CAR_Public/151113.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Friday, November 13, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 227


                            Headlines


ALIBABA GROUP: "Hercules" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violation
ALL NATION: Faces "Gutierrez" Suit Over Labor Code Violations
ALLIEDBARTON SECURITY: "Williams" Suit Alleges ERISA Violation
APPLE INC: Judge Weighs Bag Check Class Action
ARCHER-DANIELS: Trial Begins in Corn Syrup False Advertising Suit

ARCHSTONE-SMITH OPERATING: Court Stands By Class Cert. Ruling
AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Judge Tosses Consumer Fraud Claim
BOFI HOLDING: December 14 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
CARIBBEAN PETROLEUM: Motion for Bench Trial Granted
CHIPOTLE: E. Coli Outbreak Source Not Found, Restaurants to Reopen

CLS TRANSPORTATION: Arbitration Awards Upheld
COCA-COLA REFRESHMENTS: "Magee" Suit Over Vending Machine Tossed
COMCAST CORP: Judge Rejects $15.5MM Class Action Settlement
EMC CORP: Faces Suit Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duty
EXTREME NETWORKS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Class Suit

EXXON MOBIL: New York AG Probes Investors' Disclosure Claims
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Sued for Violating Fair Labor Standards Act
FIVE STAR CARTING: Conditional Certification Granted in "Flores"
FOREST PARK MEDICAL: Former COO Files Class Suit Over Layoffs
GENERAL MOTORS: Court Denies Certification of Discrimination Suit

GENERAL MOTORS: Must Face Ignition Switch Punitive Damages
GLOBUS MEDICAL: Howard Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
GNC HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Suit
GNC HOLDINGS: Goldberg Law Files Securities Class Suit
GRAIN PROCESSING: Judge Approves Nuisance Class Suits

GRAIS & ELLSWORTH: "Stauffer" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
GREEN FLEET: Cal. Suit Seeks to Recover Penalties and Back Wages
HILLCREST DAVIDSON: "Wattley" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
HOME DEPOT: "Seramur" Suit Alleges JFPA Violation
HOMEAWAY INC: Faces Data Breach Class Action in California

IHEARTMEDIA INC: "Sheridan" Suit Alleges Copyright Infringement
JASON SCHEAR: Filed a Petition for Turnover of Account Proceeds
JM HOLLISTER: "Pang" Suit Transferred From E.D. to W.D. New York
JPMORGAN CHASE: Settles Debt Collection Suit for $100 Million
KOLBE & KOLBE: Wisconsin Judge Rules on Insurers' Motions

LONG BEACH CARE: Arbitration Bid in "Guerra" Case Revived
LOUISIANA: Order Granting In Forma Pauperis Status Vacated
MACOMB COUNTY, MI: Court Tosses "Cowans" Complaint
MCWANE INC: Jan. 28 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
MERRILL LYNCH: Zale Corp Buyout Class Suit Dismissed

MILLENNIUM PRODUCTS: "Hood" Suit Asserts California UCL Violation
MIZUHO BANK: Appeals District Court Order in "Laydon" Class Suit
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Faces Suit Over Anticompetitive Scheme
NEIL JONES FOOD: Class Action Settlement Has Preliminary Approval
NEW YORK: City Foster Care Leader Takes Over Amid Problems

PEABODY ENERGY: N.Y. AG Says Climate Statements Mislead Investors
PEET'S COFFEE: Sued Over French Press Serving Sizes
PHILIP MORRIS: Illinois Supreme Court Rejects $10BB Verdict
RENTECH NITROGEN: Brodsky LLC Files Class Suit Over Buyout
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Suit Seeks to End Use of Cash Bail System

SEPHORA: Attorneys Attempt to Resolve Discrimination Suit
SERENITY TRANSPORTATION: Court Trims Suit by Mortuary Drivers
SIENTRA INC: November 24 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
SPLENDOR LANDSCAPE: Violates Fair Labor Standards Act, Suit Says
SPOKEO INC: High Court Divided Over Data Collection Dispute

STREAM: Fifth Circuit Decertifies Class Suit
STUDENT AID CENTER: Must Defend Against "Abella" Class Suit
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Mares" Suit Moved From N.D. to C.D. Cal.
SYNCHRONY BANK: Accused of Violating TCPA in S.D. California
T & W RESTAURANT: "Weng" Suit Seek to Recover Unpaid Wages

TERRRAFORM GLOBAL: Scott+Scott Files Securities Class Suit
TRANSURBAN USA: Virginia Judge Narrows Claims in "Brown" Suit
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Taps Criminal Defender in Sex Assault Suit
UNITED CAPITAL: Faces Suit Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: "Berkery" Suit Over Phone Bills Dismissed

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Shirley" Suit Alleges RICO Violation
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Warner" Suit Alleges Fraudulent Concealment
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Wigley" Suit Alleges Deceptive Trade Practices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Urged to Quickly Report Emission Probe Findings
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Offers Car Owners $1,000 in Gift Cards, Vouchers

WARRIOR GIRL: January 25 Trial Scheduled in Stock Fraud Suit
WEXFORD HEALTH: Suit by Menard Inmate Dismissed
WILMINGTON TRUST: Judge Grants Prosecutors to Join in Suit
WYANDOTTE, MI: Wayne County Sues Over Tax Court Settlement
ZAFGEN INC: Khang & Khang Files Securities Class Suit

ZAFGEN INC: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Class Suit
ZYNGA: Settles Peeved Investors' Class Suit


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: McDermot Continues to Defend Insurers' Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chiquita Brands Has 192 MARDOC Cases at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: US Auto Part Units Continue to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: VWR Corp. Has No Insurance for Fibro Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint, Units Continue to Defend PI Suits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Construction Worker Dies of Mesothelioma
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Employers Sued for Exposing Workers to Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Victims Need to Sue Insurers for Payment
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma to Cost Insurers $85B, AMBest Says
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5th Circ. Affirms Remand Order in Fibro Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Korean Mesothelioma Deaths on the Rise
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Groups Ask Caucus to Oppose Fibro Trust Bill
ASBESTOS UPDATE: UK PM Pledges Help to Veterans with Mesothelioma
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Doctor Has Arrangement with Sheldon Silver
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aussie Gov't to Spend $100MM for Fibro Removal

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Conspiracy Alleged in Man's Fibro-Related Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mashava Mine's on $1BB Fibro Deposits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plant Owners May Face Penalty Over Fibro Cleanup
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WCA Exclusive Remedy Bars Fibro Claim, Ct Says
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Teacher Acquires Fibro-Related Cancer

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Providence Church to Close Due to Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Causation Standard Draws Attention to Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Itasca Vendor Sued Over Fibro Negligence
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hampshire Grandad Dies of Mesothelioma
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Mayors Probed Over La Scala Fibro Deaths

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pohlman Launches Software for Fibro Case Filing
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ferro's Mesothelioma Lawsuit Dismissed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Refuses to Reconsider Testimony Ruling
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers Face Fibro Risk in Demolition Jobs
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Maungatapu Underpass Tests Positive for Fibro

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leeds Man Dies of Fibro-related Illness
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Attys Pay $390 per Google Click
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fed. Cir. Affirms Dismissal of USF&G Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Refuses to Review Expert Exclusion Ruling
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Ship Worker's Suit Barred by WCA

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thorpe Wins Summary Judgment Bid in "Walashek"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GE Dismissed as Defendant in "Spychalla"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shipowners Lose Summary Judgment Bid in "Nelson"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fla. Court Recommends Dismissal of Inmate Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shipowners Lose Summary Judgment Bid in "Martin"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shipowners Lose Summary Judgment Bid in "Jacobs"

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shipowners Lose Summary Judgment Bid in "Bartel"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shipowners Lose Summary Judgment Bid in "Day"


                            *********


ALIBABA GROUP: "Hercules" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Hercules, and all others similarly-situated v. Alibaba
Group Holding Limited, Jack Yun Ma, Joseph C Tsai, Masayoshi Son,
Jonathan Zhaoxi Lu, Maggie Wei Wu, Timothy A Steinert, Credit
Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc, Goldman
Sachs (Asia) LLC, J P Morgan Securities LLC, Morgan Stanley & Co
International plc, Citigroup Global Markets Inc, BOCI Asia
Limited, China International Capital Corporation Hong Kong
Securities Limited, CLSA Limited, DBS Bank Ltd,
HSBC Securities (USA) Inc, Mizuho Securities USA Inc. Pacific
Crest Securities LLC, Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated,
Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, BNP Paribas Securities Corp, Evercore
Group LLC, Raymond James & Associates, Inc Suntrust Robinson
Humphrey, Inc, BHF -Bank Aktiengesellschaft, CIMB Securities
Limited, China Merchants Securities (HK) Co, Limited, Ing
Financial Markets LLC, Needham & Company, LLC, Nomura Securities
International, Inc, Raine Securities LLC, RBS Securities Inc, SG
Americas Securities, LLC, C L King & Associates, Inc, Lebenthal &
Co, LLC, Mischler Financial Group, Inc, Samuel A Ramirez &
Company, Inc, Topeka Capital Markets Inc, The Williams Captial
Group, LP, and Does 1- 50, Case No. CIV535887 (Cal. Super.,
October 16, 2015), seeks to recover damages under the Securities
Act of 1933.

On September 19, 2014, Defendant Alibaba Group Holding Limited, a
China-based company with its United States headquarters located in
San Mateo, California, completed a $25.0 billion initial public
offering on the New York Stock Exchange. The IPO, completed
pursuant to a registrations statement and prospectus filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission, was the largest in
American history.

Alibaba is based in China, and its United States headquarters is
based in San Mateo, California. It is an online and mobile
commerce company engaged retail and wholesale trade, cloud
computing, and other services.

The Defendants include Alibaba, certain Alibaba officers and
directors, and the underwriters of the IPO.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark C. Molumphy, Esq.
      COTCHETTI, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
      San Francisco Airport Office Center
      840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
      Burlingame, CA 94010
      Tel: (650) 697-6000
      Fax: (650) 697-0577

          - and -

      Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq.
      BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
      7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
      La Jolla, CA 92037
      Tel: (858) 914-2001
      Fax: (858) 914-2002


ALL NATION: Faces "Gutierrez" Suit Over Labor Code Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jimmy Gutierrez, and all others similarly-situated v. All Nation
Security Services, Inc. and Does 1-100, Case No. BC598230 (Cal.
Super., October 16, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to provide meal periods, rest periods and pay minimum wage
in violation of the California Labor Code.

All Nation Security Services, Inc. provides a full range of
security guard services from offices in Los Angeles, Long Beach,
San Bernardino, Orange County, Simi Valley and San Diego.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Arthur Kim, Esq.
      ARTHUR KIM LAW FIRM
      433 N. Camden Drive, Suite 600
      Beverly Hills, CA 90210
      Tel: (310) 246-0316
      Fax: (310) 246-0328
      E-mail: akim@arthurkimlaw.com


ALLIEDBARTON SECURITY: "Williams" Suit Alleges ERISA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Darrell Eugene Williams, and all others similarly-situated v.
AlliedBarton Security Services, Case No. 2:15-cv-01348 (W.D. Pa.,
October 16, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for breach of
fiduciary duty in violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA).

AlliedBarton Security Services is a security officer company based
in the United States

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Darrell E. Williams, Esq.
      8010 Woodcreek Drive
      Bridgeville, PA 15017
      Tel: (412) 983-3901


APPLE INC: Judge Weighs Bag Check Class Action
----------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for Law.com, reports that it's an old
argument from Apple Inc. but U.S. District Judge William Alsup
still found himself facing a "bug-a-boo" on Nov. 4 as he weighed
the company's contention that bag checks for retail employees
ending their shifts are not mandatory because workers themselves
opt to bring bags.

Under Apple's analysis, the security screenings are voluntary and,
therefore, non-compensable.  Apple lawyer Julie Dunne offered the
example of a worker who wants to return a pair of shoes to a
nearby store on her lunch break. The worker must decide whether to
leave the bag containing the shoes in her car and spend time
walking back to the parking lot during lunch or bring the bag to
work and submit to a bag check, said Ms. Dunne --
jdunne@littler.com -- a Littler Mendelson shareholder and co-chair
of the firm's retail industry group.

To lawyers for the class of workers suing Apple, choices made by
employees leading up to the screenings don't matter -- the
screenings themselves were required and controlled by Apple.

"That's the bug-a-boo I have," Judge Alsup said.  "I don't think
there's a decision exactly on point."

The screenings, designed to prevent theft of Apple products, are
conducted only on employees who have bags or personal Apple
devices.  In Frlekin v. Apple, 13-3451, retail store workers say
Apple of deprived them of wages by requiring off-the-clock bag
searches.

Judge Alsup, a federal judge in the Northern District of
California, denied Apple's nearly identical motion for summary
judgment last year, rejecting the company's theory that workers
brought bag checks on themselves.  "Apple employees may need to
bring a bag to work for reasons they cannot control, such as the
need for medication, feminine hygiene products, or disability
accommodations," he wrote in May 2014.

But to facilitate class certification earlier this year,
plaintiffs agreed to assume that class members who brought bags
did so voluntarily and purely for personal convenience.  Workers
who required bags for special circumstances can opt out and pursue
individual claims.

Ms. Dunne told Judge Alsup that concession moots plaintiffs'
claims that the bag checks are anything but voluntary.

"The choice is one of convenience, and it's entirely the
employees'," Ms. Dunne said.  "They control whether to subject
themselves to a check."

McLaughlin & Stern partner Lee Shalov --
lshalov@mclaughlinstern.com -- arguing for plaintiffs, disagreed.
If the court accepts Apple's argument, he said, Apple could just
as easily mandate that any employee who wears a red hat to work
can be forced to clean the bathroom without pay.

"Apple can say you don't have to wear a red hat," Mr. Shalov said.
"How far does it go, your honor?"

Pulling from prior case law, Mr. Shalov ran through a list of
additional factors he said indicate employees must be compensated.
Employees are confined to the store during checks and can't run
personal errands; Apple determines when, where and how the checks
are conducted; the checks are for Apple's benefit only; and
employees are subject to termination if they don't submit to the
checks, he said.

Ms. Dunne said the time spent in line for a bag check could be
considered the start of a commute home, which generally is not
compensable.

"It's not work," Ms. Dunne said.  "It's not part of their job
duties. Apple didn't hire these folks for the purpose of
submitting to checks."


ARCHER-DANIELS: Trial Begins in Corn Syrup False Advertising Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that the trial over America's sweet tooth began on Nov. 4 with
prominent litigators W. Mark Lanier and Dan Webb sparring over
scientific and advertising claims between the sugar industry and
the makers of high-fructose corn syrup.

Mr. Lanier represents The Sugar Association Inc. and nine of its
members in a suit against the Corn Refiners Association and four
of its members, including Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. and Cargill
Inc.

The suit, filed in 2011 under the U.S. Lanham Act, alleges that
the Corn Refiners' $130 million advertising campaign in 2008
falsely told consumers that corn syrup is "natural" and
"nutritionally the same as table sugar" and that "sugar is sugar,
your body cannot tell the difference."

"That's just flat out wrong," Mr. Lanier told a federal jury in
Los Angeles in opening statements.  "And I'll put the evidence out
there to show you it's flat wrong.  Your body can tell the
difference."

Mr. Lanier, who introduced several sugar farmers and executives in
the courtroom, plans to convince a jury that the body metabolizes
high-fructose corn syrup differently from sugar and that the corn
refiners started their advertising campaign to combat a growing
number of academic and medical articles linking their product to
obesity and other health problems.  In fact, he said, when
expanding into Mexico in 1997, the corn refiners insisted their
product was distinct from sugar.

He also said videotaped deposition would be played of Richard
Berman, a prominent Washington lobbyist and public relations
consultant for the corn refiners, once referred to by "60 Minutes"
as the "weapon of mass destruction" for the "booze and food
industries."

The corn refiners have countersued over statements the sugar
companies have made based on what they call questionable and
debunked scientific studies.  Mr. Webb said his clients'
"educational campaign" was designed to counteract those
statements, which included calling high-fructose corn syrup
"pretty poison" and akin to "crack cocaine."  He also refuted the
"junk" science that helped the sugar companies regain 30 percent
of their share of the sweetener market during the past 10 years.
"Both of these products are highly processed," he said.  "The idea
that sugar cubes grow on trees is just not true."

Each side attempted to convince the jury that the science was
behind their clients' claims.  They also made countering arguments
about how much money each side amassed from their alleged false
statements.  Mr. Lanier said the corn refiner campaign created
$1.1 billion more in sales for them, while Mr. Webb said the sugar
companies haven't been harmed at all.  His clients are seeking
$550 million in lost sales.

Messrs. Lanier and Webb are big names in the trial bar.
Mr. Lanier, of The Lanier Law Firm in Houston, is a veteran trial
attorney made famous for a $253 million verdict he got in 2005
against pharmaceutical firm Merck & Co. Inc. over its Vioxx
painkiller.  Last year, he obtained a $9 billion verdict against
Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. over diabetes drug Actos.
Webb, co-chairman of Chicago's Winston & Strawn, was tapped to
represent Ferguson, Missouri, in the U.S. Department of Justice
investigation following last year's police shooting of
Michael Brown.

Both sides have also brought in prominent public relations firms.
The corn refiners have turned to attorney Michael York of Reston,
Virginia's Wehner & York, a public affairs specialist who worked
with Webb in representing Philip Morris USA in tobacco litigation
and the New York Stock Exchange in its internal investigation over
former chairman and CEO Richard Grasso's compensation.

The sugar case hit a major roadblock earlier this year when U.S.
District Judge Consuelo Marshall of the Central District of
California disqualified Squire Patton Boggs as lead counsel for
the sugar companies.

Two of the corn refiners, Ingredion Inc. and Tate & Lyle
Ingredients Americas Inc., once represented by Patton Boggs, had
filed disqualification motions claiming the firm's 2014 merger
with Squire Sanders had created a conflict.

In court on Nov. 4, the corn refiners sought to discredit the
entire case.  "Every one of their allegations is false," Mr. Webb
said of the sugar companies.  "This is a phony lawsuit."


ARCHSTONE-SMITH OPERATING: Court Stands By Class Cert. Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William J. Martinez denied the motion to
reconsider, filed in the case captioned STEVEN A. STENDER, and
INFINITY CLARK STREET OPERATING, L.L.C., on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ARCHSTONE-SMITH
OPERATING TRUST et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 07-CV-02503-
WJM-MJW, (D. Colo.)

The District Court previously granted in part and denied in part
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

Defendants filed their motion to reconsider. Defendants argue that
the Court overlooked an important argument allegedly demonstrating
that class certification even as to liability is inappropriate.
Specifically, Defendants re-urge their argument that: (a) a breach
of fiduciary duty claim based on majority oppression of minority
shareholders requires Plaintiffs to prove that the majority
substantially defeated the minority's "reasonable expectations"
and therefore (b) the liability phase will require discovery into
every A-1 Unitholder's subjective expectations. Similarly,
Defendants assert that Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim turns
on each A-1 Unitholder establishing that he/she/it suffered
"adverse consequences" based on the Unitholder's individual,
subjective expectations, preferences, and so forth.

In his Order dated October 30, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/lm9m6Rfrom Leagle.com, Judge Martinez denied the
Defendants' motion to reconsider.  Class certification on the
liability elements of breach of contract remains appropriate.

Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq. -- kaw@wexlerwallace.com -- Christopher
James Stuart, Esq.  -- Edward Anthony Wallace, Esq. --
eaw@wexlerwallace.com -- Mark Richard Miller, Esq. --
mrm@wexlerwallace.com -- Kara A. Elgersma, Esq. --
kae@wexlerwallace.com -- and Thomas Arthur Doyle, Esq. --
tad@wexlerwallace.com -- of Wexler Wallace, LLP; Olimpio Lee
Squitieri, Esq., and Maria J. Ciccia, Esq., of Squitieri & Fearon,
LLP; Diane Vaksdal Smith, Esq., of Burg, Simpson, Eldredge, Hersh
& Jardine, PC-Englewood; Renee Beth Taylor, Esq. -- rtaylor@bader-
associates.com -- of Bader & Associates, LLC  serve as counsel for
Plaintiff Steven A. Stender

Jonathan D. Polkes, Esq. -- jonathan.polkes@weil.com -- Ashish
Dinesh Gandhi, Esq. --  ashish.gandhi@weilcom -- Caroline Jane
Hickey Zalka, Esq. -- caroline.zalka@weil.com -- Elizabeth
Stotland Weiswasser, Esq. -- elizabeth.weiswasser@weil.com --
Justin David D'Aloia, Esq. -- Melanie A. Conroy, Esq. --
melanie.conroy@weil.com -- and Ralph I. Miller, Esq. --
ralph.miller@weil.com -- of Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP-DC; Alex C.
Myers, Esq. -- AMyers@LRRLaw.com -- and Frederick J. Baumann, Esq.
-- FBaumann@LRRLaw.com -- of Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP serve as
counsel for Defendant Archstone-Smith Operating Trust


AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Judge Tosses Consumer Fraud Claim
--------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
residents of a 240-unit apartment building in Edgewater that was
destroyed by fire have failed to establish a basis for a
New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act claim against their landlord, a
federal judge in Newark has ruled.

The plaintiffs claimed AvalonBay Communities violated the Consumer
Fraud Act (CFA) by making misrepresentations and omissions of fact
to renters at its complex.  But marketing statements labeled
misrepresentations by the plaintiffs are non-actionable puffery,
and the omissions they cited don't support a CFA count because
landlords are not required to disclose those items, U.S. District
Judge Jose Linares ruled Nov. 3 in DeMarco v. AvalonBay
Communities.

Besides the CFA claim, the class action suit includes counts for
negligence and for private nuisance.  The suit, consolidated from
three separate cases, was brought on behalf of residents who were
displaced and who lost possessions and pets in the Jan. 21 fire at
the site, known as Avalon.  No one died in the fire, but two
residents and two firefighters were injured.  One building, known
as the Russell Complex, was destroyed, while the other, known as
River Mews, remained intact.

The class action complaint alleges that the fire was started by an
acetylene torch being used by an unlicensed plumber making
repairs, and that no AvalonBay representatives called 911 or
otherwise reported the fire.

The plaintiffs claimed that the lightweight wood construction of
the building caused the fire to spread faster.  They also point to
a series of other fires at Avalon sites -- one at the Edgewater
location while it was under construction, and others at apartment
complexes in other states that are owned by AvalonBay.

Included in the putative class are residents of the Russell
building, and others living in the River Mews building who had
storage lockers in the Russell building.

The plaintiffs claimed AvalonBay violated the CFA with marketing
materials stating that the Edgewater complex contained "the best
New Jersey apartments" and had "beautifully maintained grounds,
and top-of-the-line amenities."  Plaintiffs claimed those
representations "led tenants to believe -- incorrectly -- that the
Avalon incorporated the latest and best construction, when in fact
it was a fire trap."

But Judge Linares said the challenged statements are not
actionable because they said nothing about construction.  Even if
the marketing claims were not puffery, the claims were not pleaded
with particularlity because the plaintiffs provided no information
about whether or when the representations were made or read by the
plaintiffs.  And even if the statements were pleaded with
particularlity, the plaintiffs offered no facts explaining how the
statements could be construed to mean AvalonBay was offering the
latest and best construction, Linares said.

The plaintiffs also argued that their CFA claim is supported by
AvalonBay's failure to disclose the type of materials used in
construction of the building, the lack of credentials of plumbers
hired to work in the building, or AvalonBay's history of fires at
the Edgewater site and other apartment complexes it owns.

Judge Linares said the plaintiffs have not claimed that the
building is not constructed to code, and they have not cited any
case to show that a building that is lawfully constructed with
materials approved by the building code can be found to be a
"concealed dangerous condition."  In addition, the plaintiffs have
not cited any case requiring a landlord to disclose building
materials to residents, or that the failure to do so can form the
basis of a CFA claim.

The plaintiffs also failed to support their assertion that a
landlord's lack of disclosure about maintenance workers'
credentials can form the basis for a CFA claim, Judge Linares
said.  To form a basis for a CFA claim based on an omission, the
plaintiff must show the omission was a material fact that was
required to be disclosed, that the fact was knowingly concealed,
with the intent that the plaintiff rely on the concealment, and
that such an omission was causally connected to the loss, the
judge said.  The complaint includes no such allegations, Linares
said.

He added that the plaintiffs have not cited to any case showing a
duty on the part of a landlord to disclose all past safety issues
at all properties the landlord has owned, and appear to be arguing
that an original and continuing duty exists to make such
disclosures, but cites no authority for that position.

The plaintiffs were given until Dec. 3 to file an amended
complaint, although the current allegations "suggest they may not
be able to state a valid NJCFA claim," Judge Linares said.

Plaintiffs' co-lead counsel are the firms of Chimicles & Tikellis
in Haverford, Pennsylvania; Lite DePalma Greenberg in Newark; and
Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer in Woodbridge.  Lawyers from those
firms did not return calls about the ruling.

Ronald Giller of Gordon & Rees in Florham Park, representing
AvalonBay, also did not return a call.


BOFI HOLDING: December 14 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP reminds
investors of the upcoming deadline to move for appointment as lead
plaintiff in securities class litigation brought on behalf of
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of
BofI Holding Inc. ("BofI" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:BOFI) between
September 4, 2013 through October 13, 2015, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

If you purchased or otherwise acquired BofI securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead
plaintiff by no later than December 14, 2015. A lead plaintiff is
a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members
in directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the
action will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or
other attorneys, as your counsel in the action.

BofI investors who wish to learn more about the action and how to
seek appointment as lead plaintiff should click here or contact
Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll-free at 1-800-541-7358.

BofI operates as the holding company for BofI Federal Bank (d/b/a
"Bank of Internet"), a provider of consumer and business banking
products, including mortgages to high-net-worth individuals with
poor credit.

The action alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
misrepresented and failed to disclose that: (i) the Company's
internal controls were frequently disregarded; (ii) Bank of
Internet made loans to foreign nationals and criminals in
violation of the Bank Secrecy Act; (iii) many Bank of Internet
accounts lacked required tax identification numbers; and (iv) BofI
fired an internal auditor who raised the foregoing issues to the
Company's management and to federal regulators.

On October 13, 2015, The New York Times reported that a former
internal auditor at BofI had filed a whistleblower lawsuit against
BofI for violating federal laws designed to protect whistleblowers
and alleging widespread misconduct at the Company. On this news,
the price of BofI shares fell $42.87 per share, or 30.19%, to
close at $99.13 per share on October 14, 2015.

         Sharon M. Lee, Esq.
         LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
         2101 Fourth Ave Suite 1900
         Seattle, WA 98121-2315
         Phone: 206-739-9059
         Fax: 415.956.1008
         Email: slee@lchb.com


CARIBBEAN PETROLEUM: Motion for Bench Trial Granted
---------------------------------------------------
District Judge Francisco A. Besosa granted the third-party
Defendants' motion for bench trial and denied claimants' request
to empanel a jury for the Limitation of Liability (LOL) proceeding
in the case captioned ELIEZER CRUZ APONTE, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
CARIBBEAN PETROLEUM CORP., et al., Defendants, Civil Nos.: 10-1337
(FAB), 09-2092 (FAB), (D. P.R.)

On October 23, 2009, an explosion and fire occurred at the Gulf
Oil Facility located in Bayamon, Puerto Rico. The facility was
owned and operated by Caribbean Petroleum Corporation (CAPECO).
The explosion occurred while a vessel named the M/T Cape Bruny --
which was owned and chartered, respectively, by Cape Bruny
Tankschiffarts GmbH and Co. KG and Cape Bruny Shipping Company
Ltd. -- was discharging its cargo of unleaded gasoline into
storage tanks at the facility. One or more of the tanks
overflowed, and the spilled fuel found a source of ignition,
causing the explosion. The explosion and subsequent fire created a
large plume of smoke and spread hazardous material over Bayamon,
San Juan, and other neighboring municipalities.

In the immediate aftermath of the explosion, numerous lawsuits
were filed in the District Court:

      9 putative class actions,
     10 "non-class mass-joinder" actions, and
      2 "individual" actions.

On April 22, 2010, Cape Bruny, which had been named as a defendant
in several of the lawsuits, filed a complaint for exoneration
from, or limitation of, liability pursuant to the LOL Act. The LOL
Act allows a vessel owner to limit its liability to the value of
the vessel plus pending freight, provided that the circumstances
causing the damage were outside the owner's privity and knowledge.

The 21 lawsuits and the LOL action have been consolidated before
the Court for the purpose of docket management, and all filings
and orders are entered on the docket of Civil Case No. 09-2092.

In his Memorandum and Order dated November 2, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/pQ8EcKfrom Leagle.com, Judge Besosa granted the
third-party Defendants' motion for a bench trial and the
claimants' request to empanel a jury for the LOL proceeding is
denied.  The LOL proceeding will commence on February 1, 2016, as
a non-jury bench trial following the structure set forth in the
Order. The Court agrees with claimants that Cape Bruny is the
plaintiff in the LOL action and that, accordingly, Rule 14(c)(1)
does not expressly allow Cape Bruny to implead third parties.
Nonetheless, courts routinely allow a party that initiated a LOL
action to bring in additional parties that it asserts may be
liable for the claims against it. Claimants allege in the various
consolidated cases that multiple parties are liable for causing
the explosion and fire. The current scheduling order calls for a
determination of liability of all of these defendants. The most
efficient way to determine which parties are liable for causing
the explosion and fire, and the best way to avoid inconsistent
liability findings through piecemeal litigation, is to bring all
potentially liable parties into a single action. This is exactly
what Cape Bruny's Rule 14(c) tender does: it brings all claimants
and all potentially liable parties into the LOL action. Cape
Bruny's Rule 14(c) tender in the LOL action is proper.

John F. Nevares, Esq. -- jfnevares@nevareslaw.com -- of John F.
Nevares & Assoc. PSC serves as counsel for Plaintiff Eliezer Crus-
Aponte

Francisco G. Bruno-Rovira, Esq. -- fgb@mcvpr.com -- Myrna L. Ruiz-
Olmo, Esq. -- myrna.ruiz@oneillborges.com -- Raul M. Arias-
Marxuach, Esq. -- rma@mcvpr.com -- and Isabel C. Lecompte-Shiba,
Esq. -- icl@mcvpr.com -- of McConnell Valdes, LLC serve as counsel
for Consol Defendant Caribbean Petroleum Corporation


CHIPOTLE: E. Coli Outbreak Source Not Found, Restaurants to Reopen
------------------------------------------------------------------
Donna Gordon Blankinship, writing for The Associated Press,
reports that Washington state health officials said on Nov. 9 they
have found no source for the E. coli outbreak related to Chipotle,
and the chain's Pacific Northwest restaurants could reopen later
in the week.

All the tests of food from Chipotle stores in Washington and
Oregon came back negative for E. coli, Washington state
epidemiologist Dr. Scott Lindquist said.  Chipotle did its own
testing, and those results came back negative as well.

The Chipotle restaurants in Washington and Oregon will be allowed
to reopen after they have met some conditions.  They must get rid
of and replace all produce, do a deep cleaning of their stores,
pass a local health inspection and start a new protocol for
cleaning produce.

Chipotle also has voluntarily decided to start doing some testing
of its own of fresh food coming into its restaurants.

Dr. Lindquist said he expects Chipotle will reopen the 43
restaurants it closed in Washington and Oregon by Nov. 11 or
Nov. 12.  The company is still finishing its own tests, and it
does not plan to get ready to reopen until those tests are
completed, he added.

About 40 people in the Northwest have gotten E. coli in the
outbreak associated with Chipotle.  In Washington, the most recent
person sickened by E. coli reported eating at Chipotle on Oct. 24.

Jonathan Modie, a spokesman for the Oregon Health Authority, said
food-borne illnesses are not easy to track to the source of the
outbreak.  "Finding the source of the outbreak is often like
finding a needle in the haystack," Mr. Modie said on Nov. 9.

Seattle attorney Bill Marler, who has filed two lawsuits on behalf
of people who have gotten sick in this outbreak, said that just
because health department officials haven't found the cause of the
outbreak doesn't mean they aren't still blaming Chipotle for
making people sick.

Mr. Marler said it's obvious that Chipotle has issues with food
safety.  The company has been named in three high-profile cases in
the past few months, and he's tracking another case of E. coli at
a Chipotle in Seattle from this summer.

The chain faced a salmonella outbreak linked to tomatoes that
sickened dozens of people in Minnesota beginning in August.  In
California, health workers said norovirus sickened nearly 100
customers and employees at a Chipotle restaurant in Simi Valley in
mid-August.

"Clearly this is a Chipotle problem," Mr. Marler said.


CLS TRANSPORTATION: Arbitration Awards Upheld
---------------------------------------------
Justice Roger W. Boren affirmed a judgment confirming the
arbitration awards in a lawsuit against CLS Transportation Los
Angeles et al.

The appellate case is captioned GREG KEMPLER et al., Plaintiff and
Respondents, v. CLS TRANSPORTATION LOS ANGELES et al., Defendants
and Appellants, Case No. B256997, (Cal. App. Ct.).

Kempler et al. are former employees of CLS Transportation of Los
Angeles LLC (CLS). In August 2006, Arshavir Iskanian filed a class
action lawsuit against CLS on behalf of himself and similarly
situated employees, alleging that CLS failed to pay overtime,
provide meal and rest breaks, reimburse business expenses, provide
accurate and complete wage statements, and pay final wages in a
timely manner.  Based on an arbitration agreement signed by
Iskanian and other employees, CLS moved to compel arbitration, and
the trial court granted the motion in March 2007.

After arbitration commenced, respondents propounded discovery and
various motions were filed. CLS made a number of increasing
settlement offers to respondents, and all respondents eventually
agreed to settle their claims, for amounts ranging from $2,000 to
$6,000.

