex market is
almost double the size of that in the US."

As well as achieving significant financial payouts from the banks,
the law firm has also won promises from the nine which have
settled so far to release extensive details of the forex rigging.
That information is able to be used in the UK action.

The four banks to have previously settled were Citi -- paying $402
million -- BoA Merrill Lynch on $187 million, UBS with $141
million and JPMorgan at $105 million.

The seven banks named in the action which have not yet settled are
Deutsche Bank, Credit Suisse, Morgan Stanley, Bank of Tokyo-
Mitsubishi, RBC Capital Markets, Societe Generale and Standard
Chartered.


CALIBER HOME: Objector Must Post $38,000 Appeals Bond
-----------------------------------------------------
New Jersey District Judge Stanley R. Chesler directed Karolyn E.
Denson, the sole objector to the settlement approved by the Court
in the class action against Caliber Home Loans, Inc.; U.S. Bank
Trust, N.A., among others, to post an appeals bond in the amount
of $38,750 to ensure payment of costs on appeal.

The case is, LUTHER B. MANUEL JR. and GERTRUDE MANUEL, on behalf
of themselves and the class members described herein, Plaintiff,
v. CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC.; U.S. BANK TRUST, N.A., as Trustee of
LSF8 MASTER PARTICIPATION TRUST; WELLS FARGO DELAWARE TRUST
COMPANY, N.A., as Trustee for VERICREST OPPORTUNITY LOAN TRUST
2013 NPL2 and VERICREST OPPORTUNITY LOAN TRUST 2014 NPL2; and DOES
1-25, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-5233 (SRC)(D.N.J.).

Plaintiffs argue that a bond is warranted because the appeal is
frivolous, there is a risk of nonpayment because the Objector
resides outside of the court's jurisdiction, the objection was
filed in bad faith, and the Objector would have no financial
difficulty posting the bond.

A copy of the Court's October 21, 2015 Opinion and Order is
available at http://is.gd/vOpXIbfrom Leagle.com.

KAROLYN DENSON, Objector, represented by ELIZABETH USINGER, CULLEN
AND DYKMAN LLP & JOCELYN ELIZABETH LUPETIN, CULLEN & DYKMAN LLP.

LUTHER B. MANUEL, JR., Plaintiff, represented by ANDREW T.
THOMASSON, SternThomasson LLP & PHILIP D. STERN, STERN THOMASSON
LLP.

GERTRUDE MANUEL, Plaintiff, represented by ANDREW T. THOMASSON,
SternThomasson LLP & PHILIP D. STERN, STERN THOMASSON LLP.

CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC., Defendant, represented by JOSEPH
NICHOLAS FROEHLICH, LOCKE, LORD, LLP.


CAMERON MUTUAL: Settlement in "Adams" Wins Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge P.K. Holmes, III granted Plaintiffs' motion
for final approval of a stipulation of settlement in the case
captioned MARK ADAMS and KATHY ADAMS, Individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CAMERON MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, No.: 2:12-CV-2173-PKH, (W.D. Ark.)

Plaintiffs alleges that Cameron Mutual Insurance Company violated
applicable law and breached its contracts with insureds by
wrongfully depreciating the cost of labor when resolving
structural claims in the State of Arkansas. Cameron has maintained
throughout this Litigation that they have at all times paid claims
when reasonable and appropriate to do so and have consistently
acted in accordance with the governing laws and regulations of
Arkansas and each State in which they do business.

After litigation between the parties and arm's-length negotiations
between Class Counsel and counsel for Cameron, the parties reached
a settlement that provides substantial benefits to a Settlement
Class, in return for a release and dismissal of claims against
Cameron.

In his Final Order and Judgment dated August 27, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/nyLA3Xfrom Leagle.com, Judge Holmes, III granted the
motion for final approval settlement, certifying class for
settlement purposes, awarding class counsel attorneys' fees,
awarding class representatives participation fees and dismissing
action with prejudice. The Settlement provides substantial
monetary benefits to Class Members. The maximum monetary liability
of Cameron for settlement payments to Class Members, attorneys'
fees, costs, and expenses of the Litigation, and Court-approved
participation awards to the Class Representatives is
$1,357,480.56.  In addition, Cameron agreed to fund the costs of
claims notice and administration.

The Court said the payment procedure established under the
Stipulation is uniform and fair, and provides Class Members with
the opportunity to receive settlement payments as described in the
Stipulation. The Court concluded that, for settlement purposes
only, the Settlement Class meets all the requirements of FED. R.
CIV. P. 23, due process and all other applicable rules and law and
can therefore be certified as a settlement class. Class Members
are ascertainable and too numerous to be joined, and questions of
law and fact are common to all Settlement Class Members, as
required by Rule 23(a)(1) and (2). The Class Representatives'
claims are typical of those of the Settlement Class, as required
by Rule 23(a)(3). The Class Representatives and Class Counsel have
fairly and adequately represented and protected the interests of
the Settlement Class for the purposes of entering into and
implementing the Proposed Settlement, as required by Rule
23(a)(4).

The Court also said Class Counsel's requests for $332,081.00 in
attorneys' fees and expenses and Class Representatives'
participation fee of $5,000.00 to each Class Representative, to be
paid by Cameron, are fair, reasonable and adequate.

Stevan Earl Vowell, Esq. -- svowell@taylorlawpartners.com -- W H
Taylor, Esq. -- whtaylor@taylorlawpartners.com -- William B.
Putman, Esq. -- wbputman@taylorlawpartners.com -- and Timothy J
Myers, Esq. -- tmyers@taylorlawpartners.com -- of Taylor Law Firm
-- Jason Earnest Roselius, Esq., of The Roselius Law Firm; R.
Martin Weber, Jr., Esq. -- mweber@crowleynorman.com -- and Richard
E Norman, Esq. -- rnorman@crowleynorman.com -- of Crowley Norman
LLP serve as counsel for Plaintiff Mark Adams

Marshall S. Ney, Esq. -- mney@fridayfirm.com -- of Friday,
Eldredge & Clark, LLP serves as counsel for Defendant Cameron
Mutual Insurance Company


CANADA: Labrador Residential Class Action Lawsuit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
James McLeod, writing for The Western Star, reports that the
Labrador residential schools class-action lawsuit was in court
again on Oct. 21, despite the fact that the incoming Liberal
government has promised to settle the case out of court.

The morning in the courtroom was spent delving into provincial
history, with historian Robert Cuff testifying about aboriginal
and Labrador issues at the time when the province joined
confederation.

That history cuts to the core of the problem with the residential
schools lawsuit.

Because of the fact that the Labrador schools existed before
confederation, and complexities of their legal status after the
province joined Canada, the federal government doesn't accept
responsibility for the abuses that happened to aboriginal
students.

So now the survivors are suing the government, and it's all gotten
complicated.

"We chose to sue Canada, Canada chose to sue the province, and the
province chose to sue the Grenfell Association," lawyer
Ches Crosbie said.  "We've always maintained that Canada is the
responsible party, based in their fiduciary relationship with
aboriginals in the country at large."

But unlike in most of Canada, where the federal government settled
with survivors and formally apologized back in 2008, here victims
are being forced to go to court and recount their stories.

Survivors have describe horrifying sexual, physical and emotional
abuse in court, as well as recounting suicide attempts, and openly
sobbing during testimony.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission on residential schools
recommended that the government pursue a settlement in outstanding
litigation including the Labrador class-action, but under the
Conservative government, nothing happened.

"Canada has not yet made any offer of settlement in this case, and
one of the problems in the background, perhaps, has been the
election period, during which convention would say the government
shouldn't be doing a thing such as settling a case like this
because it has a policy component to it," Mr. Crosbie said.

In an emailed statement Liberal MP Judy Foote reiterated the
party's campaign promise to settle the lawsuit.

"The Liberal Party is committed to implementing the 94
recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission,
including on working collaboratively with those not included in
the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement on unresolved
issues," Mr. Foote said.  "We believe it is time to act, without
delay, to rebuild Canada's relationship with First Nations, Inuit,
and M‚tis Peoples based on rights, respect, and cooperation to
ensure we create a fair and prosperous shared future."

The new government won't really take shape for another two weeks
when Trudeau formally becomes prime minister and appoints a
cabinet on Nov. 4.

Mr. Crosbie said that he hopes something comes soon, but he
understands the realities of the situation.

"You have to be pragmatic and realize that a new government has
many things on its agenda list, and this case may not be right at
the very top," he said.  "But hopefully they'll get to it, and get
to it very soon."

The provincial government, which is a party to the lawsuit because
they're being sued by the federal government, issued a statement
to the Telegram: "We can't comment on this specific case as the
matter is still before the courts, generally the province is
always amenable to discussing settlements in litigation."

More victims will testify about the abuses they encountered at the
governmentrun schools.  Mr. Crosbie said that the trial can't just
be paused because the water on the beans has changed, politically.

"A trial like this, of this size and scope, is a bit like an ocean
liner," he said.  "Once it's launched and sailing along under
power, it's very hard to turn it around."


CELLADON CORP: Consolidation of 3 Securities Class Actions Seen
---------------------------------------------------------------
Celladon Corporation expects a court to consolidate three putative
securities class actions against it, and to appoint a lead
plaintiff to represent the putative class, the Company said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on August 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015.

In July 2015, following the Company's announcements of the
negative CUPID 2 data and the suspension of further research and
development activities and the subsequent declines of the price of
the Company's common stock, three putative securities class action
complaints (captioned Fialkov v. Celladon Corporation, Case No.
15-cv-1458-AJB-DHB, Lorusso v. Celladon Corporation, Case No. 15-
cv-1501-L-JLB and Jacobs v. Celladon Corporation, Case No. 15-cv-
1529-AJB-MDD ) were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California against the Company and certain of
the Company's current and former officers. The complaints
generally allege that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially
false and misleading statements regarding the clinical trial
program for MYDICAR, thereby artificially inflating the price of
the Company's common stock. The complaints seek unspecified
monetary damages and other relief, including attorneys' fees.

The Company expects the court to consolidate the three putative
securities class actions and to appoint a lead plaintiff to
represent the putative class. The Company then expects the lead
plaintiff to file a consolidated complaint.

It is possible that additional suits will be filed, or allegations
made by stockholders, with respect to these same or other matters
and also naming the Company and/or the Company's officers and
directors as defendants. The Company believes that it has
meritorious defenses and intends to defend these lawsuits
vigorously. Due to the early stage of these proceedings, the
Company is not able to predict or reasonably estimate the ultimate
outcome or possible losses relating to these claims.


CF MARTS: Faces Overtime Class Action in Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------
Angelino Menconi, writing for PennRecord.com, reports that a
Canadensis man is filing a class action lawsuit against his former
employer over claims of unpaid overtime.

Christopher Iwaskow filed suit against C.F. Marts of Pennsylvania
Inc. on Oct. 6 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Pennsylvania, citing violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act for a class period from
October 2012 to present day.

According to the complaint, C.F. Marts failed to pay overtime
hours to several similarly situated hourly employees of their
Convenient Food Marts and City Market Cafes.  Mr. Iwaskow alleges
he has worked weeks in excess of 60 hours without overtime pay in
a violation of state and federal law until his employment ended in
September.

The plaintiff seeks unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
attorney fees and costs of litigation.  He is represented by Peter
Winebrake, R. Andrew Santillo and Mark J. Gottesfeld of Winebrake
and Santillo of Dresher.

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania case
number 3:15-cv-01934-ARC.


CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Defending Naylor Farms Case
---------------------------------------------
Chaparral Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company is
defending the case, Naylor Farms, Inc., individually and as class
representative on behalf of all similarly situated persons v.
Chaparral Energy, L.L.C.

On June 7, 2011, an alleged class action was filed against us in
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma ("Naylor Farms Case") alleging that we improperly
deducted post-production costs from royalties paid to plaintiffs
and other royalty interest owners as categorized in the petition
from crude oil and natural gas wells located in Oklahoma. The
purported class includes non-governmental royalty interest owners
in oil and natural gas wells we operate in Oklahoma. The
plaintiffs have alleged a number of claims, including breach of
contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and
other claims and seek termination of leases, recovery of
compensatory damages, interest, punitive damages and attorney fees
on behalf of the alleged class. We have responded to the Naylor
Farms petition, denied the allegations and raised arguments and
defenses. Discovery is ongoing and information and documents
continue to be exchanged. The class has not been certified, but
the motion for class certification is due in the fourth quarter of
2015. We are not currently able to estimate a reasonably possible
loss or range of loss or what impact, if any, the Naylor Farms
Case will have on our financial condition, results of operations
or cash flows due to the preliminary status of the matters, the
complexity and number of legal and factual issues presented by the
matter and uncertainties with respect to, among other things, the
nature of the claims and defenses, the potential size of the
class, the scope and types of the properties and agreements
involved, and the ultimate potential outcome of the matter.
Plaintiffs in the Naylor Farms Case have indicated that, if the
class is certified, they seek damages in excess of $5,000 which
may increase with the passage of time, a majority of which would
be comprised of interest.

"We dispute plaintiffs' claims, dispute that the case meets the
requirements for a class action and are vigorously defending the
case," the Company said.


CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Discovery Has Not Yet Commenced in "Dodson"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chaparral Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a class has not been
certified and discovery has not yet commenced in the case, Amanda
Dodson, individually and as class representative on behalf of all
similarly situated persons v. Chaparral Energy, L.L.C.

On May 10, 2013, Amanda Dodson (the "Plaintiff"), filed a
complaint against us in the District Court of Mayes County,
Oklahoma, ("Dodson Case") with allegation similar to those
asserted in the Naylor Farms Case related to post-production
deductions, and include clams for breach of contract, fraud,
breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and other claims and
seek termination of leases, recovery of compensatory damages,
interest, punitive damages and attorney fees on behalf of the
alleged class. The alleged class includes non-governmental royalty
interest owners in oil and natural gas wells we operate in
Oklahoma.

"We have responded to the Plaintiff's petition, denied the
allegations and raised a number of affirmative defenses," the
Company said.  "At this time, a class has not been certified and
discovery has not yet commenced. We are not currently able to
estimate a reasonable possible loss or range of loss or what
impact, if any, the Dodson Case will have on our financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows due to the
preliminary status of the matter, the complexity and number of
legal and factual issues presented by the matter and uncertainties
with respect to, among other things, the nature of the claims and
defenses, the potential size of the class, the scope and types of
the properties and agreements involved, and the ultimate potential
outcome of the matter. We dispute Plaintiff's claims, dispute that
the case meets the requirements for a class action and are
vigorously defending the case."


CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Discovery Has Not Yet Commenced in "Donelson"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chaparral Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a class has not been
certified and discovery has not yet commenced in the case, Martha
Donelson and John Friend, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of
all similarly situated persons v. Chaparral Energy, L.L.C.

The Company said, "On August 11, 2014, an alleged class action was
filed against us, as well as several other operators in Osage
County, in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Oklahoma ("Donelson Case"), alleging claims on behalf
of the named plaintiffs and all similarly situated Osage County
land owners and surface lessees. The plaintiffs assert claims
seeking recovery for trespass, nuisance, negligence and unjust
enrichment. Relief sought includes declaring oil and natural gas
leases and drilling permits obtained in Osage County without a
prior NEPA study void ab initio, removing us from all properties
owned by the class members, disgorgement of profits, and
compensatory and punitive damages. We have joined in Motions to
Dismiss filed by the other defendants."

"At this time, a class has not been certified and discovery has
yet to begin. We are not currently able to estimate a reasonably
possible loss or range of loss or what impact, if any, the
Donelson Case will have on our financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows due to the preliminary status of the
matter, the complexity and number of legal and factual issues
presented by the matter and uncertainties with respect to, among
other things, the nature of the claims and defenses, the potential
size of the class, the scope and types of properties and
agreements involved, and the ultimate potential outcome of the
matter. We dispute plaintiffs' claims, dispute that the Donelson
Case meets the requirements for a class action and are vigorously
defending the case."


CHEMICAL & MINING: S.D.N.Y. Judge Consolidates Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edgardo Ramos granted the motions to consolidate in
the case captioned MEGAN VILLELLA, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. CHEMICAL & MINING CO.
OF CHILE INC., PATRICIO CONTESSE, PATRICIO DE SOLMINIHAC, and
RICARDO RAMOS, Defendants. LYNN MOLINARO, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. CHEMICAL &
MINING CO. OF CHILE INC., PATRICIO CONTESSE GONZALEZ, PATRICIO DE
SOLMINIHAC, and RICARDO RAMOS, Defendants, Case Nos.: 15 CIV. 2106
(ER), 15 CIV. 2884 (ER), (S.D.N.Y.)

In March and April of 2015, two putative class actions were
brought under the federal securities laws against Chemical and
Mining Company of Chile Inc. (a/k/a Sociedad Quimica y Minera de
Chile S.A.) (SQM) and individual SQM executives. The suits allege
that SQM, a large producer and distributor of specialty
fertilizers and industrial chemicals, made materially false and
misleading statements regarding its business and operations.
Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that SQM failed to disclose
that funds from its operations were illegally channeled to
electoral campaigns and political parties in Chile, that such
payments were concealed by fictitious tax receipts filed with
Chilean authorities, and that SQM lacked the internal controls to
properly prevent this illicit conduct. As SQM's alleged
misrepresentations were disclosed to the public in the course of a
wider investigation of corruption in the Chilean political system,
the price of SQM shares dropped precipitously.

Six motions to consolidate have been filed from six distinct SQM
shareholders or groups of shareholders.  The motions all seek
consolidation of the two filed suits. Each movant also seeks
appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of the movant's
selected counsel as lead counsel. The six movants are:

     (1) Anton Mandelstam;
     (2) Richard Gielata;
     (3) Megan Villella, Sam Villella, and Leroy Robinson;
     (4) Marty Sholtis;
     (5) The Council of the Borough of South Tyneside Acting
         in Its Capacity as the Administering Authority of
         the Tyne and Wear Pension Fund (Tyne and Wear); and
     (6) the Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System (APERS).

In his Opinion and Order dated October 14, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/TAmBWTfrom Leagle.com, Judge Ramos granted the
motions to consolidate. All future filings in this case shall be
filed in the 15 Civ. 2016 case number and bear the same caption as
that case number. All related actions subsequently filed in, or
transferred to, this District shall be consolidated into the 15
Civ. 2106 case number, absent order of the Court. The Clerk of the
Court is respectfully directed to close the 15 Civ. 2884 case and
terminate any pending motions in that case. Additionally, Tyne and
Wear's motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of
lead counsel is granted. All other movants' motions for
appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of lead counsel are
denied.

The Villella and Molinaro complaints include near-identical
allegations about the critical events of February and March 2015.
Both complaints recite similar or identical statements from SQM's
SEC disclosures and conclude that the statements were materially
false and/or misleading for the same reasons -- namely, that the
statements failed to disclose that SQM funds were being channeled
to Chilean politicians and political parties, that these bribery
payments were covered up by fictitious tax filings, and that SQM
lacked adequate internal controls over financial reporting.
Accordingly, the Court consolidates the Villella and Molinaro
Actions. All future filings in this case shall be filed in the 15
Civ. 2016 case number and bear the same caption as that case
number. The Molinaro Action, 15 Civ. 2884, shall be closed.

Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq. -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- and
Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom, Esq. -- pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- of
Pomerantz LLP and Jason Allen Zweig, Esq. -- jasonz@hbsslaw.com
-- of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP serve as counsel for
Plaintiff Megan Villella, on behalf of all others similarly
situated

Grant Richard Mainland, Esq. -- gmainland@milbank.com -- of
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz and Scott Alexander Edelman, Esq.
-- sedelman@milbank.com -- of Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP
serve as counsel for Defendant Chemical & Mining Co. of Chile Inc.


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss Moved to Jan. 14
---------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing dates on the motion to dismiss a class action against
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., as well as the case management
conference set in that case have been rescheduled to be heard
concurrently on Thursday, January 14, 2016.

The case is, COLLEEN GALLAGHER, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL,
INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, CASE NO. 3:15-CV-03952-
HSG (N.D. Cal.)

A copy of the Stipulation signed by District Judge Haywood S.
Gilliam, Jr., on October 22, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/EVhfwbfrom Leagle.com.

Colleen Gallagher filed her Complaint against Chipotle Mexican
Grill on August 28, 2015.  The Court initially set the Case
Management Conference for this matter for December 8, 2015.

The Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss on September 21, 2015,
and set a date for the hearing on its motion for October 29.

Plaintiff's attorneys have a conflict on the Hearing Date and have
sought Defendant's concurrence to reschedule the Hearing Date.
Defendant's attorneys do not oppose rescheduling the Hearing Date
to accommodate Plaintiff's attorneys so long as Defendant has the
opportunity to be heard on its motion.  The parties conferred on a
mutually available Hearing Date;

Laurence D. King, Linda M. Fong, Matthew B. George, Mario M. Choi,
KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP, San Francisco, CA; and Frederic S.
Fox, (pro hac vice) Donald R. Hall, (pro hac vice) KAPLAN FOX &
KILSHEIMER LLP, New York, NY. Attorneys for Plaintiff COLLEEN
GALLAGHER

Charles C. Cavanagh, Allison Dodd, (pro hac vice) MESSNER REEVES
LLP, Denver, CO; Sascha Henry, SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER &
HAMPTON, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Attorneys for Defendant CHIPOTLE
MEXICAN GRILL, INC.


CONOCOPHILLIPS PIPE: 8th Cir. Decertifies Environmental Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
federal appellate court recently decertified an environmental
nuisance class action that alleged a "fear of contamination,"
without much more.

Last month, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Eighth Circuit, after granting a petition for review, reversed
a district court's certification of the class.

Circuit judges Diana Murphy and Bobby Shepherd, along with Judge
Douglas Harpool for the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri, sitting by designation, sided with defendant
ConocoPhillips Pipe Line Company in their Sept. 15 opinion.

Phillips 66 owns a petroleum products pipeline that runs through
the town of West Alton, Missouri.  After a leak in the line was
discovered in 1963, its source was repaired, but the contamination
at the leak site was not remediated.

In 2002, contaminants from the leak were discovered in a family
residence in West Alton.  Phillips purchased and demolished this
property as well as others affected by the leak.

In cooperation with the Missouri Department of Natural Resources,
Phillips fenced in the area around the leak site and set up
monitoring wells to track any spread of pollutants.

While groundwater under the property owned by Phillips is
contaminated, the surrounding properties have tested clean.

In 2011, a class action was filed on behalf of a putative class of
nearby landowners who allege the contaminated site is a nuisance.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, in
St. Louis, certified the class on the theory that possible pockets
of contamination exist within the identified area.

In particular, the district court granted certification to those
property owners within 0.25 miles of the contaminated site.

Phillips appealed, and the Eighth Circuit reversed.

In its 11-page opinion, the appellate court explained that the
landowners lacked evidence that their properties, in particular,
had been contaminated. Therefore, they failed to demonstrate a
common injury, the court ruled.

"The presence on only one property of a petroleum pollutant not
found at the leak site cannot prove that actual contamination
exists on the class land," the judges wrote.  "Plaintiffs
nevertheless argue that their nuisance claim does not depend on a
showing of actual physical invasion, for the presence of
contaminants on one class site creates a 'cloud on the class'
land' and diminishes its property value."

The panel said without evidence of contamination, "the putative
class fear of contamination spreading from the West Alton leak
site to harm their property is not a sufficient injury to support
a claim for common law nuisance in the absence of proof."

The Eighth Circuit pointed out in its ruling that "a number of
other courts" have addressed a similar, "significant" question of
whether nuisance law requires a physical invasion onto property.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit took up the issue
in Adams v. Star Enterprise. In the 1995 ruling, the Fourth
Circuit, in applying Virginia's nuisance law, questioned whether
property owners may recover for the diminution in the value of
their property and their "reasonable fear of negative health
effects" resulting from the proximity of their property to an
environmental hazard such as an underground oil spill.

In Adams, the Fourth Circuit decided concerns that environmental
contamination might spread and cause property values to decrease
were not enough to overcome the legal requirement that a nuisance
be visible or "capable of physical detection from the plaintiff's
property."

Similarly, in Berry v. Armstrong Rubber Co., a 1993 case involving
dumping of manufacturing waste materials, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit concluded in applying Mississippi
law that the evidence "failed to show harmful levels of any toxic
or hazardous substance in the [plaintiff's] well water."

The plaintiffs in Berry simply could not show any invasion of
their property entitling them to recovery on their nuisance claim,
the Fifth Circuit ruled.

"Plaintiffs respond that the governing Missouri law does not
require a showing of physical invasion in order to state a claim
for common law nuisance," the Eighth Circuit noted in the Phillips
opinion.

"While these plaintiffs are concerned about the possibility of
contamination reaching their properties and harming them, the
discovery and testing which has been conducted in the class area
has not shown those fears to be substantiated."

The panel remanded the case to the district court for further
proceedings.

John E. Campbell of St. Louis law firm Campbell Law LLC, who
represents the plaintiffs in the case, said on Oct. 22 they are
proceeding in the district court.

"We are disappointed that we can't represent all the people
impacted by the contamination site," he said in an email,
explaining they will not appeal the ruling.

"We respectfully disagree with the holding, but don't believe
further appeal is the best course," he said.  "Instead, we are
turning our attention to showing the court how the site harms our
individual clients."

Attorney for the defendants, John M. Reynolds of firm Tueth
Keeney, could not immediately be reached for comment.  But a
spokesman for Phillips said on Oct. 22 that the company, as a
matter of practice, "does not provide specifics related to legal
matters."

Meanwhile, Mayer Brown partners Mark R. Ter Molen --
mtermolen@mayerbrown.com -- and Evan M. Tager --
etager@mayerbrown.com -- and associate Sarah E. Reynolds --
sreynolds@mayerbrown.com -- noted in a publication on the firm's
website that the Eighth Circuit's decision could prove impactful.

The attorneys explained that the ruling "should be useful" in
limiting the number of potential plaintiffs in environmental
litigation.

"Indeed, given the strong line of authority to which it adds, it
may deter the filing of 'fear of contamination' claims at the
outset," they wrote.


DAIRYAMERICA INC: Nov. 16 Hearing on Bid to Amend "Carlin" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Anthony W. Ishii gave his stamp of approval
on a Fourth Stipulation to amend the scheduling order in the case,
GERALD CARLIN, JOHN RAHM, PAUL ROZWADOWSKI and DIANA WOLFE,
individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. DAIRYAMERICA, INC. and CALIFORNIA
DAIRIES, INC., Defendants, CASE NO. 1:09 CV 00430-AWI EPG (E.D.
Cal.).

The terms of the Fourth Stipulation are:

     1. Subject to court approval, the briefing schedule
        regarding Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the
        complaint should now be as follows:

        October 23, 2015: Last day for Defendants to file
                          opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for
                          leave to amend the complaint.

        November 6, 2015: Last day for Plaintiffs to file reply
                          brief in support of their motion for
                          leave to amend the complaint.

        November 16, 2015,
        at 1:30 PM,
        Courtroom 2:      Hearing on motion for leave to amend
                          the complaint.

     2. Subject to court approval, the page limits for the briefs
        in response to Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the
        complaint, should now be as follows:

        Opposition Brief: The opposition brief may be up to, but
                          will not exceed, 35 pages in length.

        Reply Brief:      The reply brief may be up to, but will
                          not exceed, 20 pages in length.

     3. Subject to court approval, the pre-certification case
        schedule should now be as follows:

        December 14, 2015: Close of class certification
                           discovery.

        February 9, 2016:  Last day for Plaintiffs to file motion
                           for class certification (and any
                           accompanying expert disclosures,
                           reliance materials, and data sets).

        April 22, 2016:    Last day for Defendants to file
                           opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for
                           class certification.

        May 20, 2016:      Last day for Plaintiffs to file reply
                           brief in support of motion for class
                           certification.

        July 8, 2016,
        at 10:00 AM,
        Courtroom 10:      Hearing on motion for class
                           certification.

A copy of the Court's October 21, 2015 order is available at
http://is.gd/aPCZv6from Leagle.com.


ECOLAB INC: Wins Summary Judgment in "Charlot" Case
---------------------------------------------------
District Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto of the United States District
Court for Eastern District of New York granted defendant's motion
for summary judgment and denied plaintiffs' cross-motion for
partial summary judgment in the case captioned, ANTHONY CHARLOT,
ALAN REMACHE and JOSE TEJADA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ECOLAB, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 12 CIV 4543 (KAM)(VMS).
The named plaintiffs bring an individual, collective, and class
action against Ecolab, Inc. for alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act; the New York Labor Law and its supporting
regulations; the New Jersey Wage-and-Hour Laws, its supporting
regulations and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law; the Pennsylvania
Minimum Wage Act and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection
Law; the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, the Illinois Wage Payments and
Collections Act and their implementing regulations; the Washington
Minimum Wage Act, the Washington Industrial Welfare Act, and the
Washington Wage Rebate Act, and Washington Administrative Code;
and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act and implementing
regulations. Plaintiffs alleged that Ecolab failed to pay its
Route Managers, Route Sales Managers, and Service Sales Route
Managers overtime for hours worked over forty hours per week in
violation of the FLSA and pertinent state overtime and wage laws.
On April 6, 2015, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint to add
four additional named plaintiffs and their respective state class
claims.

Parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on whether
plaintiffs, as Route Managers, Route Sales Managers, or Service
Sales Route Managers for defendant-employer Ecolab, were (1)
exempt employees under the FLSA as either: "outside salesmen,"; or
(2) "commissioned salespersons," who have been properly
compensated under the FLSA. Defendant contends that plaintiffs,
who worked as Route Sales Managers and Sales and Service Route
Managers for Ecolab during the relevant time periods, were paid in
compliance with the FLSA because they are "commissioned
salespersons" pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 207(i) or,
alternatively, are exempt from the FLSA overtime provisions
because they each qualify as an "outside salesman" pursuant to 29
U.S.C. section 213(a)(1). Plaintiffs argue that neither provision
of the FLSA applies, and that defendant failed to properly
compensate plaintiffs for overtime work under the FLSA.

In his Memorandum & Order dated September 30, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/ZP0dFcfrom Leagle.com, Judge Matsumoto granted
Defendant's motion for summary judgment on the ground that
plaintiffs are commissioned salespersons under 29 U.S.C. Section
207. Plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence in the form of
sworn testimony or otherwise to raise a factual dispute as to
defendant's showing that Ecolab is recognized as retail in the
industry.

The parties were ordered to submit a joint status letter in
writing to how they intend to proceed.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Artemio Guerra, Esq.
   Michael J.D. Sweeney, Esq.
   GETMAN & SWEENEY, PLLC
   228 West 137th Street
   New York, NY 10030
   Tel: (212)234-4443

Molly A. Brooks, Esq. -- mb@outtengolden.com, Justin Mitchell
Swartz, Esq. -- jms@outtengolden.com & Sally J. Abrahamson, Esq. -
- sa@outtengolden.com -- OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP

Ecolab, Inc. is represented by Andrew J. Voss, Esq. --
avoss@littler.com, Shirley Lerner, Esq. -- slerner@littler.com,
Susan K. Fitzke, Esq. -- sfitzkie@littler.com, Amy S. Ramsey,
Esq. -- aramsey@littler.com, Angela I. Rochester, Esq. --
arochester@littler.com, John H. Lassetter, Esq. --
jlassetter@littler.com & John A. Ybarra, Esq. --
jybarra@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., Jeffrey W.
Brecher, Esq. -- BrecherJ@jacksonlewis.com & Noel P. Tripp, Esq. -
- TrippN@jacksonlewis.com -- JACKSON LEWIS LLP


EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Feb. 17 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Pomerantz LLP in
regards to a proposed class action settlement.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

BRIAN H. ROBB, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. EDUCATION MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, EDWARD
H. WEST, RANDALL J. KILLEEN, and MICK J. BEEKHUIZEN, Defendants.

Case No. 2:14-cv-01287-DSC

IF YOU PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED COMMON STOCK OF EDUCATION
MANAGEMENT CORPORATION ("EDMC") BETWEEN JULY 1, 2011 AND SEPTEMBER
16, 2014, INCLUSIVE, AND INCURRED DAMAGES, YOU COULD RECEIVE A
PAYMENT FROM A CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure that a hearing will be held on February 17,
2016, at 11:00 a.m., before the Honorable David Stewart Cercone,
United States District Judge, at the Courthouse for the United
States District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, 501 Grant
Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219, Courtroom 7A, for the
purpose of determining, among other things, whether the following
matters should be approved: (1) the proposed Settlement of the
Class claims against the Defendants for $2,500,000.00; (2) the
Plan of Allocation of the Settlement Fund; (3) Lead Counsel's
request for fees and expenses; (4) Lead Plaintiff's request for
Compensatory Award; and (5) dismissals with prejudice of claims
against Defendants.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired EDMC common stock during
the Class Period your rights may be affected.  If you have not
received the detailed Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class
Action and related matters (the "Notice") and Proof of Claim and
Release Form, you may obtain them free of charge by contacting the
Claims Administrator, by mail at: Education Management Securities
Litigation, Claims Administrator, PO Box 4098, Portland, OR 97208-
4098, or at the following website:
www.educationmanagementsecuritieslitigation.com

If you are a member of the Class and wish to share in the
Settlement proceeds, you must submit a Proof of Claim no later
than March 18, 2016 establishing that you are entitled to
recovery.  As further described in the Notice, you will be bound
by any Judgment entered in the Action, regardless of whether you
submit a Proof of Claim, unless you exclude yourself from the
Class, in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Notice,
by no later than December 14, 2015.  Any objections to the
Settlement, Plan of Allocation, attorneys' fees and expenses, or
Lead Plaintiff's compensatory award must be filed and served, in
accordance with the procedures set forth in the Notice, no later
than January 28, 2015.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to Lead
Counsel for the Class: Michele S. Carino, Esq, Pomerantz LLP, 600
Third Avenue, New York, NY 10016, Telephone: 212-661-1100, Toll-
free: 888-476-6529.

INQUIRIES SHOULD NOT BE DIRECTED TO THE COURT, THE
CLERK'S OFFICE, THE DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL

DATED: October 1, 2015

BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA


EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Robb Says Settlement Not Enough Restitution
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Justine Coyne, writing for Pittsburgh Business Times, reports that
a hearing has been scheduled in Pittsburgh to determine if a $2.5
million class action settlement reached between Education
Management Corp. and shareholders will be approved.

On Feb. 17, Judge David Stewart Cercone will determine among other
things whether the proposed settlement should be approved and if
claims against EDMC will be dismissed with prejudice.

According to documents filed Sept. 18 in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania, $250,000 will be set
aside to administer the payments and up to one-third of the $2.5
million will be used to cover attorney fees and court costs.  The
remainder will be divided among shareholders who can prove they
owed EDMC shares between July 1, 2011, and Sept. 16, 2014.

The lawsuit, which was brought against the company in 2014,
alleges EDMC falsely represented that the company changed its
marketing and recruiting practices to comply with newly enacted
regulations from the U.S. Department of Education.  Specifically,
the complaint alleges EDMC and its senior officers made false or
misleading statements regarding the company's job placement rates,
recruiting and enrollment practices, and failed to disclose it was
at risk of losing federal funding under Title IV.

Brian Robb, the shareholder that brought the lawsuit against EDMC,
said he expects the settlement to be approved, but he doesn't
believe $2.5 million is enough restitution.

"Hopefully this will set a precedence for schools across America,"
Mr. Robb said.  "Not just EDMC, but all schools need to change and
live up to their marking promises."

Through the settlement EDMC will be released of all claims related
to securities fraud. The company has denied and continues to deny
they engaged in any wrongdoing, according to the settlement.

EDMC has been working to settle a number of lawsuits filed against
the company.  In September, chairman and newly appointed CEO Mark
McEachen said in an interview with the Business Times that his
first priority after taking over operations Sept. 28 is resolving
the company's ongoing legal issues.

EDMC is close to settling an $11 billion federal lawsuit,
officials said at an Oct. 15 status conference.

A spokesman for the company said it continues to work to resolve
its outstanding litigation.  He declined further comment.


EL POLLO: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Oct. 22
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
all purchasers of the common stock and call options and sellers of
put options of El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. securities from May
15, 2015 through August 13, 2015.  The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for El Pollo Loco investors under the federal securities
laws.

To join the El Pollo Loco class action, go to the firm's website
at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-706.htmlor call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.  The lawsuit is pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.

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

According to the lawsuit, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose adverse information about El
Pollo Loco's business and prospects, including that traffic at El
Pollo Loco stores had declined substantially due to the removal of
value items from the restaurants' menu boards, and that
consequently, comparable store sales were not increasing at 3%,
much less the 3% to 5% the defendants had led investors to believe
they would grow in the second quarter of 2015.

On August 13, 2015, El Pollo issued a press release revealing its
second quarter 2015 results, disclosing that system-wide
comparable restaurant sales had grown only 1.3% and reporting
sales of just $89.5 million.  Shares fell from a close of $18.36
per share on August 13, 2015, to a close of just $14.56 the
following day.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
October 23, 2015.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation go to the firm's
website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-706.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm
toll-free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
kchan@rosenlegal.com

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


ELECTRONIC ARTS: To Seek Further Court Review in "Davis" Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Arts Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company intends to
seek further court review in the case filed by Michael Davis.

On July 29, 2010, Michael Davis, a former NFL running back, filed
a putative class action in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California against the Company, alleging
that certain past versions of Madden NFL included the images of
certain retired NFL players without their permission. In March
2012, the trial court denied the Company's request to dismiss the
complaint on First Amendment grounds.

In January 2015, that trial court decision was affirmed by the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the case was remanded back to
the district court. The Company intends to seek further court
review.


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Court Granted Bid to Dismiss Shareholder Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Arts Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the court granted the
Company's motion to dismiss with prejudice in a shareholder class
action.

On December 17, 2013, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company and certain of its
officers by an individual purporting to represent a class of
purchasers of EA common stock. A second purported shareholder
class action lawsuit alleging substantially similar claims was
subsequently filed in the same court. These lawsuits were
consolidated into one action. The lawsuits, which assert claims
under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, alleged, among other things, that the Company and certain of
its officers issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding the rollout of the Company's Battlefield 4 game.

"We filed a motion seeking dismissal of all claims on January 15,
2015 and on April 30, 2015, the court granted our motion to
dismiss with prejudice," the Company said.


ENOVA INTERNATIONAL: "Kristensen" Suit in Nevada Still Open
-----------------------------------------------------------
Enova International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company intends to
vigorously defend this lawsuit filed by Flemming Kristensen.

On March 8, 2013, Flemming Kristensen, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, filed a purported class action lawsuit
in the U.S. District Court of Nevada against the Company and other
unaffiliated lenders and lead providers. The lawsuit alleges that
the lead provider defendants sent unauthorized text messages to
consumers on behalf of the Company and the other lender defendants
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The
complaint seeks class certification, statutory damages, an
injunction against "wireless spam activities," and attorneys' fees
and costs. The Company filed an answer to the complaint denying
all liability.

On March 26, 2014, the Court granted class certification. On
October 24, 2014, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment,
and the court has not yet ruled on this motion.

On January 27, 2015, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary
judgment against all of the defendants. On July 20, 2015, the
court granted Enova's motion, denied Plaintiff's motion and
entered judgment in favor of the Company. Plaintiff may seek
reconsideration of or appeal the judgment.


EPIRUS BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Agreed-to $400 Fee and Expense Paid
--------------------------------------------------------------
Epirus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the agreed-to
$400 fee and expense amount in the Zalicus Shareholder Litigation
has been paid.

Between April 28, 2014 and May 2, 2014, three putative class
action lawsuits were filed by purported stockholders of Zalicus in
the Business Litigation Session of the Massachusetts Superior
Court, Suffolk County (the "Massachusetts Court"), against
Zalicus, EB Sub, Inc. the members of Zalicus' board of directors
and Private Epirus. Plaintiff has since voluntarily dismissed one
of these actions, Civil A. No. 14-1380. The remaining two actions,
Civ. A. No. 14-1381 and Civ. A. No. 14-1455, were consolidated
into a single action, In re Zalicus Shareholder Litigation, Lead
Civ. A. No. 14-1381 (the "Massachusetts Action"). The
Massachusetts Action alleged that the Zalicus board of directors
breached its fiduciary duties, and that Private Epirus and EB Sub,
Inc. aided and abetted the purported breaches, in connection with
the proposed Merger. The Massachusetts Action sought relief
including, among other things, a declaration that the Merger
Agreement was entered into in breach of fiduciary duties and is
unlawful and unenforceable, an order enjoining defendants from
proceeding with the Merger, an order enjoining defendants from
consummating the Merger unless and until additional procedures are
implemented and all material information in connection with the
proposed Merger is disclosed, rescission of the Merger or any
terms thereof to the extent implemented (or an award of rescissory
damages), compensatory damages and interest, and an award of all
costs of the Massachusetts Action, including reasonable attorneys'
fees and experts' fees.

Between May 1, and May 16, 2014, three putative class action
lawsuits were filed by purported stockholders of Zalicus in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Delaware Court")
against Zalicus, Zalicus' directors, Private Epirus and/or EB Sub,
Inc., Stein v. Zalicus Inc., et al., No. 9602; Do v. Zalicus,
Inc., et al., No. 9636; and Mendlowitz, et al. v. Zalicus Inc., et
al., No. 9664 (the "Consolidated Action"). On May 23, 2014,
plaintiff Harvey Stein filed a verified amended complaint, and on
May 27, 2014, plaintiff Tuan Do filed a verified amended
complaint. The Consolidated Action alleged that the Zalicus board
of directors breached their fiduciary duties, and Private Epirus
and/or EB Sub, Inc. aided and abetted the purported breaches, in
connection with the proposed Merger. The Consolidated Action
sought relief including, among other things, to preliminarily and
permanently enjoin the proposed Merger, to enjoin consummation of
the proposed Merger and rescind the Merger if consummated (or to
award rescissory damages), an award of compensatory damages, and
an award of all costs of the Consolidated Action, including
reasonable attorneys' fees and experts' fees.

On June 6, 2014, plaintiffs' counsel in the Consolidated Action
filed a motion seeking to schedule a preliminary injunction
hearing in advance of the stockholder vote on the proposed Merger,
and seeking expedited discovery in advance of that hearing.
Zalicus, Private Epirus, and the individual defendants opposed the
motion. After a hearing, on June 13, 2014, the Delaware Court
denied plaintiffs' motion.

On October 27, 2014, plaintiffs' counsel in the Massachusetts
Action served the Company with a motion for voluntary dismissal
and an award of attorney's fees. The motion alleged, as set forth
in the consolidated amended complaint filed in the Massachusetts
Action on May 21, 2014, that the Form S-4 Registration Statement
filed with the SEC on May 8, 2014 contained numerous material
misstatements and/or omissions that prevented the Company's
shareholders from being able to evaluate the reasonableness of the
Merger. The motion further alleged that in the Amended
Registration Statement filed on June 4, 2014, the Company
supplemented the disclosures and addressed the allegedly material
misstatements and omissions contained in the initial Registration
Statement, and that the Company did so in response to the claims
made in the Massachusetts Action.

On November 6, 2014, with the Massachusetts Court's entry of a
judgment of dismissal, the Massachusetts Action was closed.

On November 10, 2014, the parties in the Consolidated Action
submitted a stipulation and proposed order to dismiss the
Consolidated Action and to set a schedule for plaintiffs'
counsel's anticipated application for an award of attorney's fees
and expenses. On November 12, 2014, the Delaware Court entered an
order dismissing the Consolidated Action without prejudice. The
Delaware Court retained jurisdiction solely for the purpose of
determining plaintiffs' anticipated application for an award of
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses.

After the Consolidated Action was dismissed, the parties commenced
and engaged in discussions to resolve the amount of plaintiffs'
counsel's application for fees and expenses.

