CAR_Public/151204.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, December 4, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 242


                            Headlines


2067 BAKE CORP: Violates Fair Labor Standards Act, Suit Claims
ACUITY: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss "Prieur" Case
ADVANCED MEDICAL: Faces Suit Over FLSA Violations
AMERICAN HONDA: "Flanigan" Suit Included in CR-V Vibration MDL
AMERICAN HONDA: "Ward" Suit Consolidated in CR-V Vibration MDL

APPLE INC: Faces Another Class Suit Over Wi-Fi Assist
ARCH COAL: Class Suits Consolidated, Interim Class Counsel Named
ARLINGTON, NY: Class Suit Against Arlington Fire Dept. Dismissed
ATLANTA, GA: Summary Judgment Affirmed in Breach of Contract Suit
BMO HARRIS BANK: Discovery Bid in "Dillon" Granted in Part

BNC NATIONAL: "Hedrick" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA
CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
CAREMARK PHC: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss or Stay "Woods" Case
CHAVAM ENTERPRISES: "Campos" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
CHEF PAM: "Martinez-Guzman" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations

CHEF'S WAREHOUSE: Faces Suit Over Labor Code Violations
CHEROKEE COUNTY, GA: Judge Dismisses Suit Against Sheriff
CINCINNATI: Indian Hill SD Settles Property Tax Suit for $5.5MM
CITY OF NAPLES: "Gomory" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
COORDINATED HEALTH: Seeks Dismissal of Facility Fees Suit

COVENANT TRANSPORT: "Long" Suit Moved From Calif. to Tennessee
CREDIT COLLECTION: Faces Suit in Cal. Alleging TCPA Violation
CSX TRANSPORTATION: Plans Finalized to Join Derailment Suits
DIAGEO AMERICAS: CA Affirms District Court's Order
DRAFTKINGS INC: "McCallie" Suit Alleges Business Code Violation

DUKE ENERGY: Court Grants Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses
FAST WATER: Objections to Discovery Bid Sustained in Part
FLINT, MI: Governor Named Defendant in Water Contamination Suit
FORD MOTORS: Judge Partially Shots Down Bid to Deny Certification
FPMC SERVICES: "Abraham" Suit Alleges WARN Act Violation

FTS INTERNATIONAL: Faces Suit Over FLSA Violation
GENERAL MILLS: Consumer Watchdog Suing Cheerios for False Ad
GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: "Hunter" Suit Consolidated in Zofran MDL
GURLEY MOTOR: "Yazzie" Suit May Proceed as Class Action
HORIZON MUD: "Melkoski" Suit Removed From S.D. to W.D. Texas

HUTCHINGS COURT: "Wentzell" Suit Alleges Misrepresentation
INTRALINK HOLDINGS: Court OKs $14MM Settlement of Securities Suit
JCY FRUIT: "Acosta" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
JEFFERSON PARISH, LA: Judge OKs $1.7MM Deal in Camera Suit
JOE ARPAIO: Informant Says Judge Wiretapped Sheriff

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Clouden" Suit Included in China Flooring MDL
MANPOWER INC: Padilla and Guido May File 2nd Amended Suit
MARYLAND: Faces Constitutional Challenges to Tax Code
MISSOURI BASIN: "Crouch" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
MUNICIPAL TECHNOLOGIES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime

NELSON WESTERBERG: May File Revised Summary Judgment Bid
NEOPETS INC: Faces Suit Over California Business Code Violation
NEW YORK: Traffic Court Judge Sues City State to Regain Benefits
OREGON: DHS Settles Class Suit Over Violation of ADA
PELLA CORPORATION: Court Trims Claims in "Dineen" Suit

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
PREMIER FOODS: Antitrust Attys Call for Clarity on Leniency Rule
QUALITEST PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Birth Control Pills
REEBOK INT'L: Faces "Del-Orden" Suit Alleging Violations of ADA
REGUS MANAGEMENT: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Circle Click Suit

REMEX INC: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.J.
SAFEWAY: Aptos Man Sues Over Underfilled Canned Tuna
SCM I INVESTMENTS: Court Trims Claims in "Rodrigues" Case
SIENTRA INC: Wagner Firm Files Securities Class Suit
ST. CLAIR COUNTY, IL: Case Management Conference Order Issued

TELEXFREE LLC: Case Spawns Counterclaims "Like High-stake Poker"
TICC CAPITAL: "Barnes" Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties
TULSA, OK: Firm Settles Class Action for $1.3 Million
TWEEN BRANDS: "Loor" Case Stayed Pending Approval of Settlement
UNITED COLLECTION: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act

UNITED RECOVERY: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
VENGROFF WILLIAMS: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Says
VOLKSWAGEN: Offers $1,000 Gift Package to Car Owners Amid Scandal
VOLKSWAGEN: Owners Still in Dark Over Australian Car Recall
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Romero" Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois

WAL-MART: Urges Justices to Review Renewed Gender Bias Suit
WEST VIRGINIA: Plaintiff Seeks Injunction in Medicaid Case
WORLEYPARSONS: Names New CFO Amid Securities Class Suits


                       Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Generation Continues to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Generation Had $95MM PI Claims Reserve
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Baltimore Gas Continues to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Corp. Units Continue to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ComEd Awaits PI Law Ruling Appeal Outcome

ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Haven Probes Wallace St. for Fibro Content
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Waste in Australia Piling Up
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found in Industrial Sawmill Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firm Fined for Workers' Fibro Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Found at Aorangi School Site

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plano Council Mulls Suit vs. Fibro Removal Co.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: UK Company Fined GBP11K for Fibro Violation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Syracuse Lab Fined for Fibro Removal Crime
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Continues at County Care Facility
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ogdensburg Seeks EPA Grant for Fibro Removal

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pigeons Pecking Fibro on Roof Cause Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NES Seeks Dismissal of Fibro Exposure Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sanctions Sought Against Fibro Lawyers
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Substance Found at Carnlough Play Park
ASBESTOS UPDATE: RFS Training Facility Closed Due to Fibro Scare

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Footscray Pupils Banned from Fibro-riddled Oval
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Factory Worker Dies of Fibro-related Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leeds Man Dies from Fibro-related Cancer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Store Manager Dies From Fibro-related Cancer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Awards $1.7MM in Landmark Fibro Case

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ship Worker Seeks Justice for Fibro Cancer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Cases Rising, Aussie Study Shows
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Center Urges Veteran to Seek Top Fibro Atty
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Refugees Removing Nauru Fibro w/o Protection
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NRG Energy Has Adequate Reserve for Fibro Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Inc. Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Inc. Continues to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CERC Corp. Continues to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.R. Grace Accrues for Unresolved PD Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Accrues $8-Mil. Fibro Liability

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison's CECONY Accrues $7MM Fibro Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Accrues $50MM Rupture Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Unit Has $551-Mil. Fibro Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Unit Has $599MM Fibro Receivables
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Unit Had 2,971 New Fibro Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Energy Continues to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Int'l. Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Unit Has $551-Mil. Fibro Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Unit Has $599MM Fibro Receivables
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Houston Wire Continues to Defend PI Lawsuits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: VWR Int'l. Continues to Face Fibro Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Partners Unit Has 1,346 Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntington Ingalls Continues to Defend PI Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: DuPont Had 2,360 PI Claims Pending at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Unit Has $551-Mil. Fibro Reserves

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Unit Has $599MM Fibro Receivables
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tampa Electric Settles Asbestos Exposure Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Has 57,040 American Optical PI Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Precision Castparts Continues to Face PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp. Continues to Defend Stearns Suits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp.'s Zurn Unit Has 6,000 PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp. Continues to Defend Falk Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Univar Inc. Had 177 McKesson Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sydow's Bid to Amend Fibro Suit Okayed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: John Crane Wins Summary Judgment Bid in "Bell"

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cos. Win Summary Judgment Bid in "Schneider"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Kelleher" Remanded to Illinois State Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Westinghouse Wins Summary Judgment in "Wilson"



                            *********

2067 BAKE CORP: Violates Fair Labor Standards Act, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Benitez individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. 2067 Bake Corp. dba Gigi Cafe, Henry Jessup and John
Doe, Case No. 1:15-cv-08107 (S.D.N.Y., October 14, 2015) is
brought over alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

2067 Bake Corporation, doing business as Gigi Cafe, is a small
bakery in New York City.


ACUITY: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss "Prieur" Case
----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Linda V. Parker of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan granted Defendant's motion to
dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) in
the case captioned, JOSHUA PRIEUR, Plaintiff, v. ACUITY,
Defendant, Case No. 15-12547 (E.D. Mich.).

Plaintiff filed on July 17, 2015, a putative class action alleging
that Defendant twice committed the tort of false imprisonment by
requiring him to attend an IME or risk losing his workers'
compensation benefits. According to Plaintiff's Complaint, he
suffered traumatic brain injury in a work-related accident and his
employer was insured for Michigan workers' compensation benefits
by Defendant. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant sent letters to
Plaintiff on October 8, 2013 and November 13, 2013, requesting
that he submit to an examination by psychologist Dr. Rhonda Levy-
Larson on November 13 and 26, 2013. Michigan's Workers' Disability
Compensation Act provides that if a claimant refuses to submit to
or obstructs an employer's or carrier's requested examination of
the claimant by a physician or surgeon, the claimant's right to
compensation will be suspended and, during the period of
suspension, may be forfeited. Plaintiff claims that his fear of
losing his workers' compensation benefits caused him to attend the
IMEs and this coercion amounted to an impermissible imprisonment.