Each of the eight arbitrators reached a different result regarding
the amount of fees and costs to be awarded. Awards varied widely.
One arbitrator, who presided over arbitrations for seven
claimants, awarded a total of $35,000 in fees and costs. Another,
who arbitrated eight claimants' matters, awarded a total of
$41,755.73. Meanwhile, the three arbitrators whose awards are the
subject of this appeal awarded much more: Hon. Kevin J. Murphy
(Ret.), who arbitrated seven matters, awarded a total of $249,468
in fees and costs; Hon. Gabriel Gutierrez (Ret.), who arbitrated
eight matters, awarded a total of $442,448; and Hon. William Stein
(Ret.), who arbitrated seven matters, awarded a total of $174,832.

CLS petitioned the trial court to vacate the awards rendered by
arbitrators Murphy, Gutierrez, and Stein. Respondents opposed
these petitions and petitioned to confirm all of the arbitrators'
awards. The trial court denied CLS's petitions to vacate. It
subsequently confirmed all of the arbitration awards and entered
judgment accordingly. CLS timely appealed.

In his Opinion dated November 2, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/6kYTP8from Leagle.com, Justice Boren affirmed the
judgment confirming the arbitration awards. The arbitration
agreement allowed the arbitrators to award attorney fees if a
statute at issue authorized an award of fees. Each of the three
arbitrators found that recovery of fees was compelled by statute,
and each found that respondents were the prevailing parties. The
measure of those fees was a matter of the arbitrators' discretion.
To the extent that any arbitrator awarded a greater amount of fees
than what could be properly awarded by a trial court, that
excessive award would constitute, at most, an error of fact or
law. The arbitration agreement contains no express limitation on
the attorney work that could be considered by an arbitrator in
fashioning a fees award. It does not explicitly prohibit awarding
fees for work that preceded the arbitration proceedings. Likewise,
the agreement does not state, "the only fees that potentially may
be compensable are those actually incurred by the claimant in this
arbitration, and fees incurred outside of arbitration are not
compensable" or specify a similar limitation. "Absent an express
and unambiguous limitation in the contract or the submission to
arbitration, an arbitrator has the authority to find the facts,
interpret the contract, and award any relief rationally related to
his or her factual findings and contractual interpretation."

The Court said the awards at issue are rationally related to a
plausible interpretation of the arbitration agreement.
Furthermore, the arbitration agreement's clause stating "the
arbitrator shall have the authority to make an award of attorneys'
fees and costs to the same extent available under applicable law"
is not an express limitation prohibiting the arbitrator from
considering certain legal proceedings when rendering an award. It
also does not provide an opening to question the arbitrators'
reasoning. "A provision requiring arbitrators to apply the law
leaves open the possibility that they are empowered to apply it
'wrongly as well as rightly.'" Absent a clear agreement that legal
errors constitute an excess of authority reviewable by the court,
we are not empowered to determine whether the arbitrators awarded
fees beyond those properly awarded under applicable law. Finally,
respondents' failure to submit detailed billing records did not
preclude an award of fees. The arbitrators based their fee awards
on declarations submitted by respondents' attorneys. Nothing in
the arbitration agreement required anything more. The arbitrators
apparently found this documentation sufficient, and we have no
basis to second-guess their conclusions.

David F. Faustman, Esq. -- dfaustman@foxrothschild.com --  Yesenia
M. Gallegos, Esq. -- ygallegos@foxrothschild.com -- Cristina K.
Armstrong, Esq. -- carmstrong@foxrothschild.com -- Cole Schotz,
Esq., Leo V. Leyva, Esq. of Fox Rothschild serve as counsel for
Defendants and Appellants

Raul Perez, Esq. -- Raul.perez@capstonelawyers.com -- Glenna
Danas, Esq., and Ryan H. Wu, Esq. -- Ryan.Wu@capstonelawyers.com
-- of Capstone Law; Monica Balderrama, Esq. --
MBalderrama@InitiativeLegal.com -- of Initiative Legal Group serve
as counsel for Plaintiffs and Respondents


COCA-COLA REFRESHMENTS: "Magee" Suit Over Vending Machine Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jay C. Zainey granted the Defendant's motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim in the case, EMMETT MAGEE, v.
COCA-COLA REFRESHMENTS USA, INC., Civil Action No. 15-1939, (E.D.
La.)

Plaintiff is legally blind. Plaintiff's complaint alleges that
Defendant's latest generation of vending machine, the Glass Front
Vendor (GFV), is inaccessible to the visually impaired. The GFV
does not display the availability of the products that it sells in
any non-visual manner, nor does it offer any non-visual interface
for the purchase of the products that it sells.

Plaintiff alleges that in April and May of 2015 he encountered one
of Defendant's GFVs at a bus station in New Orleans and that he
was unable to independently use the machine. Plaintiff filed this
action for violations of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act. Plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class
defined as "All legally blind individuals who have been and/or are
being denied access to glass front vending machines located in the
United States and owned and/or operated and/or leased by Coca-Cola
Refreshments USA, Inc."  Plaintiff seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief as well as attorney's fees and costs.
Defendant now moves to dismiss the complaint arguing that
Plaintiff cannot state a claim against Coca-Cola Refreshments
under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Specifically, Coca-Cola argues that its GFV machines are not
places of public accommodation under the Act.

In his Order and Reasons dated October 28, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/KhsDEZfrom Leagle.com, Judge Zainey granted Coca-
Cola Refreshments' request to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint with
prejudice. It is undisputed that the bus station where Plaintiff
encountered the GFV machine in May 2015 was a place of public
accommodation under Section 12181(7)(G).  The GFV, which is
clearly personal property or equipment at that public facility,
must comply with the ADA so that patrons with disabilities do not
suffer discrimination. The problem with Plaintiff's complaint,
however, is that the defendant he chose to sue for purposes of
pursing a nationwide class action, does not own, lease, or operate
the place of public accommodation where he encountered the
difficulty with the GFV. Section 12182(a) requires this nexus on
its face which is why Plaintiff goes to great lengths to argue
that the GFV itself is a place of public accommodation. But the
coin-operated GFV is not akin to any of the 12 specific categories
of places of public accommodation listed in the statute and the
federal regulations. Plaintiff is attempting to expand the term
"place of public accommodation" well beyond its statutory
definition in order to sue a defendant amenable to nationwide
relief.

Roberto L. Costales, Esq. -- costaleslawoffice@gmail.com -- of
Costales Law Office and William Henry Beaumont, Esq., of William
H. Beaumont Law serve as counsel for Plaintiff Emmett Magee

David Patron, Esq. -- david.patron@phelps.com -- and Jeremy T.
Grabill, Esq. -- jeremy.grabill@phelps.com -- of Phelps Dunbar,
LLP -- Brett E. Coburn, Esq. -- brett.coburn@alston.com -- Charles
Herrick Morgan, Esq. -- charlie.morgan@alston.com -- and Kristine
McAlister Brown, Esq. -- kristy.brown@alston.com -- of Alston &
Bird, LLP serve as counsel for Defendant Coca-Cola Refreshments
USA, Inc.


COMCAST CORP: Judge Rejects $15.5MM Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
after cable giant Comcast and a putative class of subscribers
reached a settlement agreement in an antitrust case surrounding
cable boxes, a federal judge decided on Nov. 5 to deny the
proposed $15.5 million settlement as well as certification of the
class.

U.S. District Judge Anita B. Brody of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania held the prospective class -- consisting primarily of
California, Washington and West Virginia residents who subscribed
to premium cable channels with Comcast on Jan. 1, 2005, and paid
for cable boxes -- was not ascertainable.

The reason for that, according to Judge Brody, was "because
plaintiffs do not have a reliable and administratively feasible
mechanism for determining whether putative class members fall
within the class definition.  Therefore, I will not certify the
settlement class. I also will not preliminarily approve the
settlement agreement due to the absence of a certifiable class."

According to Judge Brody's opinion, the settlement agreement
reached between Comcast and the plaintiffs, who claimed the
corporation unlawfully tied the sale of premium cable to the
rental of a set-top box from Comcast, would have had Comcast
paying all claims that do not exceed a $15.5 million aggregate.
If class members submitted more than $15.5 million worth of
claims, then benefits will be distributed on a pro rata basis.
Comcast would retain the balance if there were less than $15.5
million in claims, Judge Brody said.

Depending on how long the plaintiff subscribed, he or she would
have been entitled to anywhere from $10 to $40 plus various
services such as free pay-per-view movies or free access to
premium channels for a limited period.

Counsel for the plaintiffs, Dianne Nast of NastLaw, did not return
a call seeking comment.  Jaime Bianchi -- jbianchi@whitecase.com
-- of White & Case's Miami office represented Comcast and did not
return a call seeking comment.

In order for a class to be considered ascertainable, Judge Brody
said, it must be defined within its objective criteria -- such as
the plaintiffs' residence and subscription status in this case --
and it must have a reliable way of determining who falls within
the class definition.

"The entire settlement class satisfies the first part of the
ascertainability inquiry because the settlement class is defined
with reference to objective criteria.  Additionally, current
subscribers satisfy the second part of the ascertainability
inquiry because Comcast's own internal records provide a reliable
and administratively feasible mechanism for determining whether
current subscribers fall within the class definition.  Thus,
current subscribers are ascertainable," Judge Brody said.
"Comcast, however, lacks records for most former subscribers. The
critical question is whether a reliable and administratively
feasible method exists to determine if former subscribers fall
within the class definition."

The plaintiffs argued that class membership for former subscribers
could be determined by customer account numbers, invoices, credit
card receipts, canceled checks, old bills and various other
documents that Comcast could review in the absence of its own
records.

However, Judge Brody did not accept the plaintiffs' proposed
strategy.

"To compensate for this absence of Comcast records, plaintiffs
provide a laundry list of other possible types of evidence that
former subscribers could submit to prove membership in the
settlement class," Judge Brody said.  "Included in the list are
police reports and insurance claims.  It is implausible, however,
that such evidence would ever demonstrate that an individual
subscribed to premium cable from Comcast and rented a set-top
box."

Moreover, Judge Brody said, it was unlikely that canceled checks
or credit card bills would show that a person both subscribed to
Comcast and rented a cable box.

An additional problem, according to Judge Brody, was the lack of a
sufficient method of vetting potential class members.

"Although plaintiffs state that Comcast may challenge membership
in the settlement class, their lack of a screening model leaves
them unable to explain how these challenges would actually work,"
Judeg Brody said.  "While plaintiffs list possible types of
evidence that former subscribers could submit to prove membership
in the settlement class, none of them are actually required."

She added the plaintiffs relied on sworn statements alone, an
ascertainability method barred by the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit.


EMC CORP: Faces Suit Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duty
----------------------------------------------------
IBEW Local 129 Pension Fund, and all others similarly-situated v.
Joseph M. Tucci, Jose E. Almeida, Michael W. Brown, Donald J.
Carty, Randolph L. Cowen, James S. Distasio, John R. Egan, William
D. Green, Edmund F. Kelly, Jami Miscik, Paul Sagan, Laura J. Sen,
EMC Corporation, Denali Holding Inc., Dell Inc., and Universal
Acquisition Co., Case No. 15-3130 (Mass. Cmmw., October 15, 2015),
is brought against the Defendants for breaches of fiduciary duty
arising from their attempts to sell EMC Corporation to Denali
Holding Inc. and Dell Inc.

The Individual Defendants are EMC's board of directors.

Defendant EMC is a Massachusetts corporation with its principal
place of business in Hopkinton, Massachusetts. EMC securities are
traded on the NASDAQ stock market under the ticker symbol "EMC."
EMC enables businesses and service providers to transform their
operations and deliver IT as a service.

Defendant Dell is a Delaware Corporation headquartered in Round
Rock, Texas.

Defendant Denali Holding Inc. is a Delaware corporation.

Defendant Universal Acquisition Co. is Delaware corporation and
direct wholly owned subsidiary of Denali.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason M. Leviton, Esq.
      BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
      155 Federal Street, Suite 400
      Boston, MA 02110
      Tel: (617) 398-5600
      Fax: (617) 507-6020
      E-mail: jason@blockesq.com


EXTREME NETWORKS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP announced that a securities class action
has been filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of a class (the "Class")
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased the common
stock of Extreme Networks, Inc. ("Extreme" or the "Company") EXTR,
+1.03% between November 4, 2013 and April 9, 2015 (the "Class
Period").  The complaint charges Extreme and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

Extreme develops and sells network infrastructure equipment and
offers related services contracts for extended warranty and
maintenance.  The complaint alleges, among other things, that
during the Class Period, defendants issued false and/or misleading
statements and/or omitted adverse information concerning Extreme's
current financial condition and outlook for fiscal 2015,
including, among other things, that the Company's revenue growth
depended on the successful integration of Enterasys Networks, Inc.
("Enterasys"), which Extreme had acquired in 2013 but had not
successfully integrated, which materially impaired the Company's
ability to address persisting sales problems.

On April 9, 2015, after market close, Extreme preannounced that it
would miss guidance for the third quarter of 2015, reporting
revenue of $118-$120 million and earnings per share of ($0.09)-
($0.07) -- significantly below prior guidance of $130-$140 million
and ($0.03)-$0.02, respectively.  The Company also announced that
trading in its shares had been halted and that Jeff White, the
Company's Chief Revenue Officer -- who had been hired only six
months earlier to manage the integration of the Extreme and
Enterasys salesforces -- was "no longer with the Company."  On
these disclosures, Extreme stock price fell almost 25%, from $3.24
per share to $2.50 per share.

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all Class members
who invested in Extreme common stock during the Class Period.  If
you invested in Extreme common stock as described above, 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 22, 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 an Extreme
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 Northern District of
California.

         Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. Esq
         BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP
         10 East 40th Street
         New York, NY 10016
         Tel: 212.779.1414
         Fax: 212.779.3218
         Email: Seidman@bernlieb.com


EXXON MOBIL: New York AG Probes Investors' Disclosure Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Virtanen, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
New York's attorney general is examining statements by Exxon Mobil
and Peabody Energy to determine whether they deceived investors
about the causes and impacts of climate change, an official
familiar with the investigations said on Nov. 5.

A subpoena was sent on Nov. 4 to Dallas-based Exxon after a
yearlong review of shareholder disclosures, said the official, who
wasn't authorized to publicly discuss the probes and spoke to The
Associated Press on condition of anonymity.

Attorney General Eric Schneiderman's office sought similar
documents on climate change from St. Louis-based Peabody in 2013,
which the company disclosed last year.

A spokesman for Mr. Schneiderman declined to comment on Nov. 5.
New York's attorney general has authority under the state's Martin
Act to investigate and prosecute securities fraud.

Exxon spokesman Scott Silvestri said the company has received the
subpoena and rejects allegations in media reports that it
suppressed research.  Mr. Silvestri said that for years, Exxon has
provided shareholders information about the business risks of
climate change.

He cited "ExxonMobil's nearly 40-year history of climate research
that was conducted publicly in conjunction with the Department of
Energy, academics and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change."

"ExxonMobil recognizes that climate risks are real and responsible
actions are warranted," Vice President Ken Cohen told reporters in
a conference call late on Nov. 5.

He said scientists have publicly issued nearly 150 papers and
obtained nearly 300 patents for technological advances in cutting
emissions.

"Beginning in the last decade, we've informed shareholders and
investors on our perception of the business risks associated with
climate change through regulatory filings, our annual corporate
citizenship report and in other reports to shareholders,"
Mr. Cohen said.

InsideClimate News reported on the New York investigation earlier
on Nov. 5.  The nonprofit publication reported on its own
investigation earlier this year that found documents showing Exxon
recognized in the late 1970s the possible threat to its own
existence from global warming, said John Cushman, an editor.

Company researchers later confirmed the emerging scientific
consensus that doubling carbon dioxide emissions from burning
fossil fuels would warm the earth with unpalatable effects,
Mr. Cushman said.

At Peabody, spokeswoman Kelley Wright said the company continues
to work with the Attorney General's Office "regarding our
disclosures, which have evolved over the years."


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Sued for Violating Fair Labor Standards Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bromberg, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Fidelity National Information Services,
Inc., a Georgia corporation, and FIS Management Services, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 2:15-cv-07930 (C.D.
Cal., October 8, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. is a payment services
provider.  The Company provides credit and debit card processing,
electronic banking services, check risk management, check cashing,
and merchant card processing services to financial institutions
and merchants.


FIVE STAR CARTING: Conditional Certification Granted in "Flores"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
conditional certification of a collective action in the case
captioned MARCO ANTONIO FLORES, ANTONIO SANTOS and OSCAR TUDON,
Individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, v. FIVE STAR CARTING, LLC, FIVE STAR CARTING, INC.,
WORKFORCE CLEANING SERVICES, LLC, ANTHONY TRISTANI and NINO
TRISTANI, Jointly and Severally, Defendants, Case No. 14 CV 2970
(PKC)(RML), (E.D.N.Y.)

Plaintiff Marco Antonio Flores commenced this action in May 2014,
on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated employees,
pursuant to, inter alia, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and
the New York Labor Law.

Plaintiffs allege that they are current and former waste removal
workers, garbage collection helpers, and demolition laborers
employed by a company or enterprise that they knew as "Five Star."
They contend that they were all subjected to defendants' common
pay practices and policies that violated the FLSA, namely their
failure to pay the prevailing wage for all hours worked and to pay
overtime premiums for hours worked in excess of 40 per week.
According to the Second Amended Complaint, the defendants were
joint employers and/or a single enterprise that employed
plaintiffs and the purported collective action members and were
responsible for establishing and implementing the alleged payroll
policies at issue in the present case. Defendants contest this
allegation and aver that "each of the Company Defendants is a
distinct and separate entity . . . engaged in separate businesses
with their own employees." They further contend that plaintiffs
are not and have never been employees of Five Star Inc. or Five
Star LLC, and that the only defendant that employed plaintiffs
during the FLSA class period was Workforce Cleaning Services, LLC.
Finally, defendants argue that the FLSA policies of which
plaintiffs complain were not carried out by Workforce, but by
plaintiffs' prior employers, which were unrelated to any of the
defendants.

Plaintiffs moved for an order conditionally certifying an FLSA
collective action and authorizing notice to be issued to all
persons similarly situated so that they may be informed of the
action and given an opportunity to opt in to the action as
plaintiffs. Defendants Anthony Tristani, Nino Tristani, Five Star
Carting, Inc., Five Star Carting, LLC, and Workforce Cleaning
Services, LLC (Defendants) opposed plaintiffs' motion.

In his Memorandum and Order dated October 30, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/L1i8qjfrom Leagle.com, Judge Levy granted
Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of a collective
action. The court approves plaintiffs' proposed Notice of Lawsuit
with Opportunity to Join (Pelton Decl., Ex. I), Consent to Become
a Party Plaintiff form in English and Spanish, and Deadline
Reminder Letter in English and Spanish, to which defendants have
not objected. Plaintiffs have demonstrated a modest factual nexus
between the named plaintiffs and the putative collective action
members, which is sufficient to support a preliminary
determination that they were subjected to a common policy, plan or
practice that violated the law. As plaintiffs correctly note,
courts frequently grant motions for conditional certification that
rely exclusively on the pleadings and sworn affidavits of the
plaintiffs. While defendants contend that each of the corporate
entities is separate and distinct, and that the policies of which
plaintiffs complain were carried out by another employer that is
not a defendant or related to a defendant in this case, plaintiffs
have demonstrated that there are issues of fact regarding those
contentions. These issues of fact should be determined following
discovery, at the second stage of FLSA collective action
certification, rather than at this preliminary stage.

Alison Gayle Lobban, Esq. --  lobban@peltonlaw.com -- Taylor Bell
Graham, Esq. -- graham@peltonlaw.com and Brent E. Pelton, Esq. --
pelton@peltonlaw.com -- of Pelton & Associates, PC serve as
counsel for Plaintiff Marco Antonio Flores

Kenneth N. Miller, Esq. -- kburnett@millerthomson.com -- of Frost
& Miller, LLP serves as counsel for Defendant Five Star Carting,
LLC


FOREST PARK MEDICAL: Former COO Files Class Suit Over Layoffs
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Goddman, writing for HealthCare Daily, reported that a former
executive at Forest Park Medical Center's shuttered San Antonio
hospital filed a class action lawsuit alleging that its managers
failed to give federally mandated notice to more than 100
employees before firing them.

Paul Abraham served as the hospital's chief operating officer
until October 15, when Forest Park's Bexar County outpost abruptly
closed its doors. His lawsuit, filed on in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Texas, alleges that FPMC Services LLC
did not notify the facility's 139 employees of its closure 60 days
in advance, as required by the federal law known as the Worker
Adjustment and Restraining Notification (WARN) Act.

Lawrence Morales II, Abraham's attorney, says the employees are
owed 60 days worth of compensation and benefits under the law.
It's not clear when the last time the San Antonio staffers got a
paycheck. A spokeswoman for Forest Park did not respond to
questions on, including as to when employees were notified of the
layoffs and when the last time they were paid.

FPMC Services LLC is a shared entity between the chain's hospitals
(which is now down to four: in Dallas, Frisco, Southlake, and Fort
Worth) that handles things such as general counsel, payroll,
vendor relations, and contracting. Each facility pays a monthly
fee to retain it. The lawsuit pins the failure to notify its
employees on this entity, alleging that it notified the Texas
Workforce Commission of the layoffs on October 16, one day after
they actually occurred. The WARN Act requires employers to provide
at least 60 days notice in the case of mass layoffs.

However, there is a provision known as the Faltering Company
Exception for businesses that are "actively seeking capital or
business which, if obtained, would have enabled the employer to
avoid or postpone the shutdown and the employer reasonably and in
good faith believed that giving the notice required would have
precluded the employer from obtaining the needed capital or
business."

Morales says he doesn't believe Forest Park's managers can prove
that.

"I think the question is when people knew what. (Abraham)
certainly didn't know," of the layoffs, Morales said. "FPMC
Services knew long ago that they exhausted their options for
capital."

The San Antonio hospital had been flirting with foreclosure for
months. Texas Capital Bank, the lender, posted the property in
September and October, but pulled it just before auction each
time. The posting said that Forest Park had defaulted on its
original principal loan of more than $68 million. On October 6,
the real estate entity that owned the hospital filed for
bankruptcy. The hospital closed just over a week later. Todd
Furniss, chairman of The Management Company at Forest Park Medical
Center, has blamed the revenue problems on the inability to secure
in-network managed care contracts in San Antonio. John Dragovits,
the management company's CEO, resigned.

Morales, meanwhile, says he is amending the original petition to
include at least another dozen employees as complainants who have
come forward.

Forest Park has suffered significant setbacks in recent months.
Its Frisco hospital filed for bankruptcy in September, and its
managing partners are facing a lawsuit from Kansas City physicians
who allege that their money was partially spent to help that
hospital stay afloat.


GENERAL MOTORS: Court Denies Certification of Discrimination Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq. -- gmaatman@seyfarth.com -- and
Christina M Janice, Esq. -- cjanice@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw
LLP, in an article for Lexology, reported that an order recently
issued in James Robinson III, et al. v. General Motors Company, et
al., Case No. 15-CV-158-Y (N.D. Tex. Oct. 21, 2015), Judge Terry
R. Means of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas denied class certification to two employees of General
Motors Company ("GM"), who sought to represent a nationwide class
of employees seeking unpaid leave to observe religious holy days.
The Court further granted GM's motion to dismiss the class action
complaint, but granted Plaintiffs leave to file an amended
complaint.

This case is instructive for employers defending class actions and
dealing with requests for religious accommodation in the
workplace.

Case Background

In 2008, two employees of GM's Arlington, Texas facility began
making requests for unpaid leave to observe their respective
religious holy days. GM employee James Robinson, III ("Robinson")
alleged that he requested and received unpaid leave for religious
holy days, including. Id. at 1 -- 2. GM employee Chris Scruggs
("Scruggs") alleged that he requested but was denied unpaid leave
for religious holy days until GM began granting his requests for
unpaid leave in 2010. Id. at 2. The two plaintiffs are of
different faith communities; Robinson a member of the Seventh Day
Sabbatarian community of Tyler Sabbath Fellowship, and Scruggs a
member of Messianic Jewish Beth Yeshua Congregation. Id. at 1 --
2.

Plaintiffs alleged that in 2013 GM began denying Robinson's
requests for unpaid leave to observe holy days and, once
Robinson's attorney identified Scruggs as another employee being
denied similar unpaid leave, that GM resumed denial of Scruggs'
requests for unpaid leave to observe holy days. Id. Plaintiffs
filed their class action complaint against GM in March 2015,
alleging that GM violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 by denying them the religious accommodation of unpaid leave
to observe their respective holy days, despite the availability of
volunteers to cover their shifts. The lawsuit demanded damages and
a class-wide injunction ordering GM to allow unpaid leave on holy
days, to inquire about the availability of volunteer coverage, and
to seek no-cost methods of allowing religious leave. Id. at 2 --
3.

Plaintiffs sought certification of a class of "all General Motors
workers within the United States subject to the 2011 UAW-GM
National Agreement and who may seek unpaid leave for a holy day
because of a religious belief." Id. at 5. GM opposed the motion by
arguing that the class that Plaintiffs purported to represent
constituted an impermissible "hypothetical -- i.e., the
possibility that GM employees may seek unpaid religious leave at
some time the future," and would require individualized inquiries
not suited for class treatment. Id. (emphasis in original.)

The Court's Decision

Finding that the Plaintiffs' class definition "includes any GM
employees who might request unpaid religious leave in the future,"
the Court determined that the class was not adequately defined or
ascertainable. Id. at 6. (emphasis in original.)  Noting that in
this case the Court would be required to evaluate each class
member's religion, that religion's holy days, and the days each
member requested for leave, the Court determined that Plaintiffs
failed to identify common questions of law or fact applicable to
the class, and further failed to prove numerosity. Id. at 6, n. 1.
The Court further observed that "[c]lass relief is most
appropriate where the issues in the case turn on questions of law
or fact 'applicable in the same manner to each member of the
class'" Id. (internal citations omitted).  The Court's order,
however, allows Plaintiffs until November 23, 2015, to file an
amended complaint, and the opportunity to propose a definition of
a more ascertainable class. Id. at 7.

Implications For Employers

Religious accommodation under Title VII requires employers to
engage in factual inquiries to determine if a requested
accommodation is appropriate under Title VII or similar state law.
For this reason, and as illustrated by the ruling in Robinson,
these individualized factual inquiries precluded class-wide
treatment of religious accommodation claims. Carefully
articulating neutral policies and managing to consistent
procedures for investigating and responding to requests for
religious accommodation best enable employers both to respond to
the needs of an increasingly diverse workforce, and to develop
internal business records that may help avoid costly litigation.


GENERAL MOTORS: Must Face Ignition Switch Punitive Damages
----------------------------------------------------------
Tom Krisher, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
federal bankruptcy judge has ruled that people suing General
Motors over faulty ignition switches can seek punitive damages
that could cost the company millions of dollars or more.

When General Motors emerged from a 2009 bankruptcy, it became
known as "New GM."  The new company essentially was shielded from
liabilities of the old company that was left behind.

But Judge Robert Gerber in New York ruled on Nov. 9 that employees
and knowledge transferred from the "Old GM" to the new company.
Plaintiffs, he ruled, can seek punitive damages if they can show
that "New GM" knew of the faulty switches but covered it up.

The ruling has the potential to open GM to large jury verdicts,
because the company has admitted knowing about the faulty switches
for a decade or more but failed to recall the cars until February
of 2014.  Many of the engineers, attorneys and safety
investigators who had knowledge of the switches went from the old
company to the new one.

But in a statement, GM said the ruling was not a victory for those
suing the company.  Although the court ruled that New GM could be
liable for punitive damages for claims based solely on its
conduct, "plaintiffs to date have not established any such
independent claims against New GM," the statement said.

The ignition switches can slip out of the run position and shut
off the engine, knocking out the power steering, power brakes and
air bags.  They are responsible for crashes that killed at least
169 people and injured hundreds of others.

Texas attorney Robert Hilliard, who has several wrongful death and
injury lawsuits pending against GM, said the ruling was a complete
win for plaintiffs.  He said the New GM admitted in an agreement
to settle criminal charges with the Justice Department that it
knew of the faulty switches for 20 months before notifying federal
safety regulators in February of 2014.  The company can't
contradict the agreement in legal proceedings, so it has no
defense, Hilliard argued.

Texas attorney Robert Hilliard, who has several wrongful death and
injury lawsuits pending against GM, said the ruling was a complete
win for plaintiffs.

"A jury now will be allowed to hear evidence of GM's cover-up and
determine what monetary punishment to assess for so many needless
deaths and injuries," Mr. Hilliard said.

There are still about 250 wrongful death and injury lawsuits
pending in state and federal courts, according to Hilliard. He
says the ruling exposes GM to billions of dollars in punitive
damages.

Judge Gerber's ruling also applies to cases in which plaintiffs
allege that the value of their cars declined because of GM's
conduct.

Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond, says
both sides are posturing about the ruling.  The plaintiffs, he
said, must show "egregious misconduct" to get punitive damages,
which is a heavy burden.  But he said they can rely on the Justice
Department documents to do that.  "I think that makes it pretty
strong on the plaintiffs' side," he said.


GLOBUS MEDICAL: Howard Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased Globus
Medical, Inc. ("Globus" or the "Company") (NYSE: GMED) securities
between February 26, 2014 through August 5, 2014, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). Globus investors have until November 30, 2015 to
file a lead plaintiff motion. Investors who suffered losses on
their investment in Globus securities are encouraged to contact
the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal rights
in this class action.

Globus is a medical device company that develops products to treat
patients with musculoskeletal disorders. The Company is currently
focused on products to treat patients with spine disorders. On
August 5, 2014, Globus issued a press release announcing its
financial results for the 2014 second quarter and substantially
lowered its revenue guidance for the 2014 year. In announcing its
results, the Company disclosed that certain operating challenges
had resulted in sales growth below its historical trends. On this
news the Company's shares fell $4.05 per share, or 17.9%, to close
on August 6, 2014, at $18.51 per share, on unusually high volume.

The complaint filed in this lawsuit alleges that throughout the
Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose: (1) that the Company's relationship
with a significant distributor was deteriorating; (2) that the
deterioration was negatively impacting the Company's financial
performance; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' statements about Globus' business, operations, and
prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

If you purchased shares of Globus during the Class Period you may
move the Court no later than November 30, 2015 to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet certain legal
requirements. To be a member of the Class you need not take any
action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take
no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to
learn more about this action, or if you have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire,
of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-
free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com or visit our website at
http://www.howardsmithlaw.com

         Howard G. Smith, Esq.
         THE LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
         3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
         Bensalem, PA 19020
         Telephone: (215) 638-4847
         Facsimile: (215) 638-4867
         Toll Free: 1-888-638-4847
         Email: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com


GNC HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces that
it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of GNC
Holdings Inc. (NYSE:GNC) securities from May 2, 2013 through
October 22, 2015, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for GNC investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the GNC class action, go to the firm's website at
http://rosenlegal.com/cases-543.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 U.S. District Court for
the District of Oregon.

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

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements to investors
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) GNC unlawfully sold thousands
of units of products in Oregon that contained picamilon; (2) GNC
unlawfully sold thousands of units of products in Oregon that
contained BMPEA; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market,
the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
December 28, 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://rosenlegal.com/cases-543.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.

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Kevin Chan, Esq.
         THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
         New York, NY  10016
         Tel: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         Email: lrose@rosenlegal.com
                pkim@rosenlegal.com
                kchan@rosenlegal.com


GNC HOLDINGS: Goldberg Law Files Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Goldberg Law PC (www.Goldberglawpc.com) announces that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against GNC Holdings Inc. ("GNC" or
the "Company") (NYSE: GNC), for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
shares between May 2, 2013 and October 22, 2015, are advised to
contact the firm in advance of the December 28, 2015, lead
plaintiff deadline.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss during the Class
Period, we advise you to contact Michael Goldberg or Brian Schall,
of Goldberg Law PC, 13650 Marina Pointe Dr. Suite 1404, Marina Del
Rey, CA 90292, at 800-977-7401, to discuss your rights without
cost to you. You can also reach us through the firm's website at
http://www.Goldberglawpc.com,or by email at
info@goldberglawpc.com.

The class in this case has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the complaint, on October 22, 2015, the State of
Oregon initiated a lawsuit against GNC claiming that the Company's
nutritional and dietary supplements are laced with unapproved
drugs, including picamilon, a Russian prescription medicine for
neurological conditions, and BMPEA, which was first synthesized in
the 1930s as a replacement for amphetamines and never studied in
humans. When the truth was revealed, shares dropped causing
investors harm.

If you have any questions concerning your legal rights in this
case, please immediately contact Goldberg Law PC at 800-977-7401,
or visit our website at http://www.Goldberglawpc.com,or email us
at info@goldberglawpc.com.

Goldberg Law PC represents shareholders around the world and
specializes in securities class actions and shareholder rights
litigation.

         Michael Goldberg, Esq
         Brian Schall, Esq.
         GOLDBERG LAW PC
         13650 Marina Pointe Dr., Suite 1404
         Marina Del Rey, CA 90292
         Phone 800-977-7401
         Email: info@goldberglawpc.com


GRAIN PROCESSING: Judge Approves Nuisance Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------
Dar Danielson, writing for RadioIowa, reported that a District
Court Judge approved class action cases for two groups in a
lawsuit against Grain Processing Corporation's (GPC) Muscatine
corn wet milling operation.

Some residents of Muscatine who lived near the plant filed the
lawsuit claiming nuisance, trespass and negligence against the
plant for alleged pollution released in the milling process.
Attorney Jim Larew represents the Muscatine residents. "We're very
pleased for our plaintiffs and the citizens of Muscatine that the
court has certified two classes, which will enable them to proceed
with the case," Larew says.

The District Court Ruling creates one class of people who live
within one-and-half miles of the plant, and another which lives
outside that first area. Larew says the company now has some
options. "Iowa law allows either party after a class certification
is made by the trial courts to appeal that issue to the Iowa
Supreme Court. Normally a party has 30 days to make that decision
-- whether to appeal or not," Larew says. He says those involved
would be notified if the case goes forward.