After negotiations, the parties agreed that the Company would make
a combined, global fee and expense payment to counsel in both the
Consolidated Action and the Massachusetts Action in the amount of
$400, of which $50 would be paid by the Company's insurer, in full
satisfaction of plaintiffs' counsel's claim for attorneys' fees
and expenses in the Consolidated Action and the Massachusetts
Action, which the parties memorialized in a stipulation dated
January 13, 2015. As a result of the order, the Company recorded
$350 in general and administrative expense in its Consolidated
Statement of Operations for the year ended December 31, 2014. The
parties requested that the Delaware Court close the Consolidated
Action as a result of the stipulation. The Delaware Court directed
that notice of the resolution of plaintiffs' counsel's request for
attorneys' fees and expenses be provided to shareholders. The
parties have since issued notice to shareholders (including via
the Company's filing on its Current Report on March 13, 2015).
After expiration of the requisite notice waiting period, the
parties submitted to the Delaware Court a proposed order verifying
that notice has been provided and providing for the final
dismissal and closure of the case. On April 15, 2015, the Delaware
Court accepted the order and closed and dismissed the Consolidated
Action.

The agreed-to $400 fee and expense amount was paid on April 22,
2015, which is within ten days of the final dismissal and closure
of the Consolidated Action.


EQUIFAX INC: Dismissal Bids in "Jones" Case Denied
--------------------------------------------------
District Judge M. Hannah Lauck denied the Defendants' motion to
dismiss in the case captioned CHAUNA JONESY f/k/a CHAUNA CRAWLEY
and TYRONE HENDERSON, on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. EQUIFAX, INC., in
its own name and t/a EQUIFAX WORKFORCE SOLUTIONS a/k/a TALX
CORPORATION and EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, Defendants,
Civil Action No. 3:14CV678, (E.D. Va.)

Plaintiffs bring this purported class action against Defendants
alleging two Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) violations. In Count
I, a class claim, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, operating
collectively and jointly as a national "consumer reporting agency"
(CRA) as defined in 15 U.S.C. Section 1681a(f),6 violated 15
U.S.C. Section 1681g(a)7 by not providing Plaintiffs with their
full file at the time of their requests. Specifically, Plaintiffs
aver that Defendants were required to include the information held
about Plaintiffs in the Work Number Database upon Plaintiffs'
request for their files. In Count II, Plaintiff Henderson
individually alleges that EIS violated 15 U.S.C. Section 1681e(b)
by not following "reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible
accuracy of the credit reports and credit files it published and
maintained concerning" Henderson.

Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss.

In her Memorandum Opinion dated August 27, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/aoWBZufrom Leagle.com, Judge Lauck denied
Defendants' motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs, the Court said,
sufficiently stated a claim for liability under FCRA because they
plausibly allege that all Defendants operate collectively as a
CRA. A consumer reporting agency is "any person which, for
monetary fees, dues, or on a cooperative nonprofit basis,
regularly engages in whole or in part in the practice of
assembling or evaluating consumer credit information or other
information on consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer
reports to third parties." Plaintiffs adequately asserted that
Defendants assemble and evaluate information on consumers, by
pointing to Defendants' own website that states that "Equifax
organizes and assimilates data on more than 500 million consumers
. . . worldwide." Plaintiffs averred that Defendants engage in
such activities for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to
specific third parties, such as employers, consumer finance
providers, and mortgage companies. Finally, Plaintiffs plausibly
alleged that the Defendants do so collectively.

Casey Shannon Nash, Esq. -- casey@clalegal.com -- Susan Mary
Rotkis, Esq. -- susan@clalegal.com -- Leonard Anthony Bennett,
Esq. -- leonard@clalegal.com -- and Matthew James Erausquin, Esq.
-- matt@clalegal.com -- of Consumer Litgation Associates PC; John
Soumilas, Esq., and James Arthur Francis, Esq., of Francis &
Mailman PC; and Dale Wood Pittman, Esq., of The Law Office of Dale
W. Pittman, P.C. serve as counsel for Plaintiff Chauna Jones

John Willard Montgomery, Jr., Esq., of John W. Montgomery Jr.
Attorney PLC; John Anthony Love, Esq. -- tlove@kslaw.com -- Meryl
W. Roper, Esq. -- mroper@kslaw.com -- Timothy H. Lee, Esq. --
tlee@kslaw.com -- and Zachary Andrew McEntyre, Esq. --
zmcentyre@kslaw.com -- of King & Spalding serve as counsel for
Defendant Equifax, Inc. in its own name and t/a Equifax Workforce
Solutions.


FACEBOOK INC: Motion to Compel Discovery in "Campbell" Granted
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James granted Plaintiffs' motion to
compel Facebook Inc. in the case captioned MATTHEW CAMPBELL, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. FACEBOOK INC., Defendant, Case No. 13-CV-
05996-PJH (MEJ), (N.D. Cal.)

The parties in this putative privacy class action filed three
Joint Discovery Letters outlining various disputes.  In the first
Letter, they dispute whether Defendant Facebook, Inc. must produce
documents regarding how it monetarily values information obtained
by allegedly scanning putative class members' private Facebook
messages.  In their second Letter, they dispute whether Facebook
must produce an interrogatory response and related documents about
how Facebook processes users' private messages.
Plaintiffs allege that Facebook "has systematically intercepted
Facebook users' private Facebook messages without their consent,"
in violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA or
the Wiretap Act) and the California Invasion of Privacy Act
(CIPA).

According to Plaintiffs, whenever a private Facebook message
contains a Uniform Resource Locator (URL), Facebook uses a
software application called a "web crawler" to scan the URL.
Plaintiffs allege that "when their ostensibly private messages
contained links to other websites, . . . Facebook scanned those
messages and then analyzed the URL in the link."  Plaintiffs
further allege that "Facebook retains the user data it has
collected, including the "Likes" assigned through intercepting
users' private messages." They allege Facebook uses the data it
collects during a scan of a private message for other purposes
including, among others, enhancing its targeted advertising
efforts.  Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of "all natural-
person Facebook users located within the United States who have
sent or received private messages that included URLs in their
content, from within two years before the filing of this action up
through and including the date when Facebook ceased its practice."

In her Discovery Order dated October 14, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/WCqP8Kfrom Leagle.com, Judge James granted
Plaintiffs' motion to compel Facebook's responses to Interrogatory
No. 8 and RFP Nos. 41, 53-60, as well as its Motion to Compel
Facebook's Rule 30(b)(6) deposition to testify as to Topics 1-2.
The Court finds it reasonable that Plaintiffs should be permitted
somewhat broader discovery to be able to establish a model or
methodology for class-wide relief.

Facebook was required to respond to these requests in accordance
with this Order no later than October 28, 2015.

David Taylor Rudolph, Esq. -- drudolph@lchb.com -- Melissa Ann
Gardner, Esq. -- mgardner@lchb.com -- Nicholas Diamand, Esq. --
ndiamand@lchb.com -- Rachel Geman, Esq. -- rgeman@lchb.com -- and
Michael W. Sobol, Esq. -- msobol@lchb.com -- of Lieff Cabraser
Heimann and Bernstein, LLP -- David F. Slade, Esq. --
dslade@cbplaw.com -- James Allen Carney, Esq. --
acarney@cbplaw.com -- and Joseph Henry Bates, III, Esq. --
hbates@cbplaw.com -- of Carney Bates Pulliam, PLLC -- Jeremy A.
Lieberman, Esq. -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- and Lesley F.
Portney, Esq. -- lportnoy@glancylaw.com -- of Pomerantz Grossman
Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP serve as counsel for Plaintiff
Matthew Campbell, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated

Christopher Chorba, Esq. -- cchorba@gibsondunn.com -- Jeana Marie
Bisnar Maute, Esq. -- jbisnarmaute@gibsondunn.com -- Joshua Aaron
Jessen, Esq. -- jjessen@gibsondunn.com -- and Ashley Marie Rogers,
Esq. -- arogers@gibsondunn.com -- of Gibson Dunn and Crutcher LLP
serve as counsel for Defendant Facebook Inc.


FIRST ACCEPTANCE: Mediation in Class Action Held
------------------------------------------------
First Acceptance Corporation and the plaintiffs in a class action
against the Company were scheduled to hold a mediation on August
17, 2015, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015.

In January 2014, one current and three former employees filed a
collective action lawsuit against the Company in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.  The suit Lykins, et
al. v. First Acceptance Corporation, et al, alleges the Company
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by misclassifying its
insurance agents as exempt employees. Plaintiffs seek unpaid
wages, overtime, attorneys' fees and costs. The Company answered
the plaintiffs' Complaint and denied all of the allegations
contained therein. In April 2014, the class of agents was
conditionally certified and a notice regarding the case was sent
to all potential class members. A total of 227 individuals chose
to participate in the case during the opt-in period which closed
on July 15, 2014.

The Company disagrees with the allegations in this lawsuit and
believes that it is able to present a vigorous defense. However,
since any such litigation would likely have a lengthy duration and
require the Company to incur significant legal expense, the
Company and the plaintiffs scheduled a mediation on August 17,
2015. Currently an estimate of the financial impact of this
litigation on the Company cannot yet be determined.


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

On August 11, 2015, the Court issued an order (the "Order") in the
Class Action. In the Order, the Court denied in part and granted
in part the Defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied
plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. In addition, the Court
certified one issue (relating to loss causation) for immediate
interlocutory appeal by the parties. The Court, in its Order,
stated as follows:

"The Court finds two competing lines of cases in the Ninth Circuit
on loss causation. Because one line would result in complete
summary judgment for Defendants and the other (which the Court
chooses to follow) will result largely in denial of summary
judgment and a lengthy and expensive trial, the Court will certify
this issue for immediate appeal. . . ."

The Company intends to file a petition for such immediate appeal
with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Upon such timely filing,
further proceedings in the Class Action will be stayed until the
Ninth Circuit decides whether to take the appeal, and, if it does,
the stay will remain in effect until the appeal is decided,
First Solar, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2015.


HOUSTON AMERICAN: $7MM Settlement in Shareholder Case Now Paid
--------------------------------------------------------------
Houston American Energy Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the
Silverman Shareholder Class Action Suit, the $7,000,000 litigation
settlement payable and the related insurance claim receivable were
each reflected as settled on the Company's balance sheet at June
30, 2015.

The Company disclosed that, "On April 27, 2012, a purported class
action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas against the Company and certain of its
executive officers: Steve Silverman v. Houston American Energy
Corp. et al., Case No. 4:12-CV-1332.  The complaint generally
alleged that, between March 29, 2010 and April 18, 2012, all of
the defendants violated Sections 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 and the individual defendants
violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act in making materially
false and misleading statements including certain statements
related to the status and viability of the Tamandua #1 well on the
Company's CPO 4 prospect."

"Two additional class action lawsuits were filed against us in May
2012. The complaints sought unspecified damages, interest,
attorneys' fees, and other costs.

"On September 20, 2012, the court consolidated the class action
lawsuits and appointed a lead plaintiff and, on November 15, 2012,
the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.  The amended
complaint, among other things, expanded the putative class period
to November 9, 2009 to April 18, 2012 and added allegations
challenging a November 2009 estimate concerning the CPO 4
prospect.

"On January 14, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss and,
on August 22, 2013, the court granted the motion and dismissed the
complaint. The plaintiffs subsequently filed a Notice of Appeal of
the dismissal of the complaint.

"On July 15, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
reversed the dismissal of the case. The appellate court ruling
focused on the sufficiency of the pleadings in the case, made no
determination regarding the merits of the factual allegations, and
remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings.

"In October 2014, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
settle the consolidated lawsuit. The settlement, which provided
for a $7,000,000 payment expected to be fully funded by the
Company's insurance, was subject to preliminary and final approval
of the court. The parties submitted the settlement to the court
for approval on December 31, 2014.  The court signed an order on
April 16, 2015 preliminarily approving the settlement.  Pursuant
to the terms of the settlement, the Company, through its insurer,
was required to escrow settlement funds in the amount of
$7,000,000.

"In May 2015, the Company's insurer deposited the required funds
into an escrow account to fund the settlement. On July 29, 2015,
the court rendered a final judgment approving the settlement and
dismissed the case with prejudice.  As a result, the $7,000,000
litigation settlement payable and the related insurance claim
receivable were each reflected as settled on the Company's balance
sheet at June 30, 2015."


ILLINOIS: Deaf Inmates' Suit Obtains Class Action Status
--------------------------------------------------------
Molly Parker, writing for The Southern Illinoisan, reports that a
federal judge has granted class action status for a lawsuit filed
in 2011 on behalf of 11 deaf and hard of hearing inmates at the
Illinois Department of Corrections alleging systemic failures by
the department to provide critical accommodations as required by
law.

The lawsuit, which seeks to require the state to provide proper
accommodations to an estimated 100 inmates who are deaf or hard of
hearing, alleges improper denials of accommodations such as
American Sign Language interpreters and other alternate forms of
communication.

Without these accommodations, the lawsuit alleges, deaf and hard
of hearing prisoners are endangered and deprived of meaningful
access to religious services, healthcare, educational and
vocational programs, telephones, televisions, library services,
disciplinary proceedings, grievances, and pre-release programs.

In ruling that the case could proceed as a class action, Northern
District Illinois Judge Marvin Aspen found that "there are
considerable disputed facts as to whether IDOC has appropriate
policies and procedures in place and whether those that do exist
are sufficient or even practiced and enforced."

"Plaintiffs presented significant proof of the systemic failures
alleged," he wrote in the decision.

IDOC spokeswoman Nicole Wilson said the department is reviewing
the court's ruling and has no comment at this time.

The lawsuit was filed by Chicago-based Winston & Strawn LLP,
serving as lead counsel; two Illinois nonprofit legal advocacy
organizations, Equip for Equality and Uptown People's Law Center;
and the National Association for the Deaf.

"The fact that the Department of Corrections continues its refusal
to follow the law and provide accommodations to this group of
prisoners should appall every resident of Illinois," stated
Alan Mills, executive director of uptown People's Law Center, in a
statement.

Howard A. Rosenblum, chief executive officer of the National
Association of the Deaf, said, "Deaf and hard of hearing people
deserve equal access to education, religious services, medical
treatment and telecommunications -- even in prison."

Barry Taylor, vice president for civil rights with Equip for
Equality, the federal designation protection and advocacy agency
for Illinois, said the organization estimates the class-action
lawsuit would include at least 100 current inmates and all future
inmates who are deaf or hard of hearing, and maybe more.

Part of the problem is that IDOC has not provided an accurate
count of the number of deaf and hard of hearing prisoners in need
of accommodations.

Though the lawsuit was filed four years ago, Mr. Taylor said it's
his belief that issues affecting these prisoners have not been
remedied since then.  "Every prison is a little different and some
interpreters are provided but not consistently," he said.

Nine of the 11 inmates named in the original lawsuit, some serving
in Southern Illinois prisons, are still incarcerated.  One has
been released, and one inmate, Curtis Foster, has since died of a
burst appendix.

Mr. Taylor said the legal teams are looking into whether his
alleged insufficient accommodations for communicating may have led
to his death by hindering his ability to communicate a medical
need to staff.

In 2011, the lawsuit described Foster as a 46-year-old man
incarcerated at Stateville Correctional Center.  He began his
prison sentence in 1998 and spent the first five years at Menard
Correctional Center.  The lawsuit said Foster relied on American
Sign Language to communicate and required an ASL interpreter to
communicate with those who do not know ASL.

The lawsuit names as defendants Salvador Godinez, who was acting
director of the department in 2011 when the suit was filed, and
the agency's then-disabilities coordinator.  They are named in
their official capacity, and Mr. Taylor said the lawsuit will be
amended to name the current acting director, John Baldwin, who was
appointed by Gov. Bruce Rauner to the post in August.


INDIANAPOLIS BUSINESS: Faces Class Action Over Katina Powell Book
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Wolfson, writing for Courier-Journal, reports that a
University of Louisville student has sued escort Katina Powell and
her publisher, saying her book, "Breaking Cardinal Rules,"
tarnishes the university and reduces the value of her education.

Louisville lawyer Nader George Shunnarah, who is asking that the
suit be designated a class action on behalf of all U of L
students, could not be reached for comment.  But he told an online
news site that "the goal here is to benefit students instead of
the prostitute."

The suit asks that all profits from the book be placed with a
receiver in the Jefferson Circuit Court clerk's office.

But Jon Fleischaker, a leading First Amendment attorney, said the
suit, filed on Oct. 22 in Jefferson Circuit Court, is meritless
and raises serious constitutional questions.

"Whatever you think of Katina Powell, she has a First Amendment
right to write about whatever she wants and it appears that at
least some of what she wrote is true," said Mr. Fleischaker, who
represents the Kentucky Press Association and The Courier-Journal.

"This is a silly lawsuit," Mr. Fleischaker said.

The complaint was filed on behalf of Kyle Nicole Hornback, who
said in an email that she is 19 and a sophomore.

It asks a judge to order all profits from "Breaking Cardinal
Rules" placed with a receiver in the Jefferson Circuit Court
clerk's office and ultimately given to U of L students.

The book's publisher, the Indianapolis Business Journal, which is
also named as a defendant, did not immediately respond to requests
for comment.

The suit alleges that the publication of the book alleging that
Powell provided prostitutes for U of L basketball players and
recruits violates Ms. Hornback's contract with U of L, to which
she promised to pay tuition in exchange for an education.

Mr. Shunnarah told an online site, The Bird Cage, which first
reported about the suit, that "when you commit a criminal act and
it damages an entire University, your degree, the value of your
degree, your ability to pay back student loans, and your ability
to get a job," students should profit, rather than Powell.

The suit asks for punitive and compensatory damages, saying
Mr. Hornback suffered damages "including but not by way of
limitation to her degree, her ability to repay student loans and
her ability to find employment after graduation."


INOGEN INC: Securities Class Action Closed
------------------------------------------
A securities class action against Inogen, Inc. has been closed,
the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2015.

On March 13 and March 19, 2015, plaintiffs Brad Christi and Roger
D. Holford each filed, respectively, a lawsuit against Inogen,
Raymond Huggenberger, Inogen's President and Chief Executive
Officer, and Alison Bauerlein, Inogen's Executive Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer, in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of our securities between November 12, 2014
and March 11, 2015. The complaints alleged that Inogen, Mr.
Huggenberger and Ms. Bauerlein violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act),
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and that Mr. Huggenberger
and Ms. Bauerlein violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
Specifically, the complaints alleged that during the purported
class period our financial statements and disclosures concerning
internal controls over financial reporting were materially false
and misleading.  The complaints sought compensatory damages in an
unspecified amount, costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees
and expert fees, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and such
other relief as the court deemed proper.

On May 7, 2015, plaintiff Roger D. Holford filed a notice of
voluntary dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(A) in the second filed action.  On
June 29, 2015, plaintiff Brad Christi filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(A) in the first filed action.  The case
was closed by the Court as of June 29, 2015.


INSULET CORP: Class Suits Filed Over Inflated Share Price
---------------------------------------------------------
Insulet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that from May 5, 2015, to
June 16, 2015, three class action lawsuits were filed by
shareholders in the U.S. District Court, Massachusetts, against
the Company and certain individual current and former executives
of the Company. Two suits were voluntarily dismissed. Arkansas
Teacher Retirement System v. Insulet, et al., 1:15-cv-12345,
alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making allegedly false and
misleading statements about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, compensatory
damages in connection with the Company's allegedly inflated stock
price between May 7, 2013 and April 30, 2015, as well as
attorneys' fees and costs. In light of the preliminary nature of
this matter, the Company is unable to reasonably assess its
ultimate outcome. However, the Company believes that the
resolution of this matter will not have a material adverse effect
on its financial condition.


INTERCLOUD SYSTEMS: No Decision Yet on Motion to Dismiss Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A court decision on Intercloud Systems, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a
class action lawsuit remains pending, Intercloud said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
August 12, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015.

The Company said, "In March 2014, a complaint was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
against our company, our Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive
Officer, Mark Munro, The DreamTeamGroup and MissionIR, as
purported securities advertisers and investor relations firms, and
John Mylant, a purported investor and investment advisor. The
complaint was purportedly filed on behalf of a class of certain
persons who purchased our common stock between November 5, 2013
and March 17, 2014. The complaint alleges violations by the
defendants (other than Mark Munro) of Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act, and other related provisions in connection with
certain alleged courses of conduct that were intended to deceive
the plaintiff and the investing public and to cause the members of
the purported class to purchase shares of our common stock at
artificially inflated prices based on untrue statements of a
material fact or omissions to state material facts necessary to
make the statements not misleading. The complaint also alleges
that Mr. Munro and our company violated Section 20 of the Exchange
Act as controlling persons of the other defendants. The complaint
seeks unspecified damages, attorney and expert fees, and other
unspecified litigation costs."

"On November 3, 2014, the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey issued an order appointing Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead plaintiffs' counsel and Cohn Lifland
Pearlman Herrmann & Knopf LLP as liaison counsel for the pending
actions. The lead filed an amended complaint in January 2015
adding additional third-party defendants. We filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint in late January 2015 and the
plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in early March 2015.
We filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on March
13, 2015. Our motion to dismiss was heard by the Court on May 4,
2015. The Court's decision is pending."


IQOR HOLDINGS: Minn. Judge Certifies Class of Call-Center Workers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge in St. Paul, Minn. conditionally certified the
class of call-center workers accusing iQor Holdings of denying
them overtime, Courthouse News Service reported.

The case is, Paris Shoots, Jonathan Bell, Maxwell, Turner, Tammy
Hope, and Phillipp Ostrovsky on behalf of themselves, the Proposed
Rule 23 Classes, and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
iQor Holdings US Inc., Defendant, Civil No. 15-CV-563 (SRN/SER)(D.
Minn.).

For Plaintiffs:

     Timothy C. Selander, Esq.
     Rachhana T. Srey, Esq.
     Carl F. Engstrom, Esq.
     Ashley R. Thronson, Esq.
     E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
     John F. Albanese, Esq.
     Nichols Kaster, PLLP
     80 South Eighth Street, Suite 4600
     Minneapolis, MN 55402

          - and -

     Douglas L. Micko, Esq.
     Vildan A. Teske, Esq.
     Brian T. Rochel, Esq.
     Teske Micko, Esq.
     Katz Kitzer & Rochel, PLLP
     222 South Ninth Street, Suite 4050
     Minneapolis, MN 55402

For Defendant:

     Brian T. Benkstein, Esq.
     Gina K. Janeiro, Essq.
     Jackson Lewis P.C.
     225 South Sixth Street, Suite 3850
     Minneapolis, MN 55402

          - and -

     Erin E. McAdams, Esq.
     Kevin F. Gaffney, Esq.
     Sari M. Alamuddin, Esq.
     Stephanie L. Sweitzer, Esq.
     Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
     77 West Wacker Drive
     Chicago, IL 60601

          - and -

     Paul C. Evans, Esq.
     Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
     1701 Market Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19103


IRADIMED CORP: Accrued Insignificant Amount Related Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Iradimed Corporation has accrued an insignificant amount related
to a class action during the three months ended June 30, 2015, the
Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 11, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2015.

On September 10, 2014, a Civil Action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida ("Lam Civil
Action"). The Lam Civil Action was a putative class action lawsuit
brought against the Company and certain individuals who are
officers and / or directors of the Company. The plaintiff was an
alleged shareholder of the Company, and in the operative complaint
sought relief on behalf of a class of persons who purchased the
Company's common stock during the period from July 15, 2014
through September 17, 2014. The complaint alleged that the
defendants failed to disclose material information concerning the
Company's compliance with FDA regulations in violation of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
thereunder, and that the putative class members suffered damages
as a result. The complaint additionally alleged "control person"
liability against the individual defendants under Section 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Company disputed the
plaintiff's allegations and theories of liability. On May 26,
2015, the court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the
complaint in its entirety. On June 22, 2015, the plaintiff filed a
notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit.

"We accrued an insignificant amount related to this matter during
the three months ended June 30, 2015," the Company said.


JINKOSOLAR HOLDING: March 11 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Bernstein Liebhard LLP
and Zamansky LLC regarding Peters v. JinkoSolar Holding Co. Ltd.,
et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

MARCO PETERS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs, vs. JINKOSOLAR HOLDING CO., LTD., XIANDE LI,
KANGPING CHEN, XIANHUA LI, WING KEONG SLEW, HAITAO JIN, ZIBIN LI,
STEVEN MARKSCHEID, LONGGEN ZHANG, CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA)
LLC, OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC., ROTH CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, WILLIAM
BLAIR & CO., and COLLINS STEWART LLC, Defendants.
No. 11 Civ. 7133 (JPO)

SUMMARY NOTICE
TO:  ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED
JINKOSOLAR HOLDING CO., LTD. NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE-TRADED ADSs
(NYSE:JKS) BETWEEN MAY 13, 2010 AND SEPTEMBER 20, 2011 (THE "CLASS
PERIOD"), EITHER IN OR TRACEABLE TO THE MAY 13, 2010 INITIAL
PUBLIC OFFERING OR THE NOVEMBER 4, 2010 SECONDARY OFFERING, OR ON
THE OPEN MARKET DURING THE CLASS PERIOD, AND WERE DAMAGED THEREBY
(THE "CLASS" OR "CLASS MEMBERS").

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York (the
"Court"), that a hearing will be held at 10:00 a.m. on March 11,
2016 before the Honorable J. Paul Oetken, United States District
Judge, in Courtroom 706, at the Thurgood Marshall United States
Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, New York, for the purpose
of determining (1) whether the proposed settlement of the Action
for the principal amount of $5,050,000 in cash should be approved
by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate to Class Members;
(2) whether the proposed Order and Final Judgment should be
entered by the Court dismissing the Action with prejudice; (3)
whether the proposed plan to distribute the settlement proceeds
("Plan of Allocation") is fair, reasonable, and adequate and,
therefore, should be approved; and (4) whether the application of
Lead Plaintiffs for attorneys' fees and costs incurred in
connection with this Action and reimbursement of Plaintiffs'
reasonable costs and expenses directly related to representation
of the Class ("Fee and Expense Application") should be approved.
In connection with the Fee and Expense Application, Co-Lead
Counsel will request attorneys' fees of 30% of the Gross
Settlement Fund, plus expenses (exclusive of administration costs)
not to exceed $90,000.

If you purchased JKS ADS between May 13, 2010 and September 20,
2011, your rights may be affected by the settlement of the Action.
If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency of Class
Action and Proposed Settlement, Settlement Fairness Hearing, and
Motion For an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of
Litigation Expenses (the "Notice") and a copy of the Proof of
Claim Form, you may obtain copies by writing to Claims
Administrator at JinkoSolar Securities Settlement, c/o Garden City
Group, LLC, PO Box 10242, Dublin, OH 43017-5742, or by calling 1-
877-940-7794, or on the Internet at
www.jinkosolarsecuritiessettlement.com

If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution
of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim Form,
postmarked on or before January 12, 2016 establishing that you are
entitled to recovery.

If you desire to be excluded from the Class, you must submit a
request for exclusion by no later than February 12, 2016, in the
manner and form explained in the detailed Notice. All Class
Members who have not timely and validly requested exclusion from
the Class will be bound by any judgment entered in the Action
pursuant to the Stipulation of Settlement dated September 15,
2015.

Any objection to the Settlement must be filed with the Court and
received by Counsel no later than February 12, 2016.
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.  If you have any questions about the Settlement, you
may contact Co-Lead Counsel:

Michael S. Bigin
BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP
10 East 40th Street
New York, New York 10016
(212) 779-1414
JKS@bernlieb.com

Jacob H. Zamansky
Samuel E. Bonderoff
ZAMANSKY LLC
50 Broadway, 32nd Floor
New York, New York 10004
Telephone:  (212) 742-1414
Facsimile:  (212) 742-1177

DATED:  October 22, 2015

BY ORDER OF THE COURT,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: "Ferrar" Baby Power Suit Remanded
----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Catherine D. Perry granted the Plaintiffs' motion
to remand in the case captioned TENESHA FERRAR, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 4:15 CV 1219 CDP, (E.D. Mo.)

Plaintiffs in this case are 98 individuals (or their spouses
and/or personal representatives) who allege that they developed
ovarian cancer from using Johnson & Johnson baby powder and shower
products. Defendant Johnson & Johnson designed, developed,
manufactured, marketed and sold the products, and defendant Imerys
Talc mined the talc contained in the products. Plaintiffs filed
this action on October 31, 2014, in the Circuit Court for the City
of St. Louis, Missouri, seeking to recover damages from defendants
under state law claims for failure to warn, negligence, breach of
warranty, wrongful death, civil conspiracy, and concert of action.
Johnson and Johnson removed this case the first time on November
18, 2014, alleging diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section
1332. The Court remanded the case based on a concession from
Johnson & Johnson that remand was appropriate. After the case was
remanded, a second set of 71 plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the
same state court against the same defendants for injuries related
to their use of the same baby powder and shower products.

In her Memorandum and Order dated October 14, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/jLlenRfrom Leagle.com, Judge Perry granted the
Plaintiffs' motion to remand and the case is remanded to the 22nd
Judicial Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri. Johnson
& Johnson has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence
that the proposed scheduling plans amount to a request for a joint
trial. Initially, there is the obvious point that plaintiffs
submitted three separate documents (one for each case), with three
separate case captions and cause numbers, to defendants. Apart
from this, the mere fact that plaintiffs used November 29, 2016,
as the date under a heading called "Trial" on all three proposed
scheduling plans does not prove that plaintiffs' "true purpose"
was a "joint assignment in which the inevitable result will be
that their cases are tried jointly. The parties never had a
conference with the Division 10 judge about these proposed
scheduling plans because Johnson & Johnson rushed to this
courthouse with its removal papers immediately upon receiving the
email from plaintiffs' counsel. Had it waited to hear what
plaintiffs' counsel would actually say at the scheduling
conference about the proposed trial dates, there might have been a
record sufficient to conclude that they were in effect seeking a
joint trial. Johnson & Johnson has provided no other evidence that
plaintiffs either explicitly or implicitly requested a joint trial
of their claims, and there is nothing in this record to suggest
that the federal district court has subject matter jurisdiction
over this action.

Eric D. Holland, Esq. -- eholland@allfela.com -- Patrick R Dowd,
Esq. -- pdowd@allfela.com -- and Randall S. Crompton, Esq. --
scrompton@allfela.com -- of HOLLAND LAW FIRM LLC serve as counsel
for Plaintiff Tenesha Ferrar

Beth A. Bauer, Esq. -- bbauer@heplerbroom.com -- and Gerard T.
Noce, Esq. -- gnoce@heplerbroom.com -- of HEPLER BROOM serve as
counsel for Defendant Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc.


LAS VEGAS, NV: Police Union Sues Over New Law on Paid Time Off
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Heuer, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that Las
Vegas police unions sued their own police force, challenging the
constitutionality of a new state law that prohibits paid time off
for union officials to conduct union business.

Three unions -- Las Vegas Police Protective Association Metro, Las
Vegas Police Association Civilian Employees, and Las Vegas Metro
Police Managers & Supervisors Association -- sued Las Vegas
Metropolitan Police Department on Oct. 7 in Federal Court in
Nevada.  They claim Nevada Senate Bill 241, which took effect on
June 1, constitutes illegal viewpoint discrimination. The law
requires unions to repay employers when union officials take paid
time off for union activities.

However, "The Legislature does not prohibit paid leaves to work
against labor organizations, nor to advocate for nonlabor groups,"
the complaint states. "The Legislature's purported concern over
public spending on advocacy also has not led it to restrict local
government spending on lobbying (which amounted to over $3.3
million in the most recent year). This statute represents
viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment
freedoms of speech and association and the Equal Protection
Clause."

The unions say paid time off has been part of their collective
bargaining agreements for years. Union officers use it to advocate
for their members before government officials, learn members'
workplace problems and concerns, and inform and provide counsel
for members without having to reimburse employers for the paid
time off.

"Without paid leave, the unions' officers face being fired if they
tried to spend as much time working for and with employees as they
have been spending up until now," the unions say in the complaint.

Nevada's SB 241 will end paid leave for union officials engaged in
union business after their collective bargaining contracts expire.
The Police Protective Association Civilian Employees contract
expired on July 1; the other plaintiffs' contract will expire on
July 1, 2016.

The Nevada Legislature wrote the bill at the behest of the
American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, according to the
lawsuit. ALEC has written pro-management, anti-labor bills for
numerous legislatures. Its board of directors in 2012 wrote a
model "Prohibition on Paid Union Activity by Public Employees Act"
and sent it to lawmakers nationwide.

Other states have enacted and/or are considering enacting similar
laws. In Michigan, Senate Bill 279 would prohibit public schools
from paying for time off for teacher union officials to do union
work. State Sen. Marty Knollenberg, R-Troy, introduced the
measure, which awaits action before a committee of the whole.

The Michigan-based Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a
conservative, free-market think tank, says Michigan public schools
have paid $3 million a year in paid time off for union officials,
including schools with budget deficits and for union officials who
spend more time doing union work than school work.

"When taxpayers fund release time for government employees, they
are paying them to work for a private entity rather than the
public," said Jarrett Skorup, a policy analyst at the Mackinac
Center. "This scheme costs taxpayers twice -- once to pay for the
union official's salary and again to pay for a replacement in the
classroom."

Las Vegas' police unions want the law declared unconstitutional
and its enforcement enjoined.

Neither union officials nor their attorney Andrew Kahn, with
McCracken Stemerman & Holsberry, returned calls seeking comment.
He may be reached at:

     Andrew J. Kahn, Esq.
     McCRACKEN, STEMERMAN & HOLSBERRY
     1630 S. Commerce Street, Suite A-i
     Las Vegas, NV 89102
     Tel: (702) 386-5107
     Fax: (702) 386-9848

Las Vegas Metropolitan Police officials do not comment on active
lawsuits.


LONGS DRUG STORES: Pre-Certification Discovery Order Vacated
------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Vance W. Raye of the Court of Appeals of California, Third
District, Sacramento, vacated the Superior Court of Sacramento's
discovery order in the appeal case captioned CVS PHARMACY, INC.,
et al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SACRAMENTO COUNTY,
Respondent; CHARLENE DELUCA, Real Party in Interest, No. C077622,
(Cal. App. Ct.)

Real party in interest Charlene Deluca filed a complaint alleging
defendants CVS Pharmacy, Inc., and Longs Drug Stores California,
LLC (CVS), have a corporate policy of automatically terminating
employees who do not work any hours for 45 consecutive days.
Deluca sought injunctive relief to challenge the policy, which she
argued discriminated against qualified individuals with
disabilities in violation of the California Fair Employment and
Housing Act (FEHA). Deluca, an employee of Longs, was not
disabled, nor had she been terminated under the alleged 45-day
policy. CVS demurred to Deluca's complaint. The trial court
sustained CVS's demurrer based on Deluca's lack of standing and
dismissed her individually without leave to amend, but granted 90
days' leave to amend for Deluca to find a substitute plaintiff and
granted her motion to compel discovery of the names and contact
information of current and former CVS employees. CVS filed a
petition for writ of mandate challenging the trial court's ruling.

In his Opinion dated October 15, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/2P9p3mfrom Leagle.com, Justice Raye vacated the
respondent Superior Court of Sacramento County's discovery order
of August 29, 2014.  CVS is awarded costs in this original
proceeding. The Court said the trial court abused its discretion
in allowing the proposed pre-certification discovery. Deluca was
never a member of the class.

The Appeals Court said a class representative who is not a class
member or is otherwise unqualified to serve as class
representative may, in certain circumstances, move for
precertification discovery for the purpose of identifying a new
class representative. Courts have recognized that such
precertification discovery presents the potential for abuse of the
class action procedure, but also implicates the rights and
interests of potential class members on whose behalf the complaint
was filed. Deluca was never a member of the class she sought to
represent. She does not claim a disability and CVS did not
terminate her. The Superior Court is hard pressed to explain why
the trial court stated it "does not find that Deluca or her
counsel had no reasonable, good faith belief that she lacked
standing when the suit was initiated." There is no evidence in the
record that Deluca had any reason to believe she was a victim of
the alleged termination policy when she filed suit.

In the case, Best Buy Stores, L.P. v. Superior Court (2006) 137
Cal.App.4th 772 (Best Buy), cited by the trial court, the named
plaintiff, at the time of the filing of the class action, was a
member of the class. Intervening law held that an attorney could
not be both a class representative and class counsel.  The Appeals
Court said CVS employees know whether or not they were terminated
and the circumstances surrounding their terminations. These
potential class members know if they have a qualified disability,
if that disability prevented them from working during a 45-day
period, if they requested and were denied a leave as a reasonable
accommodation, and if they were terminated for not working during
this period. Given this knowledge, the terminated employees can
pursue a claim under the FEHA to vindicate their rights and
recover monetary damages. In addition, the privacy rights of the
putative class members add to the potential for abuse and undercut
the benefits of precertification discovery. Deluca's counsel would
inquire as to whether or not a CVS employee is disabled, the
nature of the disability, and the circumstances surrounding a
termination.

Michael E. Brewer, Esq. -- mbrewer@littler.com -- Michael G.
Leggieri, Esq. -- mleggieri@littler.com -- and Johanna R. Carney,
Esq., of Littler Mendelson serve as counsel for Petitioners

No appearance for Respondent


LOS ANGELES, CA: LAUSD Makes Bogus Claims v. Teachers, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rebekah Kearn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
in a $1 billion class action in Los Angeles, California, a teacher
acclaimed for excellence by Oprah Winfrey, Disney and the United
Kingdom says Los Angeles Unified School District and its
superintendent run a "criminal cartel" that locks thousands of its
best teachers in "teacher jails" under bogus accusations so it
won't have to pay their retirement benefits.

Rafe Esquith sued LAUSD and Superintendent Ramon Cortines in
Superior Court on Oct. 15 on behalf of all current and former
teachers who were stuffed into LAUSD "teacher jails."

"The issue is fundamentally due process," Esquith's attorney Ben
Meiselas told Courthouse News. "The allegations against these
teachers are generated by a hit squad team through a McCarthyan
investigation at odds with what it means to be an American."

Meisalas said LAUSD set up its teacher jails to oust teachers
nearing retirement age so it can divest them of their benefits.

"It's fundamentally wrong and flawed and at odds with the
Constitution," Meiselas said. "And the people leading it would not
pass muster under their own investigation. They would fail on Day
One based on their own conduct."

Similar class actions have been filed about teacher "jails" in
other major school districts, including New York, where the jails
are called "rubber rooms."  Teachers in "jail" have spent years
doing nothing but show up, on full pay -- an adult equivalent of
study hall, on the public dime.  Critics of public education blame
teacher unions and tenure protections for it.  Teachers and their
unions blame cowardly administrators who refuse to bring cogent
charges against teachers, for fear of embarrassing the districts
that hired them.

Meisalas put it this way: "Which one are you going to trust: the
thousands of teachers who made the sacrifice to dedicate their
lives to public education, struggling to support their families,
and who go to craft stores before the school year to buy things
for their classrooms for the students? Or the administrators who
got by based on mediocrity and were raised to positions where they
earn over $100,000 a year and get administrative power that is
self-perpetuating?

"Ultimately it's about the students and their education, and
teachers as the conduit are forgotten" at LAUSD, Meiselas said.

Esquith's lawsuit says: "LAUSD operates as a criminal cartel,
systematically denying its teachers any semblance of due process
while detaining them in nondescript, fenced-in, warehouse
facilities throughout Los Angeles County, which LAUSD refers to as
'Educational Services Centers' -- but that teachers and the media
have exposed as 'teacher jails.' LAUSD's teacher jails are
expressly designed as a shrewd cost-cutting tactic, implemented to
force its older and better-paid teachers out the door at the
expense of the students these experienced educators serve."

LAUSD has treated at least 2,000 teachers this way, depriving each
of them of about $500,000 in pensions and other benefits -- a
total of $1 billion, according to the complaint.

Esquith started teaching for LAUSD in 1984 at Hobart Boulevard
Elementary School, which primarily serves first-generation,
underprivileged students from the surrounding Koreatown and
Westlake neighborhoods in Central Los Angeles.  He has won several
awards, including the Disney National Outstanding Teacher of the
Year Award in 1992, a fellowship from Johns Hopkins University,
Oprah Winfrey's $100,000 "Use Your Life Award," the National Medal
of Arts, and was made an honorary member of the British Empire
after his students opened for the Royal Shakespeare Company at the
Globe Theater in London. Sir Peter Hall filmed a documentary about
his students' performance of A Midsummer Night's Dream in Los
Angeles. Esquith also has written several books on education.

LAUSD fired Esquith earlier this month, citing a 40-year-old
accusation that he touched a student inappropriately, and the
allegation that he told a joke while reading Huckleberry Finn.

In an Aug. 13 letter to Geragos, rejecting Esquith's tort claim,
the district's liability claims coordinator said that the district
had found evidence of sexually inappropriate photographs on
Esquith's school computer, inappropriate emails to students, and
threats to at least two parents.

Esquith can contest his dismissal before an administrative law
judge. He first sued LAUSD in August this year, claiming the
district, Superintendent Cortines and the district's general
counsel defamed him by accusing him of telling an off-color joke
in class after he cited a passage from "Huckleberry Finn" that
mentioned nudity.

In the new lawsuit, Esquith claims that though he knew he did
nothing wrong, he wrote a note apologizing for any
misunderstanding -- and was promptly sent to teacher jail, where a
gag order prevented him from explaining his sudden absence to his
students and their parents.

LAUSD hired investigators to yank his students out of class and
harass former students to bully them into badmouthing him, but all
of them refused to do it, according to the new complaint.  The
school district also filed an abuse complaint against him to the
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, but the commission
found the accusation unfounded, Esquith says.

He says his experience is hardly unique, but is part of a
"remarkably consistent pattern" of removing experienced teachers
from their classrooms and locking them up in teacher jail without
explanation or opportunity to oppose their removal.

"Disturbingly, from the very outset LAUSD administrators label the
teachers as immoral, unethical, thieves, abusers, or criminals,
while at the same time LAUSD places teachers under a gag order.
This is despite the fact that no criminal charges or even civil
lawsuits exist," the complaint states.

Esquith claims that the administrators leading these "witch hunts"
are the same people "who have been sanctioned by courts for
concealing, manipulating, and destroying evidence of abuse, who
are under FBI and other governmental investigation for
misappropriation, are led by a superintendent who settled a
crotch-grabbing lawsuit for $300,000 of taxpayer money, and who
argue in California Superior Courts and to a Court of Appeal (last
month) that the age of consent is the same one endorsed by ISIS."

That age of consent would be a child in eighth grade -- 13 or 14
years old, Meiselas told Courthouse News.

Esquith says that teachers forced to report to a teacher jail are
stuffed into a cubicle "while administrators patrol the hallways
and prevent teachers from talking to each other."

The teachers must stay there for roughly 6 hours a day with only a
couple of breaks and nothing to do but stare at the walls, a limbo
that can last months or even years.

Esquith says LAUSD rarely informs teachers of the accusations
against them and never gives them an opportunity to tell their
side of the story -- it just assumes they are guilty.

"Gag orders are imposed, teachers' entire lives are pried into by
a school district acting as a rogue regime with its own rules unto
itself, devoid of due process, all because the targeted teacher
decided to sacrifice his or her life to public education. Teaches
have described the experience as psychological torture, where they
are deprived of dignity, and as an experience unlike anything
matched in their entire lives," the complaint states.

If the jails get too full, teachers must stay at home and call
LAUSD once a day "to prove that they are not doing anything
productive," and deal with LAUSD investigators spying on them to
make sure they are abiding by "their draconian sentences," the
complaint states.

Most teachers eventually are fired or constructively fired after
their stint in teacher jail, according to the complaint.

Esquith says LAUSD gets rid of its best teachers to "shave numbers
off its bottom line."

"LAUSD admits that it cannot fund its benefits package for older
teachers nearing retirement -- who also tend to be at the top of
the pay scale -- and has decided to solve its funding shortfall by
stripping its seasoned educators of their benefits based on
secret, and almost exclusively baseless, allegations intended to
force them to quit rather than endure a life sentence in teacher
jail," the complaint states.

Meisalas added: "The scale and scope of the issue is unprecedented
and the number of teachers with the exact same story is shocking.
Not all of them are internationally recognizable figures. Based on
this class action, they felt they could come forward and stand
against this LAUSD bully."

Other states have similar teacher jails, such as New York's rubber
rooms, set up as "pernicious" cost-saving schemes, but LAUSD's "is
a particularly virulent strain of the teacher jail system,"
Meiselas said.

"One of the few carrots for teachers is their retirement
benefits," Meiselas said. "If we as a society want people leaving
college to become teachers, taking away retirement benefits is not
the way to encourage them to do it.

"LAUSD sets a bad example when it destroys teachers' lives this
way."

Los Angeles Unified School District did not respond to requests
for comment.

Veteran schoolteachers told Courthouse News that it's not unusual
for school administrators to seek out and punish excellence.

"Bad administrators hate good teachers," a longtime public
schoolteacher told Courthouse News. "I've seen it time and time
again.

"Good administrators like them. But there are a lot more good
schoolteachers than there are good administrators."

This teacher, and others, told CNS that teachers who feel they are
underpaid often go into administration. Administrators who want to
fire a teacher -- good or bad -- often hesitate to do so, fearing
"bad publicity" for the district, whether the allegations prove
substantive or not.

Esquith seeks class certification, an injunction against holding
teachers in teacher jails, and $1 billion in punitive damages for
due process violations, age discrimination, whistleblower
retaliation, and wrongful termination.

Attorney Meiselas is a member of Geragos & Geragos.


MARICOPA, AZ: Contempt Hearings on Hold Until End of October
------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Ross, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that an
investigator hired to look into the thefts of drugs, license
plates and IDs by one of Sheriff Joe Arpaio's deputies testified
Oct. 14 that some claims against the deputy were never internally
investigated.

Arpaio hired Don Vogel, a former Mesa Police Department officer,
to investigate the failed supervision of Maricopa County sheriff's
Officer Charley Armendariz, who committed suicide in May 2014.

The Sheriff's Office discovered shortly before and after his death
that Armendariz had secretly recorded traffic stops and
confiscated drugs, license plates and identification cards during
the stops.

Armendariz had received a number of citizen complaints, including
one from a woman who said Armendariz took $300 from her during a
traffic stop.

"That was an incident that as far as you can tell was never
addressed by Internal Affairs," said Stanley Young, an attorney
representing plaintiffs in a 2007 class action against Arpaio. "Do
you view that as being problematic?"

"It was problematic in my opinion that the line supervisors, Sgt.
[Manuel] Madrid and Lt. [Joe] Sousa had an allegation of criminal
activity . . . concerning potential violation of the law," Vogel
answered.

"They prepared documents, purportedly forwarded documents to the
Internal Affairs Bureau, but there was no record of such documents
in the Internal Affairs Bureau, and no follow up."

Arpaio and four of his current and former aides, including Sousa,
are accused of civil contempt of court in the 2007 Melendres class
action, accusing Arpaio targeted Latinos in traffic stops and
street raids. Arpaio and Chief Deputy Jerry Sheridan have admitted
they are in contempt, and face the possibility of fines, continued
oversight of the Sheriff's Office, and criminal contempt charges.

Vogel also testified Oct. 14 that Arpaio ordered a sergeant to
turn over undocumented immigrants to the Border Patrol -- in
violation of a federal court order requiring deputies to release
immigrants not accused of committing a crime.

Sheriff's Sgt. Brett Palmer testified during civil contempt
hearings in April that Arpaio ordered him not to release
undocumented immigrants.

"I told the sheriff immediately that that was an unlawful order
and I was not going to follow it," Palmer told the court then.

Vogel confirmed that Palmer told him about the same conversation.

"Sheriff Arpaio directed them to hold on to the individuals until
he got down there at the location," Vogel said. "Palmer pointed
out to him that he can't do that, that that would be a violation
of the order, and after some discussion Palmer, I believe,
released those individuals."

The court also heard from Sheriff's Capt. Steve Bailey regarding
testimony heard from Sgt. David Tennyson about an investigation
into whether deputies were pocketing items they retrieved from
drop houses.

"Did you have any reason to believe it was not true?" asked
Cecillia Wang, an attorney with the ACLU.

"No, I believed they probably were," Bailey said.

That investigation was fruitless and no one was disciplined. When
the investigation was shared with a monitor appointed by the
federal court, the monitoring team detailed a number of concerns
about how Tennyson handled the investigation, and questioning of
about 50 deputies about the items taken.

Bailey said that while Tennyson did use leading questions from
time to time, he didn't doubt the manner in which Tennyson
questioned deputies.

"I don't think what he gleaned from those interviews gave him
additional information," Bailey said.

The contempt hearings are on hold until the end of October.

                           *     *     *

Jamie Ross, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that one
of Sheriff Joe Arpaio's sergeants testified Oct. 13 that no
victims were ever identified after information was uncovered that
deputies would "pocket shit" they found at smuggling houses.

The information was divulged during a hearing for unemployment
benefits by former sheriff's Officer Cisco Perez.  Perez said it
was common practice for members of Arpaio's now-defunct Human
Smuggling Unit to "pocket shit" left behind in drop houses or in
the desert by immigrants. He said the items included religious
statues, flags, T-shirts, drug paraphernalia and a 62-inch flat-
screen television.

Sheriff's Sgt. David Tennyson testified during civil contempt
hearings against Arpaio that he didn't trust Perez, who was the
former brother-in-law of Alfredo Navarrette -- a former deputy
accused of money laundering and providing information to drug
smugglers.

Arpaio and four of his current and former aides face civil
contempt charges for failing to train deputies how to make
constitutional traffic stops and failing to deliver data to the
court despite a 2013 court order.

The 2007 Melendres class action accused Arpaio's officers of
arresting Latinos during so-called "crime-suppression sweeps" and
traffic stops. U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow agreed with the
plaintiffs in that case, and in 2013 ordered Arpaio and his
officers to take steps to stop racial profiling.

"I'm thinking I have a guy who lied, who is involved with another
guy who was arrested for smuggling humans and smuggling dope,"
Tennyson said of Perez's claims.

In an investigation of items found in the home of sheriff's
Officer Ramon "Charley" Armendariz after he killed himself in May
2014, the Sheriff's Office turned up no victims for the trinkets
taken by deputies.

"I could not move forward without additional evidence," Tennyson
said.

In a memo in that the case, he wrote that the pocketed items were
"of no evidentiary or monetary value . . . left behind as a result
of the illegal aliens crossing."

Andre Segura, an ACLU attorney representing the plaintiffs,
claimed Tennyson would not discipline subordinates if he
considered them friends.

Segura said a Tennyson investigation of allegations that his
friend Det. Brian Mackiewicz was fraudulently claiming overtime
and having an improper relationship with a victim of a domestic
violence incident was fruitless.

Mackiewicz played an important role in communications with Dennis
Montgomery, a private investigator Arpaio hired to investigate the
sheriff's suspicions that the Department of Justice was conspiring
against him. Arpaio's office is also said to be investigating
Mackiewicz.

Maryann McKessy, a former Maricopa County attorney, made the
complaint against Mackiewicz, her former boyfriend, after learning
he was dating the domestic violence victim while still dating her.

Tennyson said that "based on the information [McKessy] provided us
at that time" there was no evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

"To me it wasn't relevant; cheating wasn't a violation of state
law," Tennyson said.

Segura asked Tennyson if he tried to speak to Arpaio about the
overtime allegation.

"I suggested, in order to further the investigation, I would need
to speak to the sheriff," Tennyson responded. He said his request
was denied.

Tennyson closed the case. He said a court-appointed monitor
overseeing the Sheriff's Office under the 2013 court order accused
him of interviewing McKessy and immediately relaying her
information to Mackiewicz.

Tennyson denied it. "The monitors were quite angry with me," he
said. "I knew in my heart of hearts I never would have interviewed
McKessy and called Brian."

The hearing continued Oct. 14 and is expected to last through
November.


MARSHALL SQUARE: Faces Class Action Over Resort Fire
----------------------------------------------------
Randy L. Key, writing for WJBF News Channel 6, reports that a
class action lawsuit that has been filed in connection to the
deadly fire at Marshall Square Retirement Resort, in Evans, that
happened on June 2nd.

The lawsuit was filed by Charles and Margaret Moye, who lived at
Marshall Square when that fire started.

The suit, which names six defendants, seeks class action status
based on the number of residents in the building at the time of
the fire.

The lawsuit claims the Moyes were placed on the 3rd floor of the
facility, despite both of them being in their 90's and Margaret
Moye using a walker which made it difficult to evacuate.  The suit
also alleges that the design of the building was flawed.

The lawsuit goes on to allege the defendants told residents to
shelter in place when the fire started and did not help residents
evacuate.


MEMPHIS, TN: Cops Awarded Monetary Damages, Attorneys' Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jon P. McCalla granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
payment of attorneys' fees, reimbursement of expenses, entry of
judgment for Lakendus Cole, and post-judgment interest in the case
captioned LAKENDUS COLE and LEON EDMOND, individually and as
representatives of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
CITY OF MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE, Defendant, No.: 2:13-CV-02117-JPM-DKV,
(W.D. Tenn.)

Plaintiff Lakendus Cole is a police officer employed with the City
of Memphis Police Department Organized Crime Unit, and Plaintiff
Leon Edmond is a Special Agent employed with the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Plaintiffs assert a class action claim against Defendant City of
Memphis for "the policy, procedure, custom, or practice by which
police officers of the Memphis Police Department (MPD) order all
persons to immediately leave the sidewalks and street on Beale
Street when there are no circumstances present which threaten the
safety of the public or MPD police officers (referred to as the
"Beale Street Sweep"). Plaintiffs Cole and Edmond also assert
individual claims against the City of Memphis.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for payment of attorneys' fees,
reimbursement of expenses, entry of judgment for Lakendus Cole,
and post-judgment interest.

In his Order dated August 27, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/3EpIijfrom Leagle.com, Judge McCalla granted the
Plaintiff's motion for payment of attorneys' fees, reimbursement
of expenses, entry of judgment for Lakendus Cole, and post-
judgment interest.  The Court directed Defendant City of Memphis
to pay Lakendus Cole $35,000.00 in damages as awarded by the jury
in this case; Memphis was further ordered to pay Lakendus Cole
$411.48 in prejudgment interest on the damages award; Lakendus
Cole's request for postjudgment interest on the damages award also
was granted.

The Court also awarded Spence Law Firm, PLLC $389,563.50 as
attorneys' fees based on 1,468.35 hours of labor; and an
enhancement of the award of attorneys' fees in the amount of
$58,434.53, for a total attorneys' fees award of $447,998.03.  The
Court found it appropriate to award Plaintiffs' counsel a 15%
enhancement (1.15 multiplier). The Court said Plaintiffs have
submitted sufficient evidence to establish reasonableness of the
hours logged.

Bryan Meredith, Esq., Emmett Lee Whitwell, Esq., and Robert L.J.
Spence, Jr., Esq., of SPENCEWALK, PLLC serve as counsel for
Plaintiff Lakendus Cole

J. Michael Fletcher, Esq. -- michael@michaelfletcherlawoffice.com
-- of FLETCHER LAW FIRM; Barbaralette G. Davis, Esq., and Zayid A.
Saleem, Esq., of CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE-Memphis serve as counsel
for Defendant City of Memphis


MMA CAPITAL: Hearing to Approve Class Action Settlement Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
MMA Capital Management, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a hearing to
approve a class action settlement was set for September 24, 2015.

The Company is a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit
originally filed in 2008.  The plaintiffs claim to represent a
class of investors in the Company's shares who allegedly were
injured by misstatements in press releases and SEC filings between
May 3, 2004 and January 28, 2008.  The plaintiffs sought
unspecified damages for themselves and the shareholders of the
class they purported to represent.  The class action lawsuit was
brought in the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the class action,
and in June 2012, the Court issued a ruling dismissing all of the
counts alleging any knowing or intentional wrongdoing by the
Company or its affiliates, directors and officers. The plaintiffs
appealed the Court's ruling and on March 7, 2014, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit unanimously
affirmed the lower Court's ruling. As a result of these rulings,
the only counts remaining in the class action relate to the
Company's dividend reinvestment plan.

The parties have engaged in settlement discussions leading to a
settlement agreement. On April 20, 2015, the parties submitted the
agreement and related documents to the United States District
Court for the Districted of Maryland for approval. The agreement
provides for a maximum of $826,820 to cover payments to the class
as well as the attorneys for the plaintiffs' counsel. The
settlement is a claims-made settlement, in which payments will be
made only to those plaintiffs who submit a claim and whose claim
is approved, thus the final settlement amount to the class could
be less than the amount stated above. Similarly, the court must
approve the plaintiffs' counsel's attorneys' fees, thus the final
amount could be less than stated. A hearing to approve the
settlement was set for September 24, 2015.

The Company does not expect to directly incur any settlement
costs, as all costs, including both class payments and plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees, will be paid directly by its insurance company.
As a result, the Company released the litigation reserve of $0.5
million during the first quarter of 2015.


MOTORS LIQUIDATION: 100 Recall Suits Filed v. New GM at July 20
---------------------------------------------------------------
About 100 putative class actions have been filed as of July 20,
2015, against "New General Motors" in various federal and state
courts seeking compensatory and other damages for economic losses
allegedly resulting from one or more of the recalls announced in
2014 and/or the underlying condition of vehicles covered by those
recalls.  This number was disclosed in the Form 10-Q Report filed
by Motors Liquidation Company GUC Trust with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 11, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2015.

The GUC Trust is a successor to Motors Liquidation Company
(formerly known as General Motors Corp.) for the purposes of
Section 1145 of the United States Bankruptcy Code.  The GUC Trust
holds and directs the distribution of, and pending such
distribution administers, certain assets pursuant to the terms and
conditions of the Second Amended and Restated Motors Liquidation
Company GUC Trust Agreement, dated as of July 30, 2015 and as
amended from time to time, and pursuant to the Second Amended
Joint Chapter 11 Plan, dated March 18, 2011, of MLC and its debtor
affiliates, for the benefit of holders of allowed general
unsecured claims against the Debtors.

The GUC Trust was formed on March 30, 2011, as a statutory trust
under the Delaware Statutory Trust Act, for the purposes of
implementing the Plan and distributing the GUC Trust's
distributable assets. Wilmington Trust Company serves as trustee
and trust administrator of the GUC Trust, and FTI Consulting, Inc.
serves as trust monitor of the GUC Trust.

The Plan generally provides for the distribution of certain shares
of common stock of the new General Motors Company, formerly known
as NGMCO, Inc. -- New GM -- and any associated Dividend Cash, and
certain warrants for the purchase of shares of such stock to
holders of Allowed General Unsecured Claims pro rata by the amount
of such claims.

In its annual report on Form 10-K filed February 4, 2015, New GM
disclosed that, since the beginning of 2014, New GM had recalled
approximately 2.6 million vehicles to repair ignition switches or
to fix ignition lock cylinders, or the Ignition Switch Recall, and
had recalled an additional 33.4 million vehicles to address
certain electrical and other safety concerns, including
approximately 12.1 million vehicles to rework or replace ignition
keys. New GM does not consider any of these 12.1 million vehicles
to be a part of the Ignition Switch Recall.

Many of the vehicles affected by the foregoing recalls were
manufactured or sold prior to July 10, 2009, or the Closing Date,
the date on which the sale of substantially all of the assets of
Old GM pursuant to the MSPA was completed.

In its quarterly report on Form 10-Q filed July 23, 2015, New GM
also disclosed that, as of July 20, 2015, 100 putative class
actions have been filed against New GM in various federal and
state courts seeking compensatory and other damages for economic
losses allegedly resulting from one or more of the recalls
announced in 2014 and/or the underlying condition of vehicles
covered by those recalls. Certain of these 100 cases, or the
Ignition Switch Economic Loss Actions, concern the Ignition Switch
Recall, certain other cases, or the Other Economic Loss Actions,
concern recalls other than the Ignition Switch Recall, and yet
others concern both the Ignition Switch Recall and one or more
other recalls (such actions are described interchangeably as
Ignition Switch Economic Loss Actions or Other Economic Loss
Actions).

In addition, New GM disclosed that, as of July 20, 2015, 172
putative class actions have been filed against New GM in various
federal and state courts seeking compensatory and other damages
for personal injury and other claims allegedly arising from
accidents that occurred as a result of the underlying condition of
the vehicles subject to the recalls initiated by New GM. Certain
of these 172 cases, or the Ignition Switch Personal Injury
Actions, concern the Ignition Switch Recall, certain other cases,
or the Other Personal Injury Actions, concern recalls other than
the Ignition Switch Recall, and yet others concern both the
Ignition Switch Recall and one or more other recalls (such actions
are described interchangeably as Ignition Switch Personal Injury
Actions or Other Personal Injury Actions).

Since June 2014, 204 Recall-Related Actions have been transferred
to the United States District Court of the Southern District of
New York, or the MDL Court, and have been consolidated into a
single case, case number 14-MD-2543 (JMF), or the MDL Proceeding.
On October 14, 2014, the plaintiffs in certain Recall-Related
Actions filed two amended and consolidated complaints in the MDL
Proceeding that concern vehicles designed, manufactured or sold
prior to the Closing Date.

Concurrently with the proceedings before the MDL Court, New GM has
taken steps in the Bankruptcy Court to enjoin the Subject Recall-
Related Actions. In that respect, beginning on April 21, 2014, New
GM filed a series of motions with the Bankruptcy Court seeking to
enjoin the Subject Recall-Related Actions and to enforce the Sale
Order and Injunction entered on July 5, 2009, or the Sale Order
(under which all product liability and property damage claims
arising from accidents or incidents prior to the Closing Date were
to remain with Old GM as general unsecured claims), or the Motions
to Enforce.

Beginning on May 16, 2014, the Bankruptcy Court entered a series
of scheduling orders which identified a number of "threshold
issues" to be resolved by the Bankruptcy Court, including (i)
whether plaintiffs' procedural due process rights were violated in
connection with the 363 Transaction, (ii) if such due process
rights were violated, what is the appropriate remedy, (iii)
whether any or all of the claims asserted in the Subject Recall-
Related Actions are claims against Old GM and/or the GUC Trust,
and (iv) whether any such claims against Old GM and/or the GUC
Trust should be dismissed as equitably moot. The GUC Trust
appeared as a party in interest with respect to New GM's Motions
to Enforce and filed briefs in opposition thereto, asserting that
none of the claims of the plaintiffs in the Subject Recall-Related
Actions may be properly asserted against Old GM or the GUC Trust.

On April 15, 2015, the Bankruptcy Court rendered a decision, or
the Threshold Issues Decision, on the threshold issues holding
(among other things) that the plaintiffs in the Ignition Switch
Economic Loss Actions and the Ignition Switch Personal Injury
Actions may seek authorization to file late claims in the
bankruptcy cases of Old GM, but that any such claims as against
the GUC Trust are "equitably moot" (that is, fashioning relief for
the plaintiffs against the GUC Trust would be "impractical,
imprudent and therefore inequitable"), and thus the assets of the
GUC Trust cannot be used to satisfy such claims, or the Equitable
Mootness Finding.

On June 1, 2015, the Bankruptcy Court issued a judgment, or the
Threshold Issues Judgment, which clarifies the terms of the
Threshold Issues Decision and distills the Bankruptcy Court's
holdings into a binding order. The Threshold Issues Judgment
provides, in pertinent part, the following:

(i) The plaintiffs in the Ignition Switch Economic Loss Actions
suffered a due process violation with respect to the Sale Order,
whereas the plaintiffs in the Ignition Switch Personal Injury
Actions did not suffer a due process violation with respect to the
Sale Order;

(ii) As a result of the due process violation, the provisions of
the Sale Order which purport to shield New GM from any liability
associated with its independent post-Sale actions can be modified,
and the plaintiffs in the Ignition Switch Economic Loss Actions
may proceed against New GM with respect to its independent post-
Sale actions;

(iii) Any claims asserted in the Ignition Switch Economic Loss
Actions and the Ignition Switch Personal Injury Actions that
relate to actions of Old GM are enjoined from being pursued
against New GM on successor liability grounds, or the Successor
Liability Finding;

(iv) The Equitable Mootness Finding is applicable to plaintiffs in
the Ignition Switch Economic Loss Actions and the Ignition Switch
Personal Injury Actions, and thus, the assets of the GUC Trust
cannot be utilized to satisfy any claims that may be filed by such
plaintiffs after the date of entry of the Threshold Issues
Judgment;

(v) Although the Equitable Mootness Finding does not apply
automatically to plaintiffs in the Other Economic Loss Actions or
the Other Personal Injury Actions, such plaintiffs must file a
pleading, or an Equitable Mootness Pleading, with the Bankruptcy
Court asserting a good faith basis as to why the Equitable
Mootness Finding should not apply to their Other Economic Loss
Actions or Other Personal Injury Actions. In any Equitable
Mootness Pleading, plaintiffs are not permitted to re-litigate
issues of law that were addressed in the Threshold Issues
Decision. If a plaintiff in an Other Economic Loss Action or Other
Personal Injury Action fails to file a timely Equitable Mootness
Pleading, or if the Bankruptcy Court denies the relief requested
by the plaintiff in the Equitable Mootness Pleading, the GUC Trust
is permitted to seek dismissal of the applicable Other Economic
Loss Actions or Other Personal Injury Actions. However, in the
event that the Bankruptcy Court grants the relief requested by any
plaintiff in a timely Equitable Mootness Pleading, such plaintiff
could seek to assert claims against the GUC Trust, which claims
(if allowed) could dilute the recoveries of holders of Units in
the GUC Trust. To date, the plaintiffs in the Other Economic Loss
Actions and Other Personal Injury Actions have not asserted the
aggregate amount of their claims; and

(vi) Pursuant to section 502(j) of the Bankruptcy Code, assets of
the GUC Trust may be used to satisfy previously allowed or
disallowed claims that are reconsidered for cause. Hence, any
person who holds a previously allowed or disallowed claim may seek
to have that claim reconsidered by the Bankruptcy Court, and in
the event that any such claimant prevails in an application for
reconsideration, the resulting additional allowed claims could
dilute the recoveries of holders of Units in the GUC Trust.

Similar to the Equitable Mootness Finding, the Successor Liability
Finding does not apply automatically to plaintiffs in the Other
Economic Loss Actions or the Other Personal Injury Actions, and
the Threshold Issues Judgment contains procedures for such
plaintiffs to contest the applicability of the Successor Liability
Finding to their individual Other Economic Loss Actions or the
Other Personal Injury Actions.

Following entry of the Threshold Issues Judgment, plaintiffs in
certain Other Economic Loss Actions and Other Personal Injury
Actions filed Equitable Mootness Pleadings, or reservations of
rights thereto, and plaintiffs in certain Other Economic Loss
Actions and Other Personal Injury Actions filed pleadings
contesting the applicability of the Successor Liability Finding,
or the Successor Liability Pleadings. In addition, certain of such
plaintiffs have sought to have the Equitable Mootness Pleadings
and the Successor Liability Pleadings heard by the MDL Court in
lieu of the Bankruptcy Court, or the Motions to Withdraw the
Reference. The GUC Trust intends to vigorously oppose the
Equitable Mootness Pleadings and the Motions to Withdraw the
Reference.

The Threshold Issues Decision and Threshold Issues Judgment are
subject to appeal by plaintiffs in the Ignition Switch Economic
Loss Actions and Ignition Switch Personal Injury Actions, and
certain of these plaintiffs have filed notices of appeal.
Subsequent to such filings, New GM and the GUC Trust each filed
notices of cross-appeal with respect to the Threshold Issues
Decision and Threshold Issues Judgment. In a separate order
entered on June 1, 2015, the Bankruptcy Court certified its
Threshold Issues Decision and Threshold Issues Judgment for a
direct appeal to the Second Circuit. In the event that the Second
Circuit accepts the certification, the appeals of the Threshold
Issues Decision and Threshold Issues Judgment will be heard
directly by the Second Circuit, bypassing the intermediate appeal
to the District Court for the Southern District of New York, or
the District Court. Alternatively, if the Second Circuit denies
the certification, the appeals of the Threshold Issues Decision
and Threshold Issues Judgment will be heard by the District Court.
Appellate proceedings have been stayed, except for certain
procedural steps, until a time when the Second Circuit rules on
the certification.

If the Bankruptcy Court's Equitable Mootness Finding is not
overturned on appeal, the claims of the plaintiffs in the Ignition
Switch Economic Loss Actions and the Ignition Switch Personal
Injury Actions have been determined to be equitably moot and, as a
result, such claims (even if allowed by the Bankruptcy Court) may
not dilute the recoveries of holders of Units in the GUC Trust.

However, in the event that the decision is overturned with respect
to the Equitable Mootness Finding, it is possible that those
plaintiffs could seek to assert claims against the GUC Trust,
which claims (if allowed) could dilute the recoveries of holders
of Units in the GUC Trust.

On July 1, 2015, the GUC Trust announced that the GUC Trust was
exploring, together with certain plaintiffs to the Ignition Switch
Economic Loss Actions, Other Economic Loss Actions, Ignition
Switch Personal Injury Actions and Other Personal Injury Actions,
a potential global resolution of all disputes between the GUC
Trust on the one hand and such plaintiffs on the other, relating
to the Subject Recall-Related Actions and related appeals of the
Threshold Issues Decision and Threshold Issues Judgment, or the
Potential Resolution. At the present time, settlement discussions
have not materially progressed, and the GUC Trust intends to
continue vigorously defending its positions in the Motions to
Enforce litigation and the related appeals.


NABORS COMPLETION: Must Defend Against "Ridgeway" Action
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Dean D. Pregerson denied Defendants' motions to
compel arbitration, and dismiss or stay, in the case captioned
BRANDYN RIDGEWAY and TIM SMITH on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated and the general public, Plaintiff, v.
NABORS COMPLETION & PRODUCTION SERVICES CO., a Delaware
corporation; CITY OF LONG BEACH, a California municipality;
TIDELANDS OIL PRODUCTION COMPANY, a Texas General Partnership,
Defendants, Case No. CV 15-03436 DDP (VBKX), (C.D. Cal.)

Plaintiffs Brandyn Ridgeway (Ridgeway) and Tim Smith (Smith;
collectively, Plaintiffs) brought this class action wage and hour
employment dispute against their former employer, Defendant Nabors
Completion and Production Services, Co. (Nabors), as well as
unknown Doe defendants.  Plaintiffs allege Nabors failed to pay
prevailing wages on public works, violated California Labor Code
sections 203 and 226(a), and violated California Business &
Professions Code section 17200.  Plaintiffs have also alleged a
declaratory relief cause of action against Nabors and Defendants
City of Long Beach (Long Beach) and Tidelands Oil Production
Company (Tidelands), asking the court to find that the work
Plaintiffs did for Nabors was "public work" because Nabors was a
subcontractor of Tidelands, who had contract with Long Beach.
The arbitration agreement is divided into two parts. First is an
introductory section titled "The Nabors Dispute Resolution
Program" and second is a description of the rules of arbitration
titled "Nabors Dispute Resolution Rules."

In his Order dated October 13, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/TbGoTSfrom Leagle.com, Judge Pregerson denied
Defendants' motions to compel arbitration and dismiss or stay.
There is no real debate that consenting to the arbitration
agreement was a condition of even applying to work for Defendants,
as well as to continue in employment, the Court said. Further,
there are no facts alleged or provisions in the agreement
providing that Plaintiffs could have negotiated different terms,
much less that they could have forgone the agreement and still had
a job. Therefore, the arbitration agreement is procedurally
unconscionable as a nonnegotiable requirement of employment
drafted by the employer, who had the greater bargaining power.

The Court also finds that the unilateral modification provision is
unconscionable. The notice provision -- limited as it is -- is
insufficient to save the provision, as is any implied covenant,
which the Court finds cannot save any unilateral modification
provision. Both procedural and substantive unconscionability are
present here. Several elements Plaintiffs complained of are
unconscionable: the fees and costs of arbitration; the discovery
provision; and the unilateral modification provision. Because
these are some of the most basic terms of the arbitration
contract, the Court finds that the contract is not fixable by
simply severing the unconscionable terms and allowing arbitration
to proceed. Instead, the entire contract is permeated with the
unconscionable effects of these provisions and the contract is
thus unenforceable.

Judith L Camilleri, Esq. -- jcamilleri@donahoo.com -- Richard E
Donahoo, Esq. -- rdonahoo@donahoo.com -- and Sarah Louise Kokonas,
Esq. -- skokonas@donahoo.com -- of Donahoo and Associates serve as
counsel for Plaintiff Brandyn Ridgeway, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated and the general public

Kimberly Ann Chase, Esq. -- kimberly.chase@haynesboone.com --
Matthew E Costello, Esq. --  matthew.costello@haynesboone.com --
Tamara I Devitt, Esq. -- tamara.devitt@haynesboone.com -- and
Alexander R Stevens, Esq. -- peterstevenscfi@gmail.com -- of
Haynes and Boone LLP serve as counsel for Defendant Nabors
Completion and Production Services Co., a Delaware corporation


NAUGATUCK VALLEY: Jury Trial Sought in Maryland Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Naugatuck Valley Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that four
putative class action lawsuits have been filed in Maryland, Morris
Goldstein v. Naugatuck Valley Financial Corporation et al., in the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Case No. 24C15003203, Lenard
Cohen v. Naugatuck Valley Financial Corporation et al., in the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Case No. 24C15003391, Angelo J.
Falco v. Naugatuck Valley Financial Corporation et al., in the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Case No. 24C15003392, and Dallas
Faulkner v. Naugatuck Valley Financial Corporation et al., in the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Case No. 24C15003602.

The lawsuits name as defendants Naugatuck Valley, the members of
our board of directors and Liberty. The court has consolidated the
first three cases and is expected to consolidate all four of these
lawsuits. A demand for jury trial has been made in each case.

The lawsuits allege a breach of fiduciary duty due to inadequate
merger consideration, the process leading to the proposed
transaction and potential conflicts of interest. The lawsuits also
allege that Liberty aided and abetted the breach of fiduciary
duty. The relief sought includes class certification, an
injunction against the merger until all alleged breaches have been
cured, damages if the merger has been completed prior to the entry
of final judgment, costs and attorney's fees.

Naugatuck Valley Financial and Naugatuck Valley Savings are also
subject to claims and litigation that arise primarily in the
ordinary course of business. Based on information presently
available and advice received from legal counsel representing
Naugatuck Valley Financial and Naugatuck Valley Savings in
connection with such claims and litigation, it is the opinion of
management that the disposition or ultimate determination of such
claims and litigation will not have a material adverse effect on
the consolidated financial position, results of operations or
liquidity of Naugatuck Valley Financial.


NEW YORK, NY: Ex-Police Commissioner Appears Before Judge
---------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
dogged by allegations of evidence destruction in a class action
lawsuit in Manhattan opposing police quotas, New York City Police
Commissioner Ray Kelly swore to a federal judge that he "never"
used email for "substantive communication."

But a mysterious email sent by Kelly shows that he apparently
approved the transfer of a female officer who filed a formal
grievance that is "directly relevant" to the case, an attorney
said at a hearing on Oct. 13.

It has been more than five years since East Harlem resident Sharif
Stinson led several other black New Yorkers in a class action
lawsuit accusing the NYPD of issuing 850,000 phony summonses to
maintain an unconstitutional quota system.

Stinson's lawyer Elinor Sutton blames the delay, in part, on the
city failing to meet their discovery deadlines and destroying
relevant evidence.

In July, the New York Daily News reported what the lawyers called
a "stunning pattern" of spoliation, a legal term for the hiding,
withholding or destruction of evidence.

Since that time, former NYPD Police Commissioner Ray Kelly swore
in a court declaration under oath that it was "never my practice"
to use email or text messages to discuss any "substantive
communication."  Kelly added later that he "simply did not use
email" and "simply did not engage" in electronic communications
because he wanted his discussions to be "un-compromisable."

Calling these assertions "demonstrably false," Sutton suggested a
one-word reply email that Kelly fired off in September 2010 tells
a different story.

While the correspondence remained redacted in court papers, Sutton
revealed during the hearing that it discussed a female officer who
filed a formal grievance claiming that the department retaliated
against her because of her opposition to quotas.

Kelly gave a one-word response to an email with a subject line
alluding to this officer's "transfer for cause," Sutton said.

"Yes," he wrote, according to Sutton.

The lawyer says that this email was only discovered in a file
maintained at the NYPD's Office of Labor Relations because an
employee there printed a hard copy.

City lawyer Qiana Smith-Williams replied that Stinson's lawyers
were putting too much stock in "one word: 'yes.'"

"There is no reason this court should not accept Kelly's
representations," she said.

Smith-Williams wrote in a letter to the court that this
implication was "astounding, not to mention professionally
irresponsible," under the heading "Commissioner Kelly Did Not
Commit Perjury."

Kelly was not the only high-ranking NYPD official who claimed to
shun electronic communications.

Joseph Esposito, who was then the NYPD's chief of department,
swore in a declaration that "it was never my practice to use email
or text messaging to communicate about topics like summonses,
enforcement activity, performance goals."

Since Esposito acknowledged receiving but not sending emails about
homicides, injured officers, and gang activity, Sutton spotted a
"game" being played in the construction of this denial.

"How they're using the word 'use' email is misleading, at best,"
she said.

She also noted that the NYPD issued Esposito four different
devices, an iPad, a BlackBerry, a Nextel phone and a beeper.

"If the NYPD and taxpayers are providing all of these devices, we
hope it is for 'use,'" Sutton quipped.

Even though the court-ordered discovery deadline of June 12 has
long passed, Stinson's lawyers allege a wide stash of evidence has
not been turned over -- such as text messages, monthly activity
reports, and handwritten notes from CompStat meetings, where the
police brass discuss trends in arrests and summonses.

"This has to end, Your Honor," she said. "It has to."

U.S. District Judge Robert Sweet, who sat quietly through more
than an hour of arguments without asking a question, gave no
indication of when and how it would conclude. Stinson's lawyers
have requested a wide range of possible sanctions, including legal
fees or an instruction to jurors that they could draw an "adverse
inference" from the missing documents.

Sweet reserved decision without any comment.


NEW YORK, NY: Damages Trial in Parole Class Suit to Start Dec. 7
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
New York's top correctional and parole brass can't rehash their
"patently frivolous" immunity arguments to delay a civil rights
trial four years in the making, a federal judge said in a scathing
ruling.

Since 2011, former New York State Corrections Commissioner Brian
Fischer and dozens of other colleagues and parole officers have
tried to fend off a class action lawsuit accusing them of going
around courts to enforce parole terms that their departments
concocted.

The practice had its roots in a New York state law imposing a
mandatory parole term of known as post-release supervision for
certain violent felonies since 1998.  As the statute did not
require judges to announce the terms of parole at sentencing, the
state's corrections and parole departments often stepped in to
fill the void. This practice landed thousands of former prisoners
back behind bars for parole violations that no court imposed.

The Second Circuit declared that practice unconstitutional in its
2006 Earley v. Murray decision.

"Only the judgment of a court, as expressed through the sentence
imposed by a judge, has the power to constrain a person's
liberty," the appeals court held in Earley.

Five years later, dozens of civil rights lawsuits poured into
Manhattan Federal Court, accusing correctional and parole officers
of ignoring the 2006 decision. The correctional and parole brass
named as defendants tried three times in vain to claim immunity
from litigation.

Two of those attempts failed before U.S. District Judge Shira
Scheindlin, and another fell flat before the Second Circuit, which
also rejected en banc review. In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court
declined to hear the case.  Scheindlin, who is known for her tough
stance against civil rights violations, did not take kindly to the
defendants' request to postpone trial as they pursued yet another
appeal.

"The delays in this case have caused substantial hardship to
plaintiffs (and, needless to say, have been caused by defendants'
relentless efforts to prevail on qualified immunity)," the judge
wrote. "For over four years, thousands of class members have
waited for their due process claims to be adjudicated --
additional postponements will only exacerbate these harms."

A New York State Department of Corrections Services database
identified at least 8,100 prisoners whose sentences were
implicated by the Earley decision, the ruling says.

Schiendlin added that trial will be quick because the case's
"undisputed record" leaves "no room for debate" on the merits.

Trial will center on the damages owed by three of the defendants:
Fischer, his former deputy Anthony Annuci, and former parole
department chief counsel Terence Tracy. Their damages trial will
start on Dec. 7.

The New York Attorney General's office, which is representing the
defendants, declined to comment on the ruling.


NORTHLAND INVESTMENT: Attorney Mulls Class Suit Over Church Street
------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Bass, writing for New Haven Independent, reports that a
prominent New Haven attorney confirmed he will "soon" file a
class-action lawsuit against Northland Investment Corp. on behalf
of the families living at the crumbling Church Street South
housing complex.

"What has been done and is being done to these families is being
done to them not because of what they did, but because of who they
are, because they have the misfortune of being vulnerable and
needing to rely on others to fulfill their social and legal
responsibilities," the attorney, David Rosen, told the
Independent.  "The main point about what is happening here is that
it isn't just being done to one person or one family, but that
it's being done to a whole segment of our community."

Mr. Rosen said families from Church Street South contacted him
seeking representation in a civil suit to recover damages they've
suffered -- ranging from lost furniture to health problems --
because of conditions at the federally subsidized apartment
complex across from Union Station.

The federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has
declared Northland, the complex's Massachusetts-based owner, in
default of its contract for over $3 million a year in rental
subsidies for the project.  The city has condemned many of the
apartments and ordered massive repairs.  Northland is now working
with the city and HUD to move some families temporarily into hotel
rooms and all families to permanent new housing elsewhere over the
coming year.

Lawyers form New Haven Legal Assistance represent over 60 of the
families living at Church Street South in efforts to seek repairs
and safe new housing.  But legal aid does not file civil lawsuits
seeking monetary damages.

That's where Mr. Rosen now comes in.

Mr. Rosen has practiced law in New Haven for 45 years, handling
high-profile cases ranging from the 1970 murder trial of Black
Panther Bobby Seale to class-action cases discrimination and
wrongful-death cases.  He is one of the lawyers suing the state
executive branch in an educational-equity case.  He won a $900,000
jury verdict against East Haven police on behalf of Emma Jones
(pictured with Rosen) in the killing of her son Malik. (An appeals
court subsequently overturned that award.)

Northland CEO Larry Gottesdiener declined comment on the pending
suit.


NPC INTERNATIONAL: Denial of Arbitration Bid Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------
Judge David McKeague of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit affirmed a district court order denying NPC International,
Inc.'s motion to compel arbitration in five cases against the
Pizza Hut operator.  The appellate cases are captioned SKYLAR
GUNN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NPC INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant-
Appellant. WILLIAM HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NPC
INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant-Appellant. CANDACE JOWERS,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NPC INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant-
Appellant. TIFFNEY PENLEY, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. NPC
INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant-Appellant. LEAH REDMOND, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. NPC INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant-Appellant, Nos.
14-6036, 14-6040, 14-6041, 41-6042, 14-6044, (6th Cir.)

Defendant NPC International, a Kansas corporation, operates Pizza
Hut Restaurants in numerous states across the country. In January
2013, five separate actions were commenced against NPC in the
Western District of Tennessee. All five were assigned to the same
judge. The plaintiffs in all five cases are represented by the
same counsel. Each of the actions asserts claims under the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA), for unpaid minimum wages and overtime
compensation by a different class of current or former employees
of NPC.

Plaintiff Skylar Gunn brought action on behalf of herself and
other similarly situated tipped employees, also classified as
waiters/waitresses/servers; plaintiff William Harris proceeded on
behalf of cooks; Candace Jowers on behalf of delivery drivers;
Tiffney Penley on behalf of shift managers; and Leah Redmond on
behalf of customer service representatives.

In each case, NPC is alleged to have established uniform policies
and practices that denied the named plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees' compensation they were entitled to, in
violation of the FLSA. In each of the five cases, NPC took various
responsive actions, but it was not until April 2014 that it first
asserted that the claims were subject to mandatory arbitration
under the plaintiffs' employment contracts by moving the court to
dismiss the actions for lack of jurisdiction or alternatively, to
compel arbitration.

The court thus held that NPC had waived its right to compel
arbitration and denied NPC's motions to dismiss. The court also
denied NPC's motions for reconsideration and these appeals
followed.

In his Opinion dated August 28, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/Bh4sDJfrom Leagle.com, Judge McKeague affirmed the
District Court's denial of NPC's motions to dismiss or, in the
alternative, to compel arbitration, in all five cases.  Judge
McKeague said the district court properly heeded "the important
remedial purpose" served by the FLSA collective action mechanism.
"Through it, a plaintiff who has suffered only small monetary harm
can join a larger pool of similarly situated plaintiffs." And
"that pool can attract effective counsel who knows that if the
plaintiffs prevail, counsel is entitled to a statutorily required
reasonable fee as determined by the court." The judicial system,
too, benefits from the collective action mechanism because it
allows for efficient resolution of common issues of law and fact
arising from the same alleged unlawful activity.


ON DECK: Faces Class Actions in S.D.N.Y. Over IPO
-------------------------------------------------
On Deck Capital, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that two separate putative
class actions were filed in August 2015 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
Company, certain of its executive officers, directors and certain
or all of the underwriters of its initial public offering, or IPO.

"The suits allege that the registration statement for our IPO
contained materially false and misleading statements regarding, or
failed to disclose, specified information in violation of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended," the Company said.  "The suits
seek a determination that the case is a proper class action and/or
certification of the plaintiff as a class representative,
rescission or a rescissory measure of damages and/or unspecified
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other fees and costs.  The
Company intends to defend itself vigorously in these matters,
although at this time we cannot predict the outcome.


ORBITAL ATK: Agreed to Settle Stockholder Litigation
----------------------------------------------------
Parties in the Orbital Corporation Stockholder Litigation have
agreed to settle the Consolidated Lawsuit and release the
defendants from all claims, Orbital ATK, Inc. said in its Form 10-
Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
August 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended July 5, 2015.

Putative class action and derivative lawsuits challenging the
Merger were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware in May 2014, naming Orbital, the Company and Orbital's
directors.  On November 14, 2014, the lawsuits were consolidated
by the court under the caption In Re Orbital Corporation
Stockholder Litigation (the "Consolidated Lawsuit").  The
plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that the directors of
Orbital breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
Merger, and alleged that the Company aided and abetted such
breaches of fiduciary duty.

On January 16, 2015, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding (the "MOU") regarding the settlement of this matter.
If the court approves the settlement contemplated by the MOU, the
Consolidated Lawsuit will be dismissed with prejudice.  Under the
terms of the MOU, the parties agreed to settle the Consolidated
Lawsuit and release the defendants from all claims relating to the
Merger, subject to court approval. Pursuant to the terms of the
MOU, Orbital and the Company agreed to make available additional
information to Orbital's stockholders in connection with the
Merger vote, and the defendants agreed to negotiate regarding an
appropriate amount of fees to be paid to plaintiffs' counsel by
Orbital or its successor.


PENNSYLVANIA: DOC's Preliminary Objections Partly Overruled
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Bernard L. McGinley overruled in part and sustained in part
the Department of Corrections' preliminary objections in the case
captioned Terrance Williams; Richard Laird; Robert Wharton; Hubert
Michael, Michael E. Ballard, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Petitioners, v. Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, Respondent, No. 353 M.D.
2014, (Pa. Commw.)

In 1990, the General Assembly adopted the following method of
execution: "the death penalty shall be inflicted by injecting the
convict with a continuous intravenous administration of a lethal
quantity of an ultrashort-acting barbiturate in combination with
chemical paralytic agents approved by the department until death
is pronounced by the coroner."