"Normally class members have the chance to either opt in or opt
out. The court will make it clear procedurally what happens,"
according to Larew. This lawsuit was first filed in April of 2012.
The district court initially had thrown out the case, siding with
the company which said the issues fell under the federal Clean Air
Act. But the Iowa Supreme Court ruled in June of 2014 that there
were claims that could be decided in the state court and ordered
the lawsuit to proceed.

The company agreed in March to a record $1.5 million civil penalty
for violating environmental regulations. GPC also agreed to
convert its boilers from coal-fired to natural gas-fired to cut
air pollutant emissions as part of the settlement.


GRAIS & ELLSWORTH: "Stauffer" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
Raymond E. Stauffer, and all others similarly-situated v. Grais &
Ellsworth LLP and Update, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-08238 (S.D. N.Y.,
October 17, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid compensation,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs, pre and post judgment
interest pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law.

Defendant Grais & Ellsworth LLP is a mid-sized litigation law firm
in New York City.

Defendant Update, Inc. is one of the preeminent legal recruiting
and placement firms in the country, with offices in 10 major
cities across the U.S.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raymond E. Stauffer, Esq.
      9 Sentinel Court, Unit F
      Chatham, NJ 07928
      Tel: (973) 701-0877


GREEN FLEET: Cal. Suit Seeks to Recover Penalties and Back Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Pineda-Amaya and Laura Hernandez Pineda v. Green Fleet
Systems, LLC, and Does 1 through 100, Case No. BC596958 (Cal.
Super. Ct., October 6, 2015) asserts that each of the Plaintiff,
as representatives of the general public, seeks to recover
penalties, damages and back wages.

Green Fleet is a Corporation authorized to do business in
California, which maintained offices at Carson, California.  Green
Fleet is one of the Los Angeles and Long Beach Port trucking
companies.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alvin M. Gomez, Esq.
          GOMEZ LAW GROUP
          853 Camino Del Mar, Suite 100
          Del Mar, CA 92014
          Telephone: (858)552-0000
          Facsimile: (858) 755-3364
          E-mail: alvingomez@thegomezlawgroup.com


HILLCREST DAVIDSON: "Wattley" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Wattley, and all others similarly-situated v. Hillcrest,
Davidson, & Associates, LLC, Keith Burkett, and Sean Atwood, Case
No. 3:15-cv-03349 (N.D. Tex., October 16, 2015), seeks damages for
unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, injunctive relief,
declaratory relief and reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate a debt collection business in Dallas,
Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christine A. Hopkins, Esq.
      ROSS LAW GROUP
      5956 Sherry Lane
      Suite 1000, PMB 106
      Dallas, TX 75225
      Tel: (214) 716-4597
      Fax: (855) 867-4455
      E-mail: christine@rosslawgroup.com


HOME DEPOT: "Seramur" Suit Alleges JFPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------
Dennis R. Seramur dba Seramur and Sons Builders, and all others
similarly-situated v. Home Depot USA, Inc. and John Does 1-10,
Case No. 2:15-cv-00394 (N.D. Ind., October 16, 2015), seeks
damages for Defendant's violation of the Junk Fax Prevention Act
of 2005.

The Defendant owns and operates home improvement retail stores.
The company offers building materials, home improvement, lawn and
garden, and kitchen, lighting, storage, and flooring design
products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
      ANDERSON + WANCA
      3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
      Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
      Tel: (847) 368-1500
      Fax: (847) 368-1501


HOMEAWAY INC: Faces Data Breach Class Action in California
----------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that Vacation
rental company HomeAway Inc. and its online payment partner
YapStone Inc. didn't do enough to prevent a yearlong security
breach that exposed user information including bank account and
Social Security numbers, plaintiffs lawyers allege in suit filed
on Nov. 2.

HomeAway, which operates HomeAway.com, VRBO.com and
VacationRentals.com, alerted users in September that its security
had been compromised, leaving data accessible to outsiders from
July 2014 to August 2015, according to the suit.  Plaintiffs claim
the breach compromised the names, email addresses, physical
addresses, dates of birth, bank account information and Social
Security numbers of property owners and managers.

Though HomeAway and YapStone learned of the breach in August, the
companies took six weeks to notify customers, the suit alleges.
"Because defendants failed to take necessary precautions to
safeguard class members' information," the lawyers wrote, "class
members' personal data may remain available for illegal misuse for
years."

HomeAway did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment.

Plaintiffs lawyers with Levi & Korsinsky in New York and Del Mar
Law Group in San Diego filed the complaint on Nov. 2 in the
Northern District of California.  Bonnema v. HomeAway, 15-5023,
seeks damages for negligence, unfair competition, breach of
implied contract, unjust enrichment and violation of California
data breach law.  Both HomeAway and YapStone promise to protect
their customers' personal data, according to the complaint.  The
HomeAway.com and VRBO.com websites assure users that "paying
online through HomeAway is more secure for you and your
travelers."  And YapStone claims to "maintain the highest level of
security possible" and to have "developed a rich suite of security
features for [its] online payment processing platform," according
to the complaint.

The defendants offered credit monitoring and identity theft
insurance in the wake of the breach, but the plaintiffs lawyers
dismissed the remedy as insufficient.  Suggesting that potential
victims protect themselves by reviewing their account statements,
monitoring their credit reports and changing their passwords puts
the burden on victims and may force them to incur additional out-
of-pocket expenses, the lawyers wrote.


IHEARTMEDIA INC: "Sheridan" Suit Alleges Copyright Infringement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur Sheridan and Barbara Sheridan, and all others similarly-
situated v. iHeartMedia, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-50266 (N.D. Ill.,
October 16, 2015), seeks damages for common law copyright
infringement.

The Plaintiffs alleges that the Defendant has violated and
continues to violate Plaintiffs' rights under Illinois law through
the marketing, sale, and provision of internet and terrestrial
radio services that include Pre-1972 Recordings.

iHeartMedia, Inc. is an American mass media company headquartered
in San Antonio, Texas.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      1144 West Lake Street, Suite 400
      Oak Park, IL 60301
      Tel: (708) 628-4949
      Fax: (708) 628-4950
      E-mail: beth@hbsslaw.com


JASON SCHEAR: Filed a Petition for Turnover of Account Proceeds
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Schear, Eduard Stanciu, Bareket Drori, Stella Kim, Dana
Beierle, Michael Martinez, and Odin Redd, on behalf of themselves
and other similarly situated, filed a petition with the Supreme
Court of The State Of New York County of New York demanding an
Order and Judgment directing Respondent Citigroup Inc., to
turnover to New York City Marshal Stephen W. Biegel, the proceeds
of Account #C17067965, and belonging to Judgment Debtor Masahiro
Origuchi.

The case is JASON SCHEAR, EDUARD STANCIU, BAREKET DRORI, STELLA
KIM,DANA BEIERLE, MICHAEL MARTINEZ, and ODIN REDD, on behalf of
themselves and other similarly situated, Petitioners v. Citigroup
Inc., Case No. 159986/2015.

The Petitioners are represented by:

      Jonathan D. Warner, Esq.
      WARNER & SCHEUERMAN
      6 West 18th Street, 10th Floor
      New York, NY 10011
      Telephone: (212) 924-7111


JM HOLLISTER: "Pang" Suit Transferred From E.D. to W.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Pang, et al. v. J.M. Hollister,
LLC, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01148, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of New York (Rochester).
The Western District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:15-cv-06604-
FPG to the proceeding.

The lawsuit seeks to recover unpaid compensation, damages and fees
relating to the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

J.M. Hollister, LLC operates as a subsidiary of Abercrombie &
Fitch Stores, Inc.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David Louis Scher, Esq.
          Jeffrey A. Block, Esq.
          BLOCK O'TOOLE & MURPHY, LLP
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 5315
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (646) 825-4005
          Facsimile: (212) 971-9840
          E-mail: DScher@blockotoole.com
                  JBlock@BlockOToole.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jon S. Brooks, Esq.
          PHILLIPS, NIZER LLP
          666 Fifth Avenue
          New York, NY 10103
          Telephone: (212) 977-9700
          Facsimile: (212) 262-5152
          E-mail: jbrooks@phillipsnizer.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: Settles Debt Collection Suit for $100 Million
-------------------------------------------------------------
Don Thompson, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the
nation's largest bank will pay $100 million to settle a California
lawsuit alleging it used illegal methods to collect debts from
more than 125,000 credit card holders, the state's attorney
general announced on Nov. 2.

JPMorgan Chase & Co., the largest U.S. bank by assets, will pay an
estimated $10 million to consumers in California as part of a
previously announced $50 million national agreement, and will pay
another $50 million in penalties to the state to settle a 2013
lawsuit.

It is agreeing to change practices that the state says violated
California law and led the company to file thousands of debt
collection lawsuits between 2008 and 2011.  They include
collecting incorrect amounts, selling bad credit card debt, and
running what Attorney General Kamala Harris' office calls a debt
collection mill that "robo-signed" court documents.

The deal includes reimbursing military members in California in
cases where the company improperly obtained default judgments.
The state says the company failed to check if customers were on
active military duty but falsely swore it had done so.

"This settlement provides real relief to tens of thousands of
Californians, including servicemembers, and prevents JPMorgan
Chase from continuing these deceptive and illegal debt collection
practices," Ms. Harris said in a statement.

JPMorgan Chase spokesman Paul Hartwick said the company reached a
similar settlement with 47 other states' attorneys general in
July. He provided a statement from that settlement that says the
company stopped the practices years ago.

Among other allegations, the state said the company used illegal
threats; sued borrowers based on insufficient evidence, betting
that they wouldn't challenge the lawsuits; and failed to tell
customers they were being sued while swearing they had been
properly notified.

Ms. Harris said the company frequently "robo-signed" legal
documents including sworn declarations without first reviewing the
files as it rushed to obtain court judgments and wage garnishment
orders.

The state said the company also provided 30,000 robo-signed sworn
statements backing lawsuits filed by outside debt-collectors.
Those accounts were often inaccurate or not collectable because
the debt had been settled, discharged in bankruptcy or wasn't
owed, the state said.

Robo-signing was also widely used in mortgage foreclosures until
it was outlawed.  JPMorgan Chase is one of five major national
banks that settled with California and other states over such
practices after the housing market collapsed.

As part of the lawsuit, the company is required to permanently
stop attempting to collect more than 528,000 customer accounts
valued at hundreds of millions of dollars.


KOLBE & KOLBE: Wisconsin Judge Rules on Insurers' Motions
---------------------------------------------------------
MARY HALEY and MICHAEL HALEY, LESLIE BANKS and JAMES HAL BANKS,
ANNIE BUINEWICZ and BRIAN BUINEWICZ, TERRANCE McIVER AND JEAN ANN
McIVER, SUSAN SENYK, CHRISTIAN SENYK, GARY SAMUELS, PATRICIA
GROOME, MATTHEW DELLER, RENEE DELLER and MARIE LOHR, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. KOLBE
& KOLBE MILLWORK CO., INC., Defendant, and FIREMAN'S FUND
INSURANCE COMPANY and UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Intervenor Defendants, No. 14-CV-99-BBC, (W.D. Wis.), is a
proposed class action in which plaintiffs allege that the windows
they purchased from defendant Kolbe & Kolbe Millwork Co. are
defective.

In her Opinion and Order dated November 2, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/j0rNX1from Leagle.com, District Judge Barbara B.
Crabb addressed three motions for summary judgment related to
peripheral disputes between defendant and its insurers, Fireman's
Fund Insurance Company and United States Fire Insurance Company.

United States Fire seeks summary judgment on defendant's claims
that United States Fire breached its duty to defend defendant and
acted in bad faith.  Both insurers seek a declaration that they
owe no duty to defend or indemnify defendant.

Judge Crabb granted United States Fire's motion with respect to
defendant's claims because defendant has not shown that United
States Fire's conduct violated defendant's rights. However, the
Court denied both insurers' motion regarding their duty to
indemnify and their continuing duty to defend because there is
still a possibility that defendant could be required to pay
damages that are covered by the insurers' policies.

Counsel for Plaintiffs: Dixon R. Gahnz, Esq. --
dgahnz@lawtoncates.com -- of Lawton & Cates, S.C.; James A. Olson,
Esq. --  jolson@lawtoncates.com -- of Lawton & Cates, S.C.; Joseph
J. DePalma, Esq. -- jdepalma@litedepalma.com -- of Lite DePalma
Greenberg, LLC -- Katrina Carroll, Esq. --
kcarroll@litedepalma.com -- of Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC; Susana
Cruz Hodge, Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC; Benjamin D. Elga, Esq. --
belga@cuneolaw.com -- of Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP; Bonnie J.
Prober, Esq. -- bprober@cuneolaw.com -- of Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca,
LLP; Charles J. LaDuca, Esq. -- charlesl@cuneolaw.com -- Charles
E. Schaffer, Esq. -- cschaffer@lfsblaw.com -- of Levin Fishbein
Sedran & Berman -- Daniel M. Cohen, Esq. -- danielc@cuneolaw.com -
- of Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca; Jill T. Lin, Esq. of Audet &
Partners, LLP, Jonas Palmer Mann, Esq. of Audet & Partners, LLP;
Katherine W. Van Dyck, Esq. -- kvandyck@cuneolaw.com -- of Cuneo
Gilbert & LaDuca; Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq. of Lite DePalma
Greenberg, LLC; Michael J. Flannery, Esq. --
mflannery@cuneolaw.com -- of Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca; Michael
Andrew McShane, Esq. of Audet & Partners, LLP; Rebecca A.
Peterson, Esq. -- rapeterson@locklaw.com -- of Lockridge Grindal
Nauen P.L.L.P. and Robert K. Shelquist, Esq. -- of
rkshelquist@locklaw.com -- of Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P.

counsel for Kolbe and Kolbe Millwork Co., Inc.: Gordon Davenport,
III, Esq. of Foley & Lardner LLP, Michael D. Leffel, Esq. of Foley
& Lardner; Susan G. Schellinger, Esq. --
sschellinger@dkattorneys.com -- of Davis & Kuelthau, S.C.;
Elizabeth K. Miles, Esq. -- emiles@dkattorneys.com -- of Davis &
Kuelthau s.c.; Krista J. Sterken, Esq. of Foley and Lardner and
Matthew D. Lee, Esq. of Foley & Lardner LLP.


LONG BEACH CARE: Arbitration Bid in "Guerra" Case Revived
---------------------------------------------------------
Justice Roger W. Boren of the Court of Appeals of California,
Second District, Division Two, reversed the trial court's denial
of the motion to compel arbitration in the appeal case captioned
PAOLO GUERRA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LONG BEACH CARE CENTER,
INC., Defendant and Appellant, Case No. B257157, (Cal. App. Ct.)

Paolo Guerra was employed at Long Beach Care Center, Inc. (LBCC)
as a laundry attendant. Guerra signed a two-page Mediation and
Arbitration Agreement (the Agreement) on the day he was hired. He
and LBCC agreed to arbitrate "any disputes [and] all claims,"
including "all employment and employment related matters,"
specifically "claims regarding wages, compensation or employment
benefits, and any and all claims covered by any federal, state or
local laws. . . ." The Agreement reads, "Both parties to this
contract, by entering into it, are giving up their constitutional
right to have any such dispute decided in a court of law before a
jury, and instead are accepting the use of mediation and
arbitration."

One month after Guerra was hired, his attorney threatened LBCC
with a class action lawsuit. He then filed a complaint alleging
that LBCC failed to pay overtime wages, provide meal and rest
periods, keep accurate payroll records, or pay wages at the end of
employment. He asserts that LBCC's conduct violated the Labor
Code, and was an unfair or unlawful business practice.

LBCC moved to stay the lawsuit and compel arbitration because the
Agreement covers all employment-related disputes and does not
authorize class actions. LBCC asserted that Guerra expressly
agreed to arbitrate his individual claims. No exception to
arbitration applies, the Agreement is not unconscionable, and it
meets legal standards for employment arbitration agreements.

The trial court deemed the agreement unconscionable and denied the
motion.

In his Opinion dated November 2, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/1wwKY5from Leagle.com, Justice Boren reversed the
trial court's order denying the petition to compel arbitration.
The trial court is to enter a new order dismissing the class
claims and granting the motion to compel arbitration of Guerra's
individual claims, with the proviso that the one sentence relating
to arbitrator fees and costs be removed. Long Beach Care Center,
Justice Boren said, is entitled to recover its costs on appeal
from Paolo Guerra.  He said the parties' agreement is not
unilateral or unfairly one-sided. The Agreement meets the
requirements for a mandatory employment arbitration agreement,
save for one: (1) it provides for arbitrators named by each party,
or a mutually agreeable neutral arbitrator; (2) it provides for
discovery pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure; (3) it requires
a written award; and (4) it allows the same types of relief that
would be available in court. The only requirement that is not met
is that employees must pay arbitrator fees. LBCC concedes that it
is responsible for the cost of the arbitration.  The Appeals Court
directed the removal of the sentence "Each party will pay the fees
and costs associated with their own party arbitrator" from the
Agreement, and instead impose the costs of the arbitration on
LBCC.  The Court added that the provisions in the Agreement
requiring that a claimant arbitrate in a single proceeding all
claims arising from "the same incident" does not give Guerra the
right to arbitrate on behalf of other employees, only his own wage
and hour claims.

Frank A. Magnanimo, Esq. -- frank@magdeanlaw.com -- and Rebecca L.
Gombos, Esq. -- rebecca@magdeanlaw.com -- of Magnanimo & Dean
serve as counsel for Defendant and Appellant

Kevin Mahoney, Esq. -- kmahoney@mahoney-law.net -- of Mahoney Law
Group serves as counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent


LOUISIANA: Order Granting In Forma Pauperis Status Vacated
----------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. vacated a court order
granting Plaintiff Tramaine Harrison in forma pauperis status in
the case captioned TRAMAINE A. HARRISON, ET AL., v. STATE OF
LOUISIANA, ET AL., Civil Action No. 14-0811-BAJ-RLB (M.D. La.)

Pro se plaintiff Tramaine A. Harrison and five purported pro se
co-plaintiffs, Kendall Summers, Spencer Ford, Jarvis Young, Larry
Drawsand and Larry Warren, commenced this proceeding as a
purported "Class Action" on a form for the assertion of the
violation of constitutional civil rights under 42 U.S.C. Section
1983. The Complaint is deficient, however, because it is signed
(and hand-written) only by plaintiff Harrison, and none of the
purported 5 co-plaintiff detainees has signed the Complaint,
submitted a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, or otherwise
signified a willingness to participate in the instant lawsuit.
Harrison asserts that all of the co-plaintiff detainees are housed
in "different buildings [and] their signatures can't be obtained."
Named as defendants are the State of Louisiana, Governor Bobby
Jindal, CEO Steve Lee of the Feliciana Forensic Facility ("FFF")
(where the plaintiffs are confined), and "all Drs. (psychiatrist
and psychologist), nurses, social workers, and correction guards"
at the Forensic Facility.

Harrison's claim that the defendants have violated his
constitutional rights, as well as the rights of the other five co-
plaintiffs and un-named detainees confined at the Facility, by the
conditions to which they have been subjected. Specifically, the
plaintiff alleges that although the Forensic Facility is a "so-
called" hospital, it does not provide medical treatment to the
persons confined therein. Instead, the Facility acts only as an
under-funded "incarceration outlet" for patients with mental
illness and others who have pleaded, or been induced to plead,
"not guilty by reason of insanity" to criminal offenses charged
against them.

Harrison asserts that he himself is being falsely imprisoned and
should not be confined, both because of improprieties in
connection with his probation proceedings and because his mental
condition has changed or improved to the extent that confinement
and treatment are no longer necessary. The plaintiff further
asserts, in conclusory fashion, that every other plaintiff at the
Facility meets the same criteria and is a "victim of this corrupt
system." Finally, the plaintiff asserts that security officers,
nurses and other personnel at the Facility treat the detainees
harshly, and the plaintiff includes allegations that one of the
co-plaintiffs, Jarvis Young, was raped on one occasion because of
inattention by a security officer, and that another, Larry Warren,
has been confined at the Facility for more than 20 years on a
charge of simple burglary. The plaintiff includes no specific
factual allegations relative to the other three co-plaintiff
detainees.

The Court initially granted leave to the lead plaintiff in the
present case, Tramaine Harrison, to proceed in forma pauperis.

In his Order dated October 30, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/t4IVK9from Leagle.com, Judge Bourgeois, Jr. vacated
the Order dated February 24, 2015 pursuant to which Harrison was
granted in forma pauperis status in the proceeding.  The Court
denied Harrison's motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court
gave Harrison 30 days from the date of the Order within which to
pay $400.00, the full amount of the Court's filing fee. The filing
fee must be paid in full in a single payment. No partial payments
will be accepted. Failure to pay the filing fee within 30 days
shall result in the dismissal of plaintiff Harrison's claims
without further notice from the Court.

Judge Bourgeois also ruled that, within 30 days of the date of the
Order, Plaintiffs Kendall Summers, Spencer Ford, Jarvis Young,
Larry Drawsand and Larry Warren must each re-submit the Complaint,
personally signed by them on the last page thereof.  Failure to
re-submit the Complaint in proper form within 30 days shall result
in the dismissal of the individual plaintiff's claims without
further notice from the Court. Each of them must also pay the full
amount of the Court's filing fee ($400.00) or submit properly
completed motions to proceed in forma pauperis, together with
properly completed Statements of Account, signed by an authorized
official at the plaintiffs' facility, certifying to the average
six-month deposits and balance in the plaintiffs' detainee
accounts. Failure to pay the Court's filing fee or submit a
properly completed motion to proceed in forma pauperis and
Statement of Account within 30 days shall result in the dismissal
of the individual plaintiff's claims without further notice from
the Court.

Tramaine A. Harrison, Plaintiff, Pro Se


MACOMB COUNTY, MI: Court Tosses "Cowans" Complaint
--------------------------------------------------
District Judge Terrence G. Berg summarily dismissed the
Plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice in the case captioned MARK
COWANS, DESMOND TURNER, PETER LABRECK, TIMOTHY FRADENECK, RYAN
NEELY, and ALL OTHERS SO SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. KYLE DUPRIS,
ANTHONY WICKERSHAM, AND MACOMB COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT,
Defendants, Case No. 15-12739, (E.D. Mich.)

This is a civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 brought
by five individuals who, at the time the lawsuit was filed, were
incarcerated at the Macomb County Jail.  The Complaint names the
Macomb County Deputy Sheriff, the Macomb County Sheriff, and the
Macomb County Sheriff's Department as Defendants. The Complaint
alleges that the Deputy Sheriff, Defendant Dupris, has threatened
and harassed inmates confined in the mental health ward of the
Macomb County Jail. It alleges that Defendant Sheriff, Anthony
Wickersham, has failed to maintain adequate living conditions in
both the jail and in the mental health ward in particular. The
Complaint lists a number of reforms Plaintiffs would like to see
implemented concerning how prisoners are treated in the Macomb
County Jail's mental health unit, and it seeks $10,000,000 in
damages.

Plaintiffs have also filed a joint application for leave to appeal
in forma pauperis, noting that none of them have any money in
their inmate account, but that one of them, Plaintiff LaBreck, has
assets in the form of real estate. Plaintiffs are seeking to file
this suit on behalf of themselves, and "all others so situated."

In his Opinion and Order dated October 30, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/0dPBn6from Leagle.com, Judge Berg dismissed with
prejudice the Plaintiffs' complaint. Each Plaintiff, should they
wish to do so, may file an individual complaint on his own behalf,
Judge Berg said. Because the Court is dismissing Plaintiffs'
Complaint without prejudice, Plaintiffs' motion to amend and
motion for an injunction are both denied as moot. Plaintiffs'
Complaint is construed to request prospective injunctive relief,
that is, seeking to order Macomb County to make systemic changes
to its jail policies and procedures, such a claim is moot for
several of the prisoners since they have been released or
transferred to other facilities. In this case, however, Plaintiffs
do not merely seek to bring a claim jointly; rather, they appear
to be attempting to file a class action on behalf of themselves
and "all others so situated." The law is clear that class actions
by pro se prisoners are disfavored because of the difficulties
such plaintiffs have in adequately representing the interests of
their class.  Given the difficulties involved in allowing this
case to proceed as a class action, the Court believes that the
best course of action would be to dismiss the Complaint without
prejudice, and permit the individual plaintiffs to file individual
complaints on their own behalf if they wish to do so.

The Court also noted that three of the five named Plaintiffs are
no longer housed at the Macomb County Jail, making their claims
for prospective injunctive relief moot. Plaintiff Cowans, who
appears to be the "lead" Plaintiff that hand-wrote the pleadings,
is among those Plaintiffs no longer housed at the Macomb County
Jail. According to the records of the Michigan Department of
Corrections that are available online, Plaintiff Cowans is now
housed in a prison in Ionia, Michigan (located in the Western
District of Michigan). The fact that several of these Plaintiffs
are no longer residing at the facility where the alleged
mistreatment was occurring, and that they are now in separate
prisons geographically distant from one another, are circumstances
that make the joint prosecution of this case -- particularly as a
potential class action -- highly impractical and counsel strongly
in favor of dismissing this case without prejudice, and permitting
each individual Plaintiff to file his own lawsuit.


MCWANE INC: Jan. 28 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
If You Directly Purchased Ductile Iron Pipe Fittings between
January 11, 2008 and December 31, 2013, You Could Be Affected by
Proposed Class Action Settlements

Please read the entire Notice carefully. These Settlements may
affect your rights.

What Is This Lawsuit About?

There are two Proposed Settlements, a SIGMA Settlement and a Star
Settlement, in a class action lawsuit called In re Ductile Iron
Pipe Fittings ("DIPF") Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation,
which is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey.  The Proposed Settlements are partial
because there is a defendant remaining in the case and litigation
is continuing.

The defendants in this lawsuit are McWane, Inc. and its divisions
Clow Water Systems Co., Tyler Pipe Company, and Tyler Union
(collectively "McWane"); SIGMA Corporation and its subsidiary
SIGMA Piping Products Corporation (together, "SIGMA"); and Star
Pipe Products, Ltd. ("Star").  The lawsuit alleges that from
January 11, 2008 through June 30, 2011, defendants engaged in a
conspiracy to fix prices for DIPF in the United States in
violation of the antitrust laws. Plaintiffs also claim that from
September 17, 2009 through December 31, 2013, defendant McWane
illegally monopolized, and defendants SIGMA and McWane conspired
to restrain trade and monopolize, the market for Domestic DIPF
in the United States in violation of the antitrust laws.
Defendants deny all of plaintiffs' allegations.

Am I A Class Member?

The SIGMA Settlement has two classes: (1) All persons or entities
in the United States that purchased DIPF directly from any
defendant from January 11, 2008 through June 30, 2011; and (2) All
persons or entities in the United States that purchased Domestic
DIPF directly from McWane or SIGMA from September 17, 2009 through
December 31, 2013.

The Star Settlement has only one class: All persons or entities in
the United States that purchased DIPF directly from any defendant
from January 11, 2008 through June 30, 2011.

Full descriptions of DIPFs are available at
www.DIPFDirectSettlement.com

What Do The Settlements Provide And How Do I Get A Payment?

Under the respective Settlements, SIGMA has agreed to pay
$4,895,000 and Star has agreed to pay $3,633,750.  If you are a
Class Member, you may be eligible to receive payment from one or
both of the Settlements.  To qualify for payment, you must
complete and send in a valid Claim Form, available at
www.DIPFDirectSettlement.com

The Claim Form is the same for each Settlement, and you need to
submit only one Claim Form to participate in both Settlements.
Be sure to sign the Claim Form and mail it by first-class mail
postmarked no later than January 29, 2016 to DIPF Direct Purchaser
Market Antitrust Settlement, c/o GCG P.O. Box 10095, Dublin, OH
43017-6695.

If the Court approves the SIGMA and Star Settlements, the Net
Settlement Funds from each Settlement will be distributed on a pro
rata basis among all Class Members who submit valid and timely
Claim Forms.

There are specialized companies that may offer to fill out and
file your claim in return for a percentage of the value of your
claim.  The Court has not authorized any of these companies to
contact you.  Before you contract with one of these companies, you
can always seek help from the Claims Administrator or Class
Counsel in filing your Claim.

Can I Exclude Myself?

If you want to keep the right to sue or continue to sue SIGMA or
Star (or both of them) about the legal issues in this case, then
you must exclude yourself from the Settlement Class with SIGMA and
Star.  If you exclude yourself from either or both Settlement
Classes, you will not get any payment from the Settlement(s) from
which you are excluded.

To exclude yourself, you must send a letter saying that you want
to be excluded.  Important instructions about how to exclude
yourself can be obtained from www.DIPFDirectSettlement.com
Your letter must be postmarked by December 29, 2015.

How Do I Object?

You can object to either or both of the Settlements if you are a
Class Member and have not excluded yourself.

To object, you must send a letter to the Court.

Instructions about how to object may be obtained from
www.DIPFDirectSettlement.com

Your letter must be filed by January 8, 2016.

What If I Do Nothing?

If you do nothing, you will not receive payment, you will remain
in the Class for the SIGMA and Star Settlements, and you will be
bound by the Releases regarding claims in this matter.  The only
way to qualify for a payment from these Settlements is to send in
a Claim Form.

Who Represents Me?

The Court has appointed Kit A. Pierson of Cohen Milstein Sellers &
Toll PLLC and Robert N. Kaplan of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP to
represent the Class.

If you want to be represented by your own lawyer, you may hire one
at your own expense.

These lawyers will ask the Court to approve the reimbursement of
costs and expenses incurred in the prosecution of the lawsuit in
the amount of $2,842,916.67 (one-third of the total amount of the
SIGMA and Star Settlements).  The request for expenses will be
available for viewing on the website below once it is filed with
the Court.

When Will The Judge Decide?

The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing to decide whether to
approve the terms of the SIGMA and Star Settlements at 10:30 a.m.
on January 28, 2016, at the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, 402 East State Street, Trenton, NJ 08608.
If there are objections or comments, the Court will consider
them, but may still approve the Settlements.  You may appear at
the hearing, but you are not required to do so.  The hearing may
be moved to a different date or time without notice.  You should
check the Settlement Website below for updates.

This Notice is only a summary.

For more information visit the website below.
www.DIPFDirectSettlement.com


MERRILL LYNCH: Zale Corp Buyout Class Suit Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------
Tom Hals, writing for Reuters, reported that a Delaware judge
dismissed a shareholder class action against Merrill Lynch for its
role in the buyout of the Zale Corp jewelry chain, reversing a
ruling from just four weeks earlier.

Donald Parsons of the Court of Chancery ruled on Oct. 1 that
Merrill Lynch had to defend its role in the sale of Zale. But the
following day, he said the Delaware Supreme Court issued an
opinion that clarified the standard of review in such cases.

Given the Supreme Court ruling, Merrill asked for Parsons to
reconsider, which led to the unusual ruling reversing his four-
week-old opinion.

Seth Rigrodsky, the attorney for the Zale shareholders, did not
immediately respond to a request for comment.

The Zale case and several similar class actions have garnered
attention on Wall Street for the way Delaware judges have found
financial advisers like Merrill Lynch may be exposed to millions
of dollars in damages in merger deals.

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

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

Parsons dismissed the other defendants but on Oct. 1 ruled that
Merrill could be liable to shareholders because the bank failed to
disclose potential conflicts.

Merrill Lynch never told Zale's board that a month before it was
hired by the board the bank made a presentation to Signet's chief
financial officer about acquiring Zales for $17 to $21 a share.

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

The Delaware Supreme Court is considering RBC's appeal of the
Rural/Metro ruling.

Parsons' term on the court officially ended on Oct. 22. The
Delaware Senate on confirmed corporate lawyer Tamika Montgomery-
Reeves as his replacement.

The case is In re Zale Corporation Stockholders Litigation,
Delaware Court of Chancery, No. 9388.


MILLENNIUM PRODUCTS: "Hood" Suit Asserts California UCL Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Janet Hood, and all others similarly-situated v. Millennium
Products, Inc., Case No. 115CV286910 (Ca. Super., October 15,
2015), is brought against the Defendant for mislabeling its
Kombucha products in violation of the California Unfair
Competition Law.

The Defendant manufactured and sold Kombuchas in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ben F. Pierce Gore, Esq.
      PRATT & ASSOCIATES
      1871 The Alameda, Suite 425
      San Jose, Ca 95126
      Tel: (408) 429-6506
      Fax: (408) 369-0752
      E-mail: pgore@prattattorneys.com

          - and -

      Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      507 C Street NE
      Washington, DC 20003
      Tel: (202) 789-3960
      Fax: (202) 589-1813
      E-mail: jone@cuneolaw.com

          - and -

      Eliabeth Tipping, Esq.
      NEAL & HARWELL, PLC
      One Nashville Place, Suite 2000
      150 Fourth Avenue North
      Nashville, TN 37219
      Tel: (615) 244-1713
      E-mail: etipping@nealharwell.com


MIZUHO BANK: Appeals District Court Order in "Laydon" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mizuho Corporate Bank, Ltd., now known as Mizuho Bank, Ltd., et
al., ask the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to grant
a writ of mandamus to correct an alleged erroneous ruling that the
nine Japanese Bank Defendants waived their right to assert a
personal jurisdiction defense.

The ruling was entered by Judge George B. Daniels of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York in the class
action lawsuit styled Jeffrey Laydon, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Mizuho Bank, Ltd., et al., Case No.
1:12-CV-03419-GBD-HBP.

In April 2012, Plaintiff Jeffrey Laydon filed a putative class
action against 25 defendants for violations of the Sherman Act,
the Commodity Exchange Act, and common law in connection with
alleged manipulation of yen LIBOR and euroyen TIBOR rates.  The
Japanese Bank Defendants are each organized and have their
principal place of business in Japan.