Petitioners now request the Commonwealth Court to declare the
DOC's Protocol invalid and unlawful. Petitioners bring the action
on behalf of themselves and a class of all 184 inmates sentenced
to death in the Commonwealth.

The DOC filed preliminary objections.

In his Opinion dated October 15, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/lzxo5Cfrom Leagle.com, Judge McGinley overruled in
part and granted in part the DOC's Preliminary Objections.
According to Judge McGinley, the Preliminary Objection:

     -- in the nature of a demurrer is overruled.
     -- with regard to jurisdiction is overruled.
     -- with regard to whether the Petitioners have standing
        to challenge the Protocol is overruled.
     -- with regard to standing to assert claims related to
        the ethical standards of nurses and paramedics is
        sustained.

The DOC is directed to file an answer within 30 days of the entry
of the Order.

According to Judge McGinley, at this early stage of the
litigation, taking Petitioners' allegation that pentobarbital and
potassium chloride are neither ultrashort-acting barbiturates nor
chemical paralytic agents as true, Petitioners have stated a claim
that the Protocol violates the statute. Therefore, the DOC's first
PO is overruled. Petitioners have sufficiently pled a cause of
action in the first portion of Claim II and the DOC's second PO is
overruled and DOC shall file an answer to Claim II of the petition
for review. The Court considers Petitioners' allegations that the
drugs listed in the Protocol will be used to execute Petitioners
as more than "rank speculation" because the Protocol was adopted
by the DOC and has been in effect since August 28, 2012. To the
extent Petitioners are sufficiently aggrieved by the contents of
the Protocol to confer standing to challenge the legality of the
Protocol, Petitioners would also have standing to challenge
whether it was promulgated in the manner prescribed by law. The
DOC's preliminary objection that the Petitioners lack standing to
challenge the Protocol is overruled.


PORSCHE: Car Owners File Class Action Over Windshield Glare
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Reed, writing for Glassbytes.com, reports that two
California-based Porsche owners have filed a state class action
lawsuit alleging their vehicles have a "windshield glare"
visibility issue.

"This action arises out of a uniform problem in the class vehicles
and their beige-colored dashboards, including, but not limited to,
Luxor Beige, Sand Beige, or any other beige dashboard, which
interferes with the ability of drivers to see the road," reads the
court documents.  "This condition, caused by the reflection of
light from the unusually light colored dashboards into the
windshield, and then into the drivers' eyes, can momentarily blind
drivers or impair their ability to see the roadway.  This
windshield glare poses a clear, unreasonable safety risk."

The two plaintiffs, Roy Jones and Alyce Rubinfeld, contend Porsche
has been aware of the alleged windshield glare since 2011.

"Owners of the affected vehicles have a reasonable expectation
that they should be able to see clearly through their windshields
during normal and routine use of their vehicles.  They do not
expect Porsche to sell them a product that Porsche knew to cause
an unsafe reflection of sunlight into the drivers' eyes,"
according to the court documents.

Plaintiffs are demanding a jury trial.


PROFESSIONAL MANAGEMENT: Dist. Ct. Order in Szczurek Case Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit affirmed the
district court order granting a motion for judgment on the
pleadings in the case captioned, JOSEPH SZCZUREK, individually,
and on behalf of others similarly situated, Appellant, v.
PROFESSIONAL MANAGEMENT INC. d/b/a Financial Recoveries; DOES 1
THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE, Case No. 14-4775.
Szczurek filed a purported class action in the District Court
alleging that PMM had violated Sections 1692e and 1692f of the
FDCPA by sending correspondence that created the false impression
that the only way to stop PMM from further contact was to pay the
debt. Szczurek sought declaratory and injunctive relief, as well
as damages, and asked the court to certify a class of individuals
who received correspondence from PMM indicating that the specified
debt must be paid in order to avoid further contact.

PMM moved for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. PMM claimed that it was
entitled to judgment as a matter of law because its correspondence
fully complied with the FDCPA. The District Court agreed, granted
the motion, and dismissed the complaint. Because the District
Court found no violation of the FDCPA, it did not reach the
question of class certification.

On appeal, Szczurek argued that the letter violated Sections 1692e
and 1692f of the FDCPA because it created the false impression
that the only way that he could prevent further contact from PMM
was to pay the debt.

In the Opinion dated October 1, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/TzXzZQfrom Leagle.com, Judge Sloviter agreed with
the District Court that PMM's correspondence did not violate the
FDCPA and concluded that the District Court did not err in
granting PMM's motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to
Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.


PRESBYTERIAN HOMES: Faces Class Action Over Leases
--------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that six
women have brought a class action against Presbyterian Homes,
alleging the company violated the terms of their leases, as well
as Chicago and Illinois law, when the property management company
announced its buildings had been sold to developers and threatened
with eviction tenants who, until the announcement, believed the
terms of their leases entitled them to a subsidized apartment "for
life."

The plaintiffs -- Linda Armitage, Christine Broxon, Patricia
Healy, Margaret Lilek, Barbara Madro and Carolyn Summers -- say
senior living facility operator Presbyterian Homes, of Evanston,
violated terms of the Chicago Residential Landlord and Tenant
Ordinance and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act by breaching a
contract they had for lifetime leases.

The complaint, filed early October in Cook County Circuit Court's
Chancery Division, arose after Presbyterian Homes announced Aug.
14 it would be selling its buildings and evicting residents.  At
issue are three subsidized-rent buildings -- called Neighborhood
Homes buildings -- Mulvey Place (416 W. Barry Ave.), Crowder Place
(3801 N. Pine Grove Ave.) and Devon Place (195 W. Devon Ave.)

The plaintiffs say about 100 women live in the buildings, all
believing they had lifetime leases that require them to be able to
live independently and pay the rent, which is subsidized.  Of the
six, who are in their mid-60s to early 80s, Madro has the shortest
tenure, having been in her Mulvey Place apartment for just six
months, while Lilek holds the longest lease, having lived at
Crowder Place for 13 years.

According to the complaint, "the leases have a specific start
date, fixed rent subsidy, fixed rent amount and lifetime guarantee
stated as an ending date listed as 'N/A' . . .  All residents have
essentially the same lease, with the only differences being the
start date and the amount of rent and subsidy."  Many tenants,
they say, were told they "had a home for life" and "would never
have to move."  They also were told their rent obligations could
be reduced if they experienced a change in income, as rent was
fixed at 28 percent of a tenant's annual income.

Tenants learned of the plans to sell the properties via an Aug. 14
letter, slid under each apartment's door.  The letter said leases
were being unilaterally terminated and informed the women they
would need to move.  The apartments are to be closed by Nov. 1,
2016.  The complaint states the letter was the first time tenants
and apartment employees learned of the possibility of a sale and
eviction.

Presbyterian Homes executives, including CEO Todd Swortzel,
conducted meetings at the homes, reporting the buildings would be
sold to for-profit developers.  The executives "refused to engage
residents or local public officials about sale to affordable
housing operators," they said.

While the implication at that session was a sale was imminent,
Presbyterian Homes was actively soliciting new residents as late
as March 2015, the complaint stated. Some women have moved,
accepting the offer of $1,500 in moving assistance.  Others are on
waiting lists for subsidized apartments, some which cite three to
five years before an opening.  The complaint asserted, however,
the people who moved only did so under threat of eviction by Nov.
1, 2016, which is the last date subsidized rent is guaranteed.

In addition to certification as a class action and a jury trial,
the plaintiffs seek damages, legal fees, injunctions barring
Presbyterian Homes from evicting anyone and from selling the three
buildings unless the lifetime leases are transferred, as well as
stopping the company from preventing women who left any of the
three Presbyterian Homes' properties from returning to their unit
under their prior lease.

The women are represented by Matthew J. Piers and Charles D.
Wysong, of Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym, Chicago.


QC HOLDINGS: Settlement in "Lee" Case to Be Completed by Yearend
----------------------------------------------------------------
QC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that parties in the "Lee"
class action expect that they will complete the settlement by the
end of 2015.

On October 18, 2011, Matthew Lee, an alleged Alberta, Canada
resident sued Direct Credit, all of its subsidiaries and three
former directors of those subsidiaries in the Supreme Court of
British Columbia in a purported class action. The plaintiff
alleged that Direct Credit and its subsidiaries violated Canada's
criminal usury laws by charging interest on its loans at rates
higher than 60%.

The parties have settled the case. The Company's share of the
settlement amount and ancillary expenses, net of indemnification
from the prior owners of Direct Credit, is $500,000 (Canadian).
The settlement will involve refunds and credits to class members
dating back to 2001. The deadline for eligible customers to make a
claim was July 21, 2015. The parties expect that they will
complete the settlement by the end of 2015.


QC HOLDINGS: Settlement Talks Urged in "Stemple" Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
QC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a court has ordered a
stay in the "Stemple" litigation to allow the parties to explore
possible settlement options.

On August 13, 2012, the Company was sued in the United States
District Court for the South District of California in a putative
class action lawsuit filed by Paul Stemple. Mr. Stemple alleges
that the Company used an automatic telephone dialing system with
an "artificial or prerecorded voice" in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. 227, et seq.

On September 5, 2014, the district court granted Plaintiff's
Motion for Class Certification. The certified class consists of
persons and/or entities who were never customers of the Company,
but whose 10-digit California area code cell phone numbers were
listed by the Company's customers in the "Employment" and/or
"Contacts" fields of their loan applications, and who the Company
allegedly called using an Automatic Telephone Dialing System for
the purpose of collecting or attempting to collect an alleged debt
from the account holder, between August 13, 2008 and August 13,
2012. In April 2015, the court refused to reconsider its
certification order, but did order a stay in the litigation to
allow the parties to explore possible settlement options.


QC HOLDINGS: Faces "Marquez" Class Action in C.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------
QC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company was sued on
April 20, 2015, in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California in a putative class action lawsuit
filed by Mike Marquez. Mr. Marquez alleges that the Company was
violating California law when it allegedly failed to notify
California residents that it was recording phone calls it made to
cell phones. The complaint does not identify any other members of
the proposed class, nor how many members may be in the class. At
this time, there is no reasonable way to determine possible
exposure.


RCS CAPITAL: ARCH Trust Litigation Still Pending
------------------------------------------------
RCS Capital Corporation continues to defend the American Realty
Capital Healthcare Trust Litigation, RCS revealed in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015.

In connection with the proposed acquisition by Ventas, Inc.
("Ventas") of all the outstanding stock of American Realty Capital
Healthcare Trust, Inc. ("ARCH"), purported shareholders of ARCH
have filed multiple class action lawsuits in the Circuit Court for
Baltimore City, Maryland and other jurisdictions. Two of these
actions named Realty Capital Securities among others, as a
defendant. The actions are: Shine v. American Realty Capital
Healthcare Trust, Inc. et al filed June 13, 2014 and Abbassi, et
al. v. American Realty Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc. et al. filed
July 9, 2014. The actions also assert derivative claims on behalf
of ARCH against Realty Capital Securities.

On October 10, 2014, lead plaintiffs in the Maryland state court
action filed a "Consolidated Amended Derivative and Direct Class
Action Complaint," asserting direct and derivative claims of
aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty against multiple
defendants, including Realty Capital Securities, arising from
their roles providing services to ARCH in connection with the
proposed acquisition of ARCH by Ventas and seek (i) to enjoin the
proposed acquisition and (ii) recover damages if the proposed
acquisition is completed. A similar shareholder action, Rosenzweig
v. American Realty Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc. et al, 1:14-cv-
02019-GLR, was filed in federal court for the District of
Maryland.

On January 2, 2015 and January 5, 2015, the parties to the
consolidated state court action and the Rosenzweig action executed
separate memoranda of understanding regarding settlement of all
claims asserted on behalf of each alleged class of ARCH
stockholders in each case. In connection with the settlement
contemplated by each memoranda of understanding, each action and
all claims asserted therein will be dismissed, subject to approval
by each applicable court. Pursuant to the executed memoranda of
understanding, ARCH made certain additional disclosures related to
the Ventas transaction. The memoranda of understanding further
contemplate that the parties will enter into a stipulation of
settlement, which will be subject to customary conditions, upon
the conclusion of confirmatory discovery and court approval
following notice to ARCH's stockholders. If the parties enter into
a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which
the court will consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy
of the settlement. There can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement, that the
applicable court will approve any proposed settlement, or that any
eventual settlement will be under the same terms as those
contemplated by the memorandum of understanding.

The Company believes that such lawsuits are without merit, but the
ultimate outcome of the matter cannot be predicted with certainty.
Neither the outcome of the lawsuits nor an estimate of a probable
loss or any reasonable possible losses is determinable at this
time. No provisions for any losses related to the lawsuits have
been recorded in the accompanying consolidated financial as of
June 30, 2015. An adverse judgment for monetary damages could have
a material adverse effect on the operations and liquidity of the
Company. All defendants have stated in court filings that they
believe that the claims are without merit and are defending
against them vigorously.


RCS CAPITAL: To Defend Against "Weston" Amended Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------
RCS Capital Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company intends to
vigorously defend itself against allegations in the amended
complaint filed in the case, Weston v. RCS Capital Corporation et
al.

On or about December 29, 2014, a securities law class action
lawsuit was filed in federal court in the Southern District of New
York (Weston v. RCS Capital Corporation et al, 14 CV 10136)
against the Company and certain former or current officers and
directors of the Company. The lawsuit asserts the Company and the
individual defendants violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially false and
misleading public statements pertaining to the Company's financial
position and future business and acquisition prospects.
Specifically, plaintiffs allege that defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the
financial statements of ARCP were material false and misleading as
a result of accounting errors that were disclosed by ARCP on
October 29, 2014; (ii) the Company's announced acquisition of Cole
Capital Partners LLC and Cole Capital Advisors was at serious risk
due to the accounting issues at ARCP; and (iii) the Company's
revenue stream from its relationship with ARCP was in jeopardy as
a result of the accounting issues at ARCP announced on October 29,
2014.

A newly-appointed lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on
June 1, 2015, naming the Company, RCAP Holdings LLC, RCAP Equity
LLC, and certain former and current officers and directors of the
Company as defendants. The amended complaint alleges that the
Company's public statements in 2014 discussing the strength and
success of the Company's wholesale and investment banking
businesses, as well its public statements regarding the benefits
of the announced acquisition of Cole Capital, were materially
false and misleading because they failed to provide an accurate
portrait of the true strength and specific risks to the Company
and its wholesale brokerage and investment banking businesses.
Such statements allegedly misrepresented and/or failed to disclose
that certain Company executives, who also held roles with ARCP,
were engaged in a fraudulent scheme to misstate the financial
results of ARCP. The amended complaint alleges defendants (except
RCAP Equity LLC, a holding company under common ownership with
RCAP Holdings with no ongoing operations, assets or liabilities)
violated Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the 1933 Securities Act in
connection with the Company's June 2014 secondary stock offering.
It further alleges that the Company and certain defendants
violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The Company believes the Weston amended complaint is without merit
and intends to vigorously defend itself against its allegations.


RCS CAPITAL: Dismissal of ARCP Shareholder Class Action Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
RCS Capital Corporation has filed a motion to dismiss all of the
claims against it and Realty Capital Securities in the so-called
ARCP Shareholder Class Action Litigation, RCS revealed in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
August 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015.

The Company was named as a defendant in a consolidated federal
securities law class action (Teachers Insurance and Annuity
Association of America, et al. v. American Realty Capital
Properties, Inc. et al, Civ. A. 15-cv-00421) filed in federal
court in New York on January 21, 2015 brought on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of ARCP
between May 6, 2013 and October 29, 2014, including ARCP common
stock, preferred stock and debt securities. The lawsuit's claims,
premised on Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
and Sections 14(a), 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, allege generally that defendants issued or assisted in
the issuance of false and misleading statements to the investing
public, including in registration statements, prospectuses,
proxies and other public statements and press releases, concerning
ARCP's financial results as part of a scheme to artificially
inflate the value of ARCP's securities.

More specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company is a
"control person" of ARCP under the securities laws and thus
plaintiffs seek to hold the Company responsible for the alleged
misstatements of ARCP and its officers and directors. The Company
is also alleged to be a "structuring advisor" to ARCP. Realty
Capital Securities is named as a defendant based on its role as a
co-manager of ARCP's July 2013 convertible notes offering.
On April 17, 2015, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which,
like the original complaint, alleges that the Company is a
"control person" of ARCP under the securities laws. The amended
complaint also names Realty Capital Securities as a defendant
based on its role as a co-manager of ARCP's July 2013 convertible
notes offering.

The Company believes the amended complaint is without merit and
intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations
contained in the complaint. The Company has filed a motion to
dismiss all of the claims against it and Realty Capital
Securities.


RUSHCARD: Prepaid Debit Card Customers May Opt for Arbitration
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mandi Woodruff, writing for Yahoo.com, reports that thousands of
RushCard's estimated 3 million prepaid debit card customers who
lost access to their accounts on Oct. 10.  The company, co-founded
by music mogul Russell Simmons in 2003, blamed the lapse in
service on a software glitch that occurred while it upgraded its
transaction processing software.  In a statement issued Oct. 19,
Rick Savard, CEO and Chairman of RushCard, said the system was
"back up and running," despite hundreds of comments from customers
who still claimed their funds had not been returned.  "RushCard
employees are working around the clock to get every single
customer full access to their funds," he said.

For RushCard customers who were burned by the software debacle,
their options for recourse are limited.  Part of the reason
prepaid debit card use has ballooned over the last few years is
that traditional banks have become prohibitively expensive for
low-income workers.  Some big banks charge monthly fees of $12
unless customers maintain a minimum balance of $1,500, an amount
some people, like Jackson, simply can't keep on hand.  Prepaid
cards charge fees, too, of course, but they typically don't
require minimum balances and monthly fees can be significantly
lower than some big bank accounts (RushCard customers pay $5.95 to
$7.95 per month).

Prepaid cards are also useful alternatives for customers who have
poor banking histories and can't get approved for traditional bank
accounts. Most cards do not allow customers to overdraw their
accounts.

"We've been pretty supportive of prepaid cards because our
research shows these products could be a really good alternative
for somebody who wants an account but can't use a bank account,"
says Susan Weinstock, director of the consumer banking project at
The Pew Charitable Trusts.  "We certainly didn't see this coming."

For customers looking for prepaid debit card alternatives to the
RushCard, they can start by researching fees on sites like
NerdWallet or Bankrate.  As much as customers are using the
RushCard's Facebook and Twitter feeds as a forum for complaints,
they're also helping one another suss out better options.

Many prepaid debit card customers have been bumped out of the
traditional banking system when they develop a poor banking
history, which can happen if they overdraw their accounts, bounce
checks or open and close savings or checking accounts too often
(80% of banks and credit unions in the U.S. use ChexSystems, a
consumer reporting agency, to see how often customers have closed
checking and savings accounts in bad standing).

But consumers with a less-than-stellar banking history still have
options beyond prepaid cards.  Two national banks, Green Dot,
offered by Walmart, and Wells Fargo, offer their version of a
"second chance bank account."  These accounts, which might be
listed under a name like "opportunity checking," are offered by a
number of regional and local banks as well (here's a comprehensive
list from Nerdwallet).  Kind of like a secured credit card, which
helps people rebuild their credit histories, second chance
accounts help customers build up their bank history.

Taking them to court

Thousands of poor customers left penniless by a big financial
services company? It sounds like any class action attorney's dream
case.  Unfortunately, like the majority of financial products and
services, the RushCard bans customers from filing class action
lawsuits.  Their only legal option is to file a case to be handled
in arbitration, which can be expensive.

"Customers would have to go to a lawyer to see what the damages
are and see if it's cost effective," says Christine Hines,
Legislative Director of the National Association of Consumer
Advocates.  "But these are low-income people.  I don't think
they'll be able to take on the cost of arbitration."

Affected consumers can file complaints with the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau (submit one here), but even though the watchdog
has successfully recouped losses for consumers in cases like this
in the past, it could take years for folks like Jackson to receive
compensation.  In an ironic twist, the CFPB is expected to
finalize new rules for prepaid card companies like UniRush in
January.  The rules, which mostly pertain to transparent fee
disclosures and fraud liability, probably would not have made a
difference to RushCard users, says Weinstock.

In the meantime, Simmons and his team haven't exactly impressed
customers with their response to the mess.  They offered a "fee-
free" holiday service period, in which no fees would be charged
for RushCard customers from Nov. 1 through Feb. 29.

Russell Simmons posted a video apology to the company's Facebook
page four days after the glitch became public.


SAM'S WEST: Won't Honor Fresh Food Refund Guarantee, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sam's West, Sam's East and Walmart do not honor the 200% refund
guarantee for fresh food on their membership agreement, a class
action claims in Federal Court in Santa Ana, Calif., Courthouse
News Service reported.


SCO FAMILY: Charity Workers Underpaid, Class Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a charity that makes hundreds of millions of dollars a year
serving 60,000 vulnerable New Yorkers is "not so conscious of the
plight of their very own workers," including a woman who put in
100-hour weeks without overtime, a class claims in court in
Manhattan, NY.

Doreen Jones is the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit filed on Oct. 13
against SCO Family of Services, a Glen Cove, N.Y.-based charity,
and four of its top executives.  The lawsuit notes that SCO
"flagrantly touts its socially conscious mission" on its website,
which boasts of its 120-year history and its current reach of
helping thousands of homeless and struggling families and more
than 100 locations.  However, "case workers who are entrusted to
carry out the organization's mission on a day-to-basis, social
conscience, a sense of fairness, and even the law, are of little
concern to defendants," the lawsuit filed in Manhattan Supreme
Court states.

"In fact, defendants, who collect hundreds of millions of dollars
in fees on an annual basis, routinely and willfully take advantage
of their case workers to the point were they are overworked,
underpaid, and intentionally deprived of their legal, earned
wages," the 15-page action continues.

The charity's chief strategy officer Rose Anello stood by her
organization's record with its employees in a phone interview.

"SCO takes great pride in assuring that staff are not only
lawfully compensated, but treated fairly and with the utmost
respect," she commented.

SCO's most recent publicly filed tax form reported that the
organization received more than $244 million in total revenue from
contributions, grants, services, investments and other income in
2013.

The organization has sometimes struggled, however, to keep its
finances in the black, the same form shows.  It lost more than
$518,000 in 2012, and made more than $498,000 in 2013.

Jones, who has worked for the organization for seven years, says
that the charity has cut corners at the expense of its employees.
Since Jones started working for the charity in 2008, her salary
barely inched up from $35,500 to $38,515 a year, she says.  She
says that she's allowed to clock in only 35 hours per week, but
that her real hours typically range from between 55 to 75 hours.
That's because the charity and its executives "burden their
caseworkers with immense case loads, inadequate staffing, and
deadlines which must be met in order to avoid severe negative
repercussions," according to the lawsuit.

"If case workers do not meet these deadlines, despite the amount
of hours that it takes in a workweek to do so, defendants threaten
such case workers with discipline, up to and including
termination," the complaint says. "Essentially, the case workers
are left with no choice but to do the work at home, on weekends,
and during their lunch 'breaks' (which could take anywhere from at
least fifty to seventy hours per week), without compensation, or
lose their jobs."

For two weeks, Jones put in roughly 140 hours without collecting
any overtime, she says.

Jones is represented by Russell Moriarty of Levine & Blit in the
lawsuit, which alleges violations of U.S. and state employment-law
protections.  The firm may be reached at:

     Russell Moriarty, Esq.
     LEVINE & BLIT, PLLC
     350 Fifth Avenue, 36th Floor
     New York, NY 10118
     Tel: 212-967-3000


SIERRA HIGH SCHOOL: Calif. School Sued Over Lesbian T-Shirt
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nick Cahill, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
Northern California high school that sent a girl home for wearing
a "Nobody knows I'm a lesbian" T-shirt, claiming she was
"promoting sex," is facing a federal lawsuit in Sacramento for it.

Sixteen-year-old T.V. and her mother sued two assistant principals
at Sierra High School in Manteca, a town of 72,000 just south of
Stockton.  They claim assistant principal Dan Beukelman and vice
principal Greg Leland violated the state and federal constitutions
and the California Education Code by censoring her shirt with
claims that it was "promoting sex" and "an open invitation to
sex."

Leland sent her home from school on Aug. 10 after she refused his
order to change it. She says he told her "that she was not allowed
to display her 'sexuality' on clothing."

When she met with him the next day and pointed out that the
Manteca Unified School District had no such dress code, he told
her "that regardless of the dress code, she was not allowed to
display her 'personal choices and beliefs' on a shirt. He also
claimed that her shirt violated the dress code because it was
'disruptive' and could be 'gang related,'" according to the Oct.
15 complaint.

T.V. says that Leland told her if it was not in the dress code,
they could add it. He sent her to assistant principal Beukelman,
who told her the next day, Aug. 12, when she was not wearing the
shirt, that it violated the dress code because it "promoted
sexuality."

In a paragraph that might make a good classroom lesson, the
complaint states: "T.V. explained to Beukelman that sex and
sexuality had different meanings. Beukelman told T.V. she was
wrong and claimed that sexuality fell under the category of sex."

That led to an Aug. 13 meeting with T.V., her father, the two
assistant principals and the teacher who turned her in. T.V. and
her parents point out that the school allows students to wear
shirts promoting commercial products, "including Captain Morgan's
Rum," and that barring her shirt is viewpoint discrimination.

To top it off, Sierra High School and Manteca USA can suspend or
expel a student for "willful defiance." T.V. says she fears she
could be expelled if she wears the shirt again.

Her attorney Christine Sun, with the ACLU of Northern California,
told Courthouse News the principals should know better.

"Public schools can't censor the political beliefs of students,
and free speech is not subject to the whims and biases of school
administrators," Sun said. "This student's school should be
teaching her to think for herself, not punishing her for being
herself."

Leland and Beukelman did not return requests for comment. In a
statement, Manteca Unified School District said it would not
discuss T.V.'s case.

"Sierra High School is a place where students are taught to
respect one another and to learn to work together," the district
added. "We support free rights of speech, accept our diversity,
while maintaining a learning environment free of disruption for
all students. As a school and district we are obligated to adhere
to all applicable federal civil rights statutes and regulations
enforced by the Office for Civil Rights."

In addition to the obvious constitutional violations, T.V. and her
parents say the school is targeting her because of her sexuality,
which violates the California Education Code.

"Defendants' actions are, in whole or in part, unlawfully
motivated by their disagreement with the plaintiff's viewpoint
concerning sexual orientation, or out of anti-gay animus," the
complaint states.  They seek declaratory judgment and an
injunction, better training for school employees, and nominal
damages of $1.


SNYDER'S-LANCE: Tentative Settlement Agreement Reached
------------------------------------------------------
A tentative settlement agreement has been reached in a class
action involving Snyder's-Lance, Inc., the company revealed in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on August 11, 2015, for the quarter ended July 4, 2015.

The Company said, "We have certain class action legal proceedings
filed against us which allege that certain ingredients in some of
our products that are labeled as "natural" and "all natural" are
not natural. Although we believe that we have strong defenses
against these claims, subsequent to end of the second quarter, we
reached a tentative settlement agreement in order to avoid the
costs and uncertainty of litigation. The tentative settlement
amount is $2.8 million and the tentative settlement is subject to
the preparation, negotiation and execution of definitive
settlement agreements. Accordingly, we have recorded an accrual of
$2.8 million as of July 4, 2015, which represents our best
estimate of the loss we now believe is probable."


SNYDER'S-LANCE: Continues to Defend IBOs Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Snyder's-Lance, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2015, for the
quarter ended July 4, 2015, that the Company continues to defend
the so-called IBOs class action.

In January 2013, plaintiffs comprised of independent business
owner ("IBO") filed a putative class action against our
distribution subsidiary, S-L Distribution Company, Inc., in the
Suffolk Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The
lawsuit was transferred to the United States District Court,
Middle District of Pennsylvania. The lawsuit seeks statewide class
certification on behalf of a class comprised of IBOs in
Massachusetts. The plaintiffs allege that they were misclassified
as independent contractors and should be considered employees. The
plaintiffs are seeking reimbursement of their out-of-pocket
business expenses.

"We believe we have strong defenses to all the claims that have
been asserted against us. Given the nature of litigation and the
complexities involved in this matter, we are unable to predict the
resolution of this lawsuit or to reasonably estimate a possible
loss or range of loss for this matter until we know, among other
factors, (i) the extent of claims, particularly when damages are
not specified or are indeterminate, (ii) how the litigation
process, including discovery will impact the litigation, (iii) the
settlement posture of the parties to the litigation, (iv) the
validity of our defenses and (v) any other factors that may have a
material effect on this litigation. It is possible that an
unfavorable outcome with respect to this proceeding could have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations," the Company
said.


SONY PICTURES: Settles Class Suit by Hacked Employees
-----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Sony Pictures will pay at
least $5.5 million to settle a class action in Los Angeles,
California, from employees whose personal information was hacked
in an attack the United States blamed on North Korea, which was
furious about a movie satirizing its fearless leader Kim Jong Un.

The settlement agreement was filed in Superior Court in the seven
cases consolidated under the name of the first filer, Michael
Corona v Sony Pictures Entertainment. The Hollywood Reporter also
reported the settlement.

The settlement would provide $2 million to pay each class member
up to $1,000 to protect them from identity theft. The class
counsel would get about $3.5 million.

Sony also must provide ID theft monitoring and insurance for
workers who were hacked, and another $2.5 million to pay each
class member up to $10,000 for ID thefts traced to the Sony hack.

Potential class members can opt out of the agreement, which needs
court approval.


SPRINT SPECTRUM: "Emilio" Plaintiff May Amend Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge J. Paul Oetken granted Plaintiff's motion to file
an amended complaint in the case captioned VINCENT EMILIO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. SPRINT SPECTRUM L.P., d/b/a SPRINT PCS, Defendant,
No.: 11-CV-3041 (JPO), (S.D.N.Y.)

Plaintiff Vincent Emilio brings this putative class action against
Defendant Sprint Spectrum L.P., d/b/a Sprint PCS, asserting a
violation of the Kansas Unfair Trade and Consumer Protection Act
(KCPA).

In February 2014, the Court granted Emilio's motion to confirm the
award, and Emilio filed a class action complaint, which Sprint
moved to dismiss. The Court denied Sprint's motion.  Subsequently,
Emilio moved to file an amended complaint.

In his Opinion and Order dated August 27, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/BIM480from Leagle.com, Judge Oetken granted Emilio's
motion to file an amended complaint.  The Court said it cannot
conclude that Sprint would be prejudiced by the additional
preparations it would be required to undertake in responding to
the proposed amended complaint (PAC).

Judge Oetken noted that, at the direction of Magistrate Judge Fox,
to whom this case has been referred for general pretrial
supervision, fact discovery in this case is set to continue for
several more months, and expert discovery is not due until
February 2016.  Sprint has not indicated that it will need to
conduct a significant amount of additional discovery to respond to
the PAC. The additional matter in the proposed pleadings appears
to refer to the same Sprint consumer disclosures and other
discovery similar to what was already at issue since the initial
complaint. Finally, Sprint may request an extension of discovery
deadlines, or the reconsideration of prior discovery-related
orders, if the filing of the PAC necessitates it. The Court
concluded that the amendment is not futile and that the filing of
the PAC would not unduly prejudice Sprint.

Jason Allen Zweig, Esq. -- jasonz@hbsslaw.com -- Daniel Kurowski,
Esq. -- dank@hbsslaw.com -- and Steve W. Berman, Esq. --
steve@hbsslaw.com -- of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP -- William
Robert Weinstein, Esq. -- bill@wweinsteinlaw.com -- of Law Offices
of William R. Weisnstein serve as counsel for Petitioner Vincent
Emilio

Joseph Andrew Boyle, Esq. -- jboyle@kelleydrye.com -- Elizabeth D
Silver, Esq., Lauri A Mazzuchetti, Esq. --
lmazzuchetti@kelleydrye.com -- Nainesh Ramjee, Esq. --
nramjee@kelleydrye.com -- and Vincent P. Rao, Esq. --
vrao@kelleydrye.com -- of Kelley Drye & Warren LLP serve as
counsel for Respondent Sprint Spectrum L.P.


SQUARE 1: 3 Class Actions Filed Over PacWest Merger
---------------------------------------------------
Square 1 Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that three putative
stockholder class action lawsuits have been filed in connection
with the previously disclosed proposed merger between the Company
and PacWest.

Manganaro v. Burke et al., Case No. 10817-VCL, was filed in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on March 20, 2015, and
was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on May 5, 2015.
Lakowitz v. Bowers et al., Case No. 1:15-CV-371, was filed in the
federal district court for the Middle District of North Carolina
on May 6, 2015 and was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on
May 7, 2015.

Li v. Bowers et al., Case No. 1:15-CV-373 (the "Li Action"), was
filed in federal district court for the Middle District of North
Carolina on May 7, 2015. The Li Action alleged that the members of
the Square 1 board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to
Square 1 stockholders and failed to take steps to maximize the
value to be paid to the Square 1 stockholders. In addition, the Li
Action alleged that PacWest aided and abetted these alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties. The Li Action also alleged
violations of federal securities laws with respect to allegedly
misleading statements contained in the registration statement
filed with the SEC in connection with the merger. The plaintiffs
in the Li Action sought, among other things, declaratory and
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs, and other and
further relief.

On June 1, 2015, the parties to the Li Action entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding which sets forth the parties'
agreement in principle to a settlement of that action. In
connection with the settlement of the Li Action, Square 1 and
PacWest agreed to make certain additional disclosures, which were
contained in the definitive proxy statement and prospectus filed
with the SEC with respect to the merger. The settlement remains
subject to a number of conditions, including, among other things,
final documentation and court approval following notice to the
settlement class. There can be no assurance that the settlement
will ultimately be approved by the court.


STRATEGIC REALTY: $5MM Settlement in IPO Suit Approved
------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge in San Francisco, California, on Oct. 15 approved
a $5 million final settlement of a shareholder class action
involving Strategic Realty Trust's $70 million IPO, from which
$1.3 million will go to attorneys' fees and costs; lead counsel
was Girard Gibbs.

The case is, LEWIS BOOTH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. STRATEGIC REALTY
TRUST, INC., et al., Defendants. Case No. 13-cv-04921-JST (N.D.
Cal.).


STUART PETROLEUM: "Dyson" Case Wins Conditional Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Robert L. Pitman granted Plaintiff's motion for
conditional certification of a collective action and authorization
for notice in the case captioned RORY DYSON, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. STUART
PETROLEUM TESTERS, INC. and SCOTT YARIGER, Defendants, No.: 1-15-
CV-282 RP, (W.D. Tex.)

Plaintiff Rory Dyson brings this action both individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated against defendants Stuart
Petroleum Testers, Inc. (Stuart) and Scott Yariger asserting
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Plaintiff
alleges Defendants provide oil and gas well monitoring services to
energy companies in multiple states including Texas, Arkansas and
Louisiana. Plaintiff states he, and other putative class members,
are employed as "flow testers" whose primary duties consist of
monitoring oil and gas wells. Plaintiff alleges he and other
similarly situated workers were improperly classified by
Defendants as independent contractors, rather than employees,
despite the fact that Defendants wholly controlled their work.
Plaintiff states that, although he and other similarly situated
workers regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week, they were
not paid overtime compensation as required by the FLSA.

Plaintiff further asserts Defendants' conduct was undertaken in
willful, malicious and/or reckless disregard of the mandates of
the FLSA. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges Defendants set up a
paper profile designed to create the impression that flow testers
were independent contractors, although in reality they were
employees of Defendants. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages,
attorney's fees and costs.

Plaintiff filed a motion seeking conditional certification of this
lawsuit as a collective action under the FLSA. Plaintiff asserts
there are other similarly situated individuals whose rights under
the FLSA have been violated by Defendants and those individuals
should be permitted to opt-in to this action. The parties have
filed responsive pleadings to the motion.

In his Order dated August 27, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/V3t4fZfrom Leagle.com, Judge Pitman granted
Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of a collective
action and authorization for notice conditionally certifying a
class under the FLSA of: "All current and former hourly-paid
workers classified as independent contractors who performed work
for Defendants associated with monitoring and maintaining oil and
gas wells throughout the United States during the three-year
period before the date the Court authorizes notice."  Defendants
were directed to provide counsel for Plaintiff in an electronic
format names, all known addresses, all known email addresses, and
all known phone numbers of the potential class members.

Udyogi Hangawatte, Esq., and Galvin B. Kennedy, Esq., of Kennedy
Hodges, L.L.P. serve as counsel for Plaintiff Rory Dyson

James D. Rosenblatt, Esq. -- james@rosenblattlawfirm.com --
and Tiffanie Stegall Clausewitz, Esq. --
Tiffanie@rosenblattlawfirm.com -- of The Rosenblatt Law Firm, P.C.
serve as counsel for Defendant Stuart Petroleum Testers, Inc.


SWATCH GROUP: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss "Reed" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Esther Salas of the United States District Court
for District of New Jersey denied Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
the case captioned, ELLIOT REED, MICHAEL ASTA, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE SWATCH
GROUP (US), INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 14-
896(ES)(MAH).
Plaintiffs Elliott Reed and Michael Asta bring the instant
putative class action on behalf of themselves and similarly
situated individuals, alleging violations of the Fair and Accurate
Credit Transactions Act amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting
Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1681, et seq., as amended. The Complaint
alleges that Plaintiff Elliot Reed made a purchase at Defendant's
store at Garden State Plaza in New Jersey and received from
Defendant an electronically-printed receipt that displayed the
expiration date of his credit card.

In the motion, Defendant challenges the Amended Complaint on the
grounds that it does not "offer any allegation or evidence that
Swatch issued credit card receipts at its New Jersey or Times
Square store with the intent to violate FACTA. Plaintiffs respond
that Defendant ignores the additional allegations set forth in the
Amended Complaint, which sufficiently allege actual knowledge or
intent.

In her Opinion dated October 1, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/boBqBKfrom Leagle.com, Judge Salas found that the
Amended Complaint includes enough facts, accepted as true, to
state a claim under FACTA because a reckless violation of FACTA is
enough to satisfy the "willfulness" requirement.

Plaintiffs are represented by Jeffrey W. Herrmann, Esq. -
jwh@njlawfirm.com -- COHN, LIFLAND, PEARLMAN, HERRMANN & KNOPF,
LLC.
The Swatch Group is represented by Andrew Lowe O'Connor, Esq. --
aoconnor@nagelrice.com & Robert H. Solomon, Esq. --
rsolomon@nagelrice.com -- NAGEL RICE, LLP.


TOBIRA THERAPEUTICS: Engaged in Confirmatory Discovery
------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a class action involving Tobira Therapeutics, Inc. are
engaged in confirmatory discovery, the Company said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
August 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015.

On February 2, 2015, a purported stockholder of Regado filed a
putative class-action lawsuit (captioned Maiman v. Regado
Biosciences, Inc., C.A. No. 10606-CB) in the Court of Chancery for
the State of Delaware, or the Court, challenging the proposed
stock-for-stock Merger of Regado with Tobira, or the Proposed
Merger. On February 25, 2015, a second, related putative class
action (captioned Gilboa v. Regado Biosciences, Inc., C.A. No.
10720-CB) was filed in the Court challenging the Proposed Merger.
On May 4, 2014, the Proposed Merger was consummated and Tobira
became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Regado and changed its name to
Tobira Development Inc. The complaints name as defendants: (i)
each member of Regado's Board of Directors, (ii) Regado, (iii)
Private Tobira, and (iv) Landmark Merger Sub Inc. Plaintiffs
allege that Regado's directors breached their fiduciary duties to
Regado's stockholders by, among other things, (a) agreeing to
merge Regado with Private Tobira for inadequate consideration, (b)
implementing a process that was distorted by conflicts of
interest, and (c) agreeing to certain provisions of the Merger
Agreement that are alleged to favor Private Tobira and deter
alternative bids. Plaintiffs also generally allege that the entity
defendants aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary
duty by the directors. On March 25, 2015, the Court consolidated
the two actions and assigned lead counsel for plaintiffs
(captioned In re Regado Biosciences, Inc. Stockholder Litigation,
Consolidated C.A. No. 10606-CB).

On March 27, 2015, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint, a motion for expedited proceedings and a motion for
preliminary injunction. On April 20, 2015, the parties agreed in
principle to resolve the litigation (subject to approval by the
Court) and signed a memorandum of understanding setting forth the
terms of a proposed settlement to provide additional disclosures
related to the Merger Agreement and cover Court awarded fees.

On April 23, 2015, as part of the proposed settlement, Regado
provided additional disclosures to its stockholders. The parties
are currently engaged in confirmatory discovery, after which they
will submit the proposed settlement to the Court for approval.

As of June 30, 2015, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate
an amount and/or a range of loss until the Company is made aware
of the Court fees awarded by the Court to the plaintiffs under the
proposed settlement, if any, as administered under settlement law.
The Company maintains D&O insurance and tail coverage with
deductibles of $2.0 million and $1.5 million respectively.


TRUECAR INC: Faces "Mahapatra" Class Action in C.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------
Truecar, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a purported securities
class action complaint was filed on May 27, 2015, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California (the
"Securities Litigation") by Satyabrata Mahapatra naming the
Company and two other individuals not affiliated with the Company
as defendants.

On June 15, 2015, the plaintiff filed a Notice of Errata and
Correction purporting to name Scott Painter and Michael Guthrie as
individual defendants in lieu of the two individual defendants
named in the complaint. The complaint in the Securities Litigation
seeks an award of unspecified damages, interest and attorneys'
fees based on allegations that the defendants made false and/or
misleading statements, and failed to disclose material adverse
facts about the Company's business, operations, prospects and
performance. Specifically, the complaint alleges that during the
putative class period, the defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) TrueCar's business
practices violated unfair competition and deceptive trade practice
laws (i.e., the issues raised in the NY Lanham Act Litigation);
(ii) TrueCar acts as a dealer and broker in car sales transactions
without proper licensing, in violation of various states' laws
that govern car sales (i.e., the issues raised in the CNCDA
Litigation); and (iii) as a result of the above, the Company's
financial statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times. The complaint asserts a putative class period
stemming from May 16, 2014 to May 20, 2015.

The Company believes that the complaint is without merit and it
intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. Based on the
preliminary nature of the proceedings in this case, the outcome of
this legal proceeding, including the anticipated legal defense
costs, remains uncertain; accordingly, the Company cannot predict
the ultimate outcome or reasonably estimate the probability of or
the range of loss, if any, for this action. As a result, no loss
accrual has been recorded in the Company's consolidated financial
statements related to this matter. If this matter is not resolved
in the Company's favor, losses arising from the results of
litigation or settlements, as well as ongoing defense costs, could
have a material adverse effect on the Company's business,
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.


TRUECAR INC: Faces Participating Dealer Litigation
--------------------------------------------------
Truecar, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company was named
as a defendant in a lawsuit filed on July 30, 2015, in the
Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles by numerous
automotive dealers who are participating on the TrueCar platform
(the "Participating Dealer Litigation"). The complaint in the
Participating Dealer Litigation seeks declaratory and injunctive
relief based on allegations that the Company is engaging in
unfairly competitive practices and is operating as an unlicensed
automobile dealer and autobroker in contravention of various state
laws.

The Company believes that the complaint is without merit and it
intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. Based on the
preliminary nature of the proceedings in this case, the outcome of
this legal proceeding, including the anticipated legal defense
costs, remains uncertain; accordingly, the Company cannot predict
the ultimate outcome or reasonably estimate the probability of or
the range of loss, if any, for this action. As a result, no loss
accrual has been recorded in the Company's consolidated financial
statements related to this matter. If this matter is not resolved
in the Company's favor, losses arising from the results of
litigation or settlements, as well as ongoing defense costs, could
have a material adverse effect on the Company's business,
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.


UNITED STATES: EBCI Among Tribes to Receive Settlement Funds
------------------------------------------------------------
Scott McKie B.P., writing for Cherokee One Feather, reports that
the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians will join hundreds of
federally-recognized tribes across the country in receiving funds
from a $940 million proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit
known as the Ramah Navajo Chapter Settlement.  The settlement
seeks to end a 25-year dispute over contract support costs for
tribal agencies.

"The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians is part of the class action
suit against the Department of the Interior for failing to pay
total contract support costs associated with the programs,
services, functions and activities that the Tribe contracts for
through the self-determination authority," said Hannah Smith, EBCI
attorney general.  "While the Tribe's settlement amount has not
been negotiated yet, the Tribe does expect a settlement.  This
phase of the very large class action against the Department of the
Interior still has a way to go before EBCI will be paid the
funding it is owed."

The suit was first filed by the Ramah Navajo Chapter, a sub-unit
of the Navajo Nation, in 1990.  The Oglala Sioux Tribe of South
Dakota and the Pueblo of Zuni joined the suit as class
representatives at a later date.

"This landmark settlement represents another important step in the
Obama Administration's efforts to turn the page on past challenges
in our government-to-government relationship with tribes,"
Interior Secretary Sally Jewell said in a statement.  "Tribal
self-determination and self-governance will continue to be our
North Star as we navigate a new chapter in this important
relationship and we are committed to fully funding contract
support costs so that tribal contracting can be more successful.
Congress can and should make this happen."

Kevin Washburn, Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, commented,
"From the tribes' perspective, underfunding of contract costs is
another broken promise.  There is no longer any question that we
agreed to pay these amounts and we are liable, the only question
now is, how much money is needed to settle decades of liability
with hundreds of tribal contractors?"

According to information from Michael P. Gross, Class Counsel for
the suit from Santa Fe, NM, "The actual distribution of funds will
be handled by a company to be selected as the "Settlement
Administrator".  This company has not yet been selected.  The
Settlement Administrator's work will be supervised by a Class
Monitor.  Both the Settlement Administrator and the Class Monitor
will be required to report all of their work back to the Court."

David Jose, Ramah Navajo Chapter president, said in a statement,
"This settlement will be remembered as a landmark victory by over
645 tribes and tribal organizations across the country that
operate programs under the Self-Determination Act.  It will
promote the Act's goal of tribal self-sufficiency, self-reliance,
and self-governance for generations to come and reduce
unemployment on our reservations."

John Yellow Bird Steele, Oglala Sioux Tribe president, commented,
"We are satisfied with the fine settlement that has been reached
here.  Previously, they paternalistically shorted us and didn't
give a darn.  We are hopeful that we are now entering into a
period of mutual cooperation with the Department of Interior.  We
hope the settlement clears the air for the future."

This issue reached the U.S. Supreme Court which ruled in favor of
the plaintiffs on June 18, 2012.

According to the Final Settlement Agreement, "the United States
Supreme Court held Defendants could not justify the failure to pay
in full the contract support costs of an individual Tribal
Contractor on the ground that Congress did not appropriate
sufficient funds to meet the total contract support cost
requirement of all Tribal Contractors . . ."


UNITED STATES: Dist. Ct. Narrows Claims in "Jarita" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge James O. Browning issued a memorandum opinion and
order in the case captioned JARITA MESA LIVESTOCK GRAZING
ASSOCIATION; ALAMOSA LIVESTOCK GRAZING ASSOCIATION; SEBEDEO
CHACON; THOMAS GRIEGO; DONALD GRIEGO; MICHAEL PENA; JUAN GIRON;
JOE GURULE, JR.; FERNANDO GURULE; DIEGO JARAMILLO; LORENZO
JARAMILLO; GABRIEL ALDAZ; ARTURO RODARTE; JEFFREY CHACON; GLORIA
VALDEZ; JERRY VASQUEZ; CARLOS ORTEGA; LEON ORTEGA; HORACIO
MARTINEZ; RONALD MARTINEZ; STEVE CHAVEZ; VANGIE CHAVEZ; ALFONSO
CHACON; DANIEL RAEL; JOHN VALDEZ and BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF THE COUNTY OF RIO ARRIBA, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES FOREST
SERVICE and DIANA TRUJILLO, in her official and individual
capacities, Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-2604-REB-CBS.

This matter came before the Court on the Federal Defendants'
Motion and Memorandum to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Remaining Claims,
filed February 10, 2015. The Court held a hearing on May 21, 2015.
The primary issues are: (i) whether the Plaintiffs who suffer no
economic injury can establish standing; (ii) whether the
Plaintiffs' alleged injuries fall within the "zone of interests"
of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C.
Sections 4331-4370 ("NEPA"); (iii) whether the Plaintiffs properly
exhausted their administrative remedies; (iv) whether the
Plaintiffs' claim that the Forest Service violated the National
Forest Management Act of 1976, Pub. L. No. 94-588, 90 Stat. 2949
(codified in scattered sections of 16 U.S.C.)("NFMA"), by failing
to remove wild horses is a judicially cognizable claim; (v)
whether the Forest Service's guidance document is judicially
enforceable; and (vi) whether the Sustained Yield Forest
Management Act of 1944, 16 U.S.C. Sections 583, 583a-583i
("SYFMA"), governs the Forest Service's issuance of livestock
grazing permits.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated September 30, 2015
available at http://is.gd/b5gWJZfrom Leagle.com, Judge Browning
concluded that the Plaintiffs who suffer no economic injury
nonetheless have standing to redress their environmental,
aesthetic, cultural, and recreational injuries. The Plaintiffs'
injuries also fall within the zone of interests that the NEPA
seeks to protect, although they may not pursue all of the remedies
which they seek in the Complaint, filed January 20, 2012. Next,
the Court concluded that the Plaintiffs have exhausted only some
of their administrative remedies. The Court dismissed the
unexhausted claims without prejudice to allow the Plaintiffs to
exhaust their remaining claims before pursuing them in federal
court. Even if the Plaintiffs had exhausted their remaining
claims, however, the Court concluded that: (i) the Plaintiffs'
claim that the Defendants violated the NFMA by failing to remove
wild horses, Count Seven, is not judicially cognizable; (ii) the
Forest Service's guidance document is not judicially enforceable
under the Administrative Procedure Act, , 5 U.S.C. Sections 702-
706, Pub. L. No. 79-404, 60 Stat. 237 ("APA"), making Count Nine
unenforceable; and (iii) the Plaintiffs' claim that the Defendants
violated the SYFMA, Count Eight, fails to state a claim on which
relief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6). The Court grants the Motion as to the Complaint's Counts
Three, Four, Six, Seven, Eight, and Nine. The Motion is denied as
to the Complaint's Counts Two and Five.

"It is ordered that the Federal Defendants' Motion and Memorandum
to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Remaining Claims, filed February 10, 2015,
is granted in part and denied in part. The Court grants the Motion
as to the Complaint's Counts Three, Four, Six, Seven, Eight, and
Nine of the Complaint, filed January 20, 2012. The Motion is
denied as to the Complaint's Counts Two and Five," ruled Judge
Browning.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Michelle Miano, Esq.
   Po Box 1075
   El Prado, NM 87529

- and -

   Richard Rosenstock, Esq.
   1121 Paseo de Peralta
   Santa Fe, NM 87501
   Tel: (505)988-5324

Defendants are represented by:

   Damon P. Martinez, Esq.
   Ruth F. Keegan, Esq.
   Andrew A. Smith, Esq.
   John C. Cruden, Esq.
   UNITED STATES ATTORNEY


UNITED STATES: Class Certification Bid Granted in "Hart" Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jon S. Tigar granted the Plaintiffs' motion or
class certification in the case captioned KEVIN HART, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Defendant, Case No. 15-CV-00623-
JST, (N.D. Cal.)

Plaintiffs sued Defendant Carolyn W. Colvin in her capacity as
Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration,
challenging the SSA's alleged reliance on consultative
examinations performed by Dr. Frank Chen, a physician who is now
disqualified, in denying or terminating disability benefits.
Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief requiring the
SSA to cease relying on Dr. Chen's reports, to reopen any benefits
determination that relied, at least in part, on a report prepared
by Dr. Chen, and to notify those individuals whose benefits have
been denied or terminated of their right to these forms of relief.

Plaintiffs moved for class certification.

In his Order dated October 14, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/yHqhD7from Leagle.com, Judge Tigar granted
Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class consisting of all persons
whose SSI or SSDI benefits were either denied or terminated and
for whom a consultative examination was prepared by Dr. Chen. In
the joint case management statement due on November 5, 2015, the
parties are ordered to propose a schedule for the remainder of the
case through trial. Defendant does not dispute Plaintiffs'
contentions regarding numerosity. Accordingly, the Court concludes
that Plaintiffs have satisfied the numerosity requirement.
Defendant has not shown that a realistic possibility of antagonism
exists between certain members of the proposed class and the Named
Plaintiffs, the Court rejects Defendant's conflict of interest
argument. The Court concludes that Plaintiffs have satisfied their
burden of showing that there exists questions of law or fact
common to the proposed class members and that determination of the
truth or falsity of these common questions "will resolve an issue
that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one
stroke."  In particular, Plaintiffs' claim asks the Court to
determine whether the SSA-wide policy instructing adjudicators to
continue to "consider" Dr. Chen's CE reports following his removal
from the CE panel violated the Social Security Act, its
implementing regulations, and the Due Process Clause. Resolution
of these questions will not depend on the individual facts of each
Plaintiff's claims because Plaintiffs argue that any consideration
of Dr. Chen's report whatsoever violated the law. Accordingly,
Plaintiffs have satisfied the requirement to establish
commonality. Plaintiffs simply seek a determination of whether the
process involved in each of their benefits determinations was
unlawful. And if the Court finds in favor of the Plaintiffs on the
merits, a potential remedy would be to require SSA to "reopen the
(closed) decisions denying or terminating benefits, and to
redetermine eligibility."  The Court concluded that Plaintiffs
have demonstrated typicality. The Named Plaintiffs have retained
experienced counsel, including two nonprofit organizations and a
law firm, which collectively "have extensive experience in public
benefits law, the Social Security Act, and class-action
litigation, as well as the necessary resources and commitment to
pursue the interests of the class vigorously."

William Lewis Stern, Esq. -- wstern@mofo.com -- of Morrison &
Foerster LLP -- Anna Margaret Rich, Esq., of Justice in Aging --
Claudia Maria Vetesi, Esq. -- cvetesi@mofo.com -- of Morrison &
Foerster LLP; Elizabeth Gilmore Balassone, Esq. --
balassone@mofo.com -- of Morrison & Foerster LLP -- Gerald Andrew
McIntyre, Esq. -- gmcintyre@nsclc.org -- of Justice in Aging; Hope
Gisele Nakamura, Esq. -- hnakamura@legalaidsmc.org -- of Legal Aid
Society of San Mateo County -- Kathryn Rose Lang, Esq. --
klang@justiceinaging.com -- of Justice in Aging -- Robert Travis
Petraglia, Esq. -- rpetraglia@mofo.com -- of Morrison & Foerster
LLP and Trinh Phan, Esq., of Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County
serve as counsel for Plaintiff Kevin Hart

Michael Andrew Zee, Esq., of United States Department of Justice
serves as counsel for Defendant Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security, in her official capacity.


VALEANT PHARMA: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Oct. 22 disclosed that at a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of purchasers of
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. ("Valeant") stock
during the period between February 23, 2015 and October 20, 2015
(the "Class Period").

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from October 22, 2015.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel,
Darren Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058,
or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/valeant/

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges Valeant and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Valeant is a specialty pharmaceutical and medical device company
that develops, manufactures, and markets a range of branded,
generic, and branded generic pharmaceuticals, over-the-counter
products, and medical devices, such as contact lenses, intraocular
lenses, ophthalmic surgical equipment, and aesthetics devices.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
adverse information about the Company's business and prospects,
including that the Company was using a network of specialty mail-
order pharmacies that it actually controlled to prop up sales of
its high-priced drugs and to keep patients and their insurance
companies from switching to less costly generic drugs, that
Valeant's undisclosed use of specialty pharmacies left it subject
to increased regulatory risks, and that without the use of the
specialty pharmacies, Valeant's financial performance and Class
Period financial guidance would have been negatively impacted.  As
a result of these false and misleading statements and/or
omissions, Valeant stock traded at artificially inflated prices
during the Class Period, reaching over $260 per share.

Then on October 19, 2015, the Company issued a press release
reporting its third quarter 2015 financial results.  The same day,
Valeant hosted an earnings call during which, for the first time,
defendants revealed the previously undisclosed and direct
relationship between Valeant and certain specialty pharmacies.  On
this news, the price of Valeant common stock fell over 10% in one
day, from a close of $163.83 per share on October 19, 2015 to a
close of $146.74 per share on October 20, 2015.  Additional news
concerning Valeant's unique relationships with specialty
pharmacies reached the market on October 21, 2015, causing the
price of Valeant stock to drop sharply, falling to a close of
$118.61 per share.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Valeant stock during the Class Period (the "Class").  The
plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud.

With 200 lawyers in ten offices, Robbins Geller --
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/-- represents U.S. and international
institutional investors in contingency-based securities and
corporate litigation.


VENAXIS INC: Defending "Bolt" Action in Colorado
------------------------------------------------
Venaxis, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a putative class action
complaint was filed on February 2, 2015, against Venaxis and two
of its current officers in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado.  The action is captioned Boldt v.
Venaxis, Inc., et al., District of Colorado Case No.: 1:15-cv-00-
222 ("Boldt Action").  The plaintiff in the Boldt Action alleges
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 10b-5.  The Boldt Action plaintiff
purports to represent a class of persons who purchased the
Company's publicly traded securities between March 13, 2014, and
January 28, 2015.  The Boldt Action plaintiff alleges that the
Company made false and/or misleading statements regarding APPY1.
The foregoing is a summary of the allegations in the complaint and
is subject to the text of the complaint, which is on file with the
Court.  Based on a review of the complaint, the Company believes
that the allegations are without merit, and intends to vigorously
defend against the claims.


VERISMA: Class Action Over Medical Records Copying Costs Proceeds
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sharon M. Porcellio, writing for Law.com, reports that in a
decision that looks like an answer to a law school exam, the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of New York allowed
plaintiffs to proceed with their claims after addressing an array
of challenges to their Second Amended Complaint in a dispute
involving the costs of copies of medical records.  In two other
cases, the court examined how asserting a good-faith defense may
result in an implied waiver of attorney-client privilege and
granted sanctions against attorneys disregarding court rules and
orders.

Plaintiffs' Medical Records

Who Paid for the Records?

A Standing Issue. U.S. District Judge Michael A. Telesca
previously dismissed, without prejudice, plaintiffs' First Amended
Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  The court reasoned that
plaintiffs "did not allege sufficient facts to show that
Plaintiffs had suffered cognizable injuries in fact for standing
purposes because it was plaintiffs' law firm, and not plaintiffs
themselves, which was charged, and which paid, for the copies of
the medical records at issue."  By contrast, in McCracken v.
Verisma Sys., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123775 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 16,
2015), Judge Telesca denied in their entirety defendants' motions
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss plaintiffs' Second Amended
Complaint.

Plaintiffs brought this class action claiming excessive charges in
violation of New York Public Health Law (PHL) Section 18(2)(e) by
Verisma Systems, Inc. and the co-defendants "Healthcare
Defendants," with whom Verisma contracted to provide medical
records to patients who received treatment at the Healthcare
Defendants.  In addition, plaintiffs asserted causes of action for
unjust enrichment and for deceptive trade practices in violation
of New York General Business Law (GBL) Section 349(a).

To remedy the standing issue, plaintiffs attached signed retainer
agreements with plaintiffs' counsel and alleged that they were
legally obligated to reimburse plaintiffs' counsel pursuant to the
terms of the retainer agreements.  Each individual plaintiff
complied with this provision and reimbursed plaintiffs' counsel
for the full amounts Verisma charged the firm for copies of their
medical records.  The court held that this legal obligation
established plaintiffs' standing to sue because payments by
plaintiffs' counsel to Verisma for the copying charges "'would
have given rise to a contingent liability on the Plaintiffs'
part.'"

PHL Statutory Arguments

Qualified Persons. With the standing issue resolved, the court
addressed an argument by Verisma that plaintiffs' counsel did not
meet the statutory definition of a "qualified person" under PHL
Section 18, and therefore plaintiffs were not entitled to the
statutory protection of a charge not to exceed 75 cents per page.
Verisma argued that in addition to the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) authorizations
submitted by plaintiffs' counsel, they were required to submit
powers of attorney signed by each plaintiff.  The court, however,
found that Verisma's argument lacked merit.  Although it was true
that attorneys for plaintiffs-patients were not "qualified
persons" when PHL was first enacted, the statute changed in 1992.

Presumptively Reasonable Charges. The court next examined PHL
Section 18(2)(e) which allows providers to impose a reasonable
charge for copies so long as it "does not exceed 'the costs
insured by such provider' to make copies; and does not exceed
'seventy-five cents per page' of records." Defendants argued that
the statute sets 75 cents as a "presumptively reasonable" price,
so even if a health-care provider's actual costs are less than 75
cents, the providers can still charge the 75-cent maximum. Judge
Telesca disagreed citing to cases where the longstanding accepted
interpretation is that health-care providers cannot charge above
the actual cost incurred with a statutory cap of 75 cents.

GBL Deceptive Acts

The court next analyzed whether plaintiffs sufficiently alleged a
claim under GBL Section 349(a) requiring "a plaintiff must
demonstrate that (1) the defendant's deceptive acts were directed
at consumers, (2) the acts are misleading in a material way, and
(3) the plaintiff has been injured as a result."  Verisma argued
that plaintiffs failed to allege "conduct that is consumer
oriented" and as such does not meet the basic pleading
requirements of the statute because "consumer" was associated with
an individual or natural person who purchases goods or services,
not a business.

Judge Telesca opined that the agency relationship between the
plaintiffs and their attorneys allowed plaintiffs to pursue their
personal injury lawsuits to "restore themselves, personally, to
their respective pre-injury statuses."  Moreover, "[p]laintiffs'
medical records were of no use to their attorneys' business or
commercial enterprise;" therefore Verisma's 'consumer oriented'
arguments were misplaced.

Similarly, the court rejected Verisma's argument that plaintiffs
"cannot show that they were materially mislead because Verisma's
invoices fully disclosed the costs of obtaining copies of the
medical records before payments was made."  New York State uses an
objective definition of defective acts and practices.  Courts
focus on whether the acts or omissions would have misled a
reasonable consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances.
Plaintiffs alleged that they were "materially mislead" because
defendants failed to disclose the actual cost to produce the
copies.  The court determined that a reasonable consumer, without
information about a provider's actual cost, relying on the
statute's provision that providers can charge up to 75 cents for
copies, may be misled to think that the actual cost was 75 cents
or more.

Judge Telesca also declined to accept Verisma's argument that
plaintiffs were not deceived under GBL Sec. 349(a), because
Plaintiffs' Counsel were "sophisticated intermediaries."  He found
their argument unpersuasive because Plaintiffs' Counsel, like
their clients, did not have access to Verisma's actual costs to
produce the copies or to contracts between the defendants,
Plaintiffs' Counsel was in the same "inferior position as their
clients. . ."

Verisma argued that the court should dismiss the unjust enrichment
claims because it either had a contract with Plaintiffs' Counsel
for the copies at $0.75 or because plaintiffs had no direct
relationship with it.  The court ejected both arguments and
dismissed Verisma's other remaining claims.

Likewise, it dismissed the Healthcare Defendants' similar
arguments and their separate argument that because Plaintiffs'
Counsel paid only Verisma, not them, plaintiffs failed adequately
to allege that the Healthcare Defendants were unjustly enriched.
The Healthcare Defendants submitted an affidavit supporting their
position.  The court, however, declined to consider the factual
allegations from the affidavit to resolve a motion to dismiss and
found it unnecessary to strike the affidavit or convert to a
motion for summary judgment.

Good Faith Defense

In another class action, Magistrate Judge Marian W. Payson granted
plaintiffs' motion to compel defendants to produce communications
related to their good-faith defense and to require their corporate
representative to respond to deposition questions relating to that
defense. Hicks v. T.L. Cannon Mgmt. Corp., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
118734 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 3, 2015).

Plaintiffs filed an action on behalf of current and former tipped
employees of Applebee's restaurants against various Applebee's
restaurant owners and operators in New York.  Plaintiffs alleged
that the owners and operators violated the New York Minimum Wage
Act, New York Labor Law (NYLL), and the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).  Defendants asserted the following defense in their
Answer:

Plaintiffs' claims for liquidated damages, if any, are barred, in
whole or in part, because any and all actions taken by Defendants
were undertaken in good faith and with reasonable grounds for
believing such actions were not in violation of New York State or
Federal Law.

In a correspondence to plaintiffs' counsel prior to the deposition
of defendants' corporate representative Susan Sabio, defendants'
counsel advised that "[d]efendants do not anticipate relying on
the advice of counsel as an affirmative defense to these claims at
this time.  Therefore, [d]efendants will not be waiving the
privilege regarding communications . . . " During the deposition,
defendants' counsel directed Sabio not to answer multiple
questions on the grounds of attorney-client privilege.  Ms. Sabio,
however, testified that she had communications with defendants'
counsel regarding a wage notice and that the communications with
counsel informed defendants' decision.

Thereafter, plaintiffs filed a motion to compel discovery of
defendants' good-faith defense. Defendants opposed, asserting that
such disclosure was protected attorney-client privilege.

Plaintiffs, however, argued that defendants waived their right to
assert attorney-client privilege when they pleaded and asserted a
good-faith defense, partially disclosed privileged communications
during Sabio's deposition, and failed to provide a privilege log.

Because of its importance in promoting open dialogue between
attorneys and their clients, communications between attorneys and
their clients are usually protected.  In United States v.
Bilzerian, 929 F.2d 1285 (2d Cir.) cert. denied, 502 U.S. 813
(1991), however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
recognized that the attorney-client privilege may be waived when a
witness testifies about its good-faith efforts to comply with the
law.  In such cases, "the assertion of a good faith defense
involves an inquiry into state of mind, which typically calls
forth the possibility of implied waiver of the attorney-client
privilege."  Thus, in cases where a witness pursues a good-faith
defense, the court will examine whether the witness relied on
privileged communications with counsel as a claim or defense in
the action.

Under NYLL Sec. 198(1-a), liquidated damages may be imposed on an
employer when an employee is paid less than the entitled wage,
unless the employer can show a good-faith basis that it believed
the payment was in compliance with the law.  Similarly, under FLSA
Section 260, an employer may avoid having to pay liquidated
damages if it can show that its actions were in good faith and on
reasonable grounds, and that the employer did not believe its acts
or omissions violated FLSA.

Defendants maintained that they should be permitted to argue their
good-faith actions to a jury but the jury should not consider
their subjective state of mind based on communications with
counsel.  The court noted defendants articulated no other facts
contributing to their good-faith defense.  Moreover, since Sabio
testified that her attorney's communications and advice influenced
the decision on the wage notice issue, defendants could not use
the privilege as a shield from plaintiffs' inquiries. Defendants
thus impliedly waived the attorney-client privilege.

Protective Order

Among the issues in Coene v. 3M Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123773
(W.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2015) were the need for a formal notice of
deposition and sealing of documents.  In Coene, the parties had
agreed via emails and telephone calls that a deposition would go
forward.  Plaintiffs, however, claimed that defendants, in
requesting the deposition, did not serve a formal notice.
Plaintiffs filed a motion for a scheduling order to determine
whether the witness could be deposed and an order to quash
defendant's subpoena for the deposition.  Judge Payson denied the
motion noting that the prior written communications demonstrated
an intent by the parties to depose the witness. Any contrary
ruling would have elevated form over substance.

On a tangential matter, plaintiffs sought to seal documents that
were subject to an earlier protective order and attached documents
that were subject to that earlier protective order to their motion
to seal.  The motion to seal and the exhibits were then filed in
the public domain on the court's Case Management/Electronic Case
File system (CM/ECF).  In response, defendant filed a motion
"seeking expedited consideration of plaintiffs' motion to seal" to
limit the time these documents were in the public domain and also
sought sanctions against plaintiff for violating the court's
protective order by filing protected documents on CM/ECF.

The court determined that the exhibits attached to plaintiffs' and
defendant's motions were protected as they contained confidential
and proprietary information and granted the motion to seal.  Judge
Payson also granted defendant's request for attorney fees and
sanctions due to "plaintiff's obvious disregard for his
obligations under the . . .  Protective Order and this Court's
Local Rules."  Western District Local Rule 5.3(c) directs parties
who seek to have documents filed under seal comply with the
procedures set forth in CM/ECF Administrative Procedures Guide.


VERSACE: Faces Suit Over Misclassification of Fashion Interns
-------------------------------------------------------------
Versace and Michael Kors face separate class actions in Manhattan,
accusing them of misclassifying workers as interns to deny them a
minimum wage, Courthouse News Service reported.


VERTEX ENERGY: Proposed Class Yet to Be Certified
-------------------------------------------------
A proposed class in the lawsuit involving a unit of Vertex Energy,
Inc. has yet to be certified, Vertex Energy disclosed in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
August 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015.

The Company said, "Vertex Refining LA, LLC, the wholly-owned
subsidiary of Vertex Operating, our wholly-owned subsidiary, was
named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed in the Twenty-Fourth
Judicial District For the Parish of Jefferson Louisiana on January
6, 2015. Pursuant to the lawsuit, Stacy Davis, Becky Vallee and
James A. Block (the "Plaintiffs") made certain allegations against
Vertex Refining LA, LLC, Omega Refining and the manager of the
Marrero, Louisiana facility (the "Defendants"). The claims are
structured as class actions relating to certain operations
performed at our newly acquired re-refinery located in Marrero,
Louisiana, including the alleged emission of noxious and harmful
substances. The Plaintiffs allege they are part of a valid class
due to the fact that they live and work near the facility. The
lawsuit relates to alleged actions and inactions related to the
facility between 2012 to present and includes allegations relating
to violations of various Louisiana statutes, allegations relating
to the misrepresentation of information to the Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality, allegations relating to
violations of hourly permitted emission limits, and alleged
failure to report an un-permitted point-source. The suit seeks
damages for physical and emotional injuries, pain and suffering,
medical expenses and deprivation of the use and enjoyment of
Plaintiffs' homes. The Plaintiffs further allege that there are
estimated to be over 1,000 class members to the suit, provided
that the proposed class is yet to be certified."

"We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against the allegations
made in the complaint, provided that at this stage of the
litigation, the Company has no basis of determining whether there
is any likelihood of material loss associated with the claims
and/or the potential outcome of the litigation."


VIRGINIA: Plaintiffs Challenge Bid to Dismiss Jail Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gracie Hart Brooks, writing for The Daily Progress, reports that
in response to defense motions to dismiss and deny class action
certification, the plaintiff in the approximately $22.5 million
lawsuit against the Central Virginia Regional Jail Authority and
several of its employees has filed a new memorandum of opposition.

The suit, which originally included two counts filed by former
inmate Shawn Christopher Berry's mother, Sherry Lynn Thornhill, in
federal court in early June, was amended in late August to include
a class action count.  It names former jail Superintendent
Glenn Aylor, the jail authority and nine jail employees (two
additional employees were included, but not named beyond John or
Jane Doe) and seeks substantial damages for what it calls the
"deliberate torture and killing of" Mr. Berry.

Mr. Berry, 37, was arrested Aug. 7, 2014, on outstanding warrants
and died two days later while in custody at the jail in Orange.  A
state autopsy revealed that Mr. Berry died from the adverse
effects of heroin and ethanol and both the state Office of the
Chief Medical Examiner and the Virginia State Police ruled the
death an accident.  However, in her suit, Ms. Thornhill alleged
the "unlawful denial of adequate medical care" to Mr. Berry while
he was an inmate, which she claims resulted in his death.

The suit includes three counts. Count one of the suit asserts that
CVRJ violated inmates' Eighth Amendment (free of cruel and unusual
punishment) and Fourteenth Amendment (due process and the equal
protection of laws) rights and asks that the court certify the
action as a class action with Ms. Thornhill as the class
representative and Ms. Thornhill's counsel, Robert Wilson and
Mitchell Rotbert, as class counsel.  It also asks for equitable
relief including court-ordered monitoring of CVRJ, injunctive
relief and/or appointment of a federal receiver to abate the acts
and practices alleged herein; award Ms. Thornhill reasonable
attorney fees and costs for bringing and maintaining the action;
and award such other and/or alternative relief as justice may
require.

Count two alleges a violation of Mr. Berry's Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendment rights and requests compensation to be established at
trial, but not less than $10 million; reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs including the costs of any experts; and/or alternative
relief as justice may require.

Count three alleges wrongful death and requests a judgment in
favor of Ms. Thornhill for compensatory damages in the amount of
$2.15 million with respect to defendants deemed to be health care
providers within the state code; compensatory damages in an amount
to be established at trial, but not less than $10 million with
respect to other defendants; punitive damages in the amount of
$350,000; reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, including the
costs of any experts; and such other and/or alternative relief as
justice may require.

The defense, led by CVRJ attorney Helen Phillips and her associate
Ross Phillips, filed motions to dismiss for each of the 11
defendants along with a motion to deny the class action suit.
Those motions were met with a memorandum of law in opposition from
Ms. Thornhill's attorneys.

Filed early October, the memorandum states that the defendants'
motions must be denied.  Several reasons are given, with
approximately 90 cases and nearly a dozen statutes and rules cited
in the 63-page document.

Ms. Thornhill, through attorneys Robert Wilson of Harrisonburg and
Mitchell Rotbert of Washington, states that her complaint alleges
sufficient facts to state a plausible claim for relief under the
civil action for deprivation of rights.  The memorandum states
that the staff defendants knew of the substation risk of harm to
Berry or the substantial risk of harm to him was "so obvious that
such knowledge is imputed to the staff defendants" and that the
staff defendants "consciously disregarded the actual knowledge of
Berry's objectively serious medical condition."

It also states that Mr. Aylor's "authorization and endorsement of
the unconstitutional practices of his subordinates constitutes
deliberate indifference to Berry's serious medical needs" and that
CVRJ "has executed a policy or custom of deliberate indifference
to the serious medical needs of CVRJ inmates, including Berry."

In addition, the memorandum states that the individual defendants
are not entitled to qualified immunity or sovereign immunity as
their motions stated and that the complaint alleges sufficient
facts to state a plausible claim for wrongful death.

The memorandum also asserts that the defense's motion to deny
class certification must be denied, since the complaint adequately
alleges each of the Rule 23 factors of the federal rules of civil
procedure.  These include the numerosity requirement, or that the
class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.
"In this case, CVRJ argues that 'Thornhill fails to carry her
burden to prove joinder would be impractical,'" the memorandum
states.  "This argument ignores the fact that Thornhill is not
required to prove anything at the pleading stage."

"Thornhill's complaint satisfies the numerosity requirement by
alleging that the class has 'hundreds, if not thousands' of
members," it adds.

The memorandum also states that the complaint meets the
commonality requirement, or questions of law or fact common to the
class.  Citing several cases, the memorandum states that
"Thornhill alleges the existence of numerous common questions that
can be resolved 'in one stroke' as commonality requires," and that
she adequately alleges an individual wrongful death claim and the
issues CVRJ raises with respect to that claim are irrelevant to
the determination of commonality.

As for the typicality requirement, claims or defenses of the
representative parties are typical of claims or defenses of the
class, the memorandum states that Ms. Thornhill's claims are
identical to that of the claims of the class and every action she
takes in advancing her individual claims will also advance the
interests of the class.

"The fact that Thornhill seeks damages on her own behalf does
nothing to frustrate those interests," it says.  "Indeed, class
members will likely benefit if Thornhill succeeds on her
individual damages claims because a money judgment may spur CVRJ
to amend its conduct in order to avoid paying similar claims in
the future."

As for the argument that Ms. Thornhill isn't an adequate class
representative, the memorandum requests that even if she is found
to be inadequate, that the motion to deny isn't made at this early
stage of the litigation.  The memorandum states that the motion to
deny is procedurally unusual in that it comes at the pleading
stage, "before discovery and the opportunity to develop a full
factual record in support of class certification."

It also states that discovery is essential to the case and
requests that if Ms. Thornhill is found to be an inadequate class
representative, CVRJ be ordered to transmit a notice, prepared by
her attorneys, to all current inmates setting forth the case and
inviting them to step forward as potential class representatives.
Gracie Hart Brooks reports for the Madison County Eagle.


VIVINT SOLAR: Class Action Settlement Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Vivint Solar, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a hearing to consider
court approval of the proposed settlement agreement was scheduled
for August 14, 2015.

In December 2013, one of the Company's former sales
representatives, on behalf of himself and a purported class, filed
a complaint for unspecified damages, injunctive relief and
restitution in the Superior Court of the State of California in
and for the County of San Diego against Vivint Solar Developer,
LLC, one of the Company's subsidiaries, and unnamed John Doe
defendants alleging violations of the California Labor Code and
the California Business and Professions Code and seeking penalties
of an unspecified amount, interest on all economic damages and
reasonable attorney's fees and costs.

In January 2014, the Company filed an answer denying the
allegations in the complaint and asserting various affirmative
defenses. In late 2014, the parties agreed to preliminary terms of
settlement, which were subsequently revised in mid 2015. The
proposed settlement agreement contemplates a settlement payment
from the Company in the amount of $0.4 million. A hearing to
consider court approval of the proposed settlement agreement was
scheduled for August 14, 2015. The Company has recorded a $0.4
million reserve related to this proceeding in its consolidated
financial statements.


VIVINT SOLAR: Defending Class Action by Technicians
---------------------------------------------------
Vivint Solar, Inc. intends to defend a class action by
technicians, the Company declared in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015.

In September 2014, two former installation technicians of the
Company, on behalf of themselves and a purported class, filed a
complaint for damages, injunctive relief and restitution in the
Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of
San Diego against the Company and unnamed John Doe defendants. The
complaint alleges certain violations of the California Labor Code
and the California Business and Professions Code based on, among
other things, alleged improper classification of installer
technicians, installer helpers, electrician technicians and
electrician helpers, failure to pay minimum and overtime wages,
failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and failure
to provide wages on termination.

In December 2014, the original plaintiffs and three additional
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint with essentially the same
allegations. On February 5, 2015, the Company filed an answer to
the amended complaint, denying liability and asserting a number of
defenses.

The Company believes that it has strong defenses to the claims
asserted in this matter, and the Company intends to defend the
case vigorously. Although the Company cannot predict with
certainty the ultimate resolution of this suit, it does not
believe this matter will have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, results of operations, cash flows or financial
condition.


VIVINT SOLAR: Dismissal of IPO Related Class Actions Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------
Vivint Solar, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company filed a
motion to dismiss two putative class actions related to its
initial public offering.

In November and December 2014, two putative class action lawsuits
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York against the Company, its directors, certain of its
officers and the underwriters of the Company's initial public
offering of common stock alleging violation of securities laws and
seeking unspecified damages.

In January 2015, the Court ordered these cases to be consolidated
into the earlier filed case, Hyatt v. Vivint Solar, Inc. et al.,
14-cv-9283 (KBF). The plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint in February 2015.

On May 6, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint. The Company believes this lawsuit is without merit and
intends to defend the case vigorously.

The Company is unable to estimate a range of loss, if any, that
could result were there to be an adverse final decision. If an
unfavorable outcome were to occur in this case, it is possible
that the impact could be material to the Company's results of
operations in the period(s) in which any such outcome becomes
probable and estimable.


VIVINT SOLAR: Expects Consolidation of Suits Over SunEdison Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vivint Solar, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company anticipates
that two class action lawsuits related to the proposed acquisition
by SunEdison will be consolidated into one case.

On July 31, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
Court of Chancery State of Delaware against the Company's
directors, SunEdison Inc. ("SunEdison"), and TerraForm Power
("TerraForm"), alleging that the proposed acquisition by SunEdison
is unfair to the Company's stockholders.

On August 7, 2015, a second putative class action lawsuit was
filed in the same court alleging similar claims, and including
313, Acquisition, LLC as a named defendant. Both complaints seek
injunctive relief and unspecified damages.

The Company anticipates that both cases will be consolidated into
one case. In view of the Company's indemnification obligation to
its directors, the Company is unable to estimate a range of loss,
if any, that could result were there to be an adverse final
decision. If an unfavorable outcome were to occur in these cases,
it is possible that the impact could be material to the Company's
results of operations in the period(s) in which any such outcome
becomes probable and estimable.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Mass Tort MDL Deals Need More Judicial Review
------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that with more than 300 consumer lawsuits filed against Volkswagen
A.G. over its emissions scandal, one prominent class action critic
has elbowed into the litigation to voice an emerging concern: that
settlements in mass tort multidistrict litigation need more
judicial review.

Amicus briefs are very rare in proceedings before the U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML), which is set
to hear arguments about consolidating the Volkswagen litigation on
Dec. 3 in New Orleans.  But on Oct. 20, Ted Frank, founder of the
Center for Class Action Fairness, made such a filing.  In it,
Frank argues that the Volkswagen cases -- all consumer class
actions -- should be coordinated before a single judge who could
ensure fairness to all class members when evaluating what is
likely to be a substantial settlement down the line.

Although amicus briefs are allowed, most filings before the JPML
come from lawyers on both sides of the lawsuits whose arguments,
though important, focus on the more mundane issue of which judge
in what court should be assigned to the MDL docket.

Mr. Frank's filing follows more than 300 class actions brought
against Volkswagen in the United States, most in federal court,
according to an Oct. 20 brief that Volkswagen filed before the
JPML.

Consumers allege they were duped into paying premium prices for
"clean diesel" cars that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
has said emit as much as 40 times the standard for nitrogen
oxides.  The scandal erupted in September, when the EPA notified
Volkswagen that some of its diesel cars made since 2009 had a
"defeat device" in them designed to cheat emissions tests in
violation of the Clean Air Act.  The devices are believed to be in
482,000 cars in the United States.  Volkswagen said on Oct. 15 it
was recalling 8.5 million vehicles in Europe.

In targeting the Volkswagen cases, Mr. Frank brought up issues
similar to those he's best known for raising in individual class
action settlements -- namely that the deals give short shrift to
class members at the expense of attorney fees.

"We're looking at this like a class action," Mr. Frank said.
"There are potentially enormous windfalls if the courts don't
scrutinize the fee applications closely.  And historically they
don't.  And we're wondering if there are some really good judges
who do scrutinize these things, but they somehow don't get
assigned to MDLs."

Mr. Frank said the Volkswagen litigation is the first in which his
group, which became part of the Competitive Enterprise Institute
on Oct. 1, has intervened in the MDL process.  But the concern
about collusive settlements in MDLs isn't new.  Elizabeth Burch, a
professor at the University of Georgia School of Law, whose 2015
law review article was cited in Frank's brief, called his argument
a "healthy and welcome development" to the MDL process and
particularly appropriate in the litigation against Volkswagen,
which, unlike most defendants, already has admitted liability.

"As such, the case will lack much of the adversarial litigation
that we typically depend on to safeguard absent class members'
rights," she wrote in an email.

Mr. Frank said lawyers on both sides have little incentive to
encourage scrutiny of class action settlements -- plaintiffs
attorneys are more concerned about their fees and defendants their
costs.  He suggested sending the Volkswagen cases to U.S. District
Judge William Alsup of the Northern District of California, who
has a history of critiquing class action settlements.

But Jaime Dodge, director of the Institute for Complex Litigation
and Mass Claims at Emory University School of Law, said the JPML
was unlikely to pick a judge based on his or her past rulings.
And whoever ends up getting the Volkswagen cases will have to
follow the same legal procedures required in all class actions,
she said, such as providing an opportunity for objectors to raise
concerns about a proposed settlement.

Although most MDLs are made up of individual cases, often over
injuries or deaths allegedly caused from a defective product,
Volkswagen so far has been hit only with class actions.

In the meantime, the U.S. Justice Department, which has launched
an investigation of Volkswagen that now involves the U.S.
attorney's office in Detroit, filed its own Oct. 20 brief
supporting transfer of the litigation to the Eastern District of
Michigan, where the EPA's emissions testing lab is located in Ann
Arbor.

John Cruden, assistant attorney general for the DOJ's
Environmental and Natural Resources Division, wrote that the EPA
would be "intimately involved" in fixing the problem.  A U.S.
government case against Volkswagen could end up being transferred
into the MDL, and the EPA could assess more than $18 billion in
fines.

DOJ spokesman Wyn Hornbuckle declined to comment.

The Eastern District of Michigan also has become an increasing
favorite MDL venue for some plaintiffs attorneys, though they have
proposed courts in 13 other states -- especially California, New
Jersey and Tennessee -- and the District of Columbia. Volkswagen
Group of America Inc., on Oct. 20, also supported Michigan but
pushed for the Eastern District of Virginia, where its U.S.
headquarters is based in Herndon.

The attorney who filed the brief, Jeffrey Chase, a member of New
York's Herzfeld & Rubin, is the first to appear before the JPML on
behalf of Volkswagen, though several other firms, including Mayer
Brown, have shown up in individual cases.  A Volkswagen
spokeswoman did not respond to a request for comment.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Wants Emissions Class Actions Heard in Virginia
--------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Hambrick, writing for Herndon Patch, reports that Volkswagen
is hoping a federal court in Virginia will hear the hundreds of
class-action lawsuits in response to its emissions cheating
scandal.

The U.S. headquarters for the embattled car company is located in
Herndon. Volkswagen is hoping that's a good enough reason to get
the case heard here, rather than California, according to
Bloomberg Business.

According to the EPA, Volkswagen could face fines up to $18
billion and criminal prosecution for installing so-called "defeat
device" software that allowed vehicles to emit up to 40 times more
diesel pollution than is legally allowed.

The company's CEO, Martin Winterkorn, resigned following the news
of the cheating scandal.

Angry car owners want VW to refund premiums paid for vehicles with
"clean diesel" engines, according to Bloomberg, plus compensation
for the lost value those cars now hold.

Volkswagen notes the federal court in Alexandria is also near the
EPA.  A hearing on where the case will land is expected Dec. 3 in
New Orleans.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Plaintiffs Seek to Stop Monthly Car Payments
--------------------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that in a new blow against Volkswagen, a class of people who
bought cars with the illegal emissions "defeat device" asked a
federal judge in Missoula, Mont. to let them stop making their
monthly payments until the issues are resolved in court.

Lead plaintiff Will Ballew says the 1975 "FTC Holder Rule" allows
him to sue Volkswagen subsidiary VW Credit, for its abuse of
credit. He also wants VW ordered not to report anyone in the
putative class to credit bureaus because they stop making their
payments.

Ballew says he bought a 2015 Volkswagen Jetta Sportwagen because
of the "CleanDiesel" system VW touted in advertisements. He
financed it through VW Credit, the defendant in his Wednesday
complaint in Federal Court.

More than 400 lawsuits, most of them class actions, have been
filed in the United States alone since Volkswagen admitted it
installed cheating software in 11 million vehicles worldwide since
2009, about 500,000 of which were sold in the United States.

So far as Courthouse News can determine, Ballew's is the first
lawsuit that asks for court permission to stop making payments.

The Hagens Berman Shapiro law firm in San Diego appears to have
been the first to file against VW, the day Volkswagen admitted its
deception: Friday, Sept. 18.

The defeat device is a secret, parallel software system that kicks
in only when the cars are being tested for emissions. On the road,
the cars spew as much as 40 times the amount of some pollutants as
they do when the defeat device is turned off. With pollution
controls turned off, the cars get better mileage, a peppier
response, and are more fun to drive.

It's been no fun for Volkswagen, though, which faces as much as
$18 billion in Clean Air Act fines in the United States alone,
aside from the civil lawsuits. Nations around the world are
investigating, and the company could face criminal charges in
Germany. It's lost about one-third of its market capitalization as
well, as VW share prices have tanked since the scandal broke.
Market analysts expect that the company will survive, but gone are
its glory days, which it reached this summer, as the world's
largest auto company, by sales.