The other Japanese Bank Defendants-Petitioners are The Bank of
Yokohama, Ltd., The Shoko Chukin Bank, Ltd., Shinkin Central Bank,
Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Bank, Ltd., Sumitomo Mitsui Banking
Corporation, The Norinchukin Bank, The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi
UFJ, Ltd., and Mitsubishi UFJ Trust and Banking Corporation.

The Japanese Bank Defendants-Petitioners argued, among other
things, that the District Court indisputably abused its discretion
because it subjected 10 foreign banks to its jurisdiction without
applying (or even acknowledging) the Appellate Court's guidance
that courts should approach claims of jurisdictional waiver with
"enhanced caution."  In applying this standard, they contend,
courts in this Circuit have found jurisdictional waiver only in
situations in which the defendant's delay prejudiced the
Plaintiff, provided an advantage to the defendant, or wasted
judicial resources.

The appellate case is captioned Jeffrey Laydon, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Respondents
v. Mizuho Bank, Ltd., et al., Defendants-Petitioners, Case No. 15-
3014, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas M. Skelton, Esq.
          Vincent Briganti, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG COHEN & HART, LLP
          White Plains Plaza
          One North Broadway, Suite 509
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 997-0500
          E-mail: tskelton@lowey.com
                  vbriganti@lowey.com

Defendant Mizuho Corporate Bank, Ltd. is represented by:

          Jerome S. Fortinsky, Esq.
          John A. Nathanson, Esq.
          Jeffrey J. Resetarits, Esq.
          SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
          599 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 848-4000
          E-mail: jfortinsky@shearman.com
                  john.nathanson@shearman.com
                  jeffrey.resetarits@shearman.com

Defendant The Bank of Yokohama, Ltd. is represented by:

          Gary W. Kubek, Esq.
          Erica Weisgerber, Esq.
          DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP
          919 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 909-6000
          E-mail: gwkubek@debevoise.com
                  eweisgerber@debevoise.com

Defendant The Shoko Chukin Bank, Ltd. is represented by:

          Robert C. Mason, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
          399 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 715-1000
          E-mail: robert.mason@aporter.com

               - and -

          James W. Thomas, Jr., Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
          555 Twelfth Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 942-5000
          E-mail: james.thomas@aporter.com

Defendant Shinkin Central Bank is represented by:

          Andrew C. Smith, Esq.
          Andrew J. Kim, Esq.
          PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP
          1540 Broadway
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 858-1000
          E-mail: andrew.smith@pillsburylaw.com
                  andrew.kim@pillsburylaw.com

Defendant Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Bank, Ltd. is represented by:

          Dale C. Christensen, Jr., Esq.
          Michael B. Weitman, Esq.
          SEWARD & KISSEL LLP
          One Battery Park Plaza
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 574-1200
          E-mail: christensen@sewkis.com
                  weitman@sewkis.com

Defendant Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation is represented by:

          Jon R. Roellke, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          2020 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 373-6000
          E-mail: jon.roellke@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Michael L. Spafford, Esq.
          PAUL HASTINGS LLP
          875 15th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 551-1700
          E-mail: michaelspafford@paulhastings.com

Defendant The Norinchukin Bank is represented by:

          Andrew W. Stern, Esq.
          Alan M. Unger, Esq.
          Tom A. Paskowitz, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          787 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 839-5300
          Facsimile: (212) 839-5599
          E-mail: astern@sidley.com
                  aunger@sidley.com
                  tpaskowitz@sidley.com

Defendant Mitsubishi UFJ Trust and Banking Corp. is represented
by:

          Daryl A. Libow, Esq.
          Christopher M. Viapiano, Esq.
          SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
          1700 New York Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 956-7500
          E-mail: libowd@sullcrom.com
                  viapianoc@sullcrom.com

Defendants JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA, J.P. Morgan Securities PLC,
and JPMorgan Chase & Co. are represented by:

          Thomas C. Rice, Esq.
          Paul C. Gluckow, Esq.
          SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
          425 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 455-2000
          E-mail: trice@stblaw.com
                  pgluckow@stblaw.com

Defendants The Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC, Royal Bank of
Scotland PLC, and RBS Securities Japan Limited are represented by:

          Robert C. Houck, Esq.
          James D. Miller, Esq.
          CLIFFORD CHANCE US, LLP
          31 West 52nd Street
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 878-3224
          E-mail: robert.houck@cliffordchance.com
                  jim.miller@cliffordchance.com

Defendant Deutsche Bank AG is represented by:

          Moses Silverman, Esq.
          Andrew C. Finch, Esq.
          PAUL WEISS RIFKIND WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
          1825 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 373-3000
          E-mail: msilverman@paulweiss.com
                  afinch@paulweiss.com

Defendants UBS AG and UBS Securities Japan Co., Ltd. are
represented by:

          Peter Sullivan, Esq.
          Lawrence J. Zweifach, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP
          200 Park Avenue, 48th Floor
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: (212) 351-4000
          E-mail: psullivan@gibsondunn.com
                  lzweifach@gibsondunn.com

Defendant Barclays Bank PLC is represented by:

          Jonathan D. Schiller, Esq.
          Leigh M. Nathanson, Esq.
          BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
          575 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 446-2300
          E-mail: jschiller@bsfllp.com
                  lnathanson@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          William A. Isaacson, Esq.
          Melissa Felder Zappala, Esq.
          BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
          5301 Wisconsin Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20015
          Telephone: (202) 237-2727
          E-mail: wisaacson@bsfllp.com
                  mzappala@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          David H. Braff, Esq.
          Yvonne S. Quinn, Esq.
          Jeffrey T. Scott, Esq.
          Matthew J. Porpora, Esq.
          SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 558-4000
          E-mail: braffd@sullcrom.com
                  quinny@sullcrom.com
                  scottj@sullcrom.com
                  porporam@sullcrom.com

Defendants HSBC Holdings plc and HSBC Bank Plc

          James M. Goodin, Esq.
          LOCKE LORD LLP
          111 S Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (313) 443-0472
          E-mail: jmgoodin@lockelord.com

               - and -

          Gregory T. Casamento, Esq.
          LOCKE LORD LLP
          3 World Financial Center, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 415-8600
          E-mail: gcasamento@lockelord.com

               - and -

          Roger B. Cowie, Esq.
          LOCKE LORD LLP
          2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2200
          Dallas, TX 75201
          E-mail: rcowie@lockelord.com

Defendants Citibank NA, Citigroup Global Markets Japan, Inc., and
Citibank Japan LTD. are represented by:

          Andrew A. Ruffino, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING L.L.P.
          620 Eighth Avenue
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 841-1000
          E-mail: aruffino@cov.com

               - and -

          Alan M. Wiseman, Esq.
          Jonathan J. Gimblett, Esq.
          Thomas A. Isaacson, Esq.
          One City Center
          850 10th Street NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 662-6000
          E-mail: awiseman@cov.com
                  jgimblett@cov.com
                  tisaacson@cov.com

Defendant Societe Generale is represented by:

          Steven Wolowitz, Esq.
          Henninger S. Bullock, Esq.
          Andrew J. Calica, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          1675 Broadway
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 506-2500
          E-mail: swolowitz@mayerbrown.com
                  hbullock@mayerbrown.com
                  acalica@mayerbrown.com

Defendant Cooperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank B.A. is
represented by:

          David R. Gelfand, Esq.
          Mark D. Villaverde, Esq.
          Melanie W. Yanez, Esq.
          Sean M. Murphy, Esq.
          MILBANK, TWEED, HADLEY & MCCLOY LLP
          28 Liberty Street
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 530-5000
          E-mail: dgelfand@milbank.com
                  mvillaverde@milbank.com
                  mwestover@milbank.com
                  smurphy@milbank.com

Defendant R.P. Martin Holdings Limited is represented by:

          Keith W. Miller, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          30 Rockefeller Plaza, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10112
          Telephone: (212) 262-6900
          E-mail: keithmiller@perkinscoie.com


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Faces Suit Over Anticompetitive Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------
Trilogy Holding, LLC dba Bounce Sporting Club; New Lounge 4324,
LLC dba Bounce Sporting Club; Pedal Haus Brewery, LLC; Whiskey
Rocks Tempe, LLC dba Gringo Star Street Bar; and Jonathan Frantz,
and all others similarly-situated v. National Football League,
Inc.; NFL Enterprises LLC; Arizona Cardinals Holdings, Inc.;
Atlanta Falcons Football Club LLC; Baltimore Ravens Limited
Partnership; Buffalo Bills, LLC; Panthers Football LLC; Chicago
Bears Football Club, Inc.; Cleveland Browns Football Company, LLC;
Dallas Cowboys Football Club, Ltd.; PDB Sports, Ltd. dba Denver
Broncos Football Club; Detroit Lions, Inc.; Green Bay Packers,
Inc.; Houston NFL Holdings LP; Indianapolis Colts, Inc.;
Jacksonville Jaguars LLC; Kansas City Chiefs Football Club, Inc.;
Miami Dolphins, Ltd.; Minnesota Vikings Football Club LLC; New
England Patriots, LP; New Orleans Louisiana Saints LLC; New York
Football Giants, Inc.; New York Jets LLC; Oakland Raiders LP;
Philadelphia Eagles Football Club, Inc.; Pittsburgh Steelers
Sports, Inc.; Chargers Football Co., LLC; San Francisco Forty
Niners II, LLC; Football Northwest LLC; The Rams Football Company
LLC; Buccaneers Limited Partnership; Tennessee Football, Inc.;
Washington Football, Inc.; CBS Corporation; Fox Broadcasting
Company; NBCUniversal Media, LLC; ESPN Inc.; DirecTV Holdings,
LLC; and DirecTV, LLC., Case No. 1:15-cv-08188 (S.D. N.Y., October
16, 2015), seek injunctive relief putting an end to the
Defendants' anticompetitive scheme and damages to compensate the
Class for the supracompetitive overcharges they have paid pursuant
to the Sherman Act.

Defendant National Football League, Inc. is an incorporated
association of the 32 football teams in the National Football
League (the "Teams") with its principal place of business in New
York, New York.

The "Network Defendants" refer collectively to CBS, Fox, NBC, and
ESPN, contracts with NFL to produce and broadcast live video
presentations of regular season NFL games.

Defendant DirecTV Holdings, LLC is a Delaware limited liability
company with its principal place of business in El Segundo,
California. DirecTV Holdings LLC is the principal United States
operating arm of DirecTV, Inc.

Defendant DirecTV, LLC is a California limited liability company
with its principal place of business in El Segundo, California.
DirecTV, LLC issues bills to commercial subscribers to its
satellite television packages, including Sunday Ticket.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Jeffrey B. Dubner, Esq.
      COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
      1100 New York Ave. NW Suite 500
      Washington, DC 20005
      Tel: (202) 408-4600
      Fax: (202) 408-4699


NEIL JONES FOOD: Class Action Settlement Has Preliminary Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone granted Plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement in the case
captioned LUIS VALDEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE NEIL JONES FOOD
COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:13-CV-00519-AWI-SAB, (E.D.
Cal.)

Plaintiffs filed the first amended complaint against Defendant
Jones alleging failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to
pay overtime, failure to pay required "reporting time", failure to
pay for all hours worked, failure to pay wages due upon
termination, failure to provide itemized wage statements, unfair
business practices, conversion, and violation of the Private
Attorneys General Act. Plaintiffs reside in Fresno County and were
employed as non-exempt hourly employees by Defendant Jones.

Defendant operates San Benito Foods which is a product line
producing a wide variety of products such as chopped and crushed
tomatoes, pasta sauces, diced and stewed tomatoes, purees, pizza
sauces, peeled tomatoes, and seafood cocktail sauces. Defendant
has canning and packing facilities in Firebaugh and Hollister,
California. At the time the complaint was filed Plaintiff Martinez
was still employed by Defendant and worked in the unskilled
position of a hand processor or general laborer. Plaintiff Valdez
was employed as a skilled mechanic who handled and worked with
machinery. He was terminated on October 28, 2011. Both Plaintiffs
were laid off from the Firebaugh facility.

Plaintiffs Valdez and Martinez filed this employment action on
behalf of themselves and all others similar situated in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Fresno
on January 11, 2013, alleging violations of California law.
Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand, which was denied.

The parties eventually reached a settlement deal.  Under the terms
of the proposed settlement, Defendant agrees to pay $850,000 as
gross settlement amount to resolve the claims of any class members
who do not timely and validly opt out.

In his Findings and Recommendations dated November 2, 2015
available at http://is.gd/Q83axdfrom Leagle.com, Judge Boone
granted preliminary certification of two classes as follows:

     a. Settlement class A as any and all persons who were
employed by Neil Jones in an hourly union-represented position at
Neil Jones' Toma-Tek facility located in Firebaugh, California at
any time from January 11, 2009 through May 10, 2013. Settlement
class A includes all current and former employees at the Toma-Tek
facility who, at any time and for any duration during the class
period, held an hourly position that is or was subject to the
terms of a collective bargaining agreement between Neil Jones and
Teamsters District Council No. 2 Local 388M, even if that current
or former also held a position during the class period that was
not covered by the collective bargaining agreement. Settlement
class A also includes all hourly employees whose employment ended
during a probationary period as defined by the terms of the
collective bargaining agreement (the first 45 days of employment
in a position covered by the collective bargaining agreement); and

     b. Settlement class B as any and all persons who were
employed by Neil Jones in an hourly union-represented position or
hourly non-union position at Neil Jones' Toma-Tek facility located
in Firebaugh, California at any time from January 11, 2009 through
December 31, 2013, but excluding anyone whose employment never
ended during the class period by reason of a layoff. Layoff for
this purpose means any period during which the class member was
instructed not to return to work either permanently or until
recalled in the future by reason of the end of the processing
season or the scheduling of work during periods other than the
tomato processing season.

Named Plaintiffs Luis Valdez and Carolina Martinez are designated
as representatives for settlement class A and Plaintiff Carolina
Martinez is designated as representative for settlement class B.

The Court appointed as class counsel for the settlement class:

     Dennis P. Wilson
     WILSON TRIAL GROUP
     3210 E. Shields Avenue, Suite 3
     Fresno, CA 93726

Of the $850,000 gross settlement amount, $650,000 is allocated to
the released claims of settlement class A and $200,000 is
allocated to the released claims of settlement Class B.

The parties propose the following deductions from the gross
settlement amount:

     -- Up to $5,000 each to Plaintiffs Martinez and Valdez
        for their services and participation as class
        representatives;

     -- Up to $238,000 (28% of the gross settlement fund) to
        class counsel for attorney fees;

     -- Up to $30,000 in legal costs and expenses;

     -- $40,215.64 in claims administrator costs;

     -- $15,000 for civil penalties under the California Private
        Attorney General Act; and

     -- Defendant's portion of FICA, FUTA, and all other state
        and federal payroll taxes on the individual settlement
        payments.

A final approval hearing will be scheduled.

Dennis Patrick Wilson, Esq. -- WILSONTRIALGROUP@ATT.NET -- of Law
Offices Of Dennis P. Wilson serves as counsel for Plaintiff Luis
Valdez

Andrea Bednarova, Esq. -- abednarova@fosteremploymentlaw.com --
and Michael Eugene Wilbur, Esq. -- mwilbur@fosteremploymentlaw.com
-- of Foster Employment Law serve as counsel for Defendant The
Neil Jones Food Co.


NEW YORK: City Foster Care Leader Takes Over Amid Problems
----------------------------------------------------------
Laura Nahmias, writing for Capital NewYork, reported that Julie
Farber is taking charge of New York City's foster care system in
unusually awkward circumstances.

Tasked with turning around a historically troubled system, she is
now fighting a lawsuit filed against the city agency by her former
employer, and joined by Public Advocate Letitia James -- a lawsuit
that seems to be caught up in the increasingly fraught political
dynamic between Governor Andrew Cuomo and his erstwhile ally,
Mayor Bill de Blasio.

The suit against the Administration for Children's Services, filed
by attorney Marcia Robinson Lowry, founder of the advocacy group
Children's Rights -- Farber's former employer -- alleges that the
city's foster care system is fundamentally mismanaged.

But James, and then Cuomo, have effectively transformed the
litigation from something routine into a much larger legal
headache for the city, after the public advocate joined the suit
against the city and state and then the Cuomo administration --
locked in a broader, running feud with City Hall -- reached a
quick, highly unusual settlement with the plaintiff, leaving the
city to fight on its own.

Farber, is aware of the irony of her current position.

"So, the person I used to work for is suing the city," Farber
said, with a grim smile, during an interview in an office high
above lower Manhattan.

As deputy commissioner for Family Permanency Services at ACS, she
has been thrust into the middle of tensions between the city and
those who are suing it.

The suit argues that the city's foster care system has been
fundamentally mismanaged, that its children remain in foster care
twice as long as any other jurisdiction in the country, and that a
lack of urgency pervades the system.

The problem of how to care for New York City's children in the
welfare system has plagued city officials for decades.

In 1996, under former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, the city overhauled
its child welfare system. The reforms came after six-year-old
Elisa Izquierdo was beaten to death by her drug-addicted mother
the previous year, and an investigation into the case revealed the
city had failed to intervene, despite warning signs the girl was
being abused. Izquierdo's death prompted changes, but high profile
abuse cases and shocking deaths of city children did not
disappear. In 2006, seven-year-old Nixzmary Brown died in Brooklyn
after she was beaten and tied to a chair by her stepfather. ACS
case workers had fielded complaints about Brown's family and
failed to follow up. In 2014, 24 children in the city's system
died.

That number has held steady for several years. De Blasio promised
to pay increased attention to child welfare when he took office in
2014, and allocated roughly $27 million for enhanced training for
child welfare workers, as part of an $100 million outlay to help
improve outcomes for children under ACS's care.

Lowry, the lead lawyer for the plaintiffs in the case, is known
for filing landmark class-action lawsuits against government child
welfare agencies in an effort to force reforms.

Her newest lawsuit has drawn criticism from people who would
generally be thought of as allies in such litigation, the
nonprofit groups advocating for child welfare in New York City.

The head attorney for juvenile justice at Legal Aid, which
represents roughly 90 percent of the nearly 11,000 children in the
city's foster care system, called the lawsuit "shortsighted."

Farber, Lowry's former employee, wondered about Lowry's
motivations in filing the suit.

"She is a lawyer who forged this area of litigation, you know
she's famous and infamous for it," Farber said. "I think there's a
little bit of, when you only have a hammer, everything looks like
a nail."

Lowry said she was pursuing litigation as a last resort, after
years of promises from the city to fix problems.

"Julie worked for me for a number of years . . . and was a great
believer in litigation at the time," Lowry said in an interview
with POLITICO New York.

In addition to pitting onetime allies against each other, the
lawsuit has become part of the ongoing narrative of city-state
antagonism.

In late May, as relations between Cuomo and Mayor Bill de Blasio
were deteriorating, the governor was at James' side at a press
conference and made a point of singling her out for fulsome
praise. James, Cuomo said, was "doing a great job. She speaks for
people without a voice."

Not long afterwards, James and Lowry filed their suit, leading to
the swift settlement in Albany while the case against the city
seems destined to drag on.

Co-defendants typically don't split, with one party deciding to
settle while the other keeps fighting the lawsuit, James's
spokeswoman Anna Brower said.

"Our lawyers tell me it is not typical for plaintiffs to settle
with one defendant and not another," Brower said. "But we did it
because . . . it was really the best thing to do for the children,
and the best thing to do to start reforming the system. So even
though that's not typical for a case, it really made the most
sense in this case."

While court filings show lawyers for the attorney general's office
filed motions in response to the initial complaint, in which they
sought more time to develop the state's response to the lawsuit,
the actual settlement and its terms were agreed to by Cuomo's
office, and signed by his counsel Alphonso David, who is also one
of his closest aides. Dani Lever, a spokeswoman for Cuomo's
office, initially told POLITICO New York that "the governor's
office was engaged in settlement discussions and consulted with
the attorney general's office."

She later clarified that negotiations were handled by the
governor's office and the affected agency, and the attorney
general's office was informed about the settlement, but had no
role in negotiating it.

The terms of the settlement agreement are favorable to Cuomo.

The state Office of Children and Family Services agreed to install
a monitor to oversee the city, with the authority to investigate
the ACS's actions and file quarterly reports documenting any
problems. The reports can compel the city to respond with plans
for how they will correct problems and a timetable for solving
them.

A spokesperson for ACS and Ishanee Parikh, a spokeswoman for Mayor
Bill de Blasio, both declined to comment when asked if they
believed there was politics at work in the Public Advocate's
decision to settle with the state.

"All of the issues raised by this settlement are already being
addressed by ACS' aggressive efforts to protect New York City
children and continuously improve and increase services for our
children and families," McKniff said in a statement.

Another unusual factor in the case -- the child and parent
advocacy organizations representing children and their families in
the foster care system, groups who typically oppose each other in
court, have been opposed to the litigation from the beginning.
Those groups joined forces to issue a swift denunciation of the
settlement, holding a press conference to condemn the agreement as
bad for the children it purported to help.

Tamara Steckler, attorney-in-charge of the juvenile rights
practice at the nonprofit Legal Aid Society, said the settlement
equaled an "added layer of bureaucracy that is unnecessary to
effectuate the change that even the plaintiffs in the lawsuit are
looking for."

Steckler noted that OCFS already has a fully staffed office to
oversee ACS in New York City. She questioned why a new monitor was
necessary.

Sue Jacobs, the president of the Center for Family Representation,
said the unanimity of opposition to the lawsuit and settlement
among social welfare groups was telling.

"The fact that we are united in opposing the state's position in
this proposed settlement is, I think, the headline in many ways,
and should be a significant message ... about why it is that we
feel that the proposed settlement and in fact the lawsuit is
wrongheaded," Jacobs said.

"We represent collectively over 90 percent of the cases of
families in the child welfare system in the five boroughs, so that
when the public advocates or plaintiffs in the lawsuit suggest
that they in fact speak for those children and families, we are
here to say, not so much," she said.

Against the political backdrop of frayed state and city relations,
some child welfare advocates are worried the settlement -- which
appears to give the state an extra layer of power over the city at
the expense of some of its poorest and most vulnerable residents -
- was just another salvo in Cuomo's fight with de Blasio.

Cuomo's office reached out to James's office almost immediately
after the suit was filed, eager to discuss a settlement, a
spokeswoman for James said.

The governor's office has maintained that the agreement does not
give the state new power over the city in any way, because the
state already oversees ACS.

Lowry sees it differently.

Under the terms of the lawsuit, the state is agreeing to provide
the kind of oversight it should have been providing all along, she
said. Under the settlement terms, the state didn't admit any
liability, "but all defendants are like that," Lowry said.

Of the state, she said, "There's virtually no oversight that's
being provided with regard to how the city is being monitored."

Lowry dismissed criticism from advocates and Farber, her former
employee, that the lawsuit ignored the reforms de Blasio's
administration had already undertaken under ACS Commissioner
Gladys Carrion. State budget included an additional $100 million
to help lower social workers' average caseloads from 20 clients
each to 12, a change that is expected to take effect in January
2016. Asked if the new administration under Carrion and De Blasio
had been given enough time to implement its own reform agenda,
Lowry said she had heard similar promises from ACS officials for
years, dating back to the previous administration.

It's been long enough, Lowry said.

"Who knows how many children have had their lives destroyed by the
way the system operates? The administration's been in office
almost two years. We thought it was time," Lowry said.

Farber admits there are problems at ACS.

"No one here is saying the system is perfect," she said.

"We still have a lot of work to do, but the resources are there
and the work is happening," she said.

"I mean, there's a lot of things that need work. No question. No,
no question."









PEABODY ENERGY: N.Y. AG Says Climate Statements Mislead Investors
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that New York's attorney general says
Peabody Energy violated state laws with misleading statements to
investors and the public about the financial risks from climate
change and potential regulatory responses.

Attorney General Eric Schneiderman says St. Louis-based Peabody,
the largest publicly traded coal company, has agreed to file
revised shareholder disclosures with the Securities and Exchange
Commission that objectively represent the risks.

Investigators say the company repeatedly denied in public filings
that it had the ability to predict the impact of regulation,
despite internal projections it could reduce the dollar value of
coal sales in its primary U.S. markets by 33 percent or more.

Mr. Schneiderman's office began investigating Peabody two years
ago.  It subpoenaed similar documents from Exxon Mobil Corp. on
Nov. 4.


PEET'S COFFEE: Sued Over French Press Serving Sizes
---------------------------------------------------
Jenna Greene, writing for Law.com, reports that Chicago lawyers
Daniel Voelker and Alexander Loftus of the Voelker Litigation
Group on Oct. 30 filed a class action against Peet's Coffee and
Tea Inc., which has more than 243 stores nationwide, demanding an
end to this "deceptive and unfair conduct" and also compensatory
damages and legal fees.

Peet's vice president Lyda Velez said in an email that the press
pot coffees represent 1/10 of 1 percent of cafe sales, and that
the company is "committed to full transparency and integrity with
our customers and to industry best standards for our product
labeling and in-store signage."

The plaintiffs lawyers don't see it that way.  In the complaint
filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, they say that
Peet's size description serves to "trick unsuspecting consumers,
including plaintiff and other members of the proposed class, into
believing that they are purchasing more ounces of press pot
coffees for their money than they actually are receiving."

According to the complaint, the 12-ounce serving is actually more
like 8 ounces, and the 32-ounce serving is around 20 ounces.


PHILIP MORRIS: Illinois Supreme Court Rejects $10BB Verdict
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alan Scher Zagier, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
a divided Illinois Supreme Court has again rejected a $10.1
billion class-action judgment against Philip Morris over its past
efforts to market "low-tar" and "light" cigarettes as healthier
alternatives.

The 4-2 ruling, released on Nov. 4, vacates a 2014 decision by the
state's 5th District Appellate Court to reinstate a 2003 verdict
by a county trial court in the southwest part of the state.  The
Illinois Supreme Court first overturned the Madison County court's
decision in 2005.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of hundreds of thousands of Illinois
smokers, was one of the nation's first to accuse a tobacco company
of consumer fraud.  It claimed that Philip Morris deceptively
marketed "light" and "low-tar" Marlboro cigarettes as a healthier
alternative.  The U.S. Food and Drug Administration now bars
cigarette makers from labeling their products with such terms.

The Nov. 4 ruling still allows the plaintiffs to directly appeal
to the state Supreme Court to reinstate the award.

The state's high court has cited previous support by the Federal
Trade Commission for categorizing certain cigarettes as safer
substitutes.  The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of three
Maine residents who said smokers should be able to use state
consumer protection laws to sue cigarette makers over their
promotional efforts.

An official affiliated with Philip Morris' parent company said the
ruling "effectively wipes away the last seven years of court
proceedings and requires the plaintiffs to start from scratch."

"The court held that the plaintiffs filed the wrong motion in the
wrong court," said Murray Garnick, senior vice president and
associate general counsel for Altria Client Services, which
represents Richmond, Virginia-based Altria Group Inc.'s subsidiary
Philip Morris.

Attorneys with the St. Louis law firm that represented Illinois
smokers did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The case led to aggressive efforts by plaintiffs' attorneys to
oust Illinois Supreme Court justice Lloyd Karmeier, whom they
wanted recused from the suit amid allegations that his judicial
decisions in the Philip Morris case and in another overturning a
$1.2 billion judgment against State Farm Insurance were influenced
by pro-business campaign donations in the 2004 election.

Justice Karmeier, who declined to step aside and has denied
receiving direct contributions from Philip Morris, won a November
2014 retention election in which he finished less than 1
percentage point above the needed 60 percent approval threshold.
Plaintiffs' attorneys and law firms spent more than $1 million
fighting Justice Karmeier's re-election through a political
committee named Campaign for 2016.


RENTECH NITROGEN: Brodsky LLC Files Class Suit Over Buyout
----------------------------------------------------------
Law office of Brodsky & Smith, LLC announced that a class action
has been commenced on behalf of all holders of Rentech Nitrogen
Partners, LP ("Rentech" or the "Partnership") (NYSE:RNF) common
units in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California relating to the proposed acquisition by CVR
Partners, LP ("CVR") (the "Proposed Transaction").

If you are a Rentech unitholder and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from. If
you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
plaintiff's counsel, Jason Brodsky or Evan Smith of Brodsky &
Smith, LLC at (877) LEGAL-90 by visiting http://brodsky-
smith.com/997-rnf-rentech-nitrogen-partners-lp.html, or via e-mail
at investorrelations@brodsky-smith.com. There is no cost or
obligation to you. 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.

Rentech is a nitrogen fertilizer company formed by Rentech, Inc.
as a publicly traded master limited partnership. The complaint
alleges that Rentech and its Board violated its Limited
Partnership Agreement and breached their duties to Rentech
unitholders and that Rentech and CVR aided and abetted such
violation, in connection with their attempt to consummate the
Proposed Transaction pursuant to an unfair process and for an
unfair price. In addition, the complaint alleges that Rentech and
the Board, through CVR, disseminated a false and misleading
Registration Statement on Form S-4 (the "S-4") in violation of
14(a) of the 1934 Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder in
connection with the Proposed Transaction.

On August 9, 2015, Rentech and CVR entered into a definitive
agreement (the "Merger Agreement") whereby CVR would acquire all
outstanding units of Rentech. Thereafter, on September 17, 2015,
defendants caused the S-4 to be filed with the SEC and
disseminated in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The
complaint alleges the S-4 contains a number of false and
misleading statements that are material to unitholders who are
expected to rely upon the S-4 to determine whether to approve the
Proposed Transaction. The S-4 omits a number of material facts
necessary to make statements made therein not false and
misleading, including the events leading to the Merger Agreement,
the analyses conducted by the Board's financial advisor, and
Rentech's prospective financial information.

Brodsky & Smith, LLC is a litigation law firm with extensive
expertise representing shareholders throughout the nation in
securities and case action lawsuits. The attorneys at Brodsky &
Smith have been appointed by numerous courts throughout the
country to serve as lead counsel in class actions and successfully
recovered millions of dollars for our clients and shareholders.

         Jason L. Brodsky, Esq.
         Evan J. Smith, Esq.
         BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
         Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510
         Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
         Phone: 610.667.6200
         Fax: 610.667.9029
         Email: jbrodsky@brodsky-smith.com


SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Suit Seeks to End Use of Cash Bail System
------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Emslie. writing for KQED, reported that a federal class-
action lawsuit filed alleges San Francisco's bail system is
unconstitutional.

The Washington, D.C.-based civil rights organization bringing the
lawsuit is hopeful that it could not only topple the "money bail"
system in San Francisco, but also across the state.

"State law actually requires City and County of San Francisco to
use the generic bail schedule," said Phil Telfeyan, head of Equal
Justice Under Law. "Our lawsuit is focused on San Francisco, but
the impact could be broader."

The suit was initially brought on behalf of two women arrested in
San Francisco, but Telfeyan is asking the court to certify a class
action on behalf of "all arrestees unable to pay for their release
pursuant to Defendants' fixed bail schedule who are or who will
become in the custody of the City and County of San Francisco."

Prosecutors discharged the cases against both named plaintiffs --
Riana Buffin and Crystal Patterson -- meaning they were both
released and aren't currently facing charges, said Telfeyan and
the San Francisco Public Defender's Office.

Buffin was arrested under suspicion of grand theft. She stayed in
jail for two days until her case was discharged. Patterson was
arrested under suspicion of assault with force causing great
bodily injury. Her case was also discharged -- a matter of hours
after she paid a bail agent $1,500, or 1 percent of her $150,000
bail.

Because she made that deal, she owes the bail agent a full 10
percent of the bond, or $15,000.

"Had she been able to wait another six hours or 12 hours in jail,"
Deputy Public Defender Chesa Boudin said, "she wouldn't have had
to go into debt. The problem that we see in Ms. Patterson's case
and in so many of my clients' cases is that people are faced with
this coercive choice: Go into tremendous amounts of debt, plead
guilty to a crime you may not have committed or wait in jail and
lose everything that's dear and meaningful in your life."

A district attorney's spokesman said prosecutors are awaiting
further investigation into both cases in order to pursue charges.

The president of the California Bail Agents Association called the
lawsuit "misleading."

"We've already seen in California the crime rates have gone up,"
said Maggie Kreins, who is proprietor of Maggie's Bail Bonds in
Long Beach in addition to heading the association. "It's getting
scary out there, and they're making it so nobody's going to be
held accountable for anything anymore."

Kreins said bail agents have a proven record of "bringing people
back to court, and bringing justice to victims."

"When these individuals don't go to court, who's going to go look
for them?" she said. "The taxpayers are going to have to pay two
or three times to arrest the same person."

But in San Francisco, there's widespread agreement among law
enforcement leaders for doing away with the "money bail" system.

Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi filed a declaration in support of the
lawsuit and joined Telfeyan and Boudin in announcing it. He said
between 75 and 85 percent of San Francisco's jail population is
pretrial at any given time. About one-third are there because they
can't afford $5,000 bail.

Mirkarimi said if people are not a safety or flight risk but are
nonetheless taken from their families and their jobs, "this
furthers the destruction and ruination of people and families in
San Francisco."

Former Chief Deputy Sheriff Vicki Hennessy -- who is challenging
Mirkarimi for the top job -- said in an email to KQED that "the
current system is inherently unfair."

District Attorney George Gasc¢n said he's been working for years
to replace the monetary bail, "not only in San Francisco but more
broadly, hopefully around the state."

"Money bail doesn't necessarily deal with risk," he said. "You can
have people that are very risky but are financially capable of
posting bail, and they're going to get released. And you've got
people on the other end that may not be a risk, but they may not
have the monetary ability to post bail, and they remain in custody
for days, weeks and sometimes longer."

Gasc¢n said he's been working with the Laura and John Arnold
Foundation to develop a predictive tool that could inform judges
about the likelihood any given arrestee would reoffend, hurt
someone or fail to show up for his or her court date. He hopes to
introduce the system into San Francisco courts early. He said he
wasn't in support of ditching "money bail" without a comprehensive
system to replace it.

"Just simply taking money without a validated risk assessment tool
would be a horrible mistake," he said.