Volkswagen CEO Martin Winterkorn, who resigned as the scandal
grew, blamed the cheating software on a few "rogue engineers." But
the German magazine Der Spiegel reported this week that as many as
30 VW employees may have been involved.

Volkswagen models with defeat devices include the Jetta (2009-
2015), Beetle (2009-2015), Golf (2009-2015) and Passat (2014-
2015).

Volkswagen claimed the CleanDiesel system cut greenhouse gas
emissions by 25 percent, particulate emissions by 90 percent and
nitrous oxide by 95 percent.  But that was with the defeat devices
turned on.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has ordered Volkswagen to
recall the vehicles and modify or repair them to comply with the
Clean Air Act, but Ballew claims, as have numerous other
plaintiffs, that this will cause "substantial changes" in the
cars' performance -- and resale value.  Ballew's 14-page lawsuit
asks a new question: "Do I have to continue making payments to
VW?"  He says the answer is "No," according to a 1975 Federal
Trade Commission rule, known as the "FTC Holder Rule."

The rule is "designed to prevent the widespread use of credit
terms which compel consumers to pay a creditor even if the
seller's conduct would not entitle the seller to be paid."

"That is, consumers can assert against VW Credit, Inc. and VW
Credit Leasing, Ltd. the fraud of Volkswagen Group of America,
Inc. and withhold payments pending resolution of their claims,
including their claims for rescission due to fraud or illegality,"
the complaint states.

Ballew seeks class certification, an injunction to prevent VW
Credit from "(1) accepting payments from consumers on contracts
that relate to the violating vehicles, and (2) reporting
derogatory or negative information on credit reports of consumers
who currently own the violating vehicles and who are, by federal
law, excused from payment due to the fraud and illegality of the
contracts that they entered for the purchase or lease of the
violating vehicles."

Ballew is represented by attorney Timothy Bechtold.

Ballew also seeks rescission of contracts, restitution, and
attorneys' fees.

Co-counsel with Bechtold, of Missoula, is John Heenan, with Bishop
& Heenan, in Billings.


WAFFLE HOUSE: Sued Over Unfair Use of Background Checks
-------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that a Florida man is suing Waffle House
claiming it unfairly used background checks and denied his
employment application.

William Jones, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
has filed a class action lawsuit on Oct. 1 in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division against
Waffle House Inc., WH Capital LLC, The Source for Public Data LP,
Publicdata.com, Shadowsoft Inc., Harlington-Straker Studio Inc.,
and Dale Bruce Stringfellow over claims of violating the Fair
Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

Mr. Jones alleges that in December 2014, he applied for employment
at a Waffle House, who used PublicData to run a background check
on him.  According to the complaint, Waffle House denied Jones
employment due to this background check, which plaintiff argues
had inaccuracies.  However, Mr. Jones argues that Waffle House did
not provide proper disclosures prior to running a background check
on him, did not provide him of a copy of his background report
prior to taking adverse actions, did not provide a separate post-
adverse notice to him, which all violated the FCRA.

Mr. Jones is seeking a trial by jury and is suing for statutory,
compensatory, special, general, and punitive damages; court and
attorney fees; and any other rewards deemed appropriate by the
court. He is being represented by Michael J. Pascucci and Joshua
H. Eggnatz of the law offices of Eggnatz, Lopatin, & Pascucci, LLP
in Davie, Fla. and the offices of CounselOne PC in Beverly Hills,
Calif.

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando
Division case number 6:15-cv-01637-RBD-DAB.


WARNER BROS: Hollywood Studios Discriminate v. Deaf, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Debbie Emery, writing for The Wrap, reported that Disney, Fox,
Warner Bros, Paramount, Universal, Sony and Netflix are named in a
class action lawsuit accusing the studios and streaming service of
discriminating against the deaf and hearing impaired.

The suit, which was filed Oct. 19 at the Los Angeles Superior
Court, claims the "Captain America" films, "X-Men" franchise,
"Selma," "Skyfall," "House Of Cards" and "The Godfather" are among
the movies that had song lyrics that were not captioned or
subtitled.

"While the dialogue of some movies or shows are indeed fully
subtitled, the practice of not subtitling song/music lyrics is
frustratingly widespread," the complaint stated. "Advertising the
movies or shows as begin captioned or subtitled enlarges the
market of the consumers, which includes persons who are deaf or
hard of hearing. Such persons constitute approximately 10 percent
of the population.

"Defendants continue to short change those who are deaf and hard
of hearing," it added.

One of the nine plaintiffs is Susan Bowell, communications
director for a deaf advocacy group, who had rented purchased or
rented numerous movies and found that much of the content or music
wasn't captioned, making it hard to understand, according to the
legal filing.

"Defendant produced and distributed several DVDs enclosed in
packaging with language advertising the DVDs were subtitled,
movies that were advertised as captioned, and movies or shows with
language, such as captioned, English subtitles, or subtitles for
the deaf and hard of hearing, indicating that the movie or show is
fully captioned or subtitled," the suit continued.

"Captions and subtitles allow Plaintiffs and class members, to
follow the content of a film or show visually if they are not able
to do so aurally. The DVD packaging does not indicate that the
subtitles are limited in any way."

The complaint seeks unspecified damages and injunctive relief and
requests the "labeling on the mislabeled products to make it clear
what content is captioned and what is not."

John Girardi of Los Angeles law firm Girardi & Keese is the
attorney for the plaintiffs.


WEIGHT WATCHERS: Continues to Defend Securities Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
Weight Watchers International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11,
2015, for the quarterly period ended July 4, 2015, that the
Company continues to believe that the case, In re Weight Watchers
International, Inc. Securities Litigation, is without merit and
intends to defend them vigorously.

In March 2014, two substantially identical putative class action
complaints alleging violation of the federal securities laws were
filed by individual shareholders against the Company, certain of
the Company's current and former officers and directors, and the
Company's controlling shareholder, in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaints were
purportedly filed on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's
common stock, no par value per share, between February 14, 2012
and October 30, 2013, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
complaints allege that, during the Class Period, the defendants
disseminated materially false and misleading statements and/or
concealed material adverse facts. The complaints allege claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5. The plaintiffs seek to recover
unspecified damages on behalf of the class members. In June 2014,
the Court consolidated the cases and appointed lead plaintiffs and
lead counsel. On August 12, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint that, among other things, reduced the Class Period to
between February 14, 2012 and February 13, 2013 and dropped all
current officers and certain directors previously named as
defendants. On October 14, 2014, the defendants filed a motion to
dismiss. The plaintiffs filed an opposition to the defendants'
motion to dismiss on November 24, 2014 and the defendants filed a
reply in support of their motion to dismiss on December 23, 2014.
The Company continues to believe that the suits are without merit
and intends to defend them vigorously.


WESTPORT FUTURES: Received Final Court Approval of Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Westport Futures Fund L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the parties in a class
action lawsuit have reached an agreement to settle the litigation,
which received final court approval.

On October 25, 2010, the Company, certain affiliates and Pinnacle
Performance Limited, a special purpose vehicle ("SPV"), were named
as defendants in a purported class action related to securities
issued by the SPV in Singapore, commonly referred to as "Pinnacle
Notes." The case is styled Ge Dandong, et al. v. Pinnacle
Performance Ltd., et al. and was pending in the SDNY. On January
31, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, which
asserted common law claims of fraud, aiding and abetting fraud,
fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraudulent inducement,
and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
On July 17, 2014, the parties reached an agreement to settle the
litigation, which received final court approval on July 2, 2015.


ZAFGEN INC: Faces Securities Class Action in Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP on Oct. 22 disclosed that a securities
class action has been filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons or entities who purchased the common stock of
Zafgen, Inc. between January 12, 2015 and October 16, 2015,
inclusive.

The lawsuit alleges that Defendants made misleading
misrepresentations about thrombotic adverse events in previous
clinical trials of its anti-obesity drug, and leading drug
candidate, beloranib.  Until October 16, 2015, Zafgen had
disclosed only two thrombotic adverse events in one prior clinical
trial.

During most of the Class Period, Zafgen stock traded in the mid to
high $30-range while Defendants trumpeted the beloranib drug
trials.  But in early October, Zafgen stock suddenly began to
fall.  Between the opening of trading on October 12, 2015 and the
close of trading on October 13, 2015, Zafgen shares dropped from
$34.76 per share to $15.75 per share -- a drop of approximately
55%.  This drop was fueled by rumors in the marketplace that a
patient had died in an ongoing Phase 3 clinical trial of
beloranib.

On October 14, 2015, Zafgen confirmed that a patient in its Phase
3 trial of beloranib had, indeed, died.  Zafgen failed to
disclose, however, that the patient was receiving beloranib -- not
a placebo -- and failed to disclose anything about thrombotic
events in prior clinical trials.

Late in the day on October 15, 2015, the Food and Drug
Administration informed Zafgen that beloranib had been placed on
partial clinical hold.  This forced Zafgen to reveal on October
16, 2015 that: (i) the patient who died was receiving beloranib --
not a placebo; and (ii) there had been four thrombotic adverse
events in prior clinical studies of beloranib -- two more than
previously reported -- as well as two additional, previously
undisclosed thrombotic events in ongoing studies, for a total of
six thrombotic events out of 400 patients receiving beloranib
compared to zero thrombotic events in the approximately 150
patients treated with a placebo.  The Company's stock plummeted on
this news.  After closing at $21.02 per share on October 15, 2015,
Zafgen stock closed at only $10.36 per share on October 16, 2015 -
- a drop of over 50%.

Finally, in September 2015 -- the month before Defendants
allegedly revealed the truth -- Zafgen insiders unloaded over $10
million of their holdings.

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all Class members
who invested in Zafgen common stock during the Class Period.  If
you invested in Zafgen common stock, and lost money on the
transactions, you may wish to join in this action to serve as lead
plaintiff.  In order to do so, you must meet certain requirements
set forth in the applicable law and file appropriate papers no
later than December 21, 2015.

A "lead plaintiff" is a representative party that acts on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation.  In order to
be appointed lead plaintiff, the court must determine that the
class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class
members, and that the class member will adequately represent the
class.  Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may
together serve as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any
recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may retain Bernstein Liebhard
LLP, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in
this action.

If you are interested in discussing your rights as a Zafgen
investor and/or have information relating to the matter, please
contact Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. at (877) 779-1414 or
seidman@bernlieb.com

Bernstein Liebhard LLP has pursued hundreds of securities,
consumer and shareholder rights cases and recovered over $3.5
billion for its clients.  The National Law Journal has recognized
Bernstein Liebhard for twelve consecutive years as one of the top
plaintiffs' firms in the country.

You can obtain a copy of the complaint from the clerk of the court
for the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.


ZEOBIT: Thousands of MacKeeper Buyers File for Refunds
------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Kirk, writing for IDG News Service, reports that tens of
thousands of people who bought MacKeeper have filed for refunds as
part of a proposed class-action settlement against the
application's former developer.

The number of refund requests has far exceeded what is typical in
these type of lawsuits, surprising even experienced class-action
lawyers.

But the unfortunate side effect of the robust response means those
who've applied will probably get a smaller refund.

The class-action suit was filed in May 2014 on behalf of
Pennsylvania resident Holly Yencha, who contended that MacKeeper
falsely flagged security and performance problems in order to coax
consumers into paying US$39.95 for the full version.

MacKeeper has been dogged for years by accusations it is so-called
scareware, a term for applications that use intimidating warnings
to get consumers to buy the program.

The lawsuit was filed against ZeoBIT, a company started in Ukraine
that originally developed MacKeeper.

ZeoBIT no longer owns MacKeeper and sold it in April 2013 to
Kromtech Alliance Corp. of Cologne, Germany.  Kromtech, which is
not a party in the lawsuit, says it has undertaken efforts to
rehabilitate MacKeeper and address some of the longstanding
criticisms of the program.

ZeoBIT proposed to settle the lawsuit for $2 million rather than
go to trial.  About one-third of that money will go to the
plaintiff's attorneys, with about $1.25 million going into a
settlement fund.

Judge Joy Flowers Conti of the federal district court for western
Pennsylvania gave the settlement her preliminary approval in July,
but it has yet to earn final approval.

Since August, a court-appointed administrator has been contacting
the 513,330 people who bought MacKeeper in the U.S. and are
eligible for a refund.

As of Sept. 26, 78,652 claims have been filed.  The claims still
need to be verified, but the response rate far exceeds what is
normal in class-action suits.

Rafey S. Balabanian, an attorney for the plaintiff with the law
firm Edelson PC, told Judge Conti in April that claim rates for
similar class-action suits usually range around just 1 percent to
2 percent.

So far, the MacKeeper claims amount to around 15 percent of those
eligible, and claims can continue to be filed through Nov. 30
through this website.

Balabanian wrote in an Oct. 2 court filing that the claims rate in
this case "is almost unprecedented in consumer class actions such
as this."

There are some clues as to why the MacKeeper claim campaign has
been so successful.

More than 90 percent of the email addresses used to contact
MacKeeper purchasers were valid, according to Rust Consulting, the
court's settlement administrator.

A toll-free number advertised on the claim website received more
than 1,000 calls.  Online ads were also placed on Facebook.  The
case has also received a fair bit of media coverage.

The high response rate will have no effect on ZeoBIT.  If the
settlement is approved, it just means smaller slices of the $1.25
million set aside for refunds will go to claimants.

The plaintiff's attorneys originally thought that given the
typical low response rates in class actions, people who applied
would get back the full purchase price of MacKeeper.  Now it's
looking like $15 or $16 each.

Attorneys for the plaintiff are still satisfied with that amount,
because the lawsuit never contended that MacKeeper was "completely
worthless," according to a court filing.

And a $2 million settlement for ZeoBIT is a good deal that avoids
a long and potentially expensive trial.  If 513,330 people bought
MacKeeper for $39.95, ZeoBIT would have collected more than $20
million in revenue in the U.S. alone.


* Class-Action Threats Number One Concern for In-House Attorneys
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric S. Fisher, Esq., of Taylor English Duma and Ryan c. Grelecki,
in an article for Inside Counsel, report that the threat of class-
action lawsuits is the number one concern for many in-house
attorneys, and for good reason: class actions cost U.S. companies
$2 billion annually.

Much of that money is spent on defense litigation fees and related
expenses, in addition to judgments or settlements.  In every case,
the defense team's goal is to avoid certification as a class
action.  If that strategy is not successful, the company has to
make a hard assessment of whether the often-onerous cost of
litigating a class action outweighs the cost of a settlement, even
if the company believes it has the legal high ground.

A 2010 study of class actions by the California Administrative
Office of the Courts illustrates how the prolonged timeline of
class cases can drive costs.  The survey found that cases
certified through a motion took an average of 2.7 years just to
get to the deposition phase.  That compared to just over a year
for all cases.  That may be one reason that 89 percent of the
cases in the California study with a certified class settled.

Fortunately, the courts usually impose a high bar on class
certification through motion. (Class certification often is agreed
to by the parties as part of a settlement.)  In order to be
certified as a class action by the court, the plaintiff must
establish that there exists: (1) a sufficient number of
prospective class members; (2) commonality of questions of law or
fact; (3) typicality of the claims or defenses of representatives
and prospective class members; and (4) adequacy of class
representatives to protect the interests of the class.  If the
defendant can defeat class certification by showing a claim
doesn't meet these criteria, it can cut the lawsuit down at the
knees, significantly limiting exposure.  The rub, however, is that
there are often substantial costs just to get to the court's
decision on class certification.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require the trial court to
determine whether to certify an action as a class action at "an
early practicable time after a person sues or is sued."  In most
cases, the court will allow the parties to break up, or bifurcate,
the discovery process (which, outside of trial, is usually the
most expensive facet of litigation) into two phases: pre-
certification and post-certification.  The plaintiff is permitted
to conduct pre-certification discovery in order to establish the
class certification requirements.  Unfortunately, the costs of
pre-certification discovery include not only money spent on
attorneys' fees and vendor costs (such as for processing
electronically stored information), but also employee hours lost
while searching for and compiling the requested information, as
well as potential internal and external damage to the company's
reputation.


* Cos. Respond to Suits Over Moldy Front-Loading Washing Machines
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CBS 11 News reports that front-load washing machines may be
triggering more service calls, more trouble, and more lawsuits
than manufacturers ever expected.

Michael Vogler tells CBS 11 News it's left him high and dry.  "You
could say it was a clothes spoiler, instead of a clothes washer."

Mr. Vogler is one of the lead plantiffs in a class-action lawsuit
against Electrolux Home Products, the maker of his Frigidaire
front-load machine. He walked us to the back of his house to a
shed where he says he is storing the "evidence."

"This is where the problem is," Mr. Vogler said, pointing to the
machine.

Mr. Vogler says he noticed his allergies worsening, his clothes
smelling, and he found a streak of mold on one of his clean
shirts.  That's when he discovered what was hidden inside the
front seal of his machine.

"It was black and slimy. This is stained and permeated in the
rubber," Mr. Vogler said.

Class-action lawsuits have been filed against several top washing
machine makers -- Electrolux, Frigidaire, Sears, Kenmore, LG
Electronics, Bosch and Whirlpool Corporation.  The lawsuits claim
the machines are defective in their designs and airtight seals,
creating breeding grounds for slimy, smelly black bacteria, also
known as "biofilm."

"In our case, we have a service bulletin on this," said attorney
Ed Wallace, who represents Mr. Vogler and others in the litigation
against Electrolux Home Products.

"The company knew there was a problem as early as April 2007.  And
rather than recall the machines and let consumers know, they
continued to sell the machines," Mr. Wallace said.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs are also arguing that when customers
complain, manufacturers often place the blame on them for not
cleaning their machines.

"So this is something I'm responsible for?" says I-Team Senior
Investigative reporter Ginger Allen.

Ms. Allen called several of the customer service lines and was
repeatedly told this was something she was responsible for, and a
problem she could prevent, if she followed the manuals.  Some of
them also told Allen this was not a very common problem.

However, the plumbers and appliance service companies, which have
inspected the moldy machines, told the I-Team they could not
disagree more.

"Yeah.  Oh my gosh yes!" said one plumber, when Ms. Allen asked
whether he'd heard of the problem.

When asked whether the problem rests with just one brand, an
appliance serviceman said: "No, it's all front loaders."

The repairmen told us how "common" was to have standing water,
mold and odors in front-load washers.

"You can't imagine how it smells, like somebody died. I have to go
outside," said one serviceman.

In court documents, Whirlpool is said to have marketed a product
called Affresh to "combat" mold. The product, according to the
documents, could generate an estimated $195 million in sales
revenue, even though the company said it had "few" consumer
complaints about bacteria.

Mr. Vogler says when he complained to Frigidaire, he was told to
buy a new $200 part.

"Companies rip people off, $200 to $300 at a time. It's just not
fair," Wallace said.

Mr. Vogler's son was a baby when his lawsuit began.  Now, seven
years later, they do laundry together in a top-load machine,
waiting for their day in court.  "It's just a principle thing.  I
just feel like someone needs to stand up to these people,"
Mr. Vogler said.

STATEMENTS TO CBS 11 I-Team FROM MANUFACTURERS:

ELECTROLUX NORTH AMERICA

"Although I'm unable to comment about the specific lawsuit, we
dispute that our front load washers contain any defect regarding
mold or mildew. Please see several tips for consumers experiencing
mold or mildew:

  -- To help prevent odors, mildew or mold, consumers should leave
the door open for a few hours after use to allow the washer to
dry.

  -- Additionally, consumers can refresh or clean the inside of
the washer by running the Clean Washer cycle. Some models have an
automated reminder mode or consumers may prefer to manually select
the cycle.

-- If a consumer believes that their product is not working as
expected, we urge them to call our consumer services group to
discuss whether service is necessary."

LG ELECTRONICSUSA

In light of periodic news reports raising questions about "mold"
in front-load washing machines, LG Electronics USA reiterates the
importance of proper use and maintenance.

Laundry odors can occur for a variety of reasons, and the number
of mold reports represents a very small percentage of units
installed in consumers' homes.  This is not a new issue as claims
have been made against all major manufacturers over the years.

For all front-load laundry purchasers, LG emphasizes proper use
and routine maintenance.

   -- LG recommends using the correct amount of High-Efficiency
(HE) detergent for front-load washers.

   -- A washer cleaning solution developed for front-loaders may
also be used periodically.

   -- Additional maintenance suggestions and consumer tips,
including information on LG's "tub clean" cycle, can be found in
the user's manual.

LG has also developed a variety of features on its front-load
washers to help consumers better care for their washers and
clothes, including:

   -- An exclusive magnetic door ventilation feature to ensure the
wash tub stays fresh in-between loads.  LG has designed a clever
magnet that props the door open ever so slightly to allow fresh
air to circulate in the wash tub without getting in the way.

   -- A redesigned antimicrobial door gasket with drain holes to
help the gasket dry more quickly to keep mold and mildew away.

   -- A high-powered "Tub Clean" cycle that removes detergent
residue to keep odors and mildew away; it is recommended that
consumers run this cycle every month to help keep the washer clean
and fresh.

Customer satisfaction with LG front-load laundry products is
extremely high, and LG consistently receives accolades from
independent testing organizations on our washers and dryers.

As an industry leader and technology innovator in front-load
laundry, we appreciate the opportunity to set the record straight
on this industry issue.

SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO.

"Sears and Whirlpool, who manufactured the washing machines at
issue and is defending Sears in the lawsuit, reject any claims
that Kenmore front-loading washing machines are defective.
Indeed, the overwhelming majority of our members are pleased with
their Kenmore front-loading washing machines.  To control odor,
mold, and mildew in their washing machines, our members always
should follow the instructions in the use and care guide for their
washing machine. For more information on the topic, please see the
statement provided by the Association of Home Appliance
Manufacturers:
http://www.aham.org/consumer/ht/a/GetDocumentAction/id/43663."

BOSCH

"As a matter of company policy, Bosch does not comment on pending
litigation."

WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION

In October last year Whirlpool Corporation received a winning
verdict in a class action involving a wide range of our front-
loading washing machines.  The verdict clearly validated what our
consumers already know -- that these are high-quality washers with
great performance, great energy and water savings and clear
instructions for proper use.  The jury saw through the class-
action lawyers' attempts to enrich themselves on the backs of
consumers who have never had a complaint about their front-load
washing machines.  More than 96 percent of people who own these
products are happy with their front-loading washing machines, and
we have people on call to answer any consumer questions that may
arise.  The class action lawyers are the only ones who stand to
benefit from these lawsuits."


* FDA Has Yet to Decide on "Diet" Soft Drinks Labeling Issue
------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Forgues Schlenker, Esq., of Morgan Lewis, in an article
for The National Law Review, reports that in April 2015, the US
Right to Know (US RTK), a non-profit organization that reports on
food industry issues on behalf of consumers, sent a letter to the
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and a citizen petition to the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) with requests to investigate diet
soda manufacturers for misbranding and deceptive advertising on
the grounds that the "diet" products contain artificial sweeteners
that US RTK alleges actually contribute to weight gain.

The request for FTC investigation states that the soft drink
companies deceptively imply that artificially sweetened beverages
contribute to weight loss rather than weight gain and requests
that the FTC prohibit the companies from using the term "diet" in
advertising such products.  US RTK argued that representing that
such products are "diet" is likely to mislead reasonable
consumers, and that consumers will rely on the claims to their
detriment.

In the FDA citizen petition, US RTK requests that FDA 1) issue a
warning letter for use of the term "diet" as being false and
misleading, and 2) investigate the use of the term "diet" (and
other terms implying weight loss in other artificially sweetened
products) to determine if the product brand names or labels are
misbranded.

In both requests, US RTK stated that the implied claim that
consuming diet soft drinks will assist in weight loss is false.
The request and petition cite four reviews of scientific
literature on artificial sweeteners that suggest that they do not
contribute to weight loss, but rather lead to weight gain.
Additionally, US RTK pointed to epidemiological evidence,
interventional studies, and animal studies that suggest that
artificial sweeteners implicated weight gain.  The requests also
cite two industry studies that did not find a link between
artificial sweeteners and weight gain.

FTC declined to comment on the issue, responding in a letter that
it would not take action, although it reserved the right to take
further action as the public interest may require.

FDA provided an interim response to the citizen petition, stating
that it has not yet reached a decision regarding US RTK's
requests. It is unclear at this time whether FDA will also stay
any action against the diet soda manufacturers.

It seems that the two regulatory agencies are not willing to
expend resources reviewing the controversial topic, despite the
scientific support provided.  While action is unlikely, the
requests reflect an increasing public focus upon such claims and
their underlying validity.  In the absence of government action,
more civil class action litigation over such questions is likely
on the horizon.


* Gold Mining Cos. No Realistic Alternative to Silicosis Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Franny Rabkin, writing for BDLive, reports that gold mining
companies have spent a week in court putting obstacles in the path
of a silicosis class action, but have not offered a single
realistic alternative, counsel for mine workers Wim Trengove SC
argued in Johannesburg on Oct. 22.

Mr. Trengove was presenting a counterargument on behalf of
claimants to representations made by eleven senior counsel on why
the High Court in Johannesburg should not certify a landmark class
action for damages.

Hundreds of thousands of people had contracted occupational lung
diseases, such as silicosis and tuberculosis, and there was a
prima facie case that gold mining houses were to blame, he said.

The claimants in the case had a constitutional right to have their
day in court, he said.  The gold mining companies had made
objections and arguments about why the class action should not be
certified, but had made "no constructive contribution in finding a
solution", Mr. Trengove said.  A thousand individual cases were a
possibility, but if the "hundreds of thousands" of potential cases
were to be heard, the truth was that a class action was the only
solution.

Geoff Budlender SC, also representing the mine workers, said
"after five days of argument by 11 counsel for six mining houses",
not one had told the court that their clients had at all times
complied with their duties under legislation, common law and the
Constitution.

Not one of the companies had said that none of its workers had
contracted silicosis.  None of the companies said that were there
was overexposure to silica dust, these were isolated incidents.

The mining companies had criticized the claimants' evidence, but
it was sufficient for certification.

Also, a class action could still be certified on potential
evidence, which would emerge during a trial.  This included dust
level records that mines had to keep, postmortem reports, health
and safety records, and transfers due to silicosis or
tuberculosis, he said. Steven Budlender, also representing the
mine workers, said mining companies' argument that a class action
case would be unmanageable was without basis as they had not
offered an alternative.


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Rozumek" Remanded to Illinois State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Rozumek originally filed an action in the Third Judicial
Circuit, Madison County, Illinois, alleging injuries due to
exposure to asbestos.  Defendant Crane Co. removed the action to
the Court pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. Section
1442(a)(1), which provides for removal when a defendant is sued
for acts undertaken at the direction of a federal officer.
Defendant General Electric Company timely filed a notice of
removal and joinder in Defendant Crane's notice of removal.  No
co-defendant has identified a basis for federal jurisdiction other
than the federal officer removal statute, which only Crane and GE
raised.

Judge Staci M. Yandle of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois, in a memorandum and order dated
Oct. 20, 2015, declined to exercise jurisdiction over the matter.
The only basis for federal jurisdiction is the federal defense of
two dismissed the Defendants.  No other defendant has raised the
federal officer removal statute as a defense or objected to
remand, the remaining claims are governed by state law and the
Plaintiff's choice of forum is state court.  Accordingly, Judge
Yandle's motion is granted and remanded the case to the Third
Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois.

The case is DENNIS ROZUMEK, Plaintiff, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS,
INC. et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 15-CV-441-SMY-SCW (S.D. Ill.).
A full-text copy of Judge Yandle's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/n6HtQTfrom Leagle.com.

Dennis Rozumek, Plaintiff, represented by Erica Mynarich, Carver,
Cantin & Grantham, Ben A. Vinson, Jr., Vinson Law & Clay Zelbst,
Sloan, Bagley, Hatcher & Perry.

Air & Liquid Systems, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant,
represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al. - Edwardsville.

Air & Liquid Systems, Inc, Defendant, represented by James R.
Grabowski, Heyl, Royster et al..

Aurora Pump Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Counter
Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge
et al..

Carrier Corp, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Kyler H.
Stevens, Kurowski Shultz LLC.

CBS Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by
Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom
LLC-St. Louis & Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC-St. Louis.

Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel
W. McGrath, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Dennis J. Graber, Hinshaw &
Culbertson, Haley Marie Schumacher, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP,
James M. Brodzik, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Mark D. Bauman,
Hinshaw & Culbertson, Nicole E. Rice, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP &
Trevor A. Sondag, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.

Foster Wheeler LLC, Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman,
Segal, McCambridge et al..

Georgia-Pacific LLC, Defendant, represented by Benjamin J. Wilson,
HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC.

Goulds Pumps, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dennis J. Graber,
Hinshaw & Culbertson, Haley Marie Schumacher, Hinshaw & Culbertson
LLP, James M. Brodzik, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Mark D. Bauman,
Hinshaw & Culbertson, Nicole E. Rice, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP &
Trevor A. Sondag, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.

Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kathleen
Ann Hardee, Polsinelli PC & Kirra N. Jones, Polsinelli PC.

Imo Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill,
Heyl, Royster et al..

Imo Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by James R.
Grabowski, Heyl, Royster et al.

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant, represented by Benjamin J.
Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC.

ITT Corporation, Defendant, represented by Undray Wilks, Morgan,
Lewis et al. .

John Crane Inc, Defendant, represented by Sean P. Fergus,
O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C. & Simon B. Purnell,
O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C..

Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Defendant, represented by Charles
L. Joley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al. & Georgiann Oliver, Joley,
Nussbaumer, et al..

Strahman Valves, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bradley R.
Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al..

Velan Valve Corporation, Defendant, represented by Benjamin J.
Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC-St. Louis & Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom
LLC.

Warren Pumps, L.L.C., Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill,
Heyl, Royster et al. & James R. Grabowski, Heyl, Royster et al.

Georgia-Pacific LLC, Cross Claimant, represented by Benjamin J.
Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC.

Georgia-Pacific LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Benjamin J.
Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MACo Fails to Dismiss Libby Worker's Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
MACo moves for summary judgment on the grounds that John Carlock's
answer to an interrogatory that he suffered a "significant
asbestos exposure" while working for the City of Libby establishes
that MACo is not liable for Carlock's alleged occupational disease
as a matter of law.  Respondent Montana Municipal Interlocal
Authority, which insured the City of Libby, opposes MACo's motion.
MMIA requested oral argument.  However, since the court is ruling
in MMIA's favor for the reasons set forth in MMIA's brief, an oral
argument is unnecessary.

Judge David M. Sandler of the Workers' Compensation Court of
Montana, an order dated Oct. 21, 2015, denied MACo's motion for
summary judgment and denied MMIA's request for oral argument as
moot.

Although Carlock says the amount of asbestos he was exposed to
while working for the City of Libby was "significant," his
interrogatory answer does not establish that his alleged
occupational disease was caused by his work for the City of Libby
because medical causation requires expert opinion or testimony.
MACo did not present any evidence of what criteria Carlock used to
form his opinion that his alleged exposure to asbestos while
working for the City of Libby was "significant," or that he has
sufficient knowledge and expertise to say that the conditions
under which he worked for the City of Libby could have caused his
alleged occupational disease.  Therefore, MACo is not entitled to
summary judgment.

The case is John CARLOCK, Petitioner, v. LIBERTY NW INS. CORP6,
MACO, and MONTANA MUNICIPAL INTERLOCAL AUTHORITY,
Respondents/Insurers, WCC NO. 2015-3568 (MTWCC).  A full-text copy
of Judge Sandler's Decision is available at http://is.gd/ukv3Vj
from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5th Cir. Affirms Ruling in "Bartel"
----------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in an
opinion dated Oct. 19, 2015, affirmed a lower court's decision in
a consolidated action involving claims arising from the
plaintiffs' alleged exposure to asbestos aboard vessels operated
or owned by the various defendants.

The Fifth Circuit was asked to determine whether the cases,
originally filed in state court, properly belong in federal court.
Because the defendants did not establish the necessary causal
nexus between their actions and the plaintiffs' claims, the Fifth
Circuit said it need not decide whether the defendants have
asserted a colorable federal defense.  Likewise, the Fifth Circuit
need not address plaintiffs' additional arguments in favor of
remand.

The appeals case is WILLIAM E. BARTEL, as personal representative
of the Estate of Silas B. Bishop, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALCOA
STEAMSHIP COMPANY, INCORPORATED; CENTRAL GULF LINES, INCORPORATED;
CENTRAL GULF STEAMSHIP CORPORATION; CROWLEY MARINE SERVICES,
INCORPORATED, Successor by Merger Delta Steamship Lines,
Incorporated, formerly known as Mississippi Shipping Company;
DELTA STEAMSHIP LINES, INCORPORATED; EMPIRE TRANSPORT,
INCORPORATED; FARRELL LINES, INCORPORATED, formerly known as
American South African Lines; JAMES RIVER TRANSPORT, INCORPORATED;
CHAS. KURZ & COMPANY, individually and/or as Successor-in-Interest
Keystone Shipping Company, Successor-in-Interest Keystone Tankship
Corporation; MARINE NAVIGATION COMPANY; CROWLEY MARITIME
CORPORATION, individually and/or as Successor-in-Interest Marine
Transport Lines, Incorporated; MATSON NAVIGATION COMPANY,
INCORPORATED; NATIONAL BULK CARRIERS, INCORPORATED; OGDEN LEADER
STRANSPORT, INCORPORATED; PAN ATLANTIC STEAMSHIP COMPANY; SEA-LAND
SERVICE, INCORPORATED; WABASH TRANSPORT, INCORPORATED; WATERMAN
STEAMSHIP CORPORATION; MARINE TRANSPORT LINES, INCORPORATED;
KEYSTONE SHIPPING COMPANY; CENTRAL GULF LINES, INCORPORATED,
individually and/or as Successor-in-Interest Central Gulf
Steamship Corporation, Defendants-Appellants WILLIAM E. BARTEL, As
personal representative on behalf of Estate of Joseph L. Dennis,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. AMERICAN EXPORT ISBRANTSEN; FARRELL LINES,
INCORPORATED, on its own behalf and, formerly known as American
South African Lines, Successor-in-Interest American Export Lines,
Incorporated formerly known as American Isbrandtsen Lines,
Incorporated, incorrectly named American Export Isbrandsten;
AMERICAN EXPORT LINES, INCORPORATED; AMERICAN TRADING & PRODUCTION
CORPORATION; AMERICAN TRADING TRANSPORTATION COMPANY; CENTRAL GULF
LINES, INCORPORATED, Individually and/or Successor-in-Interest
Central Gulf Steamship Corporation; CHAS. KURZ; COMPANY,
Individually and/or Successor-in-Interest Keystone Shipping
Company Successor-in-Interest Keystone Tankship Corporation;
FARRELL LINES, INCORPORATED; TRINIDAD CORPORATION, Defendants-
Appellants LAWRENCE CRAIG, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RIO GRANDE
TRANSPORT, INCORPORATED; SEA-LAND SERVICE, INCORPORATED; WATERMAN
STEAMSHIP CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellants, NO. 15-30004 (5th
Cir.).  A full-text copy of the Fifth Circuit's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/k4JBEUfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shipowners' Fail in Bid to Junk 14 PI Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
In 14 asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits, which became part
of the consolidated asbestos products liability multidistrict
litigation (MDL 875), filed by former workers who alleged to have
been exposed to asbestos while working aboard various ships, Judge
Eduardo C. Robreno of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied the motions for summary
judgment filed by various shipowners represented by Thompson Hine
LLP, holding that the claims belong to the bankruptcy estates of
the individuals and that, therefore, distributions of any recovery
by the trustee should be made in accordance with the priorities
set forth in the Bankruptcy Code.

The asbestos cases are:

   (1) WILLARD E. BARTEL, et al., (Administrators for Estate of
William G. Richards) Plaintiffs, v. A-C PRODUCT LIABILITY TRUST,
et al., Defendants, CONSOLIDATED UNDER NO. MDL 875, CIVIL ACTION
NO. 2:11-CV-31983-ER (E.D. Pa.).  A full-text copy of Judge
Robreno's memorandum dated October 14, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/A5rUXZfrom Leagle.com.

   (2) WILLARD E. BARTEL, et al., (Administrators for Estate of
Jimmy L. Day), Plaintiffs, v. A-C PRODUCT LIABILITY TRUST, et al.,
Defendants, CONSOLIDATED UNDER NO. MDL 875, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-
CV-30341-ER (E.D. Pa.).  A full-text copy of Judge Robreno's
memorandum dated October 23, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/V1VUPBfrom Leagle.com.

   (3) WILLARD E. BARTEL, et al., (Administrators for Estate of
Charles A. Miller) Plaintiffs, v. A-C PRODUCT LIABILITY TRUST, et
al., Defendants, CONSOLIDATED UNDER NO. MDL 875, CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:11-CV-30524-ER (E.D. Pa.).  A full-text copy of Judge Robreno's
memorandum dated October 9, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/n26QQDfrom Leagle.com.

   (4) DONALD S. BROOKS, Plaintiff, v. A-C PRODUCT LIABILITY
TRUST, et al., Defendants, CONSOLIDATED UNDER MDL 875, CIVIL
ACTION NO. 2:11-CV-30182-ER (E.D. Pa.).  A full-text copy of Judge
Robreno's memorandum dated Oct. 20, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/Hkov2lfrom Leagle.com.

   (5) BARBARA A. GRANT, Plaintiff, v. A-C PRODUCT LIABILITY
TRUST, et al., Defendants, MDL NO. 875, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-CV-
30383-ER (E.D. Pa.).  A full-text copy of Judge Robreno's
memorandum dated Oct. 6, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/2yYIye
from Leagle.com.

   (6) HERBERT L. JACOBS, Plaintiff, v. A-C PRODUCT LIABILITY
TRUST, et al., Defendants, MDL 875, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:09-CV-
30143-ER (E.D. Pa.).  A full-text copy of Judge Robreno's
memorandum dated Oct. 6, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/jsqkao
from Leagle.com.

   (7) CLAURENCE JONES, Plaintiff, v. A-C PRODUCT LIABILITY TRUST,
et al., Defendants, CONSOLIDATED UNDER NO. MDL 875, CIVIL ACTION
NO. 2:11-CV-30663-ER (E.D. Pa.).  A full-text copy of Judge
Robreno's memorandum dated Oct. 15, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/Sx4AHzfrom Leagle.com.

   (8) CREIGHTON E. MILLER, (Administrator for Estate of Steve
Oswald), Plaintiff, v. A-C PRODUCT LIABILITY TRUST, et al.,
Defendants, NO. 2:11-CV-33109-ER (E.D. Pa.).  A full-text copy of
Judge Robreno's memorandum dated Oct. 20, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/EJ4D3zfrom Leagle.com.

   (9) GERARD A. NELSON, Plaintiff, v. A-C PRODUCT LIABILITY
TRUST, et al., Defendants, CONSOLIDATED UNDER MDL 875, CIVIL
ACTION NO. 2:11-CV-30555-ER (E.D. Pa.).  A full-text copy of Judge
Robreno's memorandum dated Oct. 6, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/pQHjbtfrom Leagle.com.

  (10) EUGENE J. PIKE, Plaintiff, v. A-C PRODUCT LIABILITY TRUST,
et al., Defendants, CONSOLIDATED UNDER NO. MDL 875, CIVIL ACTION
NO. 2:11-CV-30889-ER (E.D. Pa.).  A full-text copy of Judge
Robreno's memorandum dated Oct. 20, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/9kt26pfrom Leagle.com.

  (11) ROBERT E. SAUCIER, Plaintiff, v. A-C PRODUCT LIABILITY
TRUST, et al., Defendants, CONSOLIDATED UNDER MDL 875, E.D. PA.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-CV-33828-ER (E.D. Pa.).  A full-text copy of
Judge Robreno's memorandum dated Oct. 9, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/m8dO7yfrom Leagle.com.

  (12) JOHN L. STEIN, Plaintiff, v. A-C PRODUCT LIABILITY TRUST,
et al., Defendants, CONSOLIDATED UNDER MDL 875, E.D. PA. CIVIL
ACTION NO. 2:11-CV-30750-ER (E.D. Pa.).  A full-text copy of Judge
Robreno's memorandum dated Oct. 5, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/bHBa6Ufrom Leagle.com.

  (13) DOUGLAS C. TESSER, Plaintiff, v. A-C PRODUCT LIABILITY
TRUST, et al., Defendants, MDL 875, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:09-CV-
30094-ER (E.D. Pa.).  A full-text copy of Judge Robreno's
memorandum dated Oct. 6, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/uQTh1P
from Leagle.com.

  (14) TOMMY L. WILLIAMSON, Plaintiff, v. A-C PRODUCT LIABILITY
TRUST, et al., Defendants, CONSOLIDATED UNDER NO. MDL 875, CIVIL
ACTION NO. 2:11-CV-30849-ER (E.D. Pa.).  A full-text copy of Judge
Robreno's memorandum dated Oct. 16, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/y8vJj2from Leagle.com.


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

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

AMERICAN OIL CO., Defendant, represented by GENE B. GEORGE, RAY,
ROBINSON, CARLE & DAVIES PLL, WAYNE A. MARVEL, MARON MARVEL
BRADLEY & ANDERSON PA, JOHN G. GAUL, MARON, MARVEL, BRADLEY &
ANDERSON, P.A. & LINA M. CARRERAS, MARON MARVEL BRADLEY ANDERSON
PA.

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

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

GENERAL REFRACTORIES CO., Defendant, represented by CRAIG FOSTER
TURET, OFFIT KURMAN, P.A..

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

SINCLAIR OIL COMPANY, Defendant, represented by JOHN M. DEITCH,
COUGHLIN DUFFY LLP & JOSEPH P. FITENI, COUGHLIN DUFFY LLP.

SINCLAIR REFINING COMPANY, Defendant, represented by JOHN M.
DEITCH, COUGHLIN DUFFY LLP & JOSEPH P. FITENI, COUGHLIN DUFFY LLP.

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

BP CORPORATION N.A., 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.

PAN AMERICAN PETROLEUM AND TRANSPORT COMPANY, Defendant,
represented by GENE B. GEORGE, RAY, ROBINSON, CARLE & DAVIES PLL,
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.

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

HESS OIL COMPANY, Respondent, represented by HAROLD W. HENDERSON,
THOMPSON, HINE LLP & RICHARD C. BINZLEY, THOMPSON, HINE AND FLORY.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate's Bid for Insurance Arbitration Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allstate Insurance Company has filed a petition seeking an order
compelling A.O. Smith Corporation to arbitrate a dispute regarding
a Settlement/Coverage-in Place Agreement, pursuant to the Federal
Arbitration Act.  A.O. has filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction, or in the alternative, to stay pursuant to
the Colorado River doctrine.

Beginning in 1967, A.O. "purchased certain primary general
liability insurance policies, umbrella and excess liability
insurance policies from various insurance companies," including
four from Allstate.  A.O. also purchased insurance policies from a
number of other insurers.  Some of the primary policies have been
exhausted, and some of the insurers have become insolvent or are
otherwise unable to pay.  Due to the exhaustion of some of the
primary policies and the insolvency of some insurers, disputes
have arisen among A.O. and its remaining insurers with which it
has umbrella and excess liability policies, regarding responsibly
for A.O.'s liabilities arising out of asbestos claims.

In a memorandum opinion and order dated Oct. 23, 2015, Judge
Thomas M. Durkin of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denied A.O.'s
motion in that the Court will not dismiss Allstate's petition for
lack of ripeness, and granted in that the Court stays Allstate's
petition pending resolution of the Wisconsin case.