SEPHORA: Attorneys Attempt to Resolve Discrimination Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Melanie Woodrow, writing for ABC 7 News, reported that a popular
San Francisco beauty retailer is under fire for alleged
discrimination. Attorneys tried to resolve a discrimination class
action lawsuit that alleges the company deactivated thousands of
Asian customer accounts because it believed they were buying
products in bulk to re-sell. Sephora says the case has no merit.

Sephora calls its customers Beauty Insiders. If you spend a lot of
money you can become a VIB, or Very Important Beauty Insider. VIBs
get special perks like access to exclusive sales. There's one
coming up in early November. But during sale, this class action
lawsuit alleges many Asian customers couldn't shop the sale
because Sephora deactivated their accounts.

"I'm definitely a big shopper at Sephora," said customer Rahil
Daud.

Daud has spent so much money at Sephora she's gained elite status
-- VIB Rouge. The title means she gets access to exclusive sales.

"It's definitely a really nice little red carpet treatment that
you're getting," she said.

Many customers who earned the treatment are angry their Sephora
accounts got deactivated.

A class action lawsuit alleges Sephora discriminated against Asian
customers during one of its VIB exclusive sales. According to the
suit, Sephora posted a message on its Facebook Page admitting it
de-activated customer accounts due to reselling, which is
purchasing products in large volume to resell through other
channels.

The suit alleges the accounts deactivated used web domains
originating in Asia

"The only account holders who could not access the website had
email addresses associated with three Chinese email service
providers," said attorney Jeanne Christensen.

Christensen says email addresses with Asian sounding names were
also deactivated.

Sephora denies the claims. The company says clients from many
countries including the U.S. were impacted.

In an emailed statement the company said: ""As we have said
before, the allegations in this lawsuit are untrue and the claims
are entirely without merit. In fact, clients from many countries
around the world, including the U.S., were impacted by the
temporary outage of the Company's website during a promotional
event. Sephora would never engage in any form of discrimination
with respect to its clients, and it looks forward to full
exoneration in this lawsuit."

While the attorney is not allowed to share details about the
mitigation it could include some sort of relief for customers
whose accounts were deactivated.


SERENITY TRANSPORTATION: Court Trims Suit by Mortuary Drivers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granted in part the
Defendants' motion to dismiss in the case captioned CURTIS
JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. SERENITY TRANSPORTATION, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-02004-JSC, (N.D. Cal.)

Plaintiffs Curtis Johnson (Johnson) and Anthony Aranda (Aranda,
and together Plaintiffs) filed suit against their employer,
Defendants Serenity Transportation, Inc. (Serenity
Transportation), its owner David Friedel (Friedel), as well as
Service Corporation International (SCI), SCI California Funeral
Services, Inc. (SCI California), the Neptune Society of Central
California, Inc. (Neptune Society), Lifemark Group, Inc.
(Lifemark), and the County of Santa Clara.  The gravamen of
Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint (TAC) is that Plaintiffs --
mortuary drivers -- have been misclassified as independent
contractors and denied the benefits of California and federal
wage-and-hour laws.

Defendants seek dismissal of all claims against Friedel for
failure to plead alter ego liability, all claims against SCI, SCI
California, Neptune, Lifemark, and the County -- the Customer
Defendants -- for failure to plead that they are joint employers,
as well as dismissal of various causes of action for failure to
state a claim.

In her Order dated November 2, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/FX6EFXfrom Leagle.com, Judge Corley granted in part
and denied in part Defendants' motion to dismiss the Third Amended
Complaint.  Specifically, the Court declined to dismiss the claims
against Friedel or the third and seventh causes of action.
However, the Court dismissed the claims against the Customer
Defendants, but Plaintiffs were given leave to amend to add
allegations that establish that the Customer Defendants were joint
employers for the purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
California Labor Code.

In addition, the Court dismissed with leave to amend the second
cause of action to the extent that it asserts failure to
compensate for on-call time. Plaintiffs' amended complaint is due
by November 16, 2015.

Peter Scott Rukin, Esq. -- prukin@rhdtlaw.com -- and Valerie Jean
Brender, Esq. -- vbrender@rhdtlaw.com -- of Rukin Hyland Doria
Tindall LLP serve as counsel for Plaintiff Curtis Johnson

Jeffery M Hubins, Esq. -- jhubins@schauman-hubins.com -- of Gurnee
Mason & Forestiere LLP serves as counsel for the Defendants.


SIENTRA INC: November 24 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
----------------------------------------------------
MarketWatch, reported that the following statement is being issued
by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Sientra, Inc. ("Sientra") (nasdaqgs:SIEN) between
March 18, 2015 and September 24, 2015.

You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has
been commenced in the USDC for the Central District of California.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Sientra securities between
March 18, 2015 and September 24, 2015, your rights may be affected
by this action. To get more information go to:
http://zlk.9nl.com/sientraor contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either
via email at jlevi@zlk.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500,
toll-free: (877) 363-5972. There is no cost or obligation to you.

The complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose that
Sientra's exclusive reliance on Silimed's Brazilian manufacturing
facilities carried significant quality control risks and that the
manufacturing processes at the Silimed Rio de Janeiro
manufacturing plant were contaminated. On March 18, 2015, Sientra
filed its Form 10-K with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, which stated that it was primarily responsible for the
manufacturing and quality assurance of its products.

On September 24, 2015, the United Kingdom's Medicines and
Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency suspended sales of Silimed
products after an audit of Silimed's manufacturing processes
revealed contamination in the manufacturing plant. On this news,
Sientra stock fell $10.88, or nearly 52.9%, to close at $9.70 per
share on September 24, 2015.

If you suffered a loss in Sientra you have until November 24, 2015
to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, New
Jersey, Connecticut and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have
extensive expertise in prosecuting securities litigation involving
financial fraud, representing investors throughout the nation in
securities and shareholder lawsuits. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

         Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
         LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
         30 Broad St., 24th FL
         New York, NY 10004
         Toll Free: 877-363-5972
         Tel: 212-363-7500
         Fax: 212-363-7171
         Email: jlevi@zlk.com


SPLENDOR LANDSCAPE: Violates Fair Labor Standards Act, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Enrique Rubio Rojas, Oscar Saravia, David Antonio Hernandez Umana,
Jose Rolando Osorio, Juan Armando Hernandez and Bartolo Adelio
Cortez, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. Splendor Landscape Designs Ltd. and Robert Hirsch,
individually, Case No. 2:15-cv-05809-LDW-AKT (E.D.N.Y.,
October 8, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Splendor Landscape is a Long Island-based landscape design
company.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Peter Arcadio Romero, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO
          503 Route 11, Suite 203
          Hauppauge, NY 11788
          Telephone: (631) 257-5588
          E-mail: peteraromero@gmail.com

               - and -

          Jose G. Santiago, Esq.
          THE SANTIAGO LAW FIRM, P.C.
          356 Middle Country Rd., Suite 311
          Coram, NY 11727
          Telephone: (631) 240-4355
          Facsimile: (631) 406-4911
          E-mail: jose@santiagolawfirm.com


SPOKEO INC: High Court Divided Over Data Collection Dispute
------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Hananel, writing for The Associated Press, reports that no one
at the Supreme Court on Nov. 2 disputed the fact that an online
profile of Thomas Robins was riddled with false and misleading
information.

The profile of the Virginia resident compiled by Internet search
site Spokeo.com said Robins had a graduate degree, a good job and
was married with children.  In fact, Mr. Robins had no advanced
degree and was unemployed, with no wife or children.

But the justices appeared sharply divided along ideological lines
over whether Mr. Robins can sue the company for a technical
violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, even if the mistakes
didn't cause him any specific harm such as a lost job opportunity
or denial of credit.

The case pits business groups concerned about exposure to costly
litigation against consumer protection advocates who say such
lawsuits are the only way to hold companies accountable for
mistakes.

Mr. Robins is pursuing a class action case against Spokeo on
behalf of thousands of plaintiffs, which could lead to damages in
the billions of dollars.

Liberal justices seemed to side with Mr. Robins' view that being
falsely portrayed is enough to show harm.  But conservatives
insisted the law required Robins to show how he was injured.

"Seems like a concrete injury to me," Justice Elena Kagan said of
the mistakes.  "If somebody did it to me, I'd feel harmed."

Justice Kagan said that Congress passed the fair credit law in the
first place because lawmakers were concerned about people being
injured by the dissemination of false information.

"People get these reports and you don't know what they are doing
with these reports," she said.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggested the false information could have
harmed Robins in unexpected ways.

"I will tell you that I know plenty of single people who look at
whether someone who's proposed to date is married or not," she
said.  "So if you're not married and there's a report out there
saying you are, that's a potential injury."

Spokeo lawyer Andrew Pincus argued that Mr. Robins' claims are too
speculative and not the kind of "tangible" injury to economic or
property rights that Congress intended when it passed the fair
credit law.

The law was designed to keep companies from compiling inaccurate
information that could jeopardize a person's ability to get loans
or find work.  Violators can face damages of $1,000 per violation,
but that can climb into the millions in class action cases.

Justice Antonin Scalia said Congress was not focused on faulty
information itself, but on the failure of credit reporting
agencies to follow proper procedures in collecting and reporting
data.

"In fact, Congress has not identified misinformation as a suable
harm," Justice Scalia said.

A lower court ruled that Robins could not sue because the errors
were harmless.  But a federal appeals court overturned that
decision, saying it was enough that Spokeo violated the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.

Arguing for Mr. Robins, attorney William Consovoy said Congress
meant to allow lawsuits for people with a "personal stake" in the
publication of inaccurate information.

Chief Justice John Roberts wondered what would happen if a person
had an unlisted number and a data company published a phone number
that happened to be wrong.  Is there still an injury?

Mr. Consovoy agreed that would be enough.

But Chief Justice Roberts said the court has historically required
an "injury in fact" that seems to be lacking in Mr. Robins' case.

Spokeo's website allows subscribers to look up personal
information about almost anyone.  It has a searchable database of
profiles that includes addresses, phone numbers, marital status,
age, employment information, education and economic health.  But
the information is collected from a variety of public sources and
the company warns that it sometimes contains inaccuracies.

The case is being closely watched by Facebook, Twitter and a host
of other technology firms concerned about class action lawsuits
that would open them up to billions of dollars of damages for
trivial violations of the fair credit law and similar statutes
protecting consumer privacy rights.

A decision is expected by the end of June.


STREAM: Fifth Circuit Decertifies Class Suit
--------------------------------------------
Stream, a leading direct selling company and provider of essential
services, on October 16 realized a key appellate victory in its
ongoing Federal class action litigation before the U.S. Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.

Arising out of oral arguments held during February 2015, the Fifth
Circuit panel voted to decertify a purported class of plaintiffs
whose two named representatives alleged violations of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. This appellate
ruling reverses a prior January 2014 order of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas that erroneously
certified a class of plaintiffs consisting of current and former
Stream Independent Associates.

The Federal class action lawsuit in question alleges that Stream
operates a pyramid scheme in violation of Federal racketeering
laws. Stream has vehemently denied these charges and steadfastly
maintains that the company's Independent Associates sell essential
services (including energy, mobile and protective services) in a
legal and ethical manner.

"We are pleased with the court's decision and appreciate its
careful and considered analysis. There is no doubt that Stream
sells real services through a proven and efficient network
marketing model that incents our sales force of Independent
Associates to gather customers on our behalf across America. We
look forward to the end of this nagging litigation and will
continue to doggedly defend our good name," said Mark "Bouncer"
Schiro, president and CEO of Stream.

The two remaining plaintiffs have indicated their desire to file a
petition for rehearing en banc with the Fifth Circuit, thereby
requesting that the matter be reconsidered by all active justices
serving the Fifth Circuit. The case will only be reheard if a
majority of the 15 active justices now sitting on the Fifth
Circuit so agree.

                        About Stream

Stream (Stream Energy), headquartered in Dallas, Texas, is a
leading nationwide provider of essential services, including
Energy Services, Mobile Services and Protective Services. Stream
innovated the energy market in 2005 by applying a direct selling
model to energy, generating more than $7 billion in total revenue
in just ten years. A consistently ranked top direct selling
company globally, Stream provides its Independent Associates with
the opportunity to earn additional income through such product
sales.


STUDENT AID CENTER: Must Defend Against "Abella" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Stewart Dalzell denied the motions to dismiss, to
strike and for a more definite statement, which were filed by the
defendant in the case captioned BENJAMIN ABELLA, v. STUDENT AID
CENTER, INC. and MOZEA LLC, Civil Action No. 15-3067, (E.D. Pa.)

Plaintiff Benjamin Abella brings this putative class action claim
pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47
U.S.C.A. Section 227.  Defendant Student Aid Center (SAC) is a
student loan consolidation and forgiveness service that offers
assistance to consumers hoping to alleviate their student loan
debt burden. Defendant Mozeo is an online platform designed to
facilitate "bulk sms (sic) text blasting" and allow a business to
"easily reach all of [its] mobile contacts." SAC partnered with
Mozeo to conduct a nationwide "bulk sms (sic) text blast," or a
mobile marketing campaign. The campaign sent unsolicited text
messages to consumers' cellular telephones without obtaining any
form of prior express consent.

Abella was the recipient of many unwanted text messages in March
and April of 2015. Abella received a text message from SAC through
Mozeo and responded "STOP." This request was followed by the
receipt of a Mozeo Promotional Text Message disguised as an opt-
out text message. Abella is not a customer of SAC or Mozeo. He did
not provide his cellular telephone number to either company and
did not supply any form of prior express consent to receive text
messages from SAC or Mozeo. Abella alleges that SAC and Mozeo were
aware that these text messages were being made on a widespread
basis to consumers who had not consented to receive them.

Defendant SAC has submitted four motions:

     -- to dismiss Abella's complaint for failure to state a claim
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).

     -- to dismiss Abella's complaint for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1).

     -- to strike the class definition and the complaint's
reference to the "legion" of alleged complaints made against SAC
pursuant to Rule 12(f).

     -- in the alternative, for a more definite statement pursuant
to Rule 12(e).

In his Memorandum dated October 30, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/x2k9k0from Leagle.com, Judge Dalzell denied the
SAC's motion to  dismiss for failure to state a claim, motion to
dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, motion to strike the class
definition and allegations of consumer complaints, and its motion
for a more definite statement. The Court rejects SAC's assertion
that Abella must plead that he was charged for the messages in
order to state a plausible claim for relief. SAC has made a
factual attack asserting that the Court does not have subject
matter jurisdiction because it "served Plaintiff with a Rule 68
Proposal for Settlement which would fully resolve all of his
claims." The Court does not find that Abella's complaint so vague
as to preclude SAC from framing a responsive pleading. The
complaint alleges that SAC has sent text messages to the cell
phones of Abella and other individuals without their consent in
violation of the TCPA. Abella has stated the exact dates on which
he received these text messages in his complaint. He has also
buttressed his class allegations by alleging numerous consumer
complaints about receiving unwarranted text messages from SAC. In
fact, Abella has painstakingly detailed the alleged relationship
between defendants SAC and Mozeo in a way that clearly describes
how certain individuals end up receiving text messages they had
not consented to receiving. This goes beyond the pleading
requirements set out by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. SAC's motion for a more
definite statement is without merit, and should therefore be
denied.

Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. -- brichman@edelson.com -- Courtney C.
Booth, Esq. -- cbooth@edelson.com -- and Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
-- rbalabanian@edelson.com -- of Edelson McGuire LLC and David S.
Senoff, Esq. of Caroselli Beachler McTiernan and Coleman serve as
counsel for Plaintiff Benjamin Abella

Gustavo D. Lage, Esq. -- glage@smgqlaw.com -- of Sanchez-Medina
Gonzalez Quesada Lage and Patrick T. Henigan, Esq. --
phenigan@eckellsparks.com -- of Eckell Sparks Levy Auerbach Monte
Rainer Sloane Matthews serve as counsel for Defendant Student Aid
Center, Inc.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Mares" Suit Moved From N.D. to C.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Sadashiv Mares v. Swift
Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC, et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-
03253-JSW, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California (Los Angeles).  The Central
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-07920-DMG-MRW to
the proceeding.

The complaint seeks damages for alleged wage and hour violations.

Swift Transportation is a Phoenix, Arizona based publicly held
American truckload motor shipping carrier.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Donald Joseph Clapp, Esq.
          AIMAN-SMITH AND MARCY
          7677 Oakport Street, Suite 1020
          Oakland, CA 94621
          Telephone: (510) 590-7115
          Facsimile: (510) 562-6830
          E-mail: djc1.asm@gmail.com

Defendant Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona LLC is represented
by:

          Ronald John Holland, II, Esq.
          Babak G. Yousefzadeh, Esq.
          John David Ellis, Esq.
          Paul Scott Cowie, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER AND HAMPTON LLP
          Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 434-9100
          Facsimile: (415) 434-3947
          E-mail: rholland@sheppardmullin.com
                  byousefzadeh@sheppardmullin.com
                  jellis@sheppardmullin.com
                  pcowie@sheppardmullin.com


SYNCHRONY BANK: Accused of Violating TCPA in S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
Bradley Moore, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Synchrony Bank, Case No. 3:15-cv-02261-CAB-JMA (S.D.
Cal., October 8, 2015) accuses the Defendant of violating the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua Swigart, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com


T & W RESTAURANT: "Weng" Suit Seek to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Li Weng, and all others similarly-situated v. T & W Restaurant
Inc., T & W Payroll Services, Inc. dba Shun Lee West, Michael
Tong, John Doe and Jane Doe # 1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-08167
(S.D.N.Y., October 16, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid wages and
minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, reimbursement for expenses
relating to tools of the trade, liquidated damages, prejudgment
and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Manhattan, doing
business as Shun Lee West.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jian Hang, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Tel: (718) 353-8588
      E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


TERRRAFORM GLOBAL: Scott+Scott Files Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP filed a class action complaint
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Cal. under Sec.11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
(the "Securities Act") against (1) TerraForm Global, Inc.
("TerraForm Global") (NASDAQ:GLBL); (2) the sponsor of the IPO and
TerraForm Global's controlling entity, SunEdison, Inc.
("SunEdison"); (3) certain of TerraForm Global's senior executives
and directors who signed the July 31, 2015 Registration Statement
for TerraForm Global's Initial Public Offering ("IPO") (the
"Offering"); and (4) each of the underwriters of the Offering.

TerraForm Global owns and operates contracted "clean power"
generation assets in emerging market countries. Prior to its IPO,
TerraForm Global was known as "SunEdison Emerging Markets Co." The
bulk of TerraForm Global's business is acquiring power generation
assets that produce long-term contracted cash flows, primarily by
serving utility and commercial customers from SunEdison.

The Sponsor of the TerraForm Global IPO was SunEdison. SunEdison
is one of the world's largest developers of wind and solar energy
projects and is one of the world's prime developers and installers
of solar energy facilities.

In the IPO, TerraForm Global and the Defendants sold 45,000,000
shares of common stock at an offering price of $15.00 per share,
representing gross proceeds of $675 million.

The complaint alleges that Defendants failed to disclose a number
of problems seriously undermining TerraForm Global's business and
prospects. Specifically, unbeknownst to investors, the
Registration Statement's representations were materially untrue,
inaccurate, misleading, and/or incomplete because they failed to
disclose, inter alia, that, by the time of the July 31, 2015 IPO:
(i) SunEdison was experiencing unprecedented losses that would be
revealed mere days after TerraForm Global's IPO was finalized;
(ii) SunEdison was experiencing severe liquidity and debt issues
that ended its ability to develop projects to sell to TerraForm
Global, meaning that the Company's "YieldCo" business model was
effectively moribund from the outset; and (iii) the aggressive
growth plans for SunEdison and TerraForm Global were unachievable.

On August 6, 2015, only two days after the TerraForm Global IPO
closed, SunEdison reported a loss of $263 million in its second
quarter on $455 million of revenue, and a net loss of $0.93 per
share compared to consensus estimates of a net loss of $0.55 per
share. SunEdison's debt was also reported at nearly $11 billion.
On this news, the Company's shares fell from $13.66 on August 5 to
$11.27 on August 6, a drop of over 17%.

Then, on October 7, 2015, SunEdison revised down its installation
projections for 2016 and said it did not expect to sell any
projects through to TerraForm Global. Rather, SunEdison will be
looking exclusively for outside buyers or will hold the projects
on SunEdison's balance sheet.

You can view a copy of the complaint here: Complaint

If you purchased TerraForm Global stock and wish to serve as a
lead plaintiff in the action, you must move the Court no later
than December 28, 2015. Any member of the class may move the Court
to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of its choice or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. If you
wish to discuss this action or have questions concerning this
notice or your rights, please contact Scott+Scott (scottlaw@scott-
scott.com, (800) 404-7770, (860) 537-5537) or visit the
Scott+Scott website for more information: http://www.scott-
scott.com.

         Joseph V. Halloran, Esq.
         SCOTT & SCOTT LLP
         The Chysler Building
         405 Lexington Ave., 40th Flr
         New York, NY 10174-4099
         Phone: (646) 582-0121)
         Fax: (212) 233-6334
         Email: jhalloran@scott-scott.com


TRANSURBAN USA: Virginia Judge Narrows Claims in "Brown" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge James C. Cacheris granted in part the Defendants'
motion to dismiss in the captioned case JO-ANN BROWN, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. TRANSURBAN USA, INC., et al., Defendants, No.
1:15CV494(JCC/MSN), (E.D. Va.)

This case involves Virginia's hotly contested "Public-Private"
toll lane scheme. Plaintiffs in this case seek class action
status, and are all users of the High-Occupancy Toll Roads
operated by Defendants in Northern Virginia.

Plaintiffs bring four causes of action under state law against all
Defendants: unjust enrichment (Claim Four), violation of the
Maryland Consumer Protection Act (MCPA) (Claim Six), violation of
the Virginia Consumer Protect Action (VCPA) (Claim Seven), and
tortious interference with contract (Claim Eight).

Three motions to dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint were filed
by (1) Defendants Transurban (USA), Inc., Transurban (USA)
Operations, Inc., Capital Beltway Express, LLC, 95 Express Lanes,
LLC (the "Transurban" Defendants); (2) Defendant Faneuil, Inc.
("Faneuil"); and (3) Defendant Law Enforcements Systems, LLC
("LES").

Pursuant to the Public-Private Transportation Act (PPTA), passed
by the Virginia General Assembly in 1995, Transurban contracted
with the Commonwealth of Virginia to maintain and operate high-
occupancy toll lanes ("HOT lanes") on the Capital Beltway,
Interstate 495 ("I-495"), which opened on November 17, 2012, and
on Interstate 95 ("I-95") and Interstate 395 ("I-395"), which
opened on December 29, 2014. The HOT lanes on I-495 are
colloquially known as the "495 Express Lanes" and the HOT lanes on
I-95 and I-395 are colloquially known as the "95 Express Lanes."
Both the 495 Express Lanes and the 95 Express Lanes collect HOT
lane tolls through the use of an E-ZPass transponder mounted on
the inside of the vehicle's windshield, which is linked to the
driver's bank account or credit card; no cash toll booths are
offered and instead, an E-ZPass transponder is required.  HOT lane
prices on the 495 Express Lanes and the 95 Express Lanes vary
dynamically "according to real-time traffic conditions: the more
drivers using the HOT Lanes, the more expensive the toll, and
vise-versa." When an E-ZPass account is out of money to pay tolls,
the bank account or credit card is automatically charged to reload
the E-ZPass account. An E-ZPass account can become inadequately
funded if the linked credit card expires or is otherwise
cancelled.

In his Memorandum Opinion dated November 2, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/pcjd3Ufrom Leagle.com, Judge Cacheris granted in
part the Defendants' motions to dismiss as follows:

     -- Claims Three and Four are dismissed in their entirety.
     -- Claims Six and Seven are dismissed as applied to The
        Collection Defendants, LES and Faneuil.
     -- Claims One, Two, Six, Seven, and Eight against Transurban
        will remain, as will Claims Five and Eight against LES
        and Faneuil.

Plaintiffs are granted leave to amend their complaint.  The Court
finds that Plaintiffs could more than likely cure the pleading
defects with regards to Claim Six and Claim Seven. Stated
differently, an amendment would likely save Plaintiffs' VCPA and
MCPA claims against Defendants' Faneuil and LES. Accordingly, the
Court grants Plaintiffs' request to amend the Amended Complaint.

Bernard Joseph DiMuro, Esq. -- bdimuro@dimuro.com -- and Stephen
Lybrook Neal, Jr., Esq. -- sneal@dimuro.com -- of DiMuro Ginsberg
PC serve as counsel for Plaintiff Jo-Ann Brown

Nathaniel Thomas Connally, III, Esq. --
tom.connally@hoganlovells.com -- and Jon Myer Talotta, Esq. --
jon.talotta@hoganlovells.com -- of Hogan Lovells US LLP serve as
counsel for Defendant Transurban USA, Inc.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Taps Criminal Defender in Sex Assault Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for Law.com, reports that Uber
Technologies Inc. has enlisted white-collar defense boutique
Clarence Dyer & Cohen to fight a lawsuit over the alleged sexual
assaults of two women by Uber drivers.

Partner Joshua Cohen entered an appearance on Nov. 4 in the
Northern District of California.  The suit was filed last month on
behalf of two "Jane Doe" plaintiffs who claim they were sexually
assaulted by Uber drivers after hailing a ride through the
company's app.  Plaintiffs lawyers with Wigdor and Anderson &
Poole accuse Uber of putting its customers at risk by failing to
implement adequate safety precautions and background checks.  By
marketing heavily to young women who have been drinking, the
company puts profits ahead of safety, according to the complaint.
The lawsuit seeks punitive damages and an injunction forcing Uber
to correct the practices plaintiffs deem unsafe.

Mr. Cohen, a former assistant federal public defender, did not
immediately respond to phone or email messages seeking comment.
Mr. Cohen's firm bio states that he specializes in representing
criminal defendants in complex cases and is experienced managing
parallel criminal and civil suits.

It's the second case where San Francisco's Clarence Dyer & Cohen,
a five-lawyer firm known for criminal defense and civil
litigation, has stepped in to publicly defend Uber.

Partner Nanci Clarence represents Uber in a separate case brought
by two district attorneys over Uber's background checks and safety
representations.  The San Francisco and Los Angeles DAs sued Uber
in San Francisco Superior Court, claiming the company falsely
purports to conduct "rigorous background check[s]" on its drivers
and charges customers a $1 "Safe Rides Fee" for the service.


UNITED CAPITAL: Faces Suit Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
----------------------------------------------------------
Louis Geser, and all others similarly-situated v. United Capital,
Corp., A.F. Petrocelli, Anthony Miceli, Michael Weinbaum, Michael
Lamoretti, Howard Lorber, Arnold Penner, and Robert Mann, Case No.
11619 (Del. Ch., October 16, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for breach of fiduciary duties related to a buyout of
the minority stockholders' interest in United Capital by A.F.
Petrocelli.

United Capital is a diversified company engaged in the business of
investing in and managing real estate properties, including the
operation of full service hotels, and manufacturing engineered
products.

The Individual Defendants are board members of United Capital.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Tel: (302) 295-5310

          - and -

      Donald J. Enright, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
      1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
      Washington, DC 20007
      Tel: (202) 524-4290


VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: "Berkery" Suit Over Phone Bills Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Gerald Austin McHugh granted the Defendants' motion
to dismiss in the case captioned JOHN C. BERKERY SR., Plaintiff,
v. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC., et al, Defendants, Civil Action
No. 2:15-CV-1085, (E.D. Pa.).

Plaintiff, John C. Berkery, Sr., filed this action against
Defendants Verizon Communications, Inc. and Cellco Partnership,
alleging that Verizon fraudulently computed his telephone bills.
Specifically, Berkery alleges that Verizon improperly charged him
for In-Network calls and regularly miscalculated his monthly
usage. Berkery brings claims under the Federal Communications Act
(FCA), the Declaratory Judgment Act, the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law, and the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA), as well as state law claims for breach of
contract and fraud.

Defendants have moved to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, arguing
that Berkery's claims are each legally deficient and/or that the
applicable statutes of limitations have lapsed.

In his Memorandum dated October 29, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/BPk3Aqfrom Leagle.com, Judge McHugh granted the
Defendants' motion to dismiss on all counts.  Berkery only pleads
that he informed the credit reporting agencies that he disputed
his credit information related to his former contract with
Verizon. Berkery fails to allege that a credit reporting agency
notified Verizon, as the furnisher of information here, of the
dispute, and Verizon subsequently failed to undertake a reasonable
and timely investigation. Therefore, Berkery's FCRA claim does not
state a plausible claim for relief as currently pleaded. Count Six
of the Complaint is dismissed without prejudice, as an amendment
may be able to cure the identified pleading deficiencies.
Moreover, Counts One through Four of Plaintiff's Complaint are
time-barred pursuant to the applicable statutes of limitations.
Count One arises under the FCA and alleges that Defendants failed
to adequately disclose billing practices in violation of the
statute. The relevant statute of limitations is two years from the
date that the cause of action accrued.

According to the Court, viewing all allegations in the light most
favorable to Berkery and interpreting the pleadings liberally,
Berkery's FCA claim accrued in December of 2009, the latest date
that Berkery may have canceled his service with Verizon due to
dissatisfaction with his bills. Consequently, Berkery's FCA claim
expired in December of 2011, well before he brought suit on
February 18, 2015. Count Two, brought pursuant to the Declaratory
Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2201, mirrors the allegations in
Count One. The only distinction between the two counts is the
relief requested, as Plaintiff requests a judicial declaration to
ascertain the parties'" respective rights and duties with respect
to Defendants' billing practices" under Count Two. As Berkery's
underlying FCA claim is barred by the statute of limitations, his
request for a declaratory judgment is also barred because it is
predicated upon the same cause of action. Count Three is a common
law breach of contract claim, which has a four-year statute of
limitations under Pennsylvania law.  The latest date that
Berkery's contract claim accrued is December 2009. Therefore,
Count Three has been time-barred since December of 2013. Count
Four advances a claim for common law fraud. Pennsylvania has a
two-year statute of limitations for fraud. Assuming that Berkery
discovered Verizon's alleged fraudulent activity in December 2009,
at the latest, this claim expired in 2011. Berkery is not entitled
to equitable tolling in the present action, and his first four
claims remain time-barred for failure to bring suit within the
time allotted by the applicable statutes of limitations.

John C. Berkery, Sr., Plaintiff, Pro Se

Gregory T. Sturges, Esq. of Greenberg Traurig LLP serves as
counsel for Defendant Verizon Communications, Inc.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Shirley" Suit Alleges RICO Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
Kerry N. Shirley, and all others similarly-situated v. Volkswagen
Group of America, Inc., Volkswagen AG, and Robert Bosch GmbH, Case
No. 5:15-cv-01811 (N.D. Ala., October 16, 2015), seeks damages
against the Defendants for violation of the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act, false advertising and consumer
fraud for intentional installation of so-called "defeat devices"
on over 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi vehicles sold in the
United States since 2009.

Defendant Volkswagen USA is a corporation organized under the laws
of the State of New Jersey, with its principal place of business
at 2200 Ferdinand Porsche Drive, Herndon, Virginia 20171.

Defendant Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft, doing business as
Volkswagen Group and/or Volkswagen AG, is a corporation organized
and existing under the laws of Germany, with its principal place
of business located in Wolfsburg, Germany. Volkswagen AG is the
parent corporation of Volkswagen USA.

Volkswagen manufactured, distributed, sold, leased, and warranted
the Affected Vehicles under the Volkswagen and Audi brand names
throughout the United States.

Defendant Robert Bosch GmbH ("Bosch") is a German multinational
engineering and electronics company, headquartered in Stuttgart
Germany. At all times from at least January 1, 2007 through the
present, Bosch supplied the defeat device to Volkswagen.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric J. Artrip, Esq.
      MASTANDO & ARTRIP LLC
      301 Washington Street, Suite 302
      Huntsville, AL 35801
      Tel: (256) 532-2222
      Fax: (256) 513-7489
      E-mail: Artrip@mastandoartrip.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Warner" Suit Alleges Fraudulent Concealment
--------------------------------------------------------------
Molly K. Warner, and all others similarly-situated v. Volkswagen
Group of America, Inc., Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, and Audi of
America, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-04791 (N.D. Calif., October 16,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for alleged
fraud/fraudulent concealment, violations of the Consumers Legal
Remedies Act, violations of California's False Advertising Law,
violations of the Song-Beverly Warranty Act, breach of implied
warranty, breach of express warranty, violations of the Magnuson-
Moss Warranty Act, violations of the California Unfair Competition
Law and unjust enrichment.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David L. Zifkin, Esq.
      BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
      401 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 850
      Santa Monica, CA 90401
      Tel: (310) 752-2400
      Fax: (310) 752-2490
      E-mail: dzifkin@bsfllp.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Wigley" Suit Alleges Deceptive Trade Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Barry Wigley and Madonna Wigley, and all others similarly-situated
v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-01816 (N.D.
Ala., October 16, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Act, breach of
express warranty, breach of implied warranty, and Magnuson-Moss
Act.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is a corporation doing business
in all 50 states and is organized under the laws of the State of
New Jersey, with its principal place of business located at 2200
Ferdinand Porsche Dr., Herndon, Virginia 20171. At all times
relevant to this action, Volkswagen manufactured, distributed,
sold, leased, and warranted the Subject Vehicles under the
Volkswagen and Audi brand names throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nicholas W. Armstrong, Esq.
      PRICE ARMSTRONG, LLC
      2421 2nd Avenue North, Suite 1
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Tel: (205) 208-9588
      E-mail: nick@pricearmstrong.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Urged to Quickly Report Emission Probe Findings
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David McHugh and Geir Moulson, writing for The Associated Press,
report that the fallout from Volkswagen's emissions-cheating
scandal intensified on Nov. 4, as investors bailed out and
European regulators pressured VW to quickly disclose the findings
of an internal investigation. In the U.S., the company halted
sales of seven models that allegedly were part of the cheating.

On Nov. 3, VW admitted that it had understated the carbon dioxide
emissions for 800,000 cars, widening the scope of a scandal that
has forced the ouster of a CEO and prompted investigations and
lawsuits on several continents.

The company has been unable halt the flow of bad news since mid-
September, when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said
Volkswagen had installed software on 482,000 cars that enabled
them to cheat on emissions tests for nitrogen oxide, a pollutant
that contributes to smog and respiratory problems.  The software
reduced emissions when the car was on a test stand.

Volkswagen acknowledged that 11 million vehicles with small diesel
engines worldwide have the software -- but only after denying its
use for more than a year.

On Nov. 2, the EPA charged that Volkswagen also used cheating
software in some cars with larger diesel engines, including
Volkswagen's elite Porsche brand.  Volkswagen has denied that
claim, but over the past two days halted sales in the U.S. and
Canada of the models involved: the Volkswagen Touareg, Porsche
Cayenne, and the Audi A6, A7, A8, Q5 and Q7.

Late on Nov. 3, VW said it had also found "unexplained
inconsistencies" in emissions from some of its vehicles of carbon
dioxide.  The cars were sold under the Volkswagen, Audi, SEAT and
Skoda brands, most of them in Europe and none in the United
States.

The company said the carbon dioxide problem could cost it 2
billion euros ($2.2 billion), on top of 6.7 billion euros it had
already set aside to cover the costs of recalls.  Analysts say the
total costs in fines and lost sales could be several times that.

Amid concerns over the escalating costs, the German carmaker's
ordinary shares slid 9.5 percent to close at 100.45 euros.  The
shares have tumbled 23 percent since the scandal was revealed, and
VW's total value has fallen $26.3 billion to $57.21 billion at the
Nov. 4 euro-to-dollar conversion rate.

The EU's executive Commission told Volkswagen to speed up its
investigation, which is being led by law firm Jones Day.

"Public trust is at stake here," spokeswoman Lucia Caudet told
reporters on Nov. 4.  "We need all the facts on the table."

The commission has enforcement powers to ensure that manufacturers
respect their obligations in terms of carbon dioxide emissions,
including the possibility of imposing fines.

Germany's transport minister indicated that VW will be on the hook
for the costs of higher car taxes following the revelation that
carbon dioxide emissions were understated.

Transport Minister Alexander Dobrindt noted that Germany's car tax
is calculated on the basis of engine size and carbon dioxide
emissions, and so "if these vehicles emit more CO2, over and above
the respective limit, that makes a new calculation necessary."

Mr. Dobrindt also said VW is responsible for finding a solution
where "customers face neither extra costs nor effort."

Of the 800,000 vehicles found to have excessive CO2 emissions,
98,000 had gasoline engines, Mr. Dobrindt said.  Up until now, the
scandal had only involved diesel engines.

The widening scandal also prompted Moody's Investors Service to
cut the rating on the Volkswagen's debt, which could make
borrowing money more expensive for the company.  The agency cited
"mounting risks to Volkswagen's reputation and future earnings"
from this week's new developments.

VW CEO Matthias Mueller has promised the company will
"relentlessly and completely clarify the matter."  He has said the
company must re-examine its corporate culture to prevent such
missteps from occurring again.

The news that Porsche vehicles might also have had the deceptive
software is a potential embarrassment for Mr. Mueller, who headed
Porsche before he became CEO.

Mr. Mueller has said that upper management would not have involved
itself in the details of software development and has pointed to
"a few" employees who altered the software code.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Offers Car Owners $1,000 in Gift Cards, Vouchers
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Krisher, Dee-Ann Durbin in Detroit and Carlo Piovano, writing
for The Associated Press, report that Volkswagen is offering
$1,000 in gift cards and vouchers as a goodwill gesture to owners
of small diesel-powered cars involved in an emissions cheating
scandal.  The offer announced on Nov. 9 goes to owners of 482,000
cars in the U.S., many who are angry at the company because they
paid extra for the cars to be environmentally sensitive without
losing peppy acceleration.

VW is working on a fix for the cars, which are equipped with
software that turns on pollution controls during government tests
and turns them off while on the road.  The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency says the cars, with 2-liter four-cylinder diesel
engines, emit 10 to 40 times the allowable amount of harmful
nitrogen oxide while being driven.

The offer also includes free roadside assistance for the diesel
vehicles for three years.

"We are working tirelessly to develop an approved remedy for
affected vehicles," said Michael Horn, VW's U.S. CEO, said in a
statement.  "In the meantime we are providing this goodwill
package as a first step towards regaining our customers' trust."

VW said that its Audi luxury brand would launch the same program
on Nov. 6.

Meanwhile, Germany's Transport Ministry said on Nov. 9 that of the
2. 4 million vehicles being recalled for fixes in Germany,
regulators "currently expect that approximately 540,000 will also
need hardware changes" as well as software changes.  It says
Volkswagen will inform owners of the details.

The company is recalling 8.5 million 2009-2015 model year cars
with the software across Europe, starting next year.  It says
about 11 million cars worldwide have the software.

Also on Nov. 9, Fitch, the credit rating agency, downgraded
Volkswagen's debt by two notches to reflect the potential
financial costs of the scandal as well as the management problems
that led to the crisis in the first place.  The downgrade follows
a similar move by Moody's.  Fitch cited the "possibility of
further problems still to be uncovered" by the company's internal
investigation as well as "relatively weak corporate governance."

To get the gift cards and vouchers in the U.S., owners will not be
required to sign anything giving up their right to sue Volkswagen
or forcing them into arbitration, spokeswoman Jeannine Ginivan.
"There are no strings attached," she said.

The fix of the 2-liter diesels in the U.S. could wind up hurting
performance or perhaps fuel mileage, the two main reasons why
people buy the diesels.  More than 200 class-action lawsuits have
been filed in the U.S. against VW alleging that the scandal caused
the diesel cars to drop in value.

Early in October, Kelley Blue Book said the average resale value
of Volkswagens with two-liter diesel engines fell 13 percent since
mid-September, when VW admitted it cheated on the tests.

Used car values often drop in the fall, since demand for them is
stronger in the summer. But VW's diesel decline is unusually
large.  The price of gas-powered Volkswagens dropped 2 percent in
the same period.

Volkswagen already is offering $2,000 to current VW owners to
trade in their cars for new vehicles, and the gift cards and
vouchers would add $1,000 to that.

The scandal expanded, when the EPA accused VW of cheating with
different software on larger six-cylinder diesels in about 10,000
vehicles.  VW also acknowledged finding irregularities in carbon
dioxide emissions in 800,000 other vehicles, all outside the U.S.
Some of those were powered by gasoline engines.

The scandal drew protests from the Greenpeace environmental group
on Nov. 9 outside the main entrance to VW's headquarters in
Wolfsburg, Germany.  Protesters unfurled a banner reading "Das
Problem" -- a play on the carmaker's marketing slogan "Das Auto."

In addition to their banner, the Greenpeace protesters also held a
"C'' and a "2'' on either side of the round VW logo at the factory
entrance, spelling out "CO2."


WARRIOR GIRL: January 25 Trial Scheduled in Stock Fraud Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Attention purchasers of Warrior Girl Corp. ("WRGL") and/or
Everock, Inc. ("EVRN") stock between September 2008 and March
2014:

Charges have been filed against Harold Bailey Gallison II, a/k/a
B.J. Gallison, a/k/a Bart Williams; Anna Hiskey; Michael Randles;
Roger Coleman; Carl Kruse Sr.; Carl Kruse Jr.; Frank Zangara;
Mark Dresner; and Charles Moeller in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.  The indictment was
filed on June 24, 2015 and charges the defendants for their
alleged involvement in an international stock manipulation and
money laundering scheme involving Warrior Girl Corp. and Everock,
Inc.  The stocks were traded on the over-the-counter market under
the ticker symbols "WRGL" and "EVRN."  The alleged scheme was
designed to artificially inflate stock prices and volume through
promotional activities.  Defendants then allegedly sold the shares
at inflated prices and laundered the proceeds through offshore
accounts.  The scheme was facilitated through an offshore
brokerage and money laundering platform located in Costa Rica that
went by various names including: Sandias Azucaradas, Moneyline
Brokers, and Trinity Asset Services.  The indictment charges
Gallison, Hiskey, Kruse Sr., and Kruse Jr. with one count of
conspiracy to commit wire fraud and one count of securities fraud
in connection with a pump-and-dump scheme involving Warrior Girl,
Corp.  Gallison, Hiskey, Zangara, Moeller, and Dresner are charged
with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and one count of
securities fraud in connection with a pump-and-dump scheme
involving Everock, Inc.  Additionally, Gallison, Hiskey, Coleman,
and Randles are charged with conspiracy to commit money
laundering.  At this time, there has been no finding of guilt with
respect to any of the defendants, and they are presumed innocent
until and unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  The
case is scheduled for trial on January 25, 2016, before United
States District Court Judge Anthony J. Trenga in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandra
Division, case number 1:15cr178.

If you believe that you were a victim of these crimes, and you
wish to receive notice of future developments in the cases, to
submit written information concerning the impact these crimes have
had on you to assist the court in determining defendants'
sentences, should they be convicted, and any possible restitution,
or to attend any hearings, please contact the Victim/Witness
Coordinator at the United States Department of Justice, Criminal
Division, Fraud Section at telephone number 1-888-549-3945 or go
to the Case Updates section on the Criminal Division's Victim
Witness webpage at: http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/vns/index.html


WEXFORD HEALTH: Suit by Menard Inmate Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------
Michael Jackson, currently incarcerated at Menard Correctional
Center ("Menard"), brought a pro se civil rights action before the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. He sues a host of officials at four
different prisons where he has been incarcerated since 2010. Two
hospitals are also included among the Defendants. Plaintiff claims
that various Defendants have been deliberately indifferent to his
serious mental health condition, as well as to other medical
needs. Further, several Menard officers physically assaulted
Plaintiff in June 2015.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff has suffered from mental
illness since childhood. While he was in prison at Western
Illinois Correctional Center in March 2010, he was having a mental
breakdown and got into a fight with his cellmate. He was on
psychotropic medications at the time, but they were not working.
He was charged with a disciplinary infraction; he was found guilty
after a hearing where no mental health staff participated to
inform the disciplinary committee that Plaintiff was mentally ill
and not responsible for his actions. He was punished with three
months in a small segregation cell. During Plaintiff's time in
segregation, he received no meaningful mental health treatment,
and his mental breakdown became worse. Because of this, his
behavior caused him to incur several more disciplinary tickets,
and his segregation time was extended. Again, no mental health
staff appeared at his hearing, and he got no effective treatment.

Plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief, in the form of
release from segregation, restoration of his lost good time,
referral for a mental health evaluation, and a transfer to a
medium-security prison that offers better mental health services.
He notes that his complaint was written for him by a jailhouse
lawyer.

In her Memorandum and Order dated November 2, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/EzAUTFfrom Leagle.com, District Judge Nancy J.
Rosenstengel dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted. The individual defendants
and defendants Memorial Hospital-Chester, St. Joseph Hospital, and
Two Unknown Party Defendants (Doctor, Western IL CC; and Mental
Health Psychologist, Western IL CC) are dismissed from this action
without prejudice. Plaintiff is advised that he is under a
continuing obligation to keep the Clerk of Court and each opposing
party informed of any change in his address; the Court will not
independently investigate his whereabouts. This shall be done in
writing and not later than 7 days after a transfer or other change
in address occurs. Failure to comply with this order will cause a
delay in the transmission of court documents and may result in
dismissal of this action for want of prosecution.

The case is captioned MICHAEL JACKSON, # M-15131, Plaintiff, v.
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES (Director), et al., Defendants, Case No.
15-CV-920-NJR, (S.D. Ill.)


WILMINGTON TRUST: Judge Grants Prosecutors to Join in Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The News Journal, reported that
the shareholder class action against Wilmington Trust could hit a
speed bump if the federal judge handling the case decides to halt
discovery.

On, U.S. District Court Judge Sue L. Robinson granted federal
prosecutors the right to intervene in the civil case. the U.S.
Attorney's Office in Wilmington is bringing criminal charges
against bank executives in a separate suit.

Shareholders had filed their civil class action claiming that they
got burned by the bank's cover up of the state of its finances in
the lead up to its acquisition by M&T Bank in 2010.

Prosecutors argued in a filing earlier that they should be allowed
to intervene in that civil suit and halt discovery -- including
depositions and documents -- until the criminal case is done.

Robinson said she would decide later whether to stay discovery.

Prosecutors have brought criminal charges against seven executives
and three customers of the bank -- two of those defendants have
pleaded guilty. The criminal trial is scheduled for a year from
now -- September 2016.


WYANDOTTE, MI: Wayne County Sues Over Tax Court Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Charles E. Ramirez, writing for The Detroit News, reported that
Wayne County has filed a class-action lawsuit against the city of
Wyandotte over tax money that was supposed to be collected as part
of a judgment levy earlier.

The county alleges the city and its Downtown Development Authority
and Tax Increment Finance Authority collected taxes intended for
the judgment levy for their own use. The levy stems from a ruling
in June that requires the county to replenish funds it pulled from
a retirement fund.

Downtown Development Authorities, or DDAs, and Tax Increment
Finance Authorities, TIFAs, are systems cities, villages and
townships use to fund improvement projects in specific districts.
They use a mechanism that freezes the property taxes of the
businesses in that zone at a specific level and tax increases
above that level can be used to pay for the projects.

"The (city of Wyandotte, its DDA and TIFA) have stated that they .
. . intend to capture revenue raised from a special purpose
millage levied by Wayne County," the county said in its lawsuit
filed in Wayne County Circuit Court.

"(They) have misconstrued applicable law to conclude that they are
required to capture revenue from the judgment levy," the lawsuit
said. "If (the city of Wyandotte, its DDA and TIFA) divert a
portion of the judgment levy to their own use, the county will be
unable to satisfy the judgment levy because the revenue collected
will be insufficient."

The county filed a class-action lawsuit to ensure, if successful,
other municipalities' DDAs or TIFAs could not capture and use
revenues from the judgment levy, officials said.

It's not clear how much money Wyandotte's tax increment finance
systems collected. The county's lawsuit only said "the amount in
controversy exceeds $25,000,exclusive of interest and costs."

Wayne County is asking the court for a speedy hearing on the
matter.

Wyandotte City Administrator Todd Drysdale and Mayor Joseph
Peterson could not be reached for comment.

Earlier, county attorneys gave Wayne County commissioners a
briefing on the lawsuit. The commission met as a committee of the
whole to discuss several matters, but went into closed session to
discuss the suit and potential legal action on other issues.

No formal action on any of the items was taken during the meeting,
officials said. Commissioners are scheduled to meet next on as a
full board.

In June, the county levied a one-time tax on property owners to
pay a $49 million judgment in favor of a county retiree fund. The
lawsuit does not specify the amount allegedly withheld by
Wyandotte.

The judgment stemmed from a lawsuit retirees filed against the
county for pulling $32 million from its "Inflation Equity Fund."
For three decades, the fund provided retirees what's known as the
"13th check." The $49 million made up for the amount taken from
the fund, plus lost earnings.

Commissioners passed a resolution to use the delinquent revolving
tax fund to pay for the judgment, but County Executive Warren
Evans vetoed it and the commission decided against overriding it.

The result was the average Wayne County homeowner had to pay an
extra $35 on their summer tax bill.

Commissioners also discussed the county Treasurer's proposal to
transfer $82 million from the delinquent tax revolving fund to the
county's general fund.

Earlier, Wayne County Treasurer Ray Wojtowicz told the commission
there is an $82.5 million surplus in the county's delinquent tax
revolving fund and he planned to transfer it to the county's
general fund.


ZAFGEN INC: Khang & Khang Files Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Khang & Khang LLP (the "Firm") announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against Zafgen, Inc. ("Zafgen" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: ZFGN). Investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired shares between January 12, 2015 and October 16, 2015,
inclusive (the "Class Period") are encouraged to contact the Firm
immediately to discuss their legal options.

If you purchased shares of Zafgen during the Class Period, please
contact Joon M. Khang, Esquire, of Khang & Khang, 18101 Von Karman
Avenue, 3rd Floor, Irvine, CA 92612, by telephone: (949) 419-3834,
or by email at joon@khanglaw.com.

There has been no class certification in this case. Until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. You
may choose to take no action and remain a passive class member.

According to the complaint, on October 16, 2015, the Company
announced that the FDA had ordered a "partial clinical hold" on
the Company's Beloranib clinical trials following the death of a
patient.

If you purchased shares of Zafgen during the Class Period, you
have until December 21, 2015 to ask the Court to appoint you as
lead plaintiff. If you wish to learn more about this lawsuit, or
if you have any questions concerning this notice or your rights,
please contact Joon M. Khang, a prominent litigator for almost two
decades, by telephone: (949) 419-3834, or by email at
joon@khanglaw.com.

         Joon M. Khang, Esq.
         KHANG & KHANG LLP
         18101 Von Karman Avenue, 3rd Floor
         Irvine, CA 92612
         Telephone: 949-419-3834
         Facsimile: 949-225-4474
         Email: joon@khanglaw.com


ZAFGEN INC: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of all persons or
entities that purchased the common stock of Zafgen, Inc. ("Zafgen"
or the "Company") between January 12, 2015 and October 16, 2015,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Shareholders of Zafgen, Inc.who
incurred losses  on shares purchased within the Class Period are
urged to contact the firm immediately at classmember@whafh.com or
(800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774.

If you purchased the shares of Zafgen, Inc. during the period
January 12, 2015 and October 16, 2015, inclusive, you may, no
later than December 21, 2015, request that the Court appoint you
lead plaintiff of the proposed class.

The filed Complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
defendants issued materially false and misleading public
statements, and/or failed to disclose material information
concerning adverse thrombotic events experienced by patients in
the Company's clinical trials of its primary new drug product,
beloranib. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants
failed to disclose that one participant in the beloranib Phase 3
study, who had died, was receiving beloranib and not a placebo.
In addition, the Complaint alleges that while Zafgen had reported
2 thrombotic events in prior clinical studies, there had actually
been 4 such events, as well as 2 additional thrombotic events in
other ongoing studies.

The Complaint further alleges that on October 15, 2015, the Food
and Drug Administration placed a partial clinical hold on
beloranib. On that news, the price of the Company's common stock
fell to a close of $10.36 per share on October 16, 2015, from a
close of $21.02 per share on the previous day. This 50% decline
resulted in a market capitalization loss of $288 million..

Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country.  The firm
has attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego.  The reputation and expertise of this firm
in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP by telephone at (800)
575-0735, via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com, or visit our
website at www.whafh.com.  All e-mail correspondence should make
reference to the "Zafgen Investigation."

         Patrick Donovan, Esq.
         WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
         270 Madison Ave
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-545-4708
         Email: donovan@whafh.com


ZYNGA: Settles Peeved Investors' Class Suit
-------------------------------------------
Katherine Proctor, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal judge gave preliminary approval to a class action
settlement of claims that video game developer Zynga artificially
inflated its share prices.

Lead plaintiff David Fee claimed in the 2012 lawsuit that Zynga
executives, aware of the company's poor financial condition, sold
their shares of the company for hundreds of millions of dollars -
allowing them to shift the company's revenue losses from the first
quarter to the second quarter of 2012, which artificially inflated
the price of Zynga stock during the first quarter.

By the time Zynga disclosed its true financial status, its stock
price had fallen 37 percent in a single day, according to U.S.
Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Corley's order.

Corley preliminarily approved a $23 million settlement fund.
Deducted from the fund will be taxes, attorneys' fees, litigation
costs and notice and claims-administration expenses.

The plaintiff class consists of Zynga shareholders who purchased
their stock between Dec. 15, 2011 and the close of trading on Feb.
14, 2012.

If all class members make claims, they will receive $0.15 per
share purchased, the order said.

Jeffrey Norton, who represents the plaintiffs, said in a telephone
interview that he expects about 100,000 claimants.

Corley said in her ruling that the settlement "appears to be the
product of serious, informed, non-collusive negotiation."

She set a final fairness hearing for Jan. 28, 2016.

Norton said that he was very pleased with the settlement's terms.

"We feel confident that it will get final approval, and we think
it's a fantastic settlement for the class," he said.

The defendants' counsel did not respond to request for comment on
morning.

Norton is with Newman Ferrara, in New York City.

The defendants are represented by Anna White, with Morrison &
Foerster in San Francisco.

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: McDermot Continues to Defend Insurers' Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
McDermott International, Inc., continues to defend itself against
a lawsuit filed by certain London Insurers asserting they have no
obligation to indemnify the company for asbestos-related claims,
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 states: "On or about August 23, 2004, a declaratory
judgment action entitled Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London,
et al. v. J. Ray McDermott, Inc. et al., was filed by certain
underwriters at Lloyd's, London and Threadneedle Insurance Company
Limited (the "London Insurers"), in the 23rd Judicial District
Court, Assumption Parish, Louisiana, against MII, J. Ray
McDermott, Inc. ("JRMI") and two insurer defendants, Travelers and
INA, seeking a declaration that the London Insurers have no
obligation to indemnify MII and JRMI for certain bodily injury
claims, including claims for asbestos and welding rod fume
personal injury which have been filed by claimants in various
state courts. Additionally, Travelers filed a cross-claim
requesting a declaration of non-coverage in approximately 20
underlying matters. This proceeding was stayed by the Court on
January 3, 2005. We do not believe an adverse judgment or material
losses in this matter are probable, and, accordingly, we have not
accrued any amounts relating to this contingency. Although there
is a possibility of an adverse judgment, the amount or potential
range of loss is not estimable at this time. The insurer-
plaintiffs in this matter commenced this proceeding in a purported
attempt to obtain a determination of insurance coverage
obligations for occupational exposure and/or environmental matters
for which we have given notice that we could potentially seek
coverage. Because estimating losses would require, for every
matter, known and unknown, on a case by case basis, anticipating
what impact on coverage a judgment would have and a determination
of an otherwise expected insured value, damages cannot be
reasonably estimated."

McDermott International, Inc., is an engineering, procurement,
construction and installation company. The Company is focused on
designing and executing offshore oil and gas projects worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chiquita Brands Has 192 MARDOC Cases at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chiquita Brands International, Inc., has 192 MARDOC cases,
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 states: "Regarding the asbestos cases pending in the
Northern District of Ohio and the Pennsylvania Federal Court,
there are currently 192 MARDOC cases against the Company that have
been remanded from the Pennsylvania Federal Court and we expect
that the 182 cases still pending against the Company in
Pennsylvania are likely to be remanded by the end of 2015.
Pursuant to an order issued by the Ohio court, the Company and
other interested parties are attempting to develop a process
through which the remanded cases may be resolved without trial,
either by settlement or dismissal. At this time no final agreement
has been reached."

Chiquita Brands International, Inc. (CBII) ,along with its
subsidiaries, is an international marketer and distributor of
bananas and pineapples sold under the Chiquita and other brand
names in 70 countries, and packaged salads sold under the Fresh
Express and other brand names primarily in the United States. The
Company operates in three segments: Bananas; Salads and Healthy
Snacks, and Other Produce. The Bananas segment includes the
sourcing (purchase and production), transportation, marketing and
distribution of bananas. The Salads and Healthy Snacks segment
includes ready-to-eat, packaged salads, and other value-added
products, such as healthy snacking products, fresh vegetable and
fruit ingredients used in food service, processed fruit
ingredients. The Other Produce segment includes the sourcing,
marketing and distribution of whole fresh produce other than
bananas. The primary product of the Other Produce segment is
pineapples.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: US Auto Part Units Continue to Defend PI Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc.'s subsidiaries continue to defend
themselves against asbestos-related lawsuits , according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended July 4, 2015.

A wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, Automotive Specialty
Accessories and Parts, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary WAG,
are named defendants in several lawsuits involving claims for
damages caused by installation of brakes during the late 1960's
and early 1970's that contained asbestos. WAG marketed certain
brakes, but did not manufacture any brakes. WAG maintains
liability insurance coverage to protect its and the Company's
assets from losses arising from the litigation and coverage is
provided on an occurrence rather than a claims made basis, and the
Company is not expected to incur significant out-of-pocket costs
in connection with this matter that would be material to its
consolidated financial statements.

U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc. (U.S. Auto Parts) is an online
source for automotive aftermarket parts and repair information.
The Company is an online provider of aftermarket auto parts,
including body parts, hard parts and performance parts and
accessories. Its Websites provide a range of stock keeping units
(SKUs) with detailed product descriptions and photographs. The
Company operates through two segments: Base USAP, which is the
core auto parts business, and AutoMD, an online automotive repair
source. The Company offers a range of aftermarket auto parts. The
Company classifies its products into three categories: body parts
serving the collision repair segment, hard parts to serve the
replacement/wear parts market and performance parts and
accessories. The Company sells its products through its network of
Websites and online marketplaces, including
www.autopartswarehouse.com, www.carparts.com, www.jcwhitney.com
and www.AutoMD.com. The Company has approximately 2,100 repair
shops.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: VWR Corp. Has No Insurance for Fibro Liabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
VWR Corporation says insurance for liability relating to asbestos
is not available, 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 states: "Our business involves risk of product
liability, patent infringement and other claims in the ordinary
course of business arising from the products that we source from
various manufacturers or produce ourselves, as well as from the
services we provide. Our exposure to such claims may increase as
we seek to increase the geographic scope of our sourcing
activities and sales of private label products and to the extent
that we expand our manufacturing operations. We maintain insurance
policies, including product liability insurance, and in many cases
the manufacturers of the products we distribute have indemnified
us against such claims. We cannot assure you that our insurance
coverage or indemnification agreements with manufacturers will be
available in all pending or any future cases brought against us.
Furthermore, our ability to recover under any insurance or
indemnification arrangements is subject to the financial viability
of our insurers, our manufacturers and our manufacturers'
insurers, as well as legal enforcement under the local laws
governing the arrangements. In particular, as we seek to expand
our sourcing from manufacturers in the Asia-Pacific region and
other developing locations, we expect that we will increase our
exposure to potential defaults under the related indemnification
arrangements. Insurance coverage in general or coverage for
certain types of liabilities, such as product liability or patent
infringement in these developing markets may not be readily
available for purchase or cost-effective for us to purchase.
Furthermore, insurance for liability relating to asbestos, lead
and silica exposure is not available, and we do not maintain
insurance for product recalls. Accordingly, we could be subject to
uninsured and unindemnified future liabilities, and an unfavorable
result in a case for which adequate insurance or indemnification
is not available could result in a material adverse effect on our
business, financial condition and results of operations."

VWR Corporation (VWR) is a provider of laboratory products,
services and solutions to the life science, general research and
applied markets. The Company operates in two segments: North,
Central and South America (Americas) and Europe, Middle East,
Africa and Asia Pacific (EMEA-APAC). It has a presence in Europe
and North America with respect to the laboratory products market.
It also has operations in Asia-Pacific and other markets to
support its multinational customers across the globe. The Company
offers a portfolio of and private label laboratory products and a
range of services, including custom manufacturing. The Company's
portfolio includes chemicals, reagents, consumables, durable
products and scientific equipment and instruments. The Company's
branded and private label product portfolio includes service
offerings marketed under the VWRCATALYST brand, including sourcing
and procurement, logistics, chemical and equipment tracking and
sample management.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint, Units Continue to Defend PI Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC, and its subsidiaries
continue to defend themselves in lawsuits filed by individuals who
claim injury due to exposure to asbestos, 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, including
CenterPoint Houston, 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 CenterPoint Energy or
CenterPoint Houston, but most existing claims relate to facilities
previously owned by CenterPoint Energy's other subsidiaries or
CenterPoint Houston. 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 Houston or CenterPoint Energy, as
appropriate, intends to continue vigorously contesting claims that
it does not consider to have merit and, based on its experience to
date, CenterPoint Houston does not expect these matters, either
individually or in the aggregate, to have a material adverse
effect on its financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows.

CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC, is an electric
transmission and distribution utility based in Houston.  The
Company caters toretail electric providers (REPs) in the Texas
Gulf Coast area.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Construction Worker Dies of Mesothelioma
---------------------------------------------------------
Sophie Wills, writing for Workshop Guardian, reported that the
widow of a worksop construction worker who died of an asbestos-
related cancer is appealing for any information which will support
her search for answers regarding his death.

Graham Stocks, who lived in Worksop, died aged 77 in January 2014,
around five months after being diagnosed mesothelioma -- a cancer
of the lining of the lung caused by asbestos exposure decades ago.

His widow Betty has now instructed specialist industrial illness
lawyers to help her gain answers regarding how Graham was exposed
to asbestos and is appealing to former colleagues to come forward
and help with their enquiries.

Graham worked for various construction companies between 1952 and
1981, including Morris and Oldfield Builders, General Refractories
Ltd, Dernie & Bell Sons & Co Ltd, J.J. & A.R. Jackson Ltd, F.P.A.
Finnegan Ltd, George Wimpey & Co Ltd J.T.Bell & Sons Ltd and P.
Hassall Ltd on projects based in Worksop and Sheffield.

Betty recalls his work often involved multiple roofing projects
which may have involved asbestos sheeting and other work which saw
him come into contact with pipes which were likely to have been
lagged with asbestos.

Betty said: "The shock of how quickly the illness affected Graham
so soon after he was diagnosed still upsets me.

" But I am determined to find answers and seek justice for him
more than ever.

"I am only able to pass on the information Graham told me when he
was alive about the working conditions, but hopefully people who
he worked with might be able to help to provide more information
so that we can determine what caused his terrible illness."

Laura Haigh, industrial disease expert at law firm Irwin Mitchell,
representing Betty, said: "Mesothelioma is an aggressive and
incurable cancer and has devastating consequences for sufferers
and their loved ones. Sadly, despite employers knowing how
dangerous it is, many in the past did not do enough to manage the
risks of asbestos exposure to protect their employees.

"Because the illness is linked to exposure to asbestos decades ago
it can sometimes be difficult to find information on the working
conditions the victims have endured.

"In Graham's case, he worked for numerous different employers
across the region and we would urge anyone who worked with him at
any of the companies across Worksop, Sheffield and Newcastle to
get in touch, as they might be able to provide vital information
that may assist with our investigations."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Employers Sued for Exposing Workers to Fibro
-------------------------------------------------------------
Charlotte Helston, writing for Infotel.ca, reported that WorkSafe
B.C. has slapped two local employers with heavy fines for exposing
workers to asbestos.

The first, Kelowna's Kone Inc., was handed a $15,000 penalty for
potentially exposing its workers to harmful levels of asbestos.
According to WorkSafe B.C., the company, which installs, maintains
and repairs elevators and escalators, was first told to come up
with an exposure control plan for preventing exposure to asbestos
in November 2012, but as of April 2014, had not submitted an
acceptable plan. WorkSafe B.C. says it 'repeatedly discussed ECP
(exposure control plan) requirements with the firm.'

Another workplace was also penalized for asbestos-related
violations. The Sorrento Centre Anglican Church of Canada in the
Shuswap was fined $14,384 for allowing workers to be in an area
where there was damaged and exposed asbestos without using
adequate personal protective equipment or safe work procedures.

"The firm should first have ensured that all friable (easily
crumbled) asbestos-containing materials were removed or enclosed
so as to prevent the release of asbestos fibres. These designated
high-risk violations may have exposed workers to asbestos, a known
carcinogen," a WorkSafe B.C. report says.

The church has filed a notice of appeal.

Asbestos was a popular building material between the 1950s and
1990s due to its heat resistant properties and resilience to
chemical erosion -- but we now know that it causes a number of
serious health problems. It's often described as a hidden killer
because asbestos-related diseases take a long time to develop.
Once diagnosed, it's often too late for treatment.

According to WorkSafe B.C., asbestos-related diseases resulted in
77 deaths in 2014, up from 59 in 2013.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Victims Need to Sue Insurers for Payment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Petro, writing for Bizjournal.com, reported that before
taking on several cases for former Durez Plastics workers exposed
to asbestos, attorney Michael Ponterio had never seen this type of
ploy by an insurance company in these matters.

His client, Joseph Muir, a former factory worker diagnosed with
malignant mesothelioma, was recently awarded $5.6 million from
Hedman Resources Ltd. as part of a decision by Justice Deborah
Chimes in New York State Supreme Court for Erie County.

Hedman Resources sold raw asbestos to Durez in North Tonawanda for
use in the manufacturing of a plastic molding compound that was
sold to other U.S. plastics manufacturers.

However, Muir will have to bring a second lawsuit and it must be
successful for him to be able to collect the judgment. In 2012,
Hedman's CEO entered into a series of agreements with liability
insurers in which the insurance companies paid approximately $6
million to be released from their continuing obligations to pay
company claims like Muir's.

Ponterio, who co-founded Lipsitz & Ponterio in 1995 with law
partner John Lipsitz, said he estimated the limits of Hedman's
liability coverage to be in the range of $200 million.

He said these cases have been like no others that he and Lipsitz
have seen in their 30 years of asbestos litigation. And just like
with three other cases initiated by former Durez workers, he plans
to move forward with Muir and his family and litigate the case in
federal court, even though it could take two to three years to
reach resolution.

"The family is aware that there's going to have to be another
lawsuit that's filed to try to collect on this, but we think it's
the right thing to do," Ponterio said. "It's setting a very bad
precedent for the insurance companies to try to escape their
liabilities."

He said what makes these cases unique is the confidential nature
of the deal that released Hedman's insurer from any future
obligation to pay people who were exposed to and affected by
asbestos. The company ceased mining operations many years ago and
has no assets except for insurance policies covering it for
personal injury claims.

"There was no transparency for this deal and we feel like it
smelled from Day One," Ponterio said. "You can't have an insurance
company with an obligation for potential exposure for millions of
dollars enter into a secret deal with no transparency and insulate
themselves from any further liabilities."

Muir and his wife, Nancy, live in Connecticut, where he is an
engineer and project manager at General Dynamics Corp. The 58-
year-old was diagnosed with cancer in July 2014 and has undergone
chemotherapy and more than a dozen surgical procedures.