A.O.'s motion for an extension of time to respond to Allstate's
discovery request and for a protective order, is granted in that
the stay pursuant to the Court's decision to abstain in favor of
the Wisconsin case also applies to discovery.  Additionally,
Allstate's motion for summary judgment on its petition is denied
without prejudice pending a lifting of the stay.  A status hearing
is set for April 21, 2016 at 9 A.M.  In lieu of appearing on April
21, the parties may file a status report on April 18, 2016
reporting on the status of the Wisconsin case and proposing a new
status date.  Of course, should the Wisconsin case conclude
without the need to revisit Allstate's petition, the parties
should inform the Court immediately, Judge Durkin held.

The case is ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. A.O. SMITH
CORPORATION, Defendant, NO. 15 C 6574 (N.D. Ill.).  A full-text
copy of Judge Durkin's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/GmNmozfrom Leagle.com.

Allstate Insurance Company, Petitioner, represented by James
Richard Murray, Esq. -- jmurray@tresslerllp.com -- Tressler,
Soderstrom, Maloney & Priess, Heather Colleen Sullivan, Esq. --
hsullivan@tresslerllp.com -- Tressler LLP & Kathryn Ann Formeller,
Esq. -- kformeller@tresslerllp.com -- Tressler LLP.

A.O. Smith Corporation, Respondent, represented by Jeffrey O.
Davis, Esq. -- jeffrey.davis@quarles.com -- Quarles & Brady,
Patrick J Murphy, Esq. -- patrick.murphy@quarles.com -- Quarles &
Brady Llp, Jacob M. Mihm, Esq. -- jmihm@hokellc.com -- Hoke LLC &
Stephen M. Hoke, Esq. -- shoke@hokellc.com -- Hoke Attorneys at
Law LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleaver-Brooks Fails to Dismiss "Ricci"
--------------------------------------------------------
Mark Ricci contends that he developed mesothelioma as a result of
bystander exposure to asbestos from dust that his father Aldo
Ricci brought home on his clothes.  The plaintiff asserts that his
father was exposed to asbestos from Cleaver-Brooks, Inc.'s boilers
during his father's career as a draftsman engineer for Segner &
Dolton from 1952 to 1971, as an engineer for Joseph Loring from
1971 to 1986, and for four years thereafter at Dolton & Ricci
Consulting Engineers, Aldo's own engineering firm.  The Plaintiff
maintains, and Cleaver-Brooks does not dispute, that an
unspecified number of the defendant's boilers contained asbestos.

Cleaver-Brooks moves for summary judgment dismissing the
plaintiffs' complaint and all claims and cross-claims against it.
The company submits no affidavit in support of its motion but
asserts that it is entitled to summary judgment based upon Aldo's
deposition testimony.  Aldo was 90 years old when he testified.
He could not remember certain facts, which he attributed to his
advanced age.

Judge Peter H. Moulton of the Supreme Court, New York County, in a
decision dated October 14, 2015, denied the Defendant's motion
finding that Cleaver-Brooks failed to establish a prima facie
case.  Judge Moulton pointed out that Cleaver-Brooks failed to
proffer unequivocal evidence that its product could not have
contributed to the plaintiff's injury.  Even if Cleaver-Brooks had
met its burden, issues of fact exist for trial, Judge Moulton
added.

The case is IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to
MARK RICCI, Plaintiff, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO., et al.,
Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190224/2014, SEQ. NO. 008 (N.Y. Sup.).  A
full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/bp6MVD
from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alcoa Withdraws Appeal in "Andrucki"
-----------------------------------------------------
The appeal syled NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to
ANDRUCKI, v. ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA - THE PORT AUTHORITY OF
NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY (ALCOA), MOTION NO. M-3427 (N.Y. App.
Div.), is withdrawn, according to an Oct. 20, 2015 decision by the
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department.  A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/F4KOj5from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plumber Gets Positive Fibro Results
----------------------------------------------------
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.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Construction Company Exposes Workers to Fibro
--------------------------------------------------------------
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: Veterans, Teachers Oppose FACT Act
---------------------------------------------------
Alex Formuzis, writing for EcoWatch, reported that no Americans
are at greater risk of asbestos disease than veterans, first
responders and teachers.

Veterans account for just eight percent of the population but
roughly a third of Americans who suffer from mesothelioma -- an
extremely painful and always-fatal form of cancer caused only by
asbestos. Many Navy veterans were intensely exposed for decades to
asbestos in shipyards, where asbestos coatings were used to
fireproof ships, buildings and other military equipment.

Firefighters and teachers are twice as likely to be diagnosed with
mesothelioma as the general public, according to research
conducted by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health. The fire fighters and other first responders who descend
on burning buildings are often exposed to airborne asbestos
fibers.

Teachers face a special threat because most schools built before
1980 almost certainly contain asbestos-based construction
materials. In recent months, news organizations have reported
potential asbestos exposures at more than 50 schools in at least
13 states. Locations where children may have been recently exposed
to the lethal material include public schools in Philadelphia,
Kirksville, Missouri, Huntsville, Alabama, Hayward, California and
Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

That's why national organizations that represent these groups
strongly oppose the so-called FACT Act, sponsored by Rep. Blake
Farenthold (R-TX) and Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ).

This bill would deplete the resources of already-dwindling trust
funds set aside to compensate asbestos victims. Trust officials
estimate that complying with the bill would require each trust to
expend up to 20,000 additional hours a year -- slowing claims
processing and payment distribution and exhausting scarce funds
meant to compensate victims.

The bill would also require public disclosure of victims' personal
information, including medical information and partial Social
Security numbers. It would put sick people at heightened risk of
identity theft.

The legislation is backed by the anti-worker, anti-environment and
the anti-health American Legislative Exchange Council, better
known as ALEC, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and by a number of
corporations -- including Koch Industries and Honeywell -- that
still use asbestos or have significant asbestos liability from
past use and their insurance companies. These companies and their
political action committees have spent millions of dollars
lobbying and contributing to political campaigns to build support
for the FACT Act.

Opponents include:

   -- American Veterans or AMVETS, 250,000 members
   -- Association of the U.S. Navy, 22,000 members
   -- Military Order of the Purple Heart, serves 90,000 veterans
      and family members
   -- International Association of Fire Fighters, 300,000 members
   -- National Education Association, 3 million members
   -- American Federation of State, County and Municipal
      Employees, 1.6 million members
   -- AFL-CIO, 5 million members

Ironically, Farenthold recently wrote an op-ed in The Hill,
"Asbestos Reforms Needed to Protect Veterans, First Responders,"
where he argues his legislation is meant to help those vets and
first responders who suffer from asbestos-related disease.

Here's a little taste of what veterans, first responders and other
communities who often come face-to-face with deadly asbestos dust
think about Rep. Farenthold's bill he claims he wrote to "protect"
them and their families:

"Forcing our veterans to publicize their work histories, medical
conditions, social security numbers and information about their
children and families is an offensive invasion of privacy to the
men and women who have honorably served," AMVETS and Association
of the U.S. Navy wrote Congress recently.

"Our nation's first responders and teachers dying of asbestos
diseases deserve more respect and better treatment from Congress,"
the International Association of Fire Fighters, the National
Education Association and the municipal employees union wrote
members of Congress.

The bill is headed for a vote in the House where all 435 members,
247 of whom are Farenthold's fellow Republicans, will face
reelection in November 2016. Fully, 34 Senators, 24 of who are
Republicans, will also face the voters.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Settlement Reached Over Victoria Fibro Cases
-------------------------------------------------------------
9News 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 went to the Victorian Supreme Court to make a claim
against the other two companies.

Justice Cameron Macaulay on 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: Toxic Dust Causes County Workers to Leave Bldg.
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Stroud, writing for Post Independent, reported that a
downtown Glenwood Springs building that Garfield County acquired
two years ago had to be vacated by county workers due to asbestos
concerns, county government officials have confirmed.

According to Renelle Lott, chief communications officer for the
county, the one-story building at 810 Pitkin Ave. was closed Sept.
13 after initial tests came back from the lab showing the presence
of the cancer-causing substance.

No one has been back in the building since, she said.

Four employees in her own department, including herself, and four
employees in the county's procurement department were moved out of
the building and were relocated to other quarters in the next-door
county administration building and at facilities in Rifle, she
said.

It's unknown at this time if the asbestos that was discovered was
disturbed, or if any of the workers were exposed during the past
two years after those two departments moved into the building.

"The county is researching that," according to a statement issued
by the county. "In the meantime, the county has taken and will
continue to take all steps possible to protect its employees,
including closing the building."

The building was acquired by the county in August 2013 as part of
a deal with Valley View Hospital that involved a land trade.

In that deal, the hospital acquired previously county-owned land
beneath the hospital building, while the county obtained the
office building just east of the county administration building at
110 Eighth St. that had been owned by the hospital.

The deal also included an $865,000 payment from Valley View to the
county. The county in turn used that money to buy the 4,608-
square-foot building at 810 Pitkin.

Several modifications were made to the building before county
offices moved in, according to the statement.

Those included replacement of carpet and rubber base, painting,
replacement of a water heater, removal of a lift station,
replacement of lights and the addition of drywall and IT
connections.

Two bathrooms were also combined into a single ADA-compliant
bathroom, a basement-level bathroom was removed, and one of the
rooms was remodeled for an employee break room.

Later work included roof repairs, the addition of an exterior
back-up generator and radon mitigation, the county said.

Lott said the county is in the process of hiring a consulting firm
to assess the extent of asbestos contamination, recommend whether
additional testing is needed and determine an appropriate
abatement plan and cost estimates to do the work.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found in Christchurch Arts Centre
--------------------------------------------------------
Conan Young, writing for Radio NZ, 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: Dunedin Hospital Closed for Fibro Clean-up
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hamish McNeilly, writing for Stuff.co.nz, reported that Dunedin
Hospital has moved patients, closed its mortuary and central
stairwell and postponed non-urgent ultrasound scans after asbestos
tests came back positive.

The Southern District Health Board (DHB) said on that routine
testing revealed positive surface area swabs for asbestos, forcing
some areas of the ageing facility to be blocked off and staff and
patients to be evacuated from affected areas.

Those areas include a waiting area on the first floor near
radiology, a level 4 clinic room, theatre change rooms and
corridor change rooms, and two internal corridors on level 5.

The results were confirmed on evening, with further tests
verifying asbestos in the mortuary area, the main stairwell, the
laboratory areas on the third floor and numerous rooms in
molecular pathology.

Traces of asbestos were found in parts of the ultrasound suite.

While all air testing came back negative, all three types of
asbestos were found. White asbestos in public areas on the first
floor, Southern DHB chief executive Carole Heatly said.

As a result of those tests, the mortuary and the central stairwell
were closed, and non-urgent ultrasound scans had been postponed.

Asbestos removal experts were already working on the affected
areas. It was unknown the extent of the exposure to staff and
patients, if at all.

"[W]e will be taking corrective and appropriate action . . .
because our first priority is patient, public and staff safety,"
Heatly said.

The asbestos has likely been there since the construction of the
building, with contractors likely to have come in contact with
asbestos.

Heatly acknowledged the facility was an old building and "this has
come at an opportune time, we know there are risks  . . . and we
know how to manage them".

The discovery of asbestos in the building was "not a surprise to
most people", she said.

Commissioner Kathy Grant said she had spoken to Health Minister
Jonathan Coleman, who was committed to a rebuild of the clinical
services block, and she gave him an assurance on the safety of
patients and staff.

Staff had been briefed and were understanding of the situation,
she said.

Surgery medical director Stephen Packer said the risk was very
small -- perhaps just one death out of 100,000 over several
decades -- and less than dying from a traffic accident or getting
cancer from cigarette smoking.

Labour's acting health spokesperson David Clark said the discovery
of asbestos was "horrifying".

"Hospital staff should not be working in a building that makes
them sick and risks shortening their lives, nor should patients
and other members of the public be exposed to it."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Guam On-Island Toxic Dust Disposal Proposed
------------------------------------------------------------
Gaynor Dumat-ol Daleno, writing for Pacific Daily News, reported
that a ban on disposing of asbestos-tainted construction materials
on the island might change if a Guam Environmental Protection
Agency proposal becomes final.

Guam EPA Administrator Eric Palacios said he's proposing to allow
the disposal of asbestos-contaminated materials at the Layon
Landfill.

Palacios' comments were said at a court hearing on the federal
receivership over the local government's solid waste management.

Asbestos-tainted materials can be disposed of safely at the
landfill by keeping them tightly wrapped and sealed in non-porous
material and burying them, Palacios said.

If the buried asbestos waste isn't disturbed, there won't be any
health risk, Palacios said, because it won't become airborne.

Palacios said he's trying to help the local construction industry,
the government of Guam and the military save cost by opening an
area at the landfill for asbestos-tainted materials to be buried.

As contractors save money, it would lead to reduced construction
costs that could mean lower costs of building homes and buildings
that will ultimately help consumers, Palacios explained further
after the hearing. Currently, asbestos-tainted materials have to
be shipped out of Guam. The cost of properly packing and shipping
asbestos-contaminated materials out of Guam can easily cost tens
of thousands of dollars or more per project, Palacios said.

Palacios said the government-of-Guam-owned landfill in Inarajan
was built based on one of the highest federal standards for proper
solid waste disposal, including the installation of thick liners
between the dirt and the buried trash.

The higher environmental safety threshold for the landfill would
allow Guam EPA to change the facility's permit category to allow
proper burial of safely packaged and sealed asbestos-tainted
materials, Palacios said.

Resident complaints

Residential neighborhoods and Inarajan Middle School have
complained of the foul odor that wafts from the landfill when the
wind blows from certain directions.

Palacios said he would offer public education campaigns to brief
Inarajan residents and residents islandwide about the safeguards
for proper disposal of asbestos-contaminated materials.

A lot of Guam houses and buildings, which were built in the 1960s
and early 1970s, contain asbestos-tainted tile adhesives and drop-
ceiling materials, Palacios said. At the time those structures
were built, asbestos wasn't yet known to cause cancer, he said.

The Manuel Guerrero building in Hag†t¤a, which once housed the
Department of Administration and Department of Education central
offices, is an example of a local government building that has
been found to have traces of asbestos-tainted tiles, Palacios
said.

Demolition work on the building began in October, Pacific Daily
News files show.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firefighters Bear Burden of Fibro Deaths
---------------------------------------------------------
Bill Walker, writing for Environmental Health News, reported that
Asbestos does not discriminate.

It doesn't matter who you are -- young or old, strong or frail,
rich or poor, factory worker or CEO -- if you inhale or ingest
even one microscopic asbestos fiber, you're at increased risk of
developing a deadly disease whose symptoms may not show up for
decades.

But of the estimated 12,000 to 15,000 Americans who die of
asbestos-related diseases each year, some groups do bear a
disproportionate burden. The death rate is highest for workers in
industries in which asbestos is or was extensively used, such as
construction, shipbuilding, chemicals and railroads. But while
each asbestos death is tragic, the tragedy feels most horrifying
and unfair when it strikes those who were exposed through their
unselfish service to society. Among those more likely than the
average American to die from asbestos exposure are two such groups
-- one that willingly put themselves in harm's way, another that
may have never known they were at risk: firefighters and teachers.

"It's a risk you accept," said Battalion Chief J.J. Winn of the
Charleston, S.C., Fire Department -- the same post held by his
father, John Winn, who died in May 2012 at age 59 of mesothelioma,
a rare and incurable cancer caused only by asbestos exposure.
Although asbestos does not burn, a fire in a building that
contains asbestos sends millions of deadly fibers airborne.

"When my dad joined the department in the '70s, we didn't know
much about asbestos," said Winn. "Now we assume anything built
before 1980 has asbestos in it. But every firefighter has always
known that every time you go out you might not come home; you
might carry something home to your family; you might get cancer.
That's the path we chose, and it sure wasn't for the money."

Roger Hall, 64, a retired high school teacher in Letcher County,
Ky., was similarly unaware that he might be at risk.

"I taught in the same building for 20-some years, and I never gave
a thought to asbestos," said Hall, whose mesothelioma was
discovered in November 2014 when he went into the hospital for a
routine operation to repair a nagging hernia.

"When the doctor told me I had mesothelioma," he said, "I had no
idea where it came from -- that school system was the only place
I'd ever worked. I started asking my former co-workers and some
said yes, that school was just loaded with asbestos."

In a study of nearly 30,000 firefighter deaths in three major
cities from 1950 to 2009, the National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health, or NIOSH, found that the firefighters were
twice as likely as other Americans to die of mesothelioma, a
malignancy that can strike the lungs, stomach or testicles.

It has long been known that firefighters are more likely to die of
lung cancer, for which asbestos is one possible cause among many.
But NIOSH's study of firefighters in Philadelphia, Chicago and San
Francisco, published in 2013, was the first to document a higher
rate of deaths from mesothelioma, a distinct and much more rare
disease. A 2014 study led by the Finnish Cancer Registry of more
than 16,000 firefighter deaths over 45 years in five Scandinavian
nations found firefighters were more than 2.5 times more likely to
die of mesothelioma than the general population.

The elevated death rates in these studies are even more striking
considering that firefighters, who must be physically fit, are
healthier than the general population, with lower death rates from
non-cancer respiratory diseases, diabetes, nervous system
disorders and alcoholism.

Teachers are also twice as likely to die from mesothelioma as
other Americans, according to a 2007 NIOSH report that analyzed
federal cause-of-death records. The absolute numbers were small --
13 teachers, all of whom taught in elementary schools, died of
mesothelioma in 1999, the latest year for which the agency has
classified deaths by occupation. In 2004, an EWG Action Fund
analysis of government death records reported that 137 elementary
and secondary teachers died of mesothelioma from 1985 to 1999.

And that's from only one of the three main diseeases caused by
asbestos: a 2015 analysis by the Action Fund found that asbestos-
caused lung cancer kills three to four times as many people as
mesothelioma. About half as many Americans die of asbestosis, an
excruciatingly painful and often-fatal scarring of the lungs, as
from mesothelioma.

Judging by the frequency with which asbestos problems continue to
arise at schools -- in the first half of 2015 more than 50
incidents were reported at schools in 13 states -- it's clear that
teachers are at increased risk for on-the-job exposure,
particularly in the thousands of schools built before 1980, when
the dangers of asbestos became widely known. More than 30 years
after the Environmental Protection Agency declared that "asbestos
in school buildings poses a significant hazard to public health,"
we still don't know how much asbestos remains and how great a risk
it poses to teachers, staff and students.

The NIOSH report said the teachers' death rate from mesothelioma
was about half the rate among construction workers, but higher
than workers in some industries known for elevated risk, such as
chemicals and railroads. The report also said elementary and
secondary schools were the tenth-most often listed workplaces of
victims of asbestosis. That's on par with electric power plants,
where asbestos was widely used in insulation and even in workers'
"protective" clothing -- which turned out to be anything but.

"Shame on them all"

In response to their members' heightened risk, firefighters' and
teachers' organizations have registered their opposition to
proposed federal legislation that could delay or deny justice to
asbestos victims and their families.

A bill that could soon reach the floor of the House -- H.R. 526,
the so-called FACT Act introduced by Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-
Texas -- would require public disclosure of sensitive personal,
financial and medical information of anyone seeking compensation
for an asbestos-caused illness. Under the guise of "transparency,"
the bill would erect needless and invasive bureaucratic hurdles
that would hold up payments to victims from the private
compensation trusts set up by companies that have liability for
asbestos illnesses.

Some victims could die before seeing any money to pay their
staggering medical bills -- Roger Hall's hospital stays for
chemotherapy cost $70,000 a night, more than twice what the
average asbestos victim recovers from the trusts -- or provide for
their families after they're gone. The typical mesothelioma victim
survives less than a year after diagnosis. Battalion Chief John
Winn made it four months.

In an October 15 letter to members of Congress, the International
Association of Fire Fighters, the National Education Association
and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees said the legislation, which would require the trusts to
file unnecessary reports and other paperwork, would also "drain
critical resources that have been set aside to secure justice for
victims of asbestos diseases." The letter said: "Our nation's
first responders [firefighters and other emergency personnel],
teachers and public employees dying of asbestos diseases deserve
more respect and better treatment from Congress."

Roger Hall has already survived longer than the eight months the
doctor gave him. In that time, his wife Evelyn has learned all she
can about asbestos, including the names of companies that exposed
millions of Americans and the members of the House Judiciary
Committee who approved the FACT Act. Federal records show that
since 2010 those 19 members received almost $3.3 million in
campaign contributions from political action committees tied to
asbestos interests.

"Shame on them all," Evelyn Hall said.

"The companies that did it, they knew," she said. "They knew
asbestos was killing people, and they allowed it. They might as
well have taken a gun and shot you with it. They should be put out
of business, not allowed to pay out a little bit to people who are
going to die so they can get on with the business of killing
people. As for the ones on that committee, I'd ask them, 'Why are
you trying to hold up the few dollars we may have coming? Is it
not enough that my husband has to die?'"

"I hope I'm wrong"

On Sept. 11, 2001, the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center
claimed nearly 3,000 lives. It also created what a panel of public
health experts called "the largest acute environmental disaster
that ever has befallen New York City."

According to the panel assembled by NIOSH, the plume from the
collapse of the twin towers carried 1,000 to 2,000 tons of
pulverized asbestos, among other toxic substances, putting
hundreds of thousands of firefighters, other emergency responders,
recovery workers, volunteers and nearby residents at risk. The
World Trade Center Health Registry estimates that on and after
9/11, more than 400,000 people were exposed to asbestos, including
90,000 firefighters and rescue or recovery workers.

Because asbestos-triggered diseases can take decades to develop,
the full death toll from that day may not be known for 40 years,
but it is already mounting. The first confirmed 9/11 asbestos
victim was Deborah Reeve, a New York City Fire Department
paramedic assigned to identify bodies in a Ground Zero morgue, who
died of mesothelioma in March 2006. She was 41.

"We've just scratched the surface," Dr. Raja Flores, chief of
thoracic surgery at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York, told
Asbestos.com in September 2015. "Between 15 and 20 years out,
we'll start seeing [asbestos-related disease] in individuals one
by one, but by 25 years out, it will be real obvious what has
happened. I hope I'm wrong, but I think I know how this is going
to turn out."

Some first responders have received compensation for asbestos-
related illnesses through the James Zadroga 9/11 Health
Compensation Act. But both the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund,
established by Congress in the aftermath of the attacks, and the
fund created under the Zadroga Act will expire over the next two
years unless Congress re-authorizes funding for both.

Beyond that, the only prospect for compensation for those who have
not yet been diagnosed may be through the asbestos liability trust
system or in court.

Even those uncertain avenues may be closed to most firefighters
and other first responders.

Under common law, the so-called firefighter's rule bars first
responders from seeking compensation from property owners or other
private parties for injuries sustained in the line of duty because
they have inherently assumed the job's risks.

Many states have passed legislation that qualifies or abolishes
the firefighter's rule, but in others first responders' only
choice is to file for worker's compensation from the city or other
jurisdiction they worked for.

In some states a firefighter's cancer is presumed to be job-
related, making it easier to file for worker's comp. But a
firefighter's employer may argue that the asbestos exposure
occurred off the job -- a bitter truth Charleston Battalion Chief
John Winn learned after his diagnosis of mesothelioma.

"Asbestos is a danger to everyone"

"He tried to file a worker's comp claim, but they wouldn't settle
it," said J.J. Winn, his son. John Winn did qualify for federal
and state disability insurance, which paid him a fraction of his
former salary. It was approved two weeks before his death.

"My dad was very dedicated to the fire service," said Winn. "He
was stationed downtown most of his career, working in the old
buildings -- even some of the old fire stations had asbestos. He
received a lifesaving award for saving a baby that he rescued from
an old low-income apartment building. That child is still living."

In the past, the protective clothing issued to firefighters' was
itself often made with asbestos. All firefighters wear protective
gear that includes face masks and oxygen tanks, but studies have
found that too often they remove the uncomfortable equipment
immediately after exiting a burning building, when asbestos and
other toxins are likely to be in the air.

When John Winn, known as Big John, became a firefighter in 1977,
attitudes were different. "In those days, if you wore a SCBA
[self-contained breathing apparatus], you were considered a
weakling; you weren't tough," said his son.

In January 2012, J.J. Winn was working alongside his father in
Battalion 4, Engine Company 6. "We were out training, and my dad
came over and said he couldn't breathe," he said. "The next night
he went to the hospital. They found fluid in his lungs, so they
thought it was pneumonia. They tried to pull the fluid out through
needles in his back, but when they went in they found the cancer
in the pleural cavity."

In his final months, John Winn launched a crusade to encourage
firefighters to get checked for asbestos disease. On his 59th
birthday, two months before his death, another department nearby
donated a fire truck that became the foundation of the Big John
Project. The truck is pearl white to represent the Minnie Pearl
Cancer Foundation, recently renamed PearlPoint Cancer Support. The
truck is trimmed in baby blue, a symbol of mesothelioma awareness.
Volunteers take the truck to firefighter events, parades and car
shows, spreading the message that early detection can save or
extend the life of a firefighter or family member.

"The Big John Project is helping firefighters to do the right
thing, to think about their health and their family," saId J.J.
Winn. "But not only firefighters. The day he received the truck,
my dad said he wanted everyone to become aware that mesothelioma
is out there and that asbestos is a danger to everyone."

Half of U.S. schools built in peak asbestos years

In 1984 the EPA surveyed and took air samples in 2,600 public
school districts and private schools and estimated that 1.4
million teachers, administrators and other employees -- along with
15 million students -- were at risk of asbestos exposure in almost
35,000 U.S. schools. That was the last known attempt to assess the
nationwide risk, but the problem clearly remains. In 2013 the
National Education Association estimated that about half the
country's approximately 100,000 schools were built between 1950
and 1969, the peak years of asbestos use in construction.

The first documented cases of teachers with asbestos-related
diseases whose only known exposure was at school were reported in
two papers published by the New York Academy of Sciences in 1991.

One study looked at four teachers who died of pleural mesothelioma
between 1983 and 1990. In each case the schools where they had
worked were known to contain asbestos insulation, but "none of
these persons physically handled the asbestos in the course of his
or her employment as a teacher." What's more, these were the first
reported cases of victims who apparently were not exposed by
contact with a family member who worked with asbestos. The paper
also reported three cases of malignant mesothelioma victims whose
only known exposure came while they were students.

The second study looked at 12 Wisconsin teachers who died of
mesothelioma from 1968 to 1987. Researchers concluded that for
nine of them, their schools were the only potential sources of
asbestos exposure. In eight of those schools inspections found
asbestos that was friable, or easily crumbled by touch and more
likely to become airborne. Two findings bolstered the evidence
that the victims were exposed on the job: Three of them taught at
one school, and two at another. Even more surprising, the latter
two victims were sisters. The researchers noted the world medical
literature contains less than 10 reports of family clustering of
mesothelioma.

"They did nothing"

"My family was not cancer-prone," said Roger Hall, "and I've never
smoked. Because of that I never thought much about ever having
cancer. So when the doctor said I had mesothelioma, my first
question for me and my wife was, now where could I have got it?"

From 1976 until he retired in 2003, Hall taught history and social
studies at Letcher High School in Letcher County, Ky., near the
Virginia border. Every day, he took his breaks and ate lunch in
the school's boiler room.

According to the negligence lawsuit the Halls filed in September
2015 against the Letcher County school board and the state
department of education, in 1988 tests found that the boiler was
insulated with asbestos. There was also asbestos in floor and
ceiling tiles throughout the building. The complaint charges that
the school system failed to remove the asbestos for two to three
years and never warned teachers and other employees of the danger.
The school board and state have yet to respond.

"My mesothelioma was not in the lungs but the abdomen, so I didn't
inhale the asbestos but ingested it," said Hall. "The boiler room
was the teachers' lounge and lunch room, where all the teachers
would go to drink coffee and eat lunch. There was a table and
chairs, and pop machines and chip machines were put in. We all sat
within 25 feet of the boiler. That's the only possible way I could
have ingested asbestos."

The Halls could have chosen to sue the maker of the furnace or the
asbestos used to insulate it. But as they learned more they
focused their anger at the school system.

"I requested from the county board all the records on asbestos in
the school," said Evelyn Hall. "I saw that they were written up
(for an asbestos violation) in 1988. I kept looking. They were
written up again multiple times in '88, '89, '90. They did
nothing. They never shut the room down. We realized that the real
problem was not the boiler but the school system, for not telling
employees. If that's not gross negligence there isn't such a
thing."

Roger Hall's multiple surgeries and hospital stays have extended
his life beyond his doctors' expectations. His treatment has cost
more than $450,000. So far that's been covered by insurance, but
if the Halls get any money from the school district or state,
they'll have to pay it back. In June, Roger began another course
of chemotherapy, but he had to stop halfway through because his
organs were in danger of failing.

"Some days it's a real battle," said Evelyn Hall. "He can do
nothing a person wants to do. He can't walk outside by himself.
Last night I picked him up off the living room floor. Doctor's
appointments are basically our life. We're supposed to have some
more tests in a few weeks... but we just don't know."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro-hit School Forced to Close
-------------------------------------------------
The Sentinel reported that the school at the centre of an asbestos
scare is to close on safety grounds.

Pupils will not return to Sutherland Primary Academy, in Blurton,
following the October half-term break.

It follows new safety advice which warns there is the 'potential
of a major asbestos fall' from the ceilings.

Instead talks are being held to try to find an alternative site
elsewhere in Stoke-on-Trent for the school.

Now headteacher Garry Boote has warned pupils are unlikely to
return to the Sutherland site until Easter -- and could then be
taught in temporary buildings on the playing fields.

The closure comes just days after The Sentinel revealed nine rooms
-- including classrooms, the boys' toilets and the dining hall --
had been sealed off. The school has 510 pupils and 80 staff.

Mr Boote said: "The potential for the building to become unsafe is
great. This would put children, staff and visitors at an
unacceptable risk. We have now started planning for a move to an
alternative school premises."

It is possible that the nursery children will remain in a separate
building at Sutherland -- with the rest of the children bussed to
and from their new site each day.

Chairman of governors Kathy Niblett said: "The task of moving from
the current site cannot be underestimated.

"We anticipate our use of an alternative premises will continue
until Spring. We would then hope to return to the Sutherland site,
either to a building with the asbestos removed or temporary school
buildings on our field."

Parents have been assured they will not have to meet the cost of
paying for their children to get to and from the new school. But
they will have to find additional childcare because the pupils
will have an extra week off and not return to school until
November 9.

Mother-of-three Kate Browning, aged 29, of Newstead, said: "The
headmaster cannot win at the moment -- he either keeps the school
open and gets moaned at or shuts it and still gets moaned at. The
school is doing all it can and a number of parents are behind the
staff."

Fellow mum-of-three Gemma Rutter, aged 28, of Ashby Crescent, who
has two children at Sutherland, said: "I am happy as long as my
children are safe. The school is providing a bus and doing all it
can."

Parent Jim Davis has called for a fund-raising campaign to help
the school. It comes as the school is set to bid for up to GBP2
million emergency funding to try to remove the asbestos.

The 32-year-old, of Beaconsfield Drive, who has two children at
the school, said: "The school has been here for a long time and it
would be good to do something to help. The work needs to be done."

A Government report has revealed dozens of Potteries schools are
likely to be riddled with asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: UK Calls Eradication of Fibro-Infested Areas
-------------------------------------------------------------
SHPOnline.co.uk reported that a cross-party group of MPs have
called for the eradication of all the remaining asbestos in
Britain's workplaces and public buildings.

A report by the all-party parliamentary group on occupational
safety and health calls for regulations requiring the safe phased
and planned removal of all the remaining asbestos in Britain.

The parliamentary group found asbestos is still a serious threat.
According to official figures, 5,000 people in Britain are likely
to die prematurely as a result of asbestos exposure. This is
around three times the number of road accident deaths.

Simple regulations for managing asbestos in the workplace, however
good, will never protect workers from risk. So long as asbestos is
found in any place where someone could be exposed there will be a
danger. The group point out that the only way to eradicate
mesothelioma in Britain is by removing asbestos. That will not be
easy and there is a need for a realistic timetable, but work
towards that should start now, they say.

In the report, the group calls for:

   "All commercial, public, and rented domestic premises should
have to conduct, and register with the HSE, a survey done by a
registered consultant which indicates whether asbestos containing
material is present, and, if so, where it is and in what
condition, to be completed no later than 2022
where asbestos is identified in any premises, all refurbishment,
repair or remedial work done in the vicinity of the asbestos
containing material should include the removal of the asbestos.
Where no such work takes place, or is planned within the
foreseeable future, the dutyholder must develop and implement a
plan for the removal of all asbestos which ensures that removal is
completed as soon as is reasonably practical but certainly no
later than 2035. In the case of public buildings and educational
establishments, such as schools, this should be done by 2028
the HSE, local authorities and other enforcing agencies must
develop a programme of workplace inspections to verify that all
asbestos containing material identified is properly marked and
managed, and that asbestos eradication plans are in place and
include, as part of the plan, an acceptable timeframe for the
eradication. Resources should be made available to the enforcing
agencies to ensure that they can ensure that all workplaces and
public places are complying with the regulation relating to
management and removal, and that disposal is being done
responsibly and safely before any house sale is completed, a
survey should be done which includes a survey of the presence of
asbestos. Any asbestos containing material should be labelled.
Information on the presence of asbestos should be given to any
contractor working on the house."

Ian Lavery, chair of the all-party group said "There is far too
much complacency about the asbestos which we can still find in
hundreds of thousands of workplaces as well as a majority of
schools where children face exposure to this killer dust. We
believe that the Government needs to start now on developing a
programme to ensure that asbestos is safely removed from every
workplace and public place so that we can end, once and for all
this dreadful legacy which has killed so many people, and will
continue to kill until asbestos is eradicated."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family, 3-Yr. Old Exposed to Dangerous Fibro
-------------------------------------------------------------
HSE News reported that tenants of a house in Lincolnshire,
including a three year old girl, were exposed to dangerous levels
of deadly asbestos dust, a court was told.

A judge at Lincoln Crown Court fined Blankney Estates Ltd, the
company which rented the property in Scopwick, after it pleaded
guilty to health and safety offences. The court heard it did not
manage adequately what were clearly deteriorating asbestos
materials, and did not ensure that work within the property to
remove an asbestos-lagged tank was properly planned and carried
out safely by competent contractors.

The same court also fined plumbing company Michael Grace Ltd and
Adam and John Thurlby, who were directors of a family-owned
demolition company ART Dismantling Co Ltd. These defendants were
prosecuted by HSE for breaching the Control of Asbestos
Regulations (CAR) 2006 when they worked on removing the tank from
the house.

Farming company Blankney Estates Ltd, registered address of
Pannell House, Charles Street, Leicester, but with its main
operations in Lincolnshire, pleaded guilty to breaching Section
3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. It was fined
GBP50,000 and ordered to pay GBP20,000 in costs. HSE said it
failed in its Section 3 duty to take reasonable steps to ensure
the premises were safe and to ensure that the work to remove the
tank was done safely.

Adam Robert Thurlby, of Sandhill Road, Farndon, Newark,
Nottinghamshire, and John Thurlby, of Malt Kiln Lane, Eagle Moor,
Lincoln, also pleaded guilty. They were each fined GBP12,500 and
were each ordered to pay GBP7,500 costs for contravening five CAR
Regulations while acting as directors of ART Dismantling.

Michael Grace Ltd, registered address of St John Street, London,
but trading locally in Lincolnshire, pleaded guilty to three CAR
offences and was fined GBP10,000 plus GBP5,000 in costs.

Asbestos can be found in any building built before the year 2000
and causes around 5,000 deaths every year. HSE's website has
extensive information on asbestos and how to manage the risks
associated with it http://www.hse.gov.uk/asbestos/


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers Exposed to Fibro in WA Wheatbelt
---------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Kagi, writing for ABC News, reported that there are fears
nearly 100 people working on a Water Corporation maintenance
project have been exposed to asbestos particles, but authorities
insist the risk to workers is low.

Water Corporation said 88 people, including its own employees and
contract workers, had potentially been exposed to asbestos while
conducting maintenance work in Western Australia's Wheatbelt.

They were working over several months on a tank at the
corporation's Minnivale reservoir near Wyalkatchem, when an
asbestos risk with the tank's floor and panels was discovered.

Water Corporation said there was no risk to the drinking water
supply and it was confident the danger to workers was "relatively
low", but said it was treating the matter seriously.

The information was first revealed publicly by WA Labor's Dave
Kelly, a day after he received what was described as a
confidential briefing by Minister Mia Davies.

Ms Davies accused Mr Kelly of "moral bankruptcy" because the
Opposition's water spokesman had been asked not to release the
information publicly before all workers had been told, sparking
heated scenes in Parliament.

"There are potentially people out there who are going to find this
out through the media because the member over here was a gutter
snipe trying to score political points," Ms Davies told
Parliament.

"I told you that not everyone had been advised, it is absolutely
disgraceful that because you are scoring political points there
are people that will find out about this through the media."

But Mr Kelly said he was told the affected workers were all due to
be notified by night, which is why he brought the issue to the
public notice.

"All these people exposed on your watch and I'm morally bankrupt?"
Mr Kelly said in the chamber.

He maintained there was no confidentially attached to the briefing
he was given.

Independent review underway

Water Corporation chief executive Sue Murphy said the majority of
workers had now been informed but the organisation was still
trying to make contact with some people who were overseas, after
the organisation first became aware of the problem.

Ms Murphy said an examination by independent experts had
determined the risk to workers was low but those potentially
exposed would be regularly monitored.

"We have done significant testing on site and that testing has not
indicated any trace of asbestos in the air or on any surfaces so
we are reasonably confident most of the work has been contained,"
she said.

"We don't want people to panic but we take it seriously and we are
appalled we have been in any way part of a situation like this."

Ms Murphy said a detailed inquiry with "independent reviewers" was
now being conducted.

Earlier, Mr Kelly called for a full independent inquiry into the
incident which he described as "completely unacceptable".

"This is a clear failure of the State Government to protect their
own staff and members of the public and we would be calling [for]
an independent investigation into how this occurred," he said.

"It should never have happened and the Water Corporation should
have known there was asbestos in that material before it was
worked on."

The Community and Public Sector Union said it was concerned there
had been a communications breakdown between contractors and Water
Corporation staff working on the project.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Seeks Better Fibro Demolition Rules
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Douglass, writing for KATU.com, reported that a company that
demolishes homes in Portland says some demonstrators at work sites
are getting out of control, and they're calling for calm.

They also say the government needs to do a better job of
regulating home demolitions.

Two unoccupied houses on the 600 block of Northeast Thompson are
set to be knocked down.

The company demolishing them has serious concerns, specifically
about how the government regulates asbestos, the fireproof
substance used in many old buildings before it was found to cause
cancer.

"We're doing our job"

Protests have been happening all over the city with some voicing
their opposition to demolition at the site on Northeast Thompson.

"The entire displacement of a community is a terrible idea," Sara
Long, who used to rent one of the homes on Thompson set to be
demolished, told KATU in August.

Dan and Lisa Riehl, who co-own the demolition company, Dan Riehl
Excavating, say people need to calm down.

"We have sidewalk closed signs," said Lisa regarding other work
sites. "They just walk through and they're gonna be the first ones
that if a piece of wood falls and hits 'em, then, you know, it's a
lawsuit."

"They do have the right to complain," said Dan. "It's a free
country, but we're out doing our job just like you're doing your
job."

The Riehls say their business demolishes as many as five or six
homes a month.

With demolitions up citywide, they say they're busy but they also
say what they're doing is nothing new.

And they say a lot of the homes being torn down, including the two
on Northeast Thompson, have a lot of problems.

"It's got a lot of dry rot right back in the back of the house.
You can see it," said Dan regarding one of the homes.

The Riehls also say unlike some others in their business they now
require all builders they work with to show them proof that homes
are clear of asbestos before they knock them down.

"I have been after all of my builders," said Dan. "I actually lost
a builder because he won't supply the paperwork."

They showed KATU documents saying the two houses on Northeast
Thompson had asbestos that had to be cleared out.

Right now, the state Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
does not require builders to produce those kinds of inspection
reports for small residential buildings before demolitions.

The Riehls say the agency should.

"If there's asbestos that has to be removed you include it in your
price so it's not like you're making any more money one way or the
other," said Lisa.

The DEQ is going to start requiring asbestos surveys and removals
for even small residential buildings before they're torn down.

But the agency is still working out how the rule will be enforced.

Right now builders still won't have to submit paperwork before a
demolition, which could change.

The DEQ will consider whether the requirement for builders to
submit paperwork would be feasible legally and if there's enough
money to make it happen.

But that could take a while, possibly more than a year.

A DEQ spokeswoman told KATU the agency does require asbestos-
removal contractors to submit a notification of demolition.

Ross Caron, spokesman for Portland's Bureau of Development
Services, sent KATU an email saying the city's issued 222
demolition permits for single-family dwellings so far. Caron said
315 were issued and 278 were doled out in 2013.

Caron also sent KATU the following information answering questions
the station asked about asbestos requirements:

   -- Asbestos Regulations: Asbestos-related regulations and their
enforcement of those regulations are by the EPA via DEQ .See
www.deq.state.or.us/aq/asbestos. The website has the general
requirements in regard to asbestos survey requirements, abatement
rules and requirements for demolitions, specifically, as well as
other information.

   -- City of Portland Inspections of Demolition Permits:
Inspections of on-site conditions during demolition is limited to
things related to erosion control Title 10 Property Maintenance
(Title 29) relating to general trash and debris accumulation on
the private property. We also encourage contractors to
contain/clean any trash/debris that is in the right-of-way.

   -- Asbestos Surveys: The City is not required to nor does check
for an asbestos survey as part of a demolition permit. As part of
a demolition permit, the City is not required to, but does obtain
a signed certification from the property owner or a representative
of the property owner to verify that the building has been tested
for asbestos and either does not contain asbestos, or does contain
asbestos and it will be remediated prior to demolition. The City
doesn't have a role in enforcement of the testing or remediation.

   -- DEQ's current regulations do not require asbestos surveys
for residential buildings with four or less dwelling units. Senate
Bill 705 will require (effective 1/1/16) asbestos surveys for
demolitions of ALL residential buildings. DEQ is in the process of
developing rules to implement and enforce this new requirement.
Requiring the survey to be submitted to the local jurisdiction (in
the case of City of Portland, BDS) as part of a demolition permit
is under consideration as part of those rules.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aussies At Risk from Fibro in Imported Cement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Smail, writing for ABC News, reported that the Asbestos
Industry Association said the potentially deadly material was
discovered in cement compound board from China.

"The samples were tested in Asia with a certificate saying they
were asbestos-free," association president Michael Shepherd told
the ABC.

"We analysed those samples according to Australian standards and
detected the presence of chrysotile or white asbestos."

The discovery was the latest in a number of imported building
products that have tested positive for asbestos in the past year,
including cement compound board in Canberra.

But Mr Shepherd said Australian border protection officials were
not stopping the potentially deadly products from entering the
country.

"Importers are accepting these goods in good faith and they're
relying on the documentation from overseas stating these products
are asbestos-free," he said.

"From what we know, customs are checking less than 5 per cent of
all products that come into Australia, so it's very difficult to
identify which products are coming in and which products do
contain asbestos."

The Immigration Department said the Australian Border Force
carries out risk assessments on all imported cargo and physically
examines cargo considered high risk.

It said 31 suppliers, importers and products are being monitored,
with 16 considered high risk in terms of asbestos contamination.

'No guarantee new Australian buildings are risk-free'

The Asbestos Related Disease Support Society Queensland has called
for urgent action to protect people who could be exposed to
asbestos.

"It will bring through another wave of asbestos-related diseases,"
spokeswoman Amanda Richards said.

"I mean, these people might have worked with these products for a
while before they realise it's asbestos."

The Department of Immigration and Border Protection said it was
looking into the matter.

Australian Border Force commissioner Roman Quaedvlieg told Senate
Estimates the problem was ongoing.

He was asked by Senator Lisa Singh if he agreed with the Asbestos
Safety and Eradication Agency that there was no guarantee
Australian buildings built after the asbestos ban in 2003 would be
risk-free.