In September he was told by doctors that tumors spread from his
lymph nodes to his liver and spine and that he wasn't a candidate
for more chemotherapy. Muir, a father of three, is undergoing
experimental immunotherapy at an out-of-pocket cost of more than
$30,000.

During the summers of 1976 and 1977 he worked at Durez, handling
and testing the molding compound that contained Hedman asbestos
fiber. He also was exposed to asbestos brought home on the
clothing of his father, Melvin Lee Muir, who was a career employee
at Durez.

The majority of his $5.6 million judgment was for lost income and
medical expenses. The rest was for past and future pain and
suffering.

"Based upon the findings of fact, the court finds that the
plaintiff established the defendant was negligent and the
negligence was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's claimed
injury," the judge wrote in her decision.

However, Muir's lawsuit has turned into a two-step process.
Ponterio said that under normal circumstances, there would be a
jury trial and Hedman Resources would have an attorney present and
an opportunity to defend itself. But the company decided not to
appear at trial, despite receiving notice of the proceedings.

The Durez cases handled by Ponterio's firm have had a trial in
which proof was presented and medical and liability testimony was
given. When the decisions were issued, the firm had to enter
judgment and then follow up by suing the umbrella access insurance
carriers on the grounds that the deal brokered with Hedman was
intended to prevent people from making legitimate claims against
them.

"From a common-sense point of view, insurance companies that have
hundreds of billions of dollars in coverage cut a deal with the
insured for pennies on the dollar," Ponterio said. "It was created
to deprive legitimate consumers -- people in our community exposed
to this product -- from being able to collect monies from the
insurance companies."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma to Cost Insurers $85B, AMBest Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Ascher, writing for Insurance Insider, reported that the level
of reserves US insurance companies are holding for future asbestos
losses remains a concern, AM Best has said, maintaining its
prediction that the mesothelioma crisis will cost the industry a
total of $85bn.

The rating agency said that of the expected total industry loss,
only $79.7bn had been funded so far -- a 6 percent shortfall.

But it said that the unfunded liability was "small" relative to
the losses that the industry had already paid out.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5th Circ. Affirms Remand Order in Fibro Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that an appellate court has
affirmed an order remanding asbestos claims to Louisiana state
court, concluding that the defendants had failed to show a causal
nexus between their actions and the plaintiffs' claims.

In the Oct. 19 opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th
Circuit noted that the plaintiffs' claims do not deal with the
design of the vessels in question.

The plaintiffs in the underlying cases alleged that they were
exposed to asbestos-containing products while working as merchant
mariners aboard vessels operated or owned by the defendants.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Korean Mesothelioma Deaths on the Rise
-------------------------------------------------------
Scientists in Korea say "slates" made of concrete and chrysotile
asbestos are among the products that are likely to keep the
mesothelioma death rate rising in the country until it peaks in
2021.

"We predicted the mortality from asbestos-related diseases by
year, from 2014 to 2036, according to the amount of asbestos
used," explains study author Su-Young Kim of Kyungpook National
University in Daegu. "As a result, it was predicted that a total
of 1942 people (maximum, 3476) will die by 2036."

The report in Science of the Total Environment predicts that the
asbestos-containing slates alone, used extensively in Korean
buildings in the 1970s, could cause 555 deaths from mesothelioma
and other asbestos diseases by 2031.

"This report is a sobering reminder that, because of the long
latency period of mesothelioma, the threat posed by asbestos
exposure does not end when the exposure is over," notes Surviving
Mesothelioma Managing Editor, Alex Strauss.

Kim, SY et al, "Predicting the mortality from asbestos-related
diseases based on the amount of asbestos used and the effects of
slate buildings in Korea", October 26, 2015, Science of the Total
Environment, Epub ahead of print,
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004896971530930X

For nearly ten years, Surviving Mesothelioma has brought readers
the most important and ground-breaking news on the causes,
diagnosis and treatment of mesothelioma. All Surviving
Mesothelioma news is gathered and reported directly from the peer-
reviewed medical literature. Written for patients and their loved
ones, Surviving Mesothelioma news helps families make more
informed decisions.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Groups Ask Caucus to Oppose Fibro Trust Bill
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lydia Wheeler, writing for The Hill, reported that public interest
groups are appealing to the House Cybersecurity Caucus for help in
fighting a Republican-backed bill they say will further harm
people who have been poisoned by asbestos.

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) Action Fund and five other
interest groups, including Public Citizen and the Center for
Justice & Democracy, wrote a letter to caucus co-chairs Reps. Jim
Langevin (D-R.I.) and Michael McCaul (R-Texas) asking the caucus
to oppose the Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency (FACT) Act of
2015.

The bill, which was approved by the Judiciary Committee in May and
has been introduced in the Senate, would require asbestos trusts,
which were set up to compensate workers and family members injured
by a company's manufacturing of asbestos, to file quarterly
reports on their public bankruptcy dockets that include
information on demands for payments and the basis for payments
made.

Supporters, such as Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-Texas), who
introduced the bill, claim the legislation is needed to protect
these finite trusts from paying out money for fraudulent or
inflated claims.

But the EWG Action Fund said the bill will force victims to
disclose sensitive personal information on the Internet -- full
names, birth years, work histories, medical conditions and a
portion of their social security numbers -- when seeking claims,
putting their personal security at risk.

"If the Congressional Cybersecurity Caucus is to maintain its
credibility as a bipartisan group whose mission is to protect all
Americans from the growing threats of identity theft and cyber
attack, it must oppose any legislation that would put any American
at increased risk," their letter said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: UK PM Pledges Help to Veterans with Mesothelioma
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Owen, writing for Independent.co, reported that the Prime
Minister is to review the way in which veterans dying due to being
exposed to asbestos during their military service are compensated,
it emerged.

During Prime Ministers Questions, David Cameron was challenged by
Labour MP Dave Anderson over the unfair treatment of former
service personnel suffering from mesothelioma, a deadly lung
cancer caused by asbestos.

The law protects the Ministry of Defence (MoD) from being sued for
compensation for illness or injury caused before 1987. This means
some 2,500 Royal Navy veterans who will die of mesothelioma from
asbestos exposure on ships decades ago can only apply for a war
pension.

At around GBP31,000 a year, this is a fraction of the GBP180,000
lump sum a 63-year-old can expect under the Government's
compensation scheme for civilians, claims the Royal British
Legion.

The Prime Minister described the military covenant as "one of the
most important things that we have -- when we make a promise to
our military that, because of the sacrifices they make on our
behalf, they should not have less good treatment than other groups
of people."

Mr Anderson asked Mr Cameron to look into the issue of veterans
who "stand to lose out massively when compared with people in
civilian life," in what the Labour MP said was "a moral outrage"
and "a clear breach of the military covenant."

In response, the Prime Minister said: "I'm very grateful to the
honourable gentleman for raising this issue, I understand that the
Defence Secretary is looking at it." In relation to the military
covenant, the Government has tried to make progress on issues such
as "particular groups who have been disadvantaged in some way," he
said. "I'm very happy to go away and look at the points that he
makes," added Mr Cameron.

The decision comes days after The Independent revealed the gulf in
compensation given to civilians and veterans suffering cancer from
asbestos exposure, prompting service charities and former military
chiefs to demand action.

Chris Simpkins, director general of The Royal British Legion,
said: "We welcome the fact the Prime Minister has said that both
he and the Defence Secretary will look into the current situation
regarding compensating veterans suffering from cancer as a result
of being exposed to asbestos while serving."

He added: "The fact that veterans could receive around GBP150,000
less in compensation than their civilian counterparts is a clear
breach of the Armed Forces Covenant. We look forward to the
Government coming forward with a solution soon."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Doctor Has Arrangement with Sheldon Silver
-----------------------------------------------------------
John Riley, writing for Newsday, reported that a prominent cancer
doctor who referred asbestos-disease patients to former Assembly
Speaker Sheldon Silver's personal injury law firm testified he
used the potentially lucrative cases to curry favor in hopes of
getting research funding, but did not say that Silver ever
explicitly linked the two.

"I wanted to maintain a relationship with him so that he would be
incentivized to be an advocate for mesothelioma research and he
would help us with funding for mesothelioma research," said Dr.
Robert Taub, the star government witness at Silver's corruption
trial in federal court in Manhattan.

But during cross-examination, the bow-tied former Columbia
University professor seemed conflicted about the arrangement,
calling Silver a "friend" and telling a defense lawyer the
mesothelioma research funding Silver pushed was "absolutely the
right thing" and funded "good work for New Yorkers."

And when Silver lawyer Steve Molo asked if Taub and Silver had "an
explicit agreement to exchange patients for grants," Taub
responded, "I did not."

Taub's testimony came on the second day of Silver's trial on
bribery, extortion and money-laundering charges. The longtime
Albany power broker is accused of giving two $250,000 state
research grants to Taub in return for patient referrals, and doing
legislative favors for developers in a similar scheme.

Silver, 71, resigned after two decades as speaker when he was
charged in January by U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara but continues to
represent Manhattan's Lower East Side. The case, along with the
upcoming trial of former Senate leader Dean Skelos, is viewed as a
linchpin of Bharara's crusade against Albany corruption.

Taub, 79, a widely regarded expert on mesothelioma who established
a research foundation at Columbia, said he had devoted his life to
helping those with the "terrible" disease, but was fired when the
Silver charges became public. He said he was suing Columbia.

Silver and Taub first met in 1984, he testified, through a common
friend, one-time Assembly aide Daniel Chill, and Taub approached
Silver in 2003 because he had joined a major New York law firm for
asbestos victims -- Weitz & Luxenberg -- that didn't donate to
asbestos research, and he wanted to see if Silver could change the
policy.

Silver said he couldn't help, but "one to two weeks later" Taub
said he learned -- in a conversation with Chill that he was not
allowed to detail after a hearsay objection -- that Silver wanted
referrals.
@Newsday

Taub said he knew the cases were "valuable," generating legal fees
of one-third on multimillion-dollar recoveries, and felt Silver --
who got one-third of the firm's fee on referrals -- would make
sure his patients were taken care of.

"I hoped to develop a relationship with him that would help fund
mesothelioma research, and would help my patients," Taub
testified. At some point, he said, Silver "conveyed that he was
pleased with the referrals he was getting."

"Several months" later, Taub testified, he learned through Chill
that Silver wanted him to apply for state research funding. He
drafted a letter describing the research and requesting money.
Prosecutors introduced an Assembly copy of it with a handwritten
notation, "Shelly is very interested in this."

Taub said he got $250,000 grants in 2005 and 2006, with less than
the normal "vetting." Silver, he said, turned him down for a third
grant in 2007, telling him, "I can't do this anymore." The
indictment says the grants stopped because the health funds Silver
was using ran out.

Over 10 years, Taub testified, he referred 25 to 50 cases to
Silver, calling his Assembly office to give contact information on
patients. Although he never testified to a conversation linking
grants and referrals, Taub did say Silver had a "pattern" of
expecting favors to be repaid.

He recalled a conversation in which Silver asked him to keep the
arrangement private.

Referrals to Silver shrunk after Taub started giving cases to a
law firm that donated to his research, he said, and Silver at one
point asked about the reasons. They remained on friendly terms
until 2014, when Taub was approached by investigators and agreed
to testify under a grant of immunity.

In addition to the grants, he also testified about other favors
Silver did -- helping Taub's children get work, offering to clear
red tape for a charity event and arranging an Assembly citation
for Taub's work. He said the favors were because they were
"friendly," but acknowledged the relationship was subtle.

"If you ask him to do something, he would ask for something in
return," he testified. "If it's family or a very close friend,
that's not what you expect."

Taub's testimony is expected to resume.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aussie Gov't to Spend $100MM for Fibro Removal
---------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reported that the Government promised to spend $100
million to remove the potentially deadly fibre from buildings in
Government schools by 2020.

However, the Opposition said that meant they would have to remove
asbestos from 23 schools a month to meet the target.

The Opposition's education spokesman, Nick Wakeling, said parents
were still waiting for details.

"For families in Ballarat, for families in regional Victoria, they
want to know when the asbestos will be removed," he said.

"We know across the Ballarat region, upwards of 53 schools have
had asbestos, yet this Government has not provided any explanation
to local families how they will remove this asbestos.

"They want to know when the Government will live up to its own
commitment to remove the asbestos from their school.

"It's not a difficult question, the Government simply needs to
explain to local families when that asbestos will be removed."

A Government spokesman said it was not looking for a quick fix and
had spent the past few months doing unprecedented work to remove
asbestos from schools.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Conspiracy Alleged in Man's Fibro-Related Death
----------------------------------------------------------------
Angelino Menconi, writing for West Virginia Record, reported that
a Marshall County woman is blaming more than 50 companies for the
asbestos-related death of her brother.

Representing the estate of Robert Detemple, Jr., Veronica Detemple
filed suit on Sept. 10 in the Circuit Court of Marshall against
the Ohio Power Company, Owens-Fiberglass, Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company and more than 50 other companies.

The suit alleges Robert Detemple, Jr., died as a result of
mesothelioma caused by asbestos exposure while working
construction jobs for a number of the defendants. It also alleges
that all the defendants were involved in a conspiracy dating back
to 1920 to falsify or mislead the public about the dangers and
risks associated with asbestos.

The plaintiff is seeking compensatory, liquidated and punitive
damages, attorney fees, and costs of litigation. She is
represented by Leslie Ann James of Hartley & O'Brien, PLLC in
Wheeling.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mashava Mine's on $1BB Fibro Deposits
---------------------------------------------------------
Walter Mswasie, writing for Chronicle.cozw, reported that the
disused Mashava Mine under Shabanie and Mashava Mine (SMM) Pvt
limited is sitting on $ 1 billion worth of asbestos deposit that
could be exploited for the bettermen of the economy, a top
official he said.

Addressing provincial heads during a tour of that closed mione by
Vice president Phelekezele Mphoko recently, SMM chief executive
officer Chirandu Ndhlenbeu said the asbestos deposits lying idle
underground have a lifespan of 17 years with the mine operating at
full capacity.

He said for the mine to resume operations, it needs at least $20
million for recapitalization.

The money, he said, can be raised through leasing some of the
mine's properties as well as running programmes whereby
individuals pay for the training.

Ndhlembeu said Mashava Mine alone has the capacityto produce at
least 75,00 tonnes of asbestos in six months.

He said the asbestos industry faces competition from global
producers, the quality of mineral produced by both Shabanie and
Mashaba Mines was the rated best and such as there is high demand
for it.

"The asbestos deposits we have at MAshaba ing Mine hve a potential
of raising about $1billion at the present market rate,"
saidNdhlenbeu.

He said at their peak Shabanie and MAshaba mines used to employ
about 3,000 workers.

Shabani and Mashava mines were put under judicial management in
2004 after encountering viability challenges, which saw about 75
percent of the of tha employees being retrenched.

The country used to be fifth best producer of asbestos in the
world contributing 150,000 tonnes of the mineral to the market per
year and second best exporter after Russia, Brazil and Canada.

VP Mphoko said Russian investor who visted the mine early
expressed interest in the asbestos and promised to come back.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plant Owners May Face Penalty Over Fibro Cleanup
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Landis, writing for The State Journal-Register, reported that
owners of the former Pillsbury Mills plant face the threat of a
$500-a-day penalty retroactive to Sept. 9 after a circuit judge
found them in civil contempt for failure to contain asbestos and
secure the site on the northeast side of Springfield.

A member of the ownership company, P. Mills LLC, says that while
an engineering firm specializing in asbestos cleanup has been
hired, the company cannot afford the cleanup demanded by state
environmental regulators.

Judge John Madonia found P. Mills LLC, Midwest Demolition Co. and
Joey Chernis of Midwest Demolition in civil contempt for
"willfully failing to retain a project designer for asbestos
removal, and for failing to timely secure the property with
sufficient signage." Chernis' father, Joe, is owner of Midwest
Demolition.

Madonia set a penalty of $500 a day, effective Sept. 9, if the
company failed to hire an asbestos cleanup contractor and failed
to secure the site, according to court records.

A status hearing on compliance is set for Dec. 7.

The Illinois attorney general's office sued P. Mills LLC, Midwest
Demolition, Joey Chernis and Joe Chernis in August after
inspectors for the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
reported improper asbestos removal, including dozens of plastic
bags containing asbestos and debris contaminated with asbestos.
Inspectors also reported holes in the security fence and evidence
of trespassing.

Inspectors described the former plant as a "substantial danger" to
the public and the environment. Madonia issued a restraining order
prohibiting further demolition at the site.

Joey Chernis, who court documents show also is a partner in P.
Mills LLC, said that hiring an environmental engineering firm
alone has cost about $15,000. He added that Midwest Demolition
should not be held responsible for asbestos and security problems
created by previous owners. The 18-acre site at 1525 E. Phillips
St. has been through a series of owners since the plant closed in
2001.

"We've not gained anything from this, other than a big headache,"
Chernis said. "If we're forced into bankruptcy, it'll just be
sitting there vacant."

Chernis said the group would like to resolve the issues, but
neither P. Mills LLC nor Midwest Demolition can afford the expense
of cleaning up the asbestos. He said he also has found it
difficult to secure the site because of vandalism and break-ins.

"We're made out to be the bad guys," Chernis said. "None of us
have that kind of money. We've even tried to borrow money, but we
were turned down because of all the publicity."

Court records indicate that Joey and Joe Chernis have represented
themselves at recent court hearings. Springfield attorney Don
Craven, who had represented P. Mills LLC, said he has withdrawn
from the case.

A statement from the attorney general's office confirmed the
hiring of an engineering firm to design an asbestos cleanup and
efforts to secure the site. Inspectors from Illinois EPA also have
visited the site to confirm that remaining asbestos is contained.
Another inspection is scheduled for.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: WCA Exclusive Remedy Bars Fibro Claim, Ct Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Unrath, Brad Elward and Melissa Schoenbein, writing for the
National Law Review, reported that on November 4, the Illinois
Supreme Court released its decision in the much-awaited case of
Folta v. Ferro Engineering, 2015 IL 118070, which considered
whether an employee can bring an action against an employer
outside of the Workers' Compensation Act and Occupational Diseases
Act when the employee's injury or disease first manifests itself
after the expiration of certain time limitations under those acts.

The court, in a 4-2 decision authored by Justice Theis, held that
the employee's action is barred by the exclusive remedy provisions
of the two acts. Justices Freeman and Kilbride dissented, and
Justice Thomas took no part in the decision.

Short Facts

The facts of the case are rather straightforward: the decedent,
James Folta, worked for Ferro Engineering from 1966 to 1970 and
alleged that as part of his job duties, he was exposed to
asbestos-containing products. Forty-one years later, James was
diagnosed with mesothelioma, and one month later, in May 2011, he
filed a civil law suit in the circuit court of Cook County against
15 defendants, including Ferro. Ferro moved to dismiss, raising
the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers' Compensation and
Occupational Diseases Acts, pointing out that the claim was
governed by the Act and was barred by the 25-year statute of
limitations/statute of repose contained in section 6(c) of the two
Acts.

Lower Court Rulings

The circuit court granted Ferro's motion, but the appellate court
reversed, finding that an injured employee may bring a common law
action against his employer where the injury is not compensable
under the Act. The appellate court concluded that the term
"compensable" must relate to the ability to recover under the Act,
and because James' estate could not recover under the Acts, his
claim was therefore not compensable.

Supreme Court Ruling

Ferro appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court, which reversed and
upheld the dismissal based on exclusive remedy grounds. In
discussing the scope of the exclusivity provisions under the
Workers' Compensation Act, a majority of the court found the Act
generally provides the exclusive means by which an employee can
recover against an employer for a work-related injury. However,
"an employee can escape the exclusivity provisions of the Act if
the employee establishes that the injury: (1) was not accidental;
(2) did not arise from his employment; (3) was not received during
the course of employment; or (4) was not compensable under the
Act." Folta, 2015 IL 118070, Par. 14.

The majority focused on the fourth category, and noted it has had
limited opportunity to address what was originally meant in its
decision in Collier v. Wagner Castings Co., 81 Ill. 2d 229, 237
(1980), when the court used the phrase "not compensable" to carve
out a category of injuries for which the exclusive remedy
provision would not be applicable. Folta, 2015 IL 118070, Par.
17. After reviewing Collier and numerous subsequent decisions, the
majority observed, "[t]hese cases do not stand for the proposition
that whether an injury is compensable is defined by whether there
is an ability to recover benefits for a particular injury
sustained by an employee." Id. Par.  23.

Here, the majority explained, "there is no question that based on
the allegations in the complaint, [the decedent] James's disease
is the type of disease intended to fall within the purview of the
Act." Id. Par.  24. An "occupational disease," the majority said,
"is defined as one 'arising out of and in the course of the
employment.' *** A disease arises out of the employment if there
is a 'causal connection between the conditions under which the
work is performed and the occupational disease.'" Id. Moreover,
"[t]he disease 'must appear to have had its origin . . . in a risk
connected with the employment and to have flowed from that source
as a rational consequence.'" Id. The majority concluded there was
no dispute for purposes of this appeal that the decedent's disease
was precipitated by occupational exposure to asbestos. Thus, "it
is evident that the legislature intended that occupational
diseases arising from workplace asbestos exposure are the type of
injury contemplated to be within the scope of the Act." Id. Par.
25.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Teacher Acquires Fibro-Related Cancer
-------------------------------------------------------------
George Torr, writing for The Star, reported that a former
Sheffield school teaching assistant has been diagnosed with
asbestos-related cancer -- due to possible exposure in her old
workplace.

Mother-of-three Susan Law, from Hillsborough, was 'absolutely
devastated' to be diagnosed with mesothelioma after suffering from
shortness of breath.

After tests, her family was stunned to discover that asbestos
exposure was the cause.

Susan, aged 64, worked at Marlcliffe Primary School on Marlcliffe
Road, Wadsley, for nearly two decades as both a dinner lady and
teaching assistant.

The Star exclusively reported that some eight in ten Sheffield
schools contain asbestos. Marlcliffe Primary School is one of
them. Susan said: "As a family, we have been left absolutely
devastated by my diagnosis.

It was even more of a shock to find out that my disease was caused
by exposure to asbestos, which may have occurred at Marlcliffe
School, where I worked for almost 20 years.

"I hope that my former colleagues will come forward with
information, no matter how small, on the presence of asbestos."

Figures obtained through The Star's Your Right To Know campaign
revealed that 86 per cent of primary schools and 35 per cent of
the city's secondary schools contain potentially deadly asbestos -
- with the problem so bad in one school that pupils and teachers
do not put drawing pins in the walls as they fear disturbing the
asbestos.

Susan's husband, Dennis, aged 66, said she has started
chemotherapy treatment at Weston Park Hospital but there is 'no
real cure.'

He said: "We've just got to live with it and cope as best we can."

Dennis said Susan has now instructed expert asbestos-related
disease lawyers at Irwin Mitchell to investigate how and where she
came into contact with asbestos -- and if more could have been
done to prevent her exposure.

He said he and Susan believe she could have been exposed at
Marlcliffe School, and added: "We spoke about it and we can't
possibly put it down to anything else. She did lots of voluntary
work there including as a dinner lady, then a teaching assistant,
right up to her retirement in 2011.

"She used to do lots of displays where she would put pins in the
walls. It could be from that."

Now Susan and Dennis, along with their legal team, are appealing
for Susan's former colleagues to come forward with any information
they may have on the presence of asbestos at the school and what
measures, if any, were implemented to protect staff and pupils
from exposure.

Irwin Mitchell solicitor Martyn Hayward said: "Asbestos exposure
is so often linked to industrial environments, but we are seeing
more and more cases where people, like Susan, have been exposed in
schools.

"We hope that her former colleagues from Marlcliffe School will
come forward to help with our investigation into her exposure."

A spokesman for Sheffield City Council, which runs the school,
said: "We are very sorry to hear of Mrs Law's condition.

"While we understand she has instructed her solicitors to look
into her situation, at this stage it would be inappropriate for us
to comment further, as the authority has not been named as a
defendant in this case."

Insulation material asbestos was widely used in the building
industry in the 1960s and 70s.

It was banned in the UK in 1999 after a link was established to a
number of fatal illnesses, including mesothelioma, when the
material is inhaled over a prolonged period of time.

The material is safe unless it is disturbed and the council has
said it follows strict national guidelines and protocols to manage
the asbestos in schools.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Providence Church to Close Due to Fibro
--------------------------------------------------------
ABC6.com reported that a Providence church is holding its last
mass after structural deficiencies are forcing it to close.

The Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church pastor requested that it be
closed indefinitely due to the deficiencies, and after looking
into the problem, it was decided that the final mass will be,
November 8.

"The indefinite nature of the closing will afford us the time to
study the ultimate viability of Our Lady of Mount Carmel Parish
and to follow the required canonical actions about its future,"
said Bishop Thomas Tobin.

A report called the church, established in 1921, "unfit for human
occupancy,"  because of lack of running water, deterioration of
the bell tower, and mold and asbestos. Repairs would range from
$1.1 to $1.7 million.

Parishioners who are encouraged to attend Mass at nearby Holy
Ghost Church at 472 Atwells Avenue, Providence, or other churches
in the area.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Causation Standard Draws Attention to Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Campisi, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that when the
American Tort Reform Association named the court system in Newport
News, Va., a full-fledged "Judicial Hellhole," it highlighted a
number of factors that contributed to its decision.

One thing the legal reform advocacy group, which publishes its
report every year in December but declared Newport News a
"Judicial Hellhole" over the summer, took issue with was what it
deems an extremely low causation standard employed in the
jurisdiction.

In Newport News, asbestos cases are tried under maritime law, not
Virginia state law.

And as such, the causation standard differs from the standard used
in other tort cases.

"Newport News plaintiffs enjoy the highest win rate at trial in
the nation because of a confluence of laws that favor plaintiffs
and one-sided rulings by Newport News judges," Mark Behrens, a
defense attorney with the Washington D.C.-based law firm Shook
Hardy & Bacon, said about the city's Circuit Court.

Behrens took care to point out that the jurisdiction wasn't named
a "hellhole" because asbestos cases are tried under maritime law
as opposed to state law; you can't fault judges for following the
law, he said.

And it was the U.S. Supreme Court that determined such cases would
be brought in Newport News under maritime law because of the fact
that many of the alleged injuries were shipyard- or United States
Navy-related.

But the judges can be faulted for applying the law in a one-sided
manner that seems to favor plaintiffs, Behrens said.

In Newport News, judges instruct the juries that "any exposure" to
asbestos is good enough to establish causation, Behrens said.

This is not consistent with other maritime courts, Behrens says.

"In other maritime law jurisdictions the exposure has to be
meaningful," Behrens said. "In Newport News, the judges instruct
the jury that 'substantial' is simply an exposure that is not
imaginary."

Virginia state law, the defense attorney says, has a very high
standard on causation, whereas maritime law has a much lesser
standard.

What this means is it is much easier for plaintiffs to be able to
recover at trial when litigation is initiated under maritime law,
Behrens said.

In Newport News, "they lower the bar so there is basically no bar
at all in allowing the plaintiff to make a case on causation if
they can identify any exposure," Behrens said. "The standard
really becomes standard-less."

Behrens said he is unsure of other jurisdictions that instruct the
jury that "substantial exposure" simply means "non-imaginary."

Because of all this, there is more flexibility by the trial courts
in Newport News, at least until the Supreme Court or Congress does
something to reverse the judges, according to Behrens.

Not everyone shares ATRA's negative view of Newport News.

Robert Hatten, a plaintiffs' attorney who is a major asbestos
player in the jurisdiction, says that the ATRA's report is without
merit, calling it a propaganda piece that is designed to represent
special interest groups.

In a lengthy statement provided to Legal Newsline, Hatten -- of
the firm Patten, Wornom, Hatten & Diamondstein -- claims that the
language of the substantial contributing factor standard about
which ATRA's report complains originated in the federal asbestos
cases in the Eastern District of Virginia.

Even defendants in Newport News have offered the exact same
instruction, he said.

"This is not a 'reduced' causation standard," Hatten wrote in his
statement. "It is the normal causation standard employed by almost
every jurisdiction in the United States, except Virginia."

Hatten goes on to state that none of the asbestos company
defendants, "with their well-paid armies of lawyers," have ever
appealed most of the rulings they now challenge in the "Hellhole"
report.

"Instead they blame plaintiffs lawyers and the local Newport News
Judges, who are simply following well established federal and
state precedent," Hatten wrote.

"The most casual reading of the pre-trial briefs on the
evidentiary issues that ATRA complains about would demonstrate
that there is ample legal support and precedent for the various
rulings that ATRA does not like. In any event, their remedy is a
proper appeal; not slander."

In an op-ed he wrote earlier for the Newport News Daily Press,
Hatten, whose firm handles most of the asbestos litigation in that
jurisdiction, said the "substantial contributing factor" causation
standard that the ATRA says is unfair is actually dictated by the
U.S. Supreme Court.

Hatten also wrote that despite ATRA's assertions, judges in
Newport News routinely permit defense experts to testify that low
exposure to a defendant's product was not a significant cause of a
plaintiff's mesothelioma.

Juries, Hatten wrote, simply "never believed their testimony
because it is contradicted by well accepted science that low
exposures do cause mesothelioma.

"This is a credibility problem for asbestos defendants, not a
judicial problem," Hatten wrote.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Itasca Vendor Sued Over Fibro Negligence
---------------------------------------------------------
Robert Hadley, writing for Cook County Record, reported that a
Cook County company is suing an Itasca vendor, alleging negligence
regarding asbestos removal.

DCT 191 North Avenue filed a lawsuit Oct. 22 in Cook County
Circuit Court against Robertshaw Controls Co. of Itasca, alleging
breach of contract, negligence, nuisance and conversion.

According to the complaint, DCT bought a building in Carol Stream
from Robertshaw, planning to tear it down and construct a new
venue. However, the suit says, the defendant tore out an asbestos-
insulated heating system in the old building without properly
handling and removing the insulation. As a result, the plaintiff
says it has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on asbestos
cleanup.

DCT seeks a jury trial and damages of more than $350,000, plus
litigation costs. It is represented by attorneys Daniel G.
Hildebrand and Ian D. Burkow of Greenberg Traurig of Chicago.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hampshire Grandad Dies of Mesothelioma
-------------------------------------------------------
Hampshpire Chronicle reported that a Hampshire grandad died from a
cancer linked to asbestos exposure from his time serving in the
Royal Navy, an inquest heard.

John Scott from West Meon died at Rowans Hospice on 25 July, aged
72 of mesothelioma.

Winchester Coroner's Court heard evidence from Mr Scott's wife Ivy
Scott who said he served onboard a World War II warship as an
apprentice electrical engineer.

Mrs Scott said he was exposed to the toxic substance when he
rewired cables onboard the ship which were lagged with asbestos.

Mr Scott served on the ship for two years and later served on a
nuclear submarine for eight years.

A statement from Dr Botham read out at the inquest said that Mr
Scott developed a cough in 2014 which was later diagnosed as a
right sided lung tumour which was "in keeping" with mesothelioma.

A post mortem by pathologist Dr Burnley said the cause of death
was malignant mesothelioma, which is a form of cancer strongly
linked to asbestos exposure.

Coroner Karen Harrold recorded a conclusion of death due to
industrial disease.

Mrs Scott, who was married to Mr Scott for 49 and a half years,
said she was grateful they had such a long time together.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Mayors Probed Over La Scala Fibro Deaths
------------------------------------------------------------
TheLocal.it reported that Giampiero Borghini, Marco Formentini,
Paolo Pilleteri and Carlo Tognoli are being investigated for
manslaughter and grievous bodily harm, Ansa reported, citing
sources.

The period over which the mayors were in office spans between 1976
and 1997.

Carlo Fontana, the former superintendent of Teatro alla Scala,
which was built in 1778, is also being investigated. Fontana was
in the role from 1990 to 2015.

The famous opera house, which has hosted some of the greatest
names in Italian opera, including Bellini, Rossini and Verdi,
underwent a major renovation between 2002 and 2004.

In 2009 a seating area in an upper gallery was closed off after
asbestos was found in the ceiling.

The building was severely damaged by bombing during the Second
World War in 1943. It was rebuilt and reopened in 1946.

The latest asbestos probe comes after 11 former managers at the
Italian tyre manufacturer, Pirelli, were convicted of manslaughter
in July over the asbestos-related deaths of 24 workers.

The workers contracted tumours linked to asbestos exposure while
working at the company's factories during the 1970s and 80s.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pohlman Launches Software for Fibro Case Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anna Aguillard, writing for Madison Record, reported that by the
end of the year, court reporting and litigation services company
PohlmanUSA hopes that all Madison County asbestos cases will be
able to be accessed through the company's new webtool,
MyDocFileServe.

All cases filed by attorneys at Maune, Raichle, Hartley, French &
Mudd in St. Louis, which agreed to be the first plaintiff firm on
the system, can only be accessed through a new web server.

According to PohlmanUSA's president Deborah Walters, the server
makes filing, serving, and downloading asbestos case documents
easier and cheaper.

"Our entry into the market as a new vendor lowered the price for
attorneys to electronically serve pleadings to case parties, and
provided a free filing option to electronically file with the
court. Firms are able to pass along substantial savings to their
clients," said Walters.

The program is trademarked as MyDocFileServe, and integrates
directly with the court's Clericus Magnus filing system.

"PohlmanUSA has 25 years of experience and knowledge of the
asbestos litigation and our development team, led by our
Litigation Support Services Director, Alicia Hart, PMP, has worked
closely with the firms involved in this litigation to build a
system customized for this litigation," said Walters.

"During initial development of the system we held focus groups
with plaintiff and defense attorneys and staff. (The Maune firm)
agreed to be the first plaintiff firm on the system," said
Walters. "We look forward to having additional plaintiff firms on
the system before year-end."

According to Walters, electronic filing reduces the number of lost
pleadings and the number of rejected filings. It also features
free bulk downloading, advanced search options, and a calendar of
motion docket dates.

Electronic filing and downloading is free, and electronic service
is $8 per transaction

Firms can register online at www.mydocfileserve.com, or by calling
877-421-0099. PohlmanUSA offers training via web and in person,
and its office is located across from the courthouse in
Edwardsville.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ferro's Mesothelioma Lawsuit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------
Dana Herra, writing for Cook County Record, reported that a widow
whose husband's asbestos-related illness manifested more than 40
years after his last exposure cannot collect damages from the
employer responsible for the exposure, the Illinois Supreme Court
has ruled.

In a split decision released Nov. 4, the court reversed the
decision of a state appeals court, which had itself reversed the
decision of a Cook County Circuit Court judge that the Workers'
Occupational Diseases Act, a companion to the Workers'
Compensation Act, does not cover claims filed more than 25 years
after the last day of exposure to the disease-causing agent.

Chief Justice Rita B. Garman and justices Mary Jane Theis, Lloyd
A. Karmeier and Anne M. Burke ruled in favor of Ferro Engineering,
the company that employed James Folta from 1966 to 1970 as a
shipping clerk and product tester.

Forty-one years later, Folta was diagnosed with mesothelioma,
which he and his counsel alleged was likely caused by exposure to
asbestos during his time at Ferro. He filed a civil action against
15 defendants, including Ferro. The circuit court granted Ferro's
motion to dismiss, based on the 25-year limitation provided in the
Workers' Occupational Diseases Act. While the litigation was
pending, Folta died, and his wife, Ellen Folta, became the
plaintiff in the case. In her appeal of the circuit court's
dismissal, Ellen Folta argued that the law unfairly disadvantages
victims of mesothelioma, which typically takes 30 to 50 years to
manifest.

An appellate court reversed the circuit court's decision, citing
case law that found an injured employee may bring a common-law
action against his employer if the injury is "not compensable"
under the act. Because James Folta's injury did not manifest
before the time of repose expired, the appellate court ruled that
it was not compensable, because he literally had no opportunity to
file for compensation.

In a dissenting opinion, Supreme Court justices Charles E. Freeman
and Thomas L. Kilbride agreed whole-heartedly with the appellate
court.

"Plaintiff never had the right to file an application for
compensation under either of these [Workers' Compensation] acts,
whose time limitations expired long before plaintiff's
mesothelioma was manifest," Freeman wrote in the dissenting
opinion. "Through no fault of his own, plaintiff never had an
opportunity to seek compensation under the Act."

The dissenting justices had a different view of the term "not
compensable" than the majority. In the majority opinion, Theis
wrote that the justices determined from case law that whether an
injury is compensable under the act depends on the nature of the
injury, not whether an individual had the opportunity to collect
compensation. The court found lawmakers' intentions were clear in
establishing a 25-year time limit for claims.

"We are cognizant of the harsh result in this case," Theis wrote.
"Nevertheless, ultimately, whether a different balance should be
struck under the acts given the nature of the injury and the
current medical knowledge about asbestos exposure is a question
more appropriately addressed to the legislature. It is the
province of the legislature to draw the appropriate balance. It is
not our role to inject a compromise but, rather, to interpret the
acts as written."

The dissenting judges wrote that the court used cases with
different circumstances to form the basis of its decision, and
that the justices failed to take into consideration the intent of
the workers' compensation legislation, defined as "a humane law of
a remedial nature whose fundamental purpose is to provide
employees and their dependents prompt, sure and definite
compensation."

"In my view, the majority's interpretation cannot be the law,"
Freeman wrote. "The majority's interpretation runs directly
counter to the acts' purpose."

Justice Robert R. Thomas took no part in the court's decision.

On appeal, Folta had been represented by attorney Nicholas J.
Vogelzang, of Connelly & Vogelzang, of Chicago, and attorneys
Donald P. Blydenburgh and Jerome H. Block, of Levy Phillips &
Konigsberg, of New York.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Refuses to Reconsider Testimony Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a North Carolina federal
court has denied a motion for reconsideration in an asbestos case,
allowing to stand a decision in which it excluded the testimony of
plaintiffs' expert Eugene Mark, M.D.

In the Nov. 5 opinion, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina opined that Mark's reliance on Material
Safety Data Sheets did not save his testimony from being dismissed
since those documents do not specify a "durational component of
exposure that is critical" to the case.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers Face Fibro Risk in Demolition Jobs
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mike Hager, writing for The Globe and Mail, reported that crews
demolishing Metro Vancouver's older homes could be facing more
exposure to deadly asbestos products as contractors try to cut
corners amid the region's ongoing housing boom, according to the
agency that protects B.C.'s workers.

Al Johnson, vice-president of WorkSafeBC's prevention services,
said Canadian workers no longer come into contact with heavy
amounts of the carcinogenic mineral substance, used extensively in
many industries until the late 1970s.

But, those now levelling Metro Vancouver's older houses -- some of
which have asbestos in linoleum and vinyl tiles, drywall and
insulation -- may still be breathing in a substance that could
lead to severe health problems 20 to 40 years from now, he said.

"It's very hard to quantify [the ongoing risk], but we recognize
that this is an industry that doesn't have a bar, if you will, to
the extent of how demolition needs to be done," Mr. Johnson said.
"There are a huge number of demolition companies, some are very
large and employ a number of workers and some of them are very,
very small.

"In fact, we probably don't even know some of those out there
doing this work."

Across Vancouver proper, the city has fielded more demolition
applications -- at least 1,141 to date -- than any in the past
decade as buyers scramble to build bigger, single-family houses or
denser, multifamily housing on a finite supply of existing
properties.

Meanwhile, a WorkSafeBC inspection blitz of 110 home renovation
and demolition sites that started in July has so far brought 246
non-compliance orders, close to the 257 issued after nearly double
the amount of inspections. In 2014, the agency issued 20
penalties, which can vary from $1,000 to $30,000 depending on the
size of a company's payroll.

"We're trying to ensure that the industry is vigilant and the
municipalities are vigilant to the potential for more workers to
be exposed to asbestos as these demolitions are done," Mr. Johnson
said of the campaign that ends in December.

Under provincial law, a home must be tested for hazardous
materials before it comes down. That means a demolition company
must take numerous samples from different areas of the house and
analyze them for asbestos and other harmful substances. In five
communities -- Vancouver, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Nanaimo and
Saanich -- contractors must submit the results of these surveys
before a demolition permit is granted.

WorkSafe found 43 per cent of all hazardous material surveys done
by contractors renovating or demolishing homes were inadequate.

If asbestos is found, it must be carefully extracted and disposed
of properly. Some contractors find this process too lengthy and
costly, Mr. Johnson said.

"Where we see flagrant non-qualified persons is where they've
taken one sample and they say the house does not contain
asbestos," he said. "Our officers show up and know darn well that
there are five different types of product that could contain
asbestos."

There are no certification standards for asbestos abatement
professionals, but they face performance-based inspections from
WorkSafe.

Phil Hochstein, president of the Independent Contractors and
Businesses Association of B.C., said his 1,200 members take the
issue "extremely seriously" and that specialty contractors have
evolved to deal with the waste properly.

"It has become a science, not an art," Mr. Hochstein said.

Lee Loftus, business manager of the B.C. Insulators union local
118, said Metro Vancouver's demolition industry is still
struggling to find enough qualified contractors who understand the
scope and nature of the hazards involved in tearing down older
homes.

"We're very concerned about a cowboy approach to the demolition of
housing," said Mr. Loftus, who is a retired insulation worker.
"Anybody that can buy a retired backhoe or excavator and an old
dump truck are now demolition experts."

He says the proper disposal of material filled with asbestos can
add upwards of $25,000 to a demolition and involves covering off
the structure with plastic and tape while the affected parts are
removed.

Even low levels of exposure may raise the risk of cancer and all
forms of asbestos are carcinogenic, according to the World Health
Organization.

Asbestos has become Canada's top driver of work-related deaths,
causing diseases such as mesothelioma and asbestosis -- the
chronic condition whereby lung tissue is scarred by inhaled
particles of the mineral.

77 British Columbians died from asbestos-related diseases,
according to WorkSafe's claims.

Mr. Loftus, whose compensation claim for asbestosis was accepted
in 2000, expects that such deaths will continue to climb over the
next decade, as those exposed to asbestos in the 1970s die. It
will take another 30 years until the exposures can be measured on
workers, he said.

"It's not a traumatic death, it's a long-term death."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Maungatapu Underpass Tests Positive for Fibro
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bay of Plenty Times reported that asbestos has been found at a
mysterious building site in Welcome Bay by contractors working on
the new Maungatapu underpass.

The NZ Transport Agency confirmed the discovery of asbestos late
at the site of an old, demolished building on Welcome Bay Rd near
the Baden Powell Centre.

The site, included in the Maungatapu underpass construction, has
since been fenced off.

The NZ Transport Agency stated it was working closely with
specialist contractors to safely remove the asbestos, discovered
while contractors were carrying out earthworks.

The Transport Agency's acting Bay of Plenty highway manager, Adam
Francis said Worksafe NZ, the Bay of Plenty Regional Council and
Tauranga City Council have been informed, and there was no
immediate health risk to staff or the community.

"The site has been secured in line with regulations and we are
currently working with specialist contractors to determine the
best disposal measures going ahead," Mr Francis said.

"On asbestos specialists will be onsite to investigate the site.
We hope to have a disposal method confirmed later.

"We are focussed on keeping the community informed as we work to
find the best solution."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leeds Man Dies of Fibro-related Illness
--------------------------------------------------------
Yorkshire Evening Post reported that a daughter is appealing for
help as she tries to piece together the facts behind the asbestos-
related death of her beloved dad.

Denis Hampshire, from Cookridge, Leeds, died aged 88 in February
after being diagnosed with mesothelioma.

Mr Hampshire had previously worked as an engineer for Clayton, Son
& Co Ltd and Oxley Engineering Co Ltd, which were both based in
Hunslet in the 1960s and 1970s.

Now his family has asked industrial disease experts at law firm
Irwin Mitchell to find out how he came to be exposed to asbestos.

And, as part of the investigation, the firm wants to hear from Mr
Hampshire's old colleagues about working conditions at the Hunslet
companies.

Mr Hampshire's daughter, Alison, said: "It was a shock when Dad
received his diagnosis and he deteriorated rapidly.

"Many people may know him from a number of sporting clubs in the
Rothwell and Hunslet areas in Leeds.

"I am just hopeful that some of his old workmates will see this
appeal and will come forward." Anyone with information is asked to
ring Fay Marshall at Irwin Mitchell on 0113 394 6826 or e-mail
fay.marshall@irwinmitchell.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Attys Pay $390 per Google Click
------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Ascher, writing for Insurance Insider, reported that plaintiff
law firms harvesting asbestos victims through online advertising
are paying up to $390 for each and every click they receive on
Google, a new study by the US Chamber Institute for Legal Reform
(ILR) has revealed.

Ads on Google are purchased through an online auction process in
which advertisers bid to top the sponsored search results for a
particular keyword.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fed. Cir. Affirms Dismissal of USF&G Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc. and United
States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. appeal the decision of the United
States Court of Federal Claims granting the government's motion to
dismiss their amended complaint for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.

The United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, in an opinion
dated Nov. 6, 2015, concluded that the Tucker Act cannot be read
to waive sovereign immunity for a general liability insurer, such
as USF&G, who brings suit as an equitable subrogee of a prime
contractor.  The Court of Appeals therefore affirmed the decision
of the Court of Federal Claims dismissing USF&G's amended
complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The case is FIDELITY AND GUARANTY INSURANCE UNDERWRITERS, INC.,
UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY, Appellants, v. UNITED
STATES, Appellee, NO. 2015-5036 (Fed. Cir.).  A full-text copy of
the Decision is available at http://is.gd/6hWzl6from Leagle.com.

RICHARD L. McCONNELL, JR., Wiley Rein, LLP, Washington, DC, argued
for appellants. Also represented by BRENDAN J. MORRISSEY,
Bentonville, AR.

LAUREN MOORE, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United
States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for appellee.
Also represented by BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR.,
DEBORAH A. BYNUM.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Refuses to Review Expert Exclusion Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit captioned REBECCA
FUQUAY YATES, Individually and as Executor of the Estate of GRAHAM
YATES, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY and HONEYWELL
INTERNATIONAL, INC., successor-in-interest to Bendix Corporation
f/k/a Allied-Signal, Inc., Defendants, NO. 5:12-CV-752-FL
(E.D.N.C.), Judge Louise W. Flanagan of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Western
Division, in an order dated Nov. 5, 2015, denied a motion for
reconsideration of the court's June 29, 2015, order excluding
testimony of Dr. Eugene Mark.

A full-text copy of Judge Flanagan's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/aPOYPcfrom Leagle.com.

Rebecca Fuquay Yates, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin W. Paul,
Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, P.C. & Stuart J. Purdy, Simon
Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, P.C..

Rebecca Fuquay Yates, Plaintiff, represented by Tiffany N.
Dickenson, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, P.C..

Rebecca Fuquay Yates, Plaintiff, represented by Charles E.
Soechting, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, P.C., Jay E.
Stuemke, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, P.C., Jeffrey B.
Simon, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, P.C. & Janet Ward
Black, Ward Black Law.

Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Christopher R.
Kiger, Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell & Jernigan, Jessica
Floyd Middlebrooks, Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell &
Jernigan, LLP, Kirk G. Warner, Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett
Mitchell & Jernigan, Thurston H. Webb, Kilpatrick Townsend &
Stockton LLP, Addie K.S. Ries, Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett
Mitchell & Jernigan, LLP, Samuel Lewis Tarry, McGuireWoods, LLP &
Shepherd D. Wainger, McGuire Woods.

Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant, represented by H. Lee
Davis, Jr., Davis & Hamrick, LLP & Bruce T. Bishop, Willcox &
Savage, PC.

Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Holly A.
Hempel, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jason
Larry Walters, Davis & Hamrick, LLP & Kevin P. Greene, Willcox &
Savage, PC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Ship Worker's Suit Barred by WCA
--------------------------------------------------------
In an opinion filed Nov. 4, 2015, the Supreme Court of Illinois
held that we hold that an employee's action is barred by the
exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act (820
ILCS 305/1 et seq. (West 2010)) and the Workers' Occupational
Diseases Act (820 ILCS 310/1 et seq. (West 2010)).

In this case, James Folta, who was employed as a shipping clerk
and product tester for Ferro Engineering from 1966 to 1970, filed
a complaint alleging that during his employment he was exposed to
products containing asbestos.  Forty-one years later, in May 2011,
James was diagnosed with mesothelioma.  He brought a civil action
in the circuit court of Cook County against 15 defendants,
including Ferro Engineering, to recover damages for the disease he
developed allegedly as a consequence of his exposure to the
asbestos-containing products while employed by Ferro Engineering.
James specifically sought relief against Ferro Engineering under
several theories, including, inter alia, negligence.

The case is ELLEN FOLTA, Indiv. and as Special Adm'r of the Estate
of James Folta, Deceased, Appellee, v. FERRO ENGINEERING, a
Division of ON Marine Services Company, Appellant, NO. 118070
(Ill.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/YZjmaYfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thorpe Wins Summary Judgment Bid in "Walashek"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California, in an
order dated Nov. 2, 2015, granted defendant J.T. Thorpe & Son,
Inc.'s motion for summary judgment in the asbestos-related
personal injury lawsuit styled GAIL ELIZABETH WALASHEK,
Individually and as successor-in-interest to THE ESTATE OF MICHAEL
WALASHEK and THE ESTATE OF CHRISTOPHER LINDEN, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, CASE NO.
14CV1567 BTM(BGS)(S.D. Calif.).

Judge Moskowitz held that because Thorpe has satisfied its initial
burden, the burden shifts to the Plaintiffs, who must produce
enough evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact.  The
Plaintiffs, according to Judge Moskowitz, have not submitted any
evidence in opposition to the motion and have instead filed a
notice of non-opposition.

A full-text copy of Judge Moskowitz's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/VGIHBPfrom Leagle.com.

Gail Elizabeth Walashek, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer L.
Bartlett & Stuart J Purdy, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett.

Michelle Walashek, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer L. Bartlett
& Stuart J Purdy, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett.

Keith Walashek, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer L. Bartlett &
Stuart J Purdy, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett.

Laura Page, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer L. Bartlett &
Stuart J Purdy, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett.

Christopher Linden, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer L. Bartlett
& Stuart J Purdy, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett.

Aurora Pump Company, Defendant, represented by Rod Jeffrey Cappy,
Selman Breitman LLP.

Cleaver Brooks, Inc., Defendant, represented by Shaun E. Swiger,
Foley & Mansfield PLLP.

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Charles Park, Hugo Parker, LLP, David Blow, Sedgwick, LLP & Sara
J. Savage, Hugo Parker, LLP.

Gardner Denver, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles Jenkins,
Law Offices of Charles W. Jenkins, APC.

IMO Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bobbie Rae Bailey,
Leader and Berkon LLP.

J.T. Thorpe & Son, Inc., Defendant, represented by Alice K Loh,
Bassi Edlin Huie & Blum, Jennifer J. Lee, McKenna, Long &
Aldridge, LLP & Reshma Bajaj, Bassi Edlin Huie & Blum.

Lamons Gasket Company, Defendant, represented by Vick K
Mansourian, Perkins Coie LLP.

Pfizer, Inc., Defendant, represented by Justin E. Garratt, Tucker
Ellis LLP.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, represented by John F. Hughes, Law
Offices of Gordon & Rees, LLP & Richard R Ames, Gordon & Rees LLP.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Defendant, represented by
Michael B. Giaquinto, Hawkins Parnell Tackston and Young LLP.

Foster Wheeler LLC, Defendant, represented by Charles Park, Hugo
Parker, LLP & Edward R Hugo, Brydon Hugo & Parker.

Fraser Boiler Service, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kathleen B.
Ebrahimi, Pond North LLP, Ketul D. Patel, Pond North LLP, Previn A
Wick, Pond North LLP & Thomas Joseph McNamara, Pond North LLP.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Derek S.
Johnson, Walsworth Franklin Bevins & McCall, Dylan Daniel Rudolph,
Walsworth Franklin Bevins McCall LLP & Katherine Gardiner,
Walsworth, Franklin, Bevins & McCall LLP.

Georgia Pacific, LLC, Defendant, represented by Steven K Hwang,
Perkins Coie LLP.

M. Slayen and Associates, Inc., Respondent, represented by Alex P.
Catalona, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer, Constance R. Fraenkel,
Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer, Emily D Bergstrom, Becherer Kannett
and Schweitzer & Mark S. Kannett, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer.

Plant Products & Supply Co., Respondent, represented by Carol Lee
Healey, Bisohp Barry & Mary Margaret Ryan, Bishop Barry Drath.

Parker-Hannifin Corporation, Respondent, represented by Ehren Reno
Cross, Esq. -- rcross@behblaw.com -- Bassi, Edlin, Hiue & Blum LLP
& Joseph B Adams, Esq. -- jadams@behblaw.com -- Bassi, Edlin, Hiue
& Blum LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GE Dismissed as Defendant in "Spychalla"
---------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge William C. Griesbach of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin issued an
order dated Nov. 2, 2015, dismissing without prejudice defendant
General Electric Company in the asbestos-related personal injury
lawsuit captioned IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
(NO. VI) - Spychalla v. AVCO Corporation, et al., CIVIL ACTION NO.
MDL 875, CASE NO. 11-C-497 (E.D. Wis.).  A full-text copy of Judge
Griesbach's Decision is available at http://is.gd/D6U3r1from
Leagle.com.

Shirley D Spychalla, Plaintiff, represented by Robert G McCoy,
Cascino Vaughan Law Offices Ltd & Michael P Cascino, Cascino
Vaughan Law Offices Ltd.

Boeing Aerospace Operations Inc, Defendant, represented by Brian D
Gross, Manion Gaynor & Manning, Howard P Goldberg, Manion Gaynor &
Manning, Steven W Celba, Celba LLC, Timothy D Pagel, Celba LLC &
Lance E Mueller, Mueller SC.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by David M
Setter, Forman Perry Watkins Krutz & Tardy LLP, Michael L Lisak,
Esq. -- mlisak@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP, Timothy E
Kapshandy, Esq. -- tkapshandy@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP &
Nora E Gierke, Esq. -- ngierke@gierkefrank.com -- Gierke Frank
LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shipowners Lose Summary Judgment Bid in "Nelson"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In a memorandum dated Oct. 26, 2015, Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania denied the motion for summary judgment filed by
various shipowners represented by Thompson Hine LLP in the
asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit captioned 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 Decision is available at
http://is.gd/tQ9tmXfrom Leagle.com.

GERARD A. NELSON, Plaintiff, represented by DONALD A. KRISPIN, THE
JAQUES ADMIRALTY LAW FIRM, P.C., DUANE C. MARSDEN, JAQUES
ADMIRALTY LAW FIRM, P.C. & JOHN E. HERRICK, MOTLEY RICE LLC.

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

EXXON COMPANY USA, Defendant, represented by HAROLD W. HENDERSON,
THOMPSON, HINE LLP, RICHARD C. BINZLEY, THOMPSON, HINE AND FLORY &
WILLIAM H. ARMSTRONG, ARMSTRONG ASSOC LLP.

EXXON SHIPPING CO., Defendant, represented by HAROLD W. HENDERSON,
THOMPSON, HINE LLP & WILLIAM H. ARMSTRONG, ARMSTRONG ASSOC LLP.

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

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

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

MOBIL OIL CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by HAROLD W.
HENDERSON, THOMPSON, HINE LLP, MARTIN J. MURPHY, DAVIS AND YOUNG &
WILLIAM H. ARMSTRONG, ARMSTRONG ASSOC LLP.

SEARIVER MARITIME INC., Defendant, represented by HAROLD W.
HENDERSON, THOMPSON, HINE LLP, KATHERINE LYNN GLENN, LAUTMANN &
GLENN LLP & WILLIAM H. ARMSTRONG, ARMSTRONG ASSOC LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fla. Court Recommends Dismissal of Inmate Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alexis Moore, a prisoner proceeding, filed a Complaint asserting
claims against John Loder, et al., for violating the Clean Air Act
by exposing plaintiff to asbestos while employed as a construction
worker for Defendants.

In a report and recommendation dated Oct. 13, 2015, Magistrate
Judge Anthony E. Porcelli of the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, recommended that
the Plaintiff's purported claims under the Clean Air Act should be
dismissed with prejudice.

The case is ALEXIS MOORE, Plaintiff, v. JOHN LODER, et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 8:15-CV-1425-T-27AEP (M.D. Fla.).

A full-text copy of Magistrate Porcelli's Report and
Recommendation is available at http://is.gd/VhOKBvfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shipowners Lose Summary Judgment Bid in "Martin"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In a memorandum dated Oct. 29, 2015, Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania denied the motion for summary judgment filed by
various shipowners represented by Thompson Hine LLP in the
asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit styled MURIEL MARTIN,
Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN EXPORT ISBRANDTSEN, et al., Defendants,
CONSOLIDATED UNDER MDL 875, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-CV-33621-ER
(E.D. Pa.).

A full-text copy of Judge Robreno's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/9zzN68from Leagle.com.

MURIEL MARTIN, Plaintiff, represented by DONALD A. KRISPIN, THE
JAQUES ADMIRALTY LAW FIRM, P.C., DUANE C. MARSDEN, JAQUES
ADMIRALTY LAW FIRM, P.C. & JOHN E. HERRICK, MOTLEY RICE LLC.

UNITED FRUIT COMPANY, Defendant, represented by HAROLD W.
HENDERSON, THOMPSON, HINE LLP & SUSAN K. DIRKS, THOMPSON HINE LLP.

DELAVAL TURBINE DIV., IMO INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant, represented
by JAMES T. MILLICAN, II, GALLAGHER SHARP.

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

COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC., ThirdParty Defendant, represented by
HENRY E. BILLINGSLEY, II, TUCKER ELLIS & WEST LLP.

IMO INDUSTRIES, INC., ThirdParty Defendant, represented by COLLEEN
A. MOUNTCASTLE, GALLAGHER SHARP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shipowners Lose Summary Judgment Bid in "Jacobs"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In a memorandum dated Oct. 26, 2015, Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania denied the motion for summary judgment filed by
various shipowners represented by Thompson Hine LLP and Inland
Steel Company captioned styled HERBERT L. JACOBS, Plaintiff, v. A-
C PRODUCT LIABILITY TRUST, et al., Defendants, CONSOLIDATED UNDER
MDL 875, E.D. PA. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:09-CV-30143-ER (E.D. Pa.).

A full-text copy of Judge Robreno's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/QhCpDxfrom Leagle.com.

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

AMERICAN STEAMSHIP CO., Defendant, represented by HAROLD W.
HENDERSON, THOMPSON, HINE LLP.

BOLAND & CORNELIUS, Defendant, represented by HAROLD W. HENDERSON,
THOMPSON, HINE LLP.

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

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

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

INLAND STEEL COMPANY, Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER D.
KUEBLER, RAY ROBINSON CARLE & DAVIES P.L.L., SANDRA MAURER KELLY,
RAY ROBINSON CARLE & DAVIES, JULIA R. BROUHARD, RAY, ROBINSON,
CARLE & DAVIES PLL & ROBERT T. CONIAM, RAY ROBINSON CARLE &
DAVIES.

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

PICKANDS MATHER & CO., Defendant, represented by HAROLD W.
HENDERSON, THOMPSON, HINE LLP.

REISS STEAMSHIP COMPANY, Defendant, represented by HAROLD W.
HENDERSON, THOMPSON, HINE LLP.

INLAND STEEL COMPANY, Cross Claimant, represented by CHRISTOPHER
D. KUEBLER, RAY ROBINSON CARLE & DAVIES P.L.L., JULIA R. BROUHARD,
RAY, ROBINSON, CARLE & DAVIES PLL, ROBERT T. CONIAM, RAY ROBINSON
CARLE & DAVIES & SANDRA MAURER KELLY, RAY ROBINSON CARLE & DAVIES.

BOLAND & CORNELIUS, Cross Defendant, represented by HAROLD W.
HENDERSON, THOMPSON, HINE LLP.

INLAND STEEL COMPANY, Cross Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER
D. KUEBLER, RAY ROBINSON CARLE & DAVIES P.L.L., JULIA R. BROUHARD,
RAY, ROBINSON, CARLE & DAVIES PLL, ROBERT T. CONIAM, RAY ROBINSON
CARLE & DAVIES & SANDRA MAURER KELLY, RAY ROBINSON CARLE & DAVIES.

PICKANDS MATHER & CO., Cross Defendant, represented by HAROLD W.
HENDERSON, THOMPSON, HINE LLP.

REISS STEAMSHIP COMPANY, Cross Defendant, represented by HAROLD W.
HENDERSON, THOMPSON, HINE LLP.

AMERICAN STEAMSHIP CO., Cross Defendant, represented by HAROLD W.
HENDERSON, THOMPSON, HINE LLP.

INLAND STEEL COMPANY, Cross Claimant, represented by CHRISTOPHER
D. KUEBLER, RAY ROBINSON CARLE & DAVIES P.L.L., SANDRA MAURER
KELLY, RAY ROBINSON CARLE & DAVIES, JULIA R. BROUHARD, RAY,
ROBINSON, CARLE & DAVIES PLL & ROBERT T. CONIAM, RAY ROBINSON
CARLE & DAVIES.

INLAND STEEL COMPANY, Cross Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER
D. KUEBLER, RAY ROBINSON CARLE & DAVIES P.L.L., SANDRA MAURER
KELLY, RAY ROBINSON CARLE & DAVIES, JULIA R. BROUHARD, RAY,
ROBINSON, CARLE & DAVIES PLL & ROBERT T. CONIAM, RAY ROBINSON
CARLE & DAVIES.

AMERICAN STEAMSHIP CO., Cross Defendant, represented by HAROLD W.
HENDERSON, THOMPSON, HINE LLP.

BOLAND & CORNELIUS, Cross Defendant, represented by HAROLD W.
HENDERSON, THOMPSON, HINE LLP.

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

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

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

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

PICKANDS MATHER & CO., Cross Defendant, represented by HAROLD W.
HENDERSON, THOMPSON, HINE LLP.

REISS STEAMSHIP COMPANY, Cross Defendant, represented by HAROLD W.
HENDERSON, THOMPSON, HINE LLP.

INLAND STEEL COMPANY, Cross Claimant, represented by CHRISTOPHER
D. KUEBLER, RAY ROBINSON CARLE & DAVIES P.L.L., SANDRA MAURER
KELLY, RAY ROBINSON CARLE & DAVIES, JULIA R. BROUHARD, RAY,
ROBINSON, CARLE & DAVIES PLL & ROBERT T. CONIAM, RAY ROBINSON
CARLE & DAVIES.

INLAND STEEL COMPANY, Cross Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER
D. KUEBLER, RAY ROBINSON CARLE & DAVIES P.L.L., SANDRA MAURER
KELLY, RAY ROBINSON CARLE & DAVIES, JULIA R. BROUHARD, RAY,
ROBINSON, CARLE & DAVIES PLL & ROBERT T. CONIAM, RAY ROBINSON
CARLE & DAVIES.

AMERICAN STEAMSHIP CO., Cross Defendant, represented by HAROLD W.
HENDERSON, THOMPSON, HINE LLP.

BOLAND & CORNELIUS, Cross Defendant, represented by HAROLD W.
HENDERSON, THOMPSON, HINE LLP.

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

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

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

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

PICKANDS MATHER & CO., Cross Defendant, represented by HAROLD W.
HENDERSON, THOMPSON, HINE LLP.

REISS STEAMSHIP COMPANY, Cross Defendant, represented by HAROLD W.
HENDERSON, THOMPSON, HINE LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shipowners Lose Summary Judgment Bid in "Bartel"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In a memorandum dated Oct. 27, 2015, Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania denied the motion for summary judgment filed by
various shipowners represented by Thompson Hine LLP in the
asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit captioned WILLARD E.
BARTEL, et al., (Administrators for Estate of Nestor Ojeda),
Plaintiffs, v. FOSTER WHEELER COMPANY, et al., Defendants,
CONSOLIDATED UNDER MDL 875, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-CV-30571-ER
(E.D. Pa.).

A full-text copy of Judge Robreno's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/hu88qTfrom Leagle.com.

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

DAVID C. PEEBLES, Plaintiff, represented by JOHN E. HERRICK,
MOTLEY RICE LLC.

FOSTER WHEELER COMPANY, Defendant, represented by NICHOLAS L.
EVANCHAN, EVANCHAN & PALMISANO, LLC & RALPH J. PALMISANO, EVANCHAN
& PALMISANO, LLC.

COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC., Defendant, represented by HENRY E.
BILLINGSLEY, II, TUCKER ELLIS & WEST LLP.

WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORP., Defendant, represented by DONALD A.
POWELL, HANNA CAMPBELL & POWELL, LLP, REGINALD S. KRAMER, OLDHAM
KRAMER & ROBERT L. TUCKER, HANNA CAMPBELL & POWELL, LLP.

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant, represented by JOHN A.
HELLER, SIDLEY AND AUSTIN & REGINALD S. KRAMER, OLDHAM KRAMER.

DELAVAL TURBINE DIV., IMO INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant, represented
by KEVIN C. ALEXANDERSEN, GALLAGHER SHARP & JAMES T. MILLICAN, II,
GALLAGHER SHARP.

TEXACO INC., Defendant, represented by WILLIAM T. SMITH, CALFEE
HALTER & GRISWOLD.

UNITED FRUIT COMPANY, Defendant, represented by HAROLD W.
HENDERSON, THOMPSON, HINE LLP & SUSAN K. DIRKS, THOMPSON HINE LLP.

A.L. BURBANK & COMPANY LTD., Defendant, represented by HAROLD W.
HENDERSON, THOMPSON, HINE LLP.

CITIES SERVICE OIL COMPANY, Defendant, represented by HAROLD W.
HENDERSON, THOMPSON, HINE LLP & MICHAEL T. COLE, NELSON, MULLINS,
RILEY AND SCARBOROUGH.

CERTAINTEED CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by RICHARD D.
SCHUSTER, VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE & STEPHEN C. MUSILLI,
VORYS SATER SEYMOUR & PEASE LLP.

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

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

B.F. GOODRICH, Defendant, represented by RICHARD D. SCHUSTER,
VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE & STEPHEN C. MUSILLI, VORYS SATER
SEYMOUR & PEASE LLP.

GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO., Defendant, represented by RICHARD D.
SCHUSTER, VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE & STEPHEN C. MUSILLI,
VORYS SATER SEYMOUR & PEASE LLP.

MORTELL COMPANY, Defendant, represented by JENNIFER A. RIESTER,
WESTON HURD.

UNION CARBIDE CORP., Defendant, represented by RICHARD D.
SCHUSTER, VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE & STEPHEN C. MUSILLI,
VORYS SATER SEYMOUR & PEASE LLP.

INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER, Defendant, represented by JENNIFER A.
RIESTER, WESTON HURD.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shipowners Lose Summary Judgment Bid in "Day"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in a memorandum dated Oct.
26, 2015, denied the motion of various shipowners represented by
Thompson Hine LLP for summary judgment in the asbestos-related
action styled ALFREADY DAY, SR., Plaintiff, v. A-C PRODUCT
LIABILITY TRUST, et al., Defendants, CONSOLIDATED UNDER MDL 875,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-CV-30340-ER (E.D. Pa.).

A full-text copy of Judge Robreno's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/0rVeuzfrom Leagle.com.

ALFREADY DAY, SR., Plaintiff, represented by DONALD A. KRISPIN,
THE JAQUES ADMIRALTY LAW FIRM, P.C., JOHN E. HERRICK, MOTLEY RICE
LLC & JOHN DAVID HURST, MOTLEY RICE LLC.

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

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

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

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

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

WILLAMETTE TRANSPORT, INC., Defendant, represented by HAROLD W.
HENDERSON, THOMPSON, HINE LLP.


                            *********

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  * * *