"Yes I would," Mr Quaedvlieg replied.

He was also quizzed about the role customs officials play in
protecting Australians from contaminated building products.

"That's where we can stop this, at the gate so to speak," Senator
Singh said.

"You are right. We have certainly raised the level of awareness
and consciousness in our workforce in relation to their
responsibilities in this regard," Mr Quaedvlieg said.

He said he was due to travel to China to discuss the matter.

"I make no secret of the fact that drugs is very high up on the
agenda, but certainly prohibited imports like asbestos will be
part of that conversation," he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Hospital Staff Could Be Exposed to Fibro
----------------------------------------------------------------
TVNZ.co.nz reported that the hospital morgue has been closed; and
while patients and staff are being told they are at low risk,
trades people working at the hospital in the past could have come
in contact with the potentially deadly material.

Following the announcement that traces of asbestos had been
discovered in the clinical services block at Dunedin Hospital
further results showed asbestos in the mortuary.

Swabs have returned positive (which show the presence of asbestos
fibres) for the mortuary area on the lower ground floor, the main
stairwell (from the lower ground floor through to the second
floor) and the third floor laboratories lobby area; plus several
rooms in molecular pathology.

All air testing to date remains clear.

A Southland DHB spokeswoman says the mortuary has been closed.
Alternative arrangements for funeral directors, police, the
coroner's office and others who come to the mortuary have been
advised.

The central stairwell (off Cumberland Street) will be closed
tonight and it is planned that decontamination cleaning will take
place early morning.

Some lifts in the ward block are available for use, as is the
south stairwell.

The decontamination cleaning is expected to be complete by the end
of the day.

The ailing state of Dunedin Hospital is in the spotlight again,
following the discovery of potentially deadly asbestos on four
floors of the building.

The find has forced the cancellation of ultrasound appointments,
and access restrictions.

"We took immediate action, patient safety, staff safety. Public
safety is our number one priority, so we closed down those areas,"
Southern District Health Board chief executive officer Carol
Heatley said.

An asbestos removal team has been brought in to address the issue,
while the discovery has sparked accusations the Government is
stalling a $300 million redevelopment of the hospital.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: School Fibro Problems May Cost EUR10MM
-------------------------------------------------------
The Sentinel reported that pupils at a school being closed down
after an asbestos outbreak are set to move into a mothballed city
academy building.

The former St Peter's Academy site has been lined up for children
and staff left homeless by the health scare at Sutherland Primary
Academy.

It means pupils face being bussed between Blurton and their new
school in Penkhull every day until at least Easter.

Now talks are being held between the school and the Diocese of
Lichfield -- which owns the St Peter's site -- to discuss the
costs of using the building.

Nine rooms -- including classrooms, the boys' toilets and the
dining hall -- are currently shut at Sutherland following the
asbestos outbreak.

The school will close for the last time and pupils are set to move
to the St Peter's site on November 9.

Headteacher Garry Boote said: "The former St Peter's Academy in
Penkhull represents the only solution in Stoke-on-Trent that will
allow almost all of our children and staff to be at one location.
Our opinion, guided by experts and Stoke-on-Trent City Council, is
that this building offers a good accommodation option."

The building is the number one choice because it is big, has good
sports facilities and it is easier to transport the children to
and from Blurton. But the building has been empty for two years,
needs to be thoroughly cleaned and work needs to be carried out to
the floors.

It comes as the cost of removing the asbestos from Sutherland or
building a new school could rise to GBP10 million.

Mr Boote added: "Our discussions with the Department for Education
have been productive and a high-level meeting is taking place."

Plans are set to be lodged later to build 59 houses on the St
Peter's site. But residents have raised concerns about extra
houses in the area.

Penkhull Residents' Association chairman Charles Pantin said: "I
would be delighted to welcome the pupils from Sutherland Primary
Academy to Penkhull.

"The building has been empty for a long, long time and it would be
nice to see it brought back to use again.

"I just hope the traffic management system will be robust enough
to not disrupt residents living near the site."

The Diocese of Lichfield declined to comment on the latest
developments.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Soldiers with Mesothelioma Unfairly Treated
------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Owen, writing for Independent.co.uk, reported that
thousands of British veterans who will develop terminal cancer due
to being exposed to asbestos during their military service are
being unfairly treated by the Ministry of Defence (MoD),
campaigners and victims have claimed.

Current laws mean that the MoD does not have to pay compensation
for accidents or injuries suffered before 1987, which rules out
those with mesothelioma caused by asbestos exposure decades ago.
While veterans may be eligible for a war disablement pension, this
is a fraction of what civilians are paid in compensation. Unlike
their civilian counterparts, veterans are not allowed to take a
lump sum.

This means those with mesothelioma, a cancer usually resulting in
death within a year or two of diagnosis, get very little compared
to those who did not serve. The unequal treatment amounts to a
serious breach of the Armed Forces covenant, which is supposed to
ensure veterans are not disadvantaged because of their service,
according to the Royal British Legion.

Many service personnel were exposed to asbestos when working in
the boiler rooms of ships, where the material was routinely used
to insulate pipes in the decades after the outbreak of the Second
World War. And more than 2,500 Royal Navy veterans will die from
mesothelioma in the next three decades, according to researchers
at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM).

While civilians with the fatal disease are entitled to a six
figure lump sum under a Government compensation scheme, former
service personnel get a war pension amounting to a few tens of
thousands -- assuming they survive for a year after diagnosis.

The Royal British Legion is calling for the Government to redress
the balance and offer veterans the option to receive a lump sum.
According to the charity, a 63-year-old old civilian could expect
to receive around GBP180,000 in compensation under the
Mesothelioma Act passed. Yet one year's worth of war pension paid
at the maximum rate for a non-married naval veteran amounts to
just over GBP31,000.

"The Government's current compensation arrangements for those
veterans suffering with asbestos-related cancer are unfair, and
have to change," said a spokesperson for the charity.

"In the current set-up, some veterans suffering with mesothelioma
could receive around GBP150,000 less in compensation than their
civilian counterparts," they added.

Veterans should be offered compensation "at least equal to how
much the courts and the Government have decided that civilians
deserve," said the spokesperson.

Admiral Lord West, former First Sea Lord and Chief of the Naval
Staff, commented: "There needs to be a reassessment of what is
paid to former service personnel as they are clearly at a
disadvantage compared to their civilian counterparts."

And cross-bench peer Lord Alton said: "It is an injustice that our
servicemen and women are discriminated against in this way."

Organisations such as The Royal Navy and Royal Marines Charity,
The Royal Navy and Royal Marines Widows' Association, and The
Royal Naval Association are backing the calls for fairer
treatment.

Non-military campaigners also support the demands. Graham Dring,
coordinator, Greater Manchester Asbestos Victims Support Group,
said: "The MOD were no less culpable than the negligent employers
who exposed civilian workers to asbestos and it seems unjust that
veterans can only claim a War Disablement Pension and no other
compensation for pre-1987 exposure."

The MoD accepts that military service is to blame in cases where
sufferers served in the Royal Navy between 1939 and 1973. Yet
there are only 65 veterans currently receiving a war pension due
to mesothelioma. There is a "lack of awareness" of the pension
scheme and "it may be that sufferers and their families have other
priorities, given the inexorable rapid decline in the sufferer's
health," according to a report on the armed forces compensation
scheme by the MoD's independent medical expert group earlier.

Professor Julian Peto, Cancer Research-UK chair of epidemiology at
the LSHTM, commented: "Limiting mesothelioma claims to asbestos
exposure after 1987 would be absurd and unfair. Mesothelioma
almost never develops less than 25 years after asbestos exposure,
and the risk is still increasing 60 years later."

In a statement, a MOD spokesperson said: "The War Pensions Scheme
provides a tax-free pension and supplementary allowances, along
with dependent's benefits. We are considering whether any further
flexibility can be provided for future mesothelioma claimants
under this scheme. The Government places great importance on the
health and wellbeing of our veterans and we are clear that they
should not be disadvantaged as a result of their service."

Case study: Fred Minall

Fred Minall spent almost a decade in the Royal Navy, before
joining the police where he reached the rank of inspector. Now
retired and living in Northampton, the 74-year-old, married with
three sons and six grandsons, was recently diagnosed with
mesothelioma and has put in a claim to get a war disablement
pension. "Between 1957 and 1965 I served as a mechanical engineer.
The pipes were covered with asbestos and before we could touch any
piece of machinery this insulating material had to be broken away.
We would get it all over our overalls and bodies. I've been ill
since January, it wasn't until August that the doctor diagnosed
mesothelioma after an X-Ray, and a CT scan established it had
spread into my chest cavity. I've discovered that because of when
I served I cannot claim compensation from the MoD. I was very very
shocked about this and feel it's unfair, it's unjust. There must
be literally hundreds if not thousands of people in my situation
that are simply being pushed aside in terms of compensation. The
law ought to be changed because we are being discriminated
against, which in this day and age is unacceptable."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Dies After 18 Months of Fibro Exposure
-----------------------------------------------------------
Express & Echo reported that retired contract manager Michael
Parry died of exposure to asbestos while doing jobs for different
employers during his working life.

The 65-year-old from Durham Close, Exmouth, was diagnosed with
malignant epithelioid, an asbestos-related disease, in January
2014, and died earlier at home on June 9.

An inquest held at Exeter's County Hall heard Mr Parry had begun
to feel very unwell in December 2013, and simple tasks such as
putting on his shoes and walking upstairs left him out of breath.
He was later diagnosed with the asbestos-related disease and
received radiotherapy, but was not suitable for surgical
intervention.

A statement written by Mr Parry before his death listed his work
history, with roles including factory worker and labourer, and
stated when he was exposed to asbestos.

The list included sweeping up dust left behind when asbestos was
removed from pipe work at a textiles manufacturer in North Wales,
and coming into contact with asbestos while on tour with the Royal
Marines.

Mr Parry added what measures he took to protect himself once
dangers of asbestos became recognised.

His brother, Keith, said in a statement they worked together so
had both come into contact with asbestos.

Recording a verdict of industrial disease, coroner Luisa Nicholson
said: "During the course of his working life he was exposed to
asbestos, apparently on numerous occasions, while working for
different employers and consequently developed malignant
epithelioid."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ACT Spends 26K for Acton Tunnel Fibro Clean-Up
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kirsten Lawson, writing for The Canberra Times, reported that the
ACT government spent $26,400 having asbestos removed from the
Acton Tunnel late.

The asbestos was removed by Ozbestos, a firm contracted to remove
the asbestos fire doors that seal the fire compartments in the
centre of the tunnel.

The tunnel was closed for two days after an excavator shredded 60
metres of asbestos tiles from the ceiling as it tried to drive
through. The tunnel was finally reopened, after the closure caused
major rush-hour headaches for Canberra drivers.

More than 120 damaged bonded asbestos ceiling panels were removed
from the tunnel after the accident. Asbestos removal workers and
assessors were on site during the week to ensure everything that
entered the tunnel was decontaminated before being removed,
according to a government spokesperson.

The Chief Minister's directorate annual report shows the fire-door
asbestos was removed late.

The spokesperson said the government was aware at the time that
"just like many Canberra homes and other buildings", the ceiling
tiles of the tunnel were made from bonded asbestos. They said that
when undisturbed, bonded asbestos posed no health or safety risk.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Delays Tyne Tunnels' Re-Opening
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gary Welford, writing for The Shield Gazette, reported that the
reopening of the Tyne pedestrian and cyclist tunnels after a
multi-million-pound revamp has been delayed again.

The tunnels have been closed since May 2013, and the work was
originally due to be completed by August 2014.

But the scheme has been beset by problems, with the latest the
discovery of more asbestos.

Now the tunnels are unlikely to reopen before summer 2017 --
nearly three years behind schedule.

The cost of the refurbishment has already increased from GBP4.9m
to GBP7.1m, and the latest delays are expected to push the bill
even higher.

The tunnels link Howdon and Jarrow under the Tyne, and they were
the first purpose-built combined pedestrian and cyclist tunnels
ever built when they opened in 1951.

Their wooden-tread escalators, equivalent to the height of the
Angel of the North, were once among the longest in the world.

The refurbishment work includes the replacement of two of the
escalators with inclined lifts. The others will be restored and
kept in situ as exhibits, but will not be operational.

Contractors GB Building Solutions were removing asbestos from the
lining in the escalator shafts and lower halls, which have a
problem with corrosion.

The work was already taking longer than anticipated, when the
contractor went into administration in March.

Now, more asbestos has been discovered in the Grade II listed
structure, leading to fresh delays.

Alastair Swan, principal engineer for the tunnels' owner, the
North East Combined Authority (NECA) said: "The discovery of
further asbestos was made during our inspection of the tunnels
following the collapse of the original contractor, GB Building
Solutions.

"We had been advised that they had completed the asbestos removal
works.

"We are now going out to tender for the removal or encapsulation
of the remaining asbestos.

"We expect the asbestos works to commence early in 2016, and we
are committed to the complete treatment of this hazardous
material.

"We are looking to complete the asbestos work as quickly as
possible to enable us to continue the refurbishment works.

"We continue to progress off-site works, including the manufacture
of the new inclined elevators.

"We understand this setback will come as a blow to many tunnel
users. We apologise for the inconvenience and ask for their
continued patience and forbearance while we work to clean up the
tunnels and restore this important pedestrian and cyclist link
across the Tyne."

The free-to-use, timetabled shuttle bus and a Night Service for
shift workers continue to operate.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro-Ridden Ruins of Hotel Left Uncovered
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charlie Mitchell, writing for Stuff.co.nz, reported that the
asbestos-ridden remains of a North Canterbury heritage hotel have
been left uncovered at a residential site for more than a year,
causing neighbours to fear for their health.

The Waipara Hotel in North Canterbury was destroyed in a fire,
just three days after it was sold to a new owner.

It was uninsured and ultimately torn down on July 19.

Since then, the rubble had remained uncovered at the site, which
was near houses and a backpackers.

Tests confirmed the rubble contained "significant" amounts of
asbestos, exceeding health and safety guidelines for a residential
area.

An Environment Canterbury (ECan) abatement notice ordering its
removal, and dated to March, had not been enforced.

Peter Herbert, who lived about 150 metres from the site, said
members of the community were concerned for their health.

"It's a risk to everyone who lives around here," he said.

"The plain fact is there's an open asbestos site sitting 100
metres from the main road. That's the issue."

Howling norwesters had picked up recently, he said, and even
though the rubble was protected by overgrown weeds, there was no
guarantee it was safe.

The rubble pile -- which was 3m high and spanned 600 cubic metres
-- had a turbulent history.

Shortly after the hotel burned down, new owners Sedimento Ltd
hired a local contractor to dispose of the remains.

About 300 tonnes of rubble was burned on-site and taken to a site
on Deans Ave in Christchurch.

Five days later, authorities discovered the rubble had been moved
and ordered it to be returned to Waipara, where it later tested
positive for asbestos.

It was unknown if asbestos had contaminated any areas between
Waipara and Christchurch.

It later emerged the contractor did not have a certificate of
competency for dealing with asbestos, according to a report
prepared by a joint-council Waste Management Committee.

The site on Deans Ave had since been de-contaminated.

Another neighbouring resident in Waipara, Fred Hicks, said it was
unbelievable the rubble had been allowed to stay there for so
long.

"The dirt on top isn't going to stay there five minutes. The
wind's going to blow it everywhere," he said.

The community was frustrated because the asbestos halted progress
at the site, which was once the centre of the community.

"It's more or less buggered the whole community, and no one can do
anything there while the asbestos is there.

"It's just turned into a dump. It's an eyesore."

A remedial action plan prepared by consultancy company Geoscience
found the only safe course of action was to remove the material
from Waipara.

It said the quantity of asbestos "poses a risk to human health
under the rural residential land-use category".

About 15 residents forced a meeting with authorities in Waipara
earlier seeking an explanation.

ECan said it had not stepped in to enforce its abatement notice
because it believed a solution could be found.

The asbestos posed "minimal risk" to neighbours as it was still
bound to the concrete, RMA monitoring and compliance manager Marty
Mortiaux said.

"We are aware of this situation and are satisfied the proposed
outcome can be achieved without resorting to enforcement actions.

"However, our priority is that the land is made safe so
enforcement remains an option if required."

Sedimento Ltd director Paul Sault did not respond to requests for
comment.

It was understood the site had recently been sold, and its new
owners would take it over at the end of November.

The new owners had provided a contractual undertaking with ECan to
remove the rubble and remediate the site, it said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oregon Fibro Rules Lags Behind Minimum Standards
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fedor Zarkhin, writing for The Oregonian, reported that Oregon
lags 49 other states in following a federal environmental standard
considered essential to protecting people from cancer-causing
asbestos fibers.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency requires contractors to
give fair warning before demolishing any commercial, industrial or
major residential building. The requirement is designed to ensure
asbestos is safely removed before buildings come down. If asbestos
isn't removed, workers or passers-by risk breathing the mineral's
airborne fibers and contracting a fatal lung disease decades
later.

State and federal regulators throughout the country adhere to the
requirement for pre-demolition reporting, documents and interviews
show.

But Oregon Department of Environmental Quality officials only
requires contractors to notify them if they plan to remove
asbestos from a condemned building, not if they believe they don't
have to look for it or looked and didn't find any.

Regulators elsewhere say that's not enough.

"Just because a contractor thinks there's no asbestos doesn't mean
that there isn't," said John Angi, an asbestos specialist with the
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District in
California.

EPA officials said they were first alerted to the problem in
Oregon regulations by The Oregonian/OregonLive. An agency
spokesman said that though the agency always reserves the right to
withdraw a state's authority to enforce federal rules if it finds
a significant problem with how the state is running its asbestos
program.

The federal rule applies to commercial buildings and apartment
buildings. Oregon environmental regulators should have known about
every one of the approximately 190 such buildings torn down in
Portland from 2011 to mid-2015. But because the state only finds
out about the ones where asbestos is removed, regulators knew
about only half.

In an email sent late night, Department of Environmental Quality
spokeswoman Jennifer Flynt said she doesn't think the department
doesn't have the power tell contractors to file written notice
before all demolitions.

The department's rules have never allowed for buildings to be torn
down with asbestos inside, Flynt said, adding that the state is
"implementing and enforcing a comprehensive asbestos regulatory
program as required in the interest of protecting public health."

The agency previously has said it plans a comprehensive review of
asbestos regulations in 2017.

Split from federal rules

It's unclear how Oregon's approach to asbestos came to diverge
from the federal standard.

Under federal laws such as the Clean Air Act, the EPA develops
standards for the whole country, then usually hands the authority
to enforce those standards to state or local agencies. Those
agencies are free to develop their own rules, on one condition:
Local rules have to be as stringent or more stringent than the
federal ones.

The EPA gave the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
authority to enforce asbestos rules in 1988.

Federal rules on the books since the 1970s state that contractors
must give regulators written notice before tearing down any large
structure. At least 10 days ahead of a demolition, regulators must
say what they're demolishing, when they're demolishing it, and how
they checked for asbestos. Yet Oregon rulemaking documents show
that the department has not required pre-demolition reports since
at least as long ago as 2001.

A review of current state asbestos rules and the Department of
Environmental Equality website found no mention of a notification
requirement for commercial and large residential demolitions.

As a test, The Oregonian/OregonLive asked the department for a
2013 pre-demolition report on a 1960s-vintage, 17,000-square-foot
building in Portland.

The department said it had no such record.

About 90 buildings have been torn down in Portland since 2011 that
the Department of Environmental Quality should have learned about
but didn't, according to a review of city building permits and
state asbestos removal data.

The buildings ranged in size from a storage tank, to a three-story
Northwest-Portland hotel built in 1902, and a 21,665 square-foot
Safeway on Southwest Barbur Boulevard.

Had contractors in any of these projects hired a licensed asbestos
removal company, the company would have been required to report
its work in advance to the Department of Environmental Quality.
But because no such work was done, environmental regulators
received no notice before the buildings were demolished.

Asked by email in July why its rules appeared to diverge from EPA
standards, department of environmental quality officials wrote
that federal asbestos rules don't apply when a building contains
less than certain threshold amounts of asbestos-containing
materials.

That assertion is at odds with the language of federal regulation,
which explicitly says that "written notice of intention to
demolish" is required even when the amount of asbestos is less
than the threshold cited by the state. EPA officials said the
notification requirement extends to demolitions involving zero
asbestos.

It's unclear how the EPA missed the apparent disconnect between
federal rules and Oregon's.

The Department of Environmental Quality last made substantial
changes to its asbestos rules in 2003. It then asked the EPA to
review those rules, said agency spokesman Mark MacIntyre. But 12
years later, the agency has yet to do that.

"We have not yet taken action on that request, but we intend to do
so," MacIntyre said.

What other states do

The Oregonian/OregonLive checked every state's policies on
demolitions online or by phone. In every state, the review found,
contractors have to submit notifications either to their state or
local environmental agencies, or to the EPA.

Agency officials explained why learning about demolitions in
advance was an important way of ensuring asbestos is removed
before a demolition.

Without the notification, "it would be impossible to safeguard the
public," said a spokesman for the clean air agency that oversees
demolitions in Los Angeles.

Notifications help ensure contractors actually look for asbestos
as opposed to simply saying they did. Some environmental agencies
demand a copy of the asbestos inspection report.

Katie Skipper, an agency spokeswoman with the Northwest Clean Air
Agency, in Washington, said reviewing the paperwork allows the
agency to order an asbestos inspection when contractors offer no
indication one was completed.

John Pavitt, an EPA asbestos inspector based in Alaska, said he
once reviewed a report from a contractor who said he was
demolishing a warehouse with no asbestos. Pavitt showed up on the
day of the demolition and found six-foot by four-foot panels made
with asbestos.

"There was a whole long wall of them," Pavitt said.

The contractor, who hadn't tested the panels, stopped the
demolition.

In Oregon, the contractor wouldn't have submitted a notification.
Department officials only would have known that the warehouse was
being demolished if somebody filed a complaint, or if a state
inspector happened to learn about an upcoming demolition and
decided to check it out.

John Angi, the asbestos regulator from Sacramento, said he was
surprised by Oregon's approach to regulating large-scale
demolition projects. Failing to consistently require notifications
would put people "all along the line" at risk, Angi said,
including demolition workers and people who dispose of demolition
waste.

"Even one demolition project could give some people a disease,"
Angi said.

What's next

Oregon environmental regulators may have some wiggle room on
demolition reporting.

Pavitt, who works in the EPA region that includes Oregon, said the
state has a strong asbestos program that in other regards goes
further than federal rules. For example, he said, the state
regulates asbestos in all forms; EPA only regulates the substance
when it's easily crushed and made airborne.

"States are allowed flexibility in how they get things done,"
Pavitt said.

MacIntyre, the EPA spokesman, said it was too early to say what,
if anything, the agency will do next. The agency could work with
Oregon officials to correct any weaknesses identified in the
state's asbestos program.

First, he said, the agency must determine if there's enough of a
difference between Oregon's state program and federal requirements
to warrant any action.

"We're not there yet," MacIntyre said.

The Department of Environmental Quality said it's planning a
complete review of its rules in 2017.

Although it hasn't been established that there is a discrepancy
that "undermines the program," the state "plans to evaluate the
entire program and update the rules as needed," spokeswoman
Jennifer Flynt.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found in Dubai, Abu Dhabi New Bldgs.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Vesela Todorova, writing for TheNational.ae, reported that
Asbestos is being used in new buildings almost a decade after a
nationwide ban on the dangerous construction material was imposed.

Companies specialising in its safe removal say their core business
is getting rid of asbestos from old buildings, but they also
extract it from new projects.

Charles Faulkner, who has worked in the UAE for seven years, said
he had seen asbestos in new office towers, power stations, homes
and even schools.

"I have come across around 20 projects," said Mr Faulkner, head of
environment, health and safety at Anthesis, a consultancy. "These
were brand-new construction projects that have had asbestos
installed in them."

They include a residential building in Abu Dhabi, completed in
December 2013, and a Jebel Ali warehouse that was finished.
Insulation and gaskets are the most common problems.

Once a popular building material, asbestos is banned in more than
60 countries. When disturbed it releases small airborne fibres
that penetrate deep into the lungs. Breathing them in can lead to
an acute reaction with pneumonia-like symptoms.

Chronic exposure can lead to lung scarring, pleural disease and
even lung cancer.

"It would appear that asbestos materials can be bought with
relative ease from suppliers here in the Middle East and from
places like Satwa and Mussaffah -- even online," said Mr Faulkner.

An online search by his team identified eight companies in Dubai,
Sharjah and Umm Al Quwain openly advertising the sale of materials
containing asbestos. Two companies confirmed that they sold
asbestos gasket sheets.

Charles Kinniburgh, chief executive of Angus Asbestos Removal in
Abu Dhabi, said asbestos material was still available in the UAE.
In the past year he had two contracts to remove it from new
buildings.

Lack of awareness is one reason the problem is persisting, Mr
Kinniburgh said.

"A lot of people are still unaware of the problems, unaware of the
fact that asbestos is expensive to dispose of properly," he said.

There also appears to be ambiguity in local regulations. In 2006,
the UAE introduced a ban on asbestos products, although it is not
clear whether the ban applies to all types of products. The law
states that it is prohibited to import or make asbestos board.

Until about two years ago, a Dubai company was making products
such as pipes, roof sheeting and wall boarding containing
asbestos, said Mr Kinniburgh.

"That has closed now but it was a fairly big facility," he said.

Mr Faulkner said there "definitely appears that there is some
uncertainty" about the law. And while some companies may know they
are using materials containing asbestos, others may be doing so
unwittingly by buying counterfeit products, he said.

In Abu Dhabi the Estidama Pearl Rating System, obligatory since
2010, requires new projects to show that no materials with
asbestos are used, said Yasmeen Al Rashedi, senior manager of the
Estidama Department of the Abu Dhabi Urban Planning Council.

Such materials also need to be removed from refurbished buildings
that are applying for certification under the scheme.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Killed by Fibro 50 Years After Exposure
------------------------------------------------------------
Megan Archer, writing for Oxford Mail, reported that a former
carpenter who was exposed to deadly asbestos dust when he was just
a teenager died more than 50 years later after he contracted
cancer, an inquest heard.

Robert Le Masurier from Ducklington was diagnosed with
mesothelioma -- a cancer caused by exposure to asbestos -- in
2014.

Despite rounds of chemotherapy, his condition gradually
deteriorated and he died aged 66 on July 14 at his home in
Standlake Road, surrounded by his family.

Oxfordshire coroner Darren Salter concluded a death caused by
industrial disease.

He said: "This is a tragic thing to occur and surely a very
difficult thing to deal with. He was only 65 and when we normally
deal with this disease it is a lot older. Obviously he was exposed
to this a lot younger.

"Due to his work as a carpenter and joiner from the mid 1960s to
the 1970s, he was exposed to asbestos throughout his working
life."

Oxford Coroner's Court heard how Mr Le Masurier first began
working at a joinery and carpentry firm in Plymouth from 1965,
after leaving school at 15.

Despite working in the shop at first, Mr Le Masurier was exposed
to dust as his colleagues would cut asbestos boards very close to
where he stood.

He also carried out sawing work himself for several years.

GP at Windrush Health Centre Dr Stephen Smith said Mr Le
Masurier's disease was responsive in a typical fashion.

Dr Smith said: "He did not respond to chemotherapy and was
admitted to Sobell House, and then sent home where he was cared
for by a Macmillan nurse.

"I last saw him on July 1. He had lost a lot of weight and had
changed significantly. His condition deteriorated and he died at
2.01pm on July 14."

Mr Le Masurier's son Daniel was there to hear the conclusion on
his father's death.

In August 2014, industrial disease specialist Peter Lodge said
asbestos deaths were set to reach a record high in Oxfordshire by
2020.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has said that, because of
the 30 to 40 year delay -- where the substance is in the body but
not causing harmful effects -- more lives could be claimed in the
coming years.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: More Deadly Dust Found at Bulla Tip
----------------------------------------------------
Alexandra Laskie, writing for Star Weekly, reported that an
independent auditor has confirmed there were "administrative
errors" in a Bulla tip's licence to dispose of asbestos.

In late August, the Environment Protection Authority commissioned
auditing firm Ernst & Young to assess its licensing processes at
every landfill tip in the state, after it discovered oversights in
the licence it had awarded the Bulla Tip and Quarry (BTQ) on
Sunbury Road.

The administrative error that allowed asbestos to be dumped
without proper approval was discovered at an EPA inspection to
check whether tip operator Bulla Quarry Developments was complying
with its licensing obligations.

EPA chief executive Nial Finegan said the audit discovered similar
irregularities at a tip in Stawell. He said neither of the errors,
at Stawell or Bulla, posed a risk to human health or the
environment.

"We recognised there was something amiss at Bulla and wanted to
make sure it was only an administrative slip-up," Mr Finegan said.

"They've confirmed there was an issue with the BTQ licence and at
Stawell, and the record-keeping wasn't too good at another two
sites.

"But the audit confirmed that there were no adverse environmental
impacts because of these oversights."

The Bulla licence has since been updated and Hume council's
director of city sustainability, Kelvin Walsh, said he was pleased
the EPA had issued tighter conditions to the tip operators.

"We expect the authority will closely monitor the site," Mr Walsh
said.

In July, the state's planning tribunal extended the tip's lifetime
to 2023, despite opposition from residents and the council.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Infests Tobribridge McDonald's Site
----------------------------------------------------------
Louise Berwick, writing for Kent and Sussex Courier, reported that
deadly asbestos is plaguing a site earmarked for a multi-million
pound McDonald's drive-thru restaurant -- but the fast food giant
says it still plans to open its new branch in Tonbridge.

The large Cannon Lane development was revealed in 2014, but
documents submitted to the council this summer show the site,
which used to be home to West Kent YMCA and The Bridge Trust, is
contaminated with asbestos.

McDonald's wants to demolish the existing warehouses and build a
single-storey restaurant on the land, with a 24-hour, seven day a
week drive-thru.

But apart from objections from neighbours about noise and anti-
social behaviour, official reports submitted to planning chiefs
have revealed large quantities of contaminants on the site.

Two different environmental studies into the land have turned up
large traces of asbestos fibres.

According to the UK's Health and Safety Executive, asbestos still
kills around 5,000 workers each year, more than the number of
people killed on the road, and around 20 tradesman die each week
as a result of past exposure. People can get a range of fatal
diseases from inhaling the fibres, including lung cancer and
asbestosis.

Consultants Jomas Associates completed a geo-environmental study
on behalf of the site's developers and confirmed there was a high
level of asbestos present.

"The risk estimation matrix indicates a generally moderate risk,
with a high risk relating to the potential presence of asbestos
containing materials within the existing building fabric," the
document said.

"Any potential asbestos containing materials should be assessed,
with identified materials removed by suitably qualified
personnel."

"Based on available information it is concluded there are
potential contaminant linkages associated with the site, which
require further investigation."

The Environment Agency has written to council chiefs and warned
them the land has to be decontaminated before development can take
place.

But a McDonald's spokesman said the large drive-through was still
planned for Tonbridge and it would open.

Meanwhile, neighbours have raised concerns about anti-social
behaviour that might be associated with the development, and Kent
Police has expressed its disappointment in the company not
consulting them on the plans or crime prevention methods for the
area.

But representatives for McDonald's have said the development would
create 65 full-time jobs and measures would be put in place to
ensure noise problems were minimised.

Kent County Council has said that it has no objection to the
development.

The proposal still relies on planning permission from Tonbridge
and Malling Borough Council, but consent was given for the
demolition of the warehouses and construction of a retail block in
2012.

The council's planning committee is due to consider the
application at its meeting.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nauru Buildings Need $20MM to Remove Fibro
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chris Kenny, writing for The Australian, reported that an
independent report has identified a "substantial quantity" of
asbestos in public and private buildings in Nauru and recommended
a $20 million program to remove the dangerous building material to
Australia.

The Nauruan government has started a program of replacing asbestos
roofing on the island but the detailed report -- funded by an EU
aid program -- could lead to pleas for accelerated action.

One of the public buildings identified as a health risk is the
main island hospital, the RoN (Republic of Nauru) Hospital, which
is being redeveloped in an $11.5m Australian government aid
project.

The "Survey of the regional distribution and status of asbestos-
contaminated construction material" was completed in June and
recommends a "detailed and coordinated program of asbestos
removal" starting with the highest risk locations.

Further EU funding could be available for this task.

The report takes some "reassurance" from the fact no asbestos was
found in any air samples taken at 77 locations on the island.

Swab tests found "significantly high" results in three samples at
the hospital, one at the port, four at the power plant and two in
the prison and government buildings complex.

Moderately high readings were taken from swabs at the hospital,
private housing, a refugee accommodation block, a hotel and a
restaurant among other locations. Most asbestos on the island is
in roofing and cladding, usually considered safe because fibres
are locked in the cement.

"However, when roofing and cladding deteriorate to the extent it
has done in Nauru, it can be considered to be partially friable
and will be releasing fibres into the air," the report warns.

Nauru's Justice and Finance Minister, David Adeang, said his
government had instituted a "community housing renovation program"
that replaced deteriorating asbestos roofing with metal materials
from Australia.

The report costs full removal at $US17.3m, with additional costs
incurred if waste is exported to Brisbane, as recommended.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carpenter Has Mesothelioma Due to Fibro Exposure
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ely News, reported that a carpenter who fitted asbestos panels to
Cambridge college boiler rooms and to newly-built homes died from
exposure to the building material, an inquest has heard.

Richard Elsom told in a statement written during his illness how
he was often covered in dust containing asbestos when he swept up
after work.

Mr Elsom, 64, of Stour Green, Ely, died from malignant
mesothelioma in September.

Senior Coroner David Heming concluded that Mr Elsom had contracted
the asbestos-related condition during the course of his work.

Mr Elsom, who was diagnosed in 2011, said in a statement that he
had been an apprentice carpenter and joiner with a Cambridge firm
and had worked at university colleges in the 1970s.

His work included fitting asbestos sheeting to boiler rooms,
sawing and drilling the sheets.

He said asbestos dust fell on him when he fixed the sheets to
ceilings.

"I remember being very dusty at the end of the day after carrying
out this type of work," Mr Elsom said.

He said he had also fitted asbestos soffits and barge boards when
working on construction sites in and around the city.

"I was not warned of the dangers of asbestos or given protection
for it," Mr Elsom said in his statement.

He said he had later run his own loft conversion business where he
was not exposed to asbestos.

The inquest heard that Mr Elsom had been diagnosed after suffering
a persistent cough.

His wife Jackie, who was behind the Meso 100 campaign to raise
funds and awareness, said mesothelioma was a preventable condition
and she could not think of any other case where a known risk was
allowed to continue.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oregon DEQ Mandates Fibro Test Before Demolition
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EP Newswire reported that following the Oregon Legislature's
passage of SB 705, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ) is proposing regulations that would require an asbestos
survey prior to the demolition of residential properties.

The surveys are mandated by the new law.

The regulation will require that an inspector survey all houses,
except for those with exemptions, and specify the survey
procedures. One exemption will be a cutoff date for properties
built on or after a date determined in the rule.

SB 705 calls for the new regulation to be in effect as of Jan. 1,
2016. Since that date does not give the DEQ adequate time to
institute a permanent rulemaking, the department is concurrently
developing a temporary and permanent regulation.

The temporary rule will be reviewed by the Environmental Quality
Commission (EQC) in December, according to the DEQ, while the
permanent rule is expected to be completed in April 2016.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Realtor Exposses Untrained Laborers to Fibro
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aimee Green, writing for The Oregonian, reported that a Lake
Oswego real-estate agent who investigators say tried to cut
corners -- by hiring untrained day laborers to remove asbestos
from a trendy Southeast Portland house that he was flipping --
pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor crime.

William Gaffney had no previous criminal history, but state
investigators say his actions in March 2014 moved into the
criminal realm when he failed to hire a trained asbestos-abatement
company to gut the 1908 Craftsman-style home, just steps from hip
Hawthorne Boulevard.

Instead, investigators say Gaffney hired six less-expensive
workers from Labor Ready. The workers were covered in dirt, had
only dust masks and no protective suits, investigators say. As a
dust cloud settled around the home, neighbors shared their worries
first with Gaffney -- who brushed off their concerns -- and later
with state officials, investigators say.

Even after an Oregon Occupational Safety and Health Division
inspector showed up and collected samples from a large trash
container outside the home, Gaffney disobeyed orders,
investigators say.

"They specifically told Mr. Gaffney, 'We firmly believe that there
are asbestos-containing materials in this Dumpster. Do not dispose
of them without making the proper arrangements,'" said Patrick
Flanagan, an attorney who prosecuted the case for the Oregon
Department of Justice. "The next day when that inspector came
back, the Dumpster was gone and it had not gone to a proper
disposal facility."

This case is only the second that Flanagan could recall of a
developer being convicted of criminal wrongdoing for exposing
others to asbestos. In 2012, developer Daniel Desler was convicted
for negligently releasing asbestos into the air as he tried to
redevelop an old sawmill in Sweet Home into a housing development.

Asbestos is a known carcinogen believed to be so dangerous that
even brief exposures can develop into life-threatening diseases
decades later.

Gaffney, who goes by Bill Gaffney, is founder and owner of Change
Realty in Lake Oswego. The firm has made a name for itself in the
real-estate world by charging a 1 percent commission for selling
homes, opposed to the more traditional 5 or 6 percent.

As part of a plea deal, Gaffney pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor
counts of recklessly endangering another person and one violation
count of second-degree unlawful air pollution. He was ordered to
two years of probation and 80 hours of community service. He also
must pay a $10,000 fine -- on top of the $10,200 that the Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality and OSHA already fined him for
asbestos and lead-paint violations.

Gaffney bought the house near Southeast 48th Avenue and Hawthorne
for $350,000 in February 2014, according to property records. A
year later, he sold it for $675,000. Flanagan, the prosecuting
attorney, said he wanted to attach criminal culpability to the
case to drive home a message to Gaffney.

"It was important to the state that this was not just a cost-of-
doing-business analysis for Mr. Gaffney," Flanagan told Multnomah
County Circuit Judge Henry Kantor.

Flanagan told the judge that Gaffney might not have only exposed
the workers' to asbestos, but the neighbors, too. Gaffney also
walked through the work site while the home's interior was being
demolished.

Gaffney clearly had a tough time coming to terms with his first
criminal conviction. He looked sullen and sometimes cast his eyes
toward the floor or slightly shaking his head as the prosecuting
attorney spoke.

When the hearing began, the judge asked Gaffney what he did wrong.
Gaffney didn't admit much.

"It was asbestos that I was unaware of," Gaffney said. "And once I
became aware of it, I took the proper steps to remediate."

The judge said he couldn't accept Gaffney's guilty pleas, if
that's all he was willing to admit.

Gaffney left the room with his attorney, then came back 10 minutes
later -- willing to concede more fault.

His attorney, Per Ramfjord, told the judge that Gaffney should
have known that there was a risk of asbestos exposure in
remodeling the 107-year-old home -- given Gaffney's years working
as a real-estate broker and his experience hiring an asbestos-
abatement company for an apartment complex he remodeled about
seven years ago.

When the judge asked if Gaffney agreed with everything his
attorney had just said, Gaffney responded only: "Yes."

Gaffney declined to make any additional statements when given a
chance.

"He should have known better, and he should have hired an
abatement contractor first," Ramfjord said. "We think Mr. Gaffney
has certainly more than learned his lesson from this event."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Energy Continues to Defend PI Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy, Inc., continues to defend itself against
personal injury lawsuits arising from exposure to asbestos-
containing materials, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2015.

Some facilities owned by CenterPoint Energy contain or have
contained asbestos insulation and other asbestos-containing
materials. CenterPoint Energy or its subsidiaries have been named,
along with numerous others, as a defendant in lawsuits filed by a
number of individuals who claim injury due to exposure to
asbestos. Some of the claimants have worked at locations owned by
subsidiaries of CenterPoint Energy, but most existing claims
relate to facilities previously owned by CenterPoint Energy's
subsidiaries. In 2004 and early 2005, CenterPoint Energy sold its
generating business, to which most of these claims relate, to a
company which is now an affiliate of NRG. Under the terms of the
arrangements regarding separation of the generating business from
CenterPoint Energy and its sale of that business, ultimate
financial responsibility for uninsured losses from claims relating
to the generating business has been assumed by the NRG affiliate,
but CenterPoint Energy has agreed to continue to defend such
claims to the extent they are covered by insurance maintained by
CenterPoint Energy, subject to reimbursement of the costs of such
defense by the NRG affiliate. CenterPoint Energy anticipates that
additional claims like those received may be asserted in the
future. Although their ultimate outcome cannot be predicted at
this time, CenterPoint Energy intends to continue vigorously
contesting claims that it does not consider to have merit and,
based on its experience to date, does not expect these matters,
either individually or in the aggregate, to have a material
adverse effect on CenterPoint Energy's financial condition,
results of operations or cash flows.

CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. (NYSE:CNP), headquartered in
Houston, is a domestic energy delivery company that includes
electric transmission and distribution, natural gas distribution
and energy services operations.  CNP serves more than 5 million
metered customers primarily in Arkansas, Louisiana, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Oklahoma and Texas.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Int'l. Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Manitex International, Inc., continues to defend itself against
asbestos-related product liability lawsuits, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015.

The Company has been named as a defendant in several multi-
defendant asbestos related product liability lawsuits. In certain
instances, the Company is indemnified by a former owner of the
product line in question. In the remaining cases the plaintiff
has, as of June 30, 2015, not been able to establish any exposure
by the plaintiff to the Company's products. The Company is
uninsured with respect to these claims but believes that it will
not incur any material liability with respect to these to claims.

Manitex International, Inc. is engaged in providing engineered
lifting solutions. The Company operates in two segments: Lifting
Equipment segment and Equipment Distribution segment. The Company,
in its Lifting Equipment segment, designs, manufactures and
distributes a group of products that serve different functions and
are used in a variety of industries. Through its subsidiary,
Manitex, Inc., the Company markets a line of boom trucks and sign
cranes. Manitex's boom trucks and crane products are primarily
used for industrial projects, energy exploration and
infrastructure development, including roads, bridges and
commercial construction. The Company, in its Equipment
Distribution segment, operates a crane dealership located in
Bridgeview, Illinois that distributes Terex rough terrain and
truck cranes, Fuchs material handlers, and Manitex boom trucks and
sky cranes. In December 2013, the Company announced that it has
completed the acquisition of Valla, SpA, of Piacenza, Italy.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Katy Industries Has Pending Fibro Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Katy Industries, Inc., has a number of product liability, asbestos
and workers' compensation claims pending against the Company and
its subsidiaries, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 26, 2015.

There are a number of product liability, asbestos and workers'
compensation claims pending against the Company and its
subsidiaries.  Many of these claims are proceeding through the
litigation process and the final outcome will not be known until a
settlement is reached with the claimant or the case is
adjudicated.  The Company estimates that it can take up to ten
years from the date of the injury to reach a final outcome on
certain claims.  With respect to the product liability, asbestos
and workers' compensation claims, the Company has provided for its
share of expected losses beyond the applicable insurance coverage,
including those incurred but not reported to the Company or its
insurance providers, which are developed using actuarial
techniques. Such accruals are developed using currently available
claim information, and represent management's best estimates,
including estimated legal fees, on an undiscounted basis.  The
ultimate cost of any individual claim can vary based upon, among
other factors, the nature of the injury, the duration of the
disability period, the length of the claim period, the
jurisdiction of the claim and the nature of the final outcome.

Katy Industries, Inc., is a Bridgeton, Missouri-based
manufacturer, importer and distributor of commercial cleaning and
storage products and a contract manufacturer of structural foam
products.  The Company's commercial cleaning products are sold to
industrial, janitorial/sanitary maintenance and foodservice
distributors that supply end users including restaurants, hotels,
healthcare facilities and schools.





                            *********

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  * * *