On August 13, 2015 Defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

In her Opinion and Order dated November 3, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/ZDD4P8from Leagle.com, Judge Parker found the facts
and legal arguments sufficiently presented in the parties'
pleadings and therefore is dispensing with oral argument pursuant
to Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(f). The Court
concluded that Plaintiff's allegations of false imprisonment fail
to state a claim on which relief may be granted.

Joshua Prieur is represented by:

Marshall D. Lasser, Esq.
MARSHALL D. LASSER, PC
Po Box 2579
Southfield, MI 48037

Acuity is represented by Kathleen H. Klaus, Esq. --
kklaus@maddinhauser.com -- MADDIN, HAUSER


ADVANCED MEDICAL: Faces Suit Over FLSA Violations
-------------------------------------------------
AIA Management, LLC, Roberto Rivera, and all others similarly
situated v. Advanced Medical Imaging & Teleradiology of NY P.C.;
Advanced Medical Imaging and Teleradiology Services; Advanced
Medical Imaging and Teleradiology, LLC; New York Radiology, P.C.;
Advanced Medical Imaging Associates, P.C.; American Teleradiology
Nighthawks, P.C.; American Medical Initiatives Teleradiology
Services; American Medical Initiatives, LLC; Naiyer Imam, Ron
Mark, Scott B. Berger, Sarwar Khobaib, Sultan Maalik, Marcus R.
Mclemore, Shaun D. Ahmad, Surendra Kumar, and John Doe 1-25., Case
No. 0:15-cv-62270 (S.D. Fla., October 27, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for unpaid minimum wages and overtime
compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants provide teleradiology and medical imaging services.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Myrna L. Maysonet, Esq.
      GREENSPOON MARDER, P.A.
      Capital Plaza I, Suite 500
      201 East Pine Street
      Orlando, FL 32801
      Tel: (407) 425-6559
      Fax: (407) 563-9665
      E-mail: myrna.maysonet@gmlaw.com


AMERICAN HONDA: "Flanigan" Suit Included in CR-V Vibration MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Flanigan v. American Honda Motor
Company, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-05390, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Columbus).
The Ohio District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02907-MHW-
EPD to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned In re: American Honda Motor Co., Inc., CR-V Vibration
Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2:15-md-02661-
MHW-EPD.

The actions in the litigation -- most of which are either putative
nationwide or statewide class actions -- share factual questions
arising from allegations that the 2015 Honda CR-V has a defect or
defects that cause the vehicle to vibrate excessively.

American Honda Motor Company, Inc. is a California corporation
with its national headquarters in Torrance, California.  American
Honda is a subsidiary of Honda Motor Co., Ltd., a Japanese
corporation, and is one of the largest distributors of automobiles
in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cliff Cantor, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CLIFFORD A. CANTOR, P.C.
          627 208th Ave. SE
          Sammamish, WA 98074
          Telephone: (425) 868-7813
          Facsimile: (425) 732-3752
          E-mail: cliff.cantor@outlook.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Daniel A. Spira, Esq.
          J. Simone Jones, Esq.
          Livia M. Kiser, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          One South Dearborn
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 853-7274
          Facsimile: (312) 853-7036
          E-mail: dspira@sidley.com
                  simone.jones@sidley.com
                  lkiser@sidley.com

               - and -

          Michael L. Mallow, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          555 West 5th Street, Suite 4000
          Los Angeles, CA 90013
          Telephone: (213) 896-6000
          Facsimile: (213) 896-6600
          E-mail: mmallow@sidley.com

               - and -

          Robin Wechkin, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4200
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 262-7680
          E-mail: rwechkin@sidley.com


AMERICAN HONDA: "Ward" Suit Consolidated in CR-V Vibration MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Ward, et al. v. American Honda
Motor Co., Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00767, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Columbus).
The Ohio District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02906-MHW-
EPD to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned In re: American Honda Motor Co., Inc., CR-V Vibration
Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2:15-md-02661-
MHW-EPD.

The actions in the litigation -- most of which are either putative
nationwide or statewide class actions -- share factual questions
arising from allegations that the 2015 Honda CR-V has a defect or
defects that cause the vehicle to vibrate excessively.

American Honda Motor Company, Inc. is a California corporation
with its national headquarters in Torrance, California.  American
Honda is a subsidiary of Honda Motor Co., Ltd., a Japanese
corporation, and is one of the largest distributors of automobiles
in the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert A. Cox, Esq.
          Edwin E. Wallis, III, Esq.
          GLASSMAN, WYATT, TUTTLE & COX, P.C.
          26 N Second Street Building
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Telephone: (901) 527-4673
          Facsimile: (901) 527-5320
          E-mail: rcox@gwtclaw.com
                  ewallis@gwtclaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Daniel A. Spira, Esq.
          J. Simone Jones, Esq.
          Livia M. Kiser, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          One South Dearborn
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 853-7274
          Facsimile: (312) 853-7036
          E-mail: dspira@sidley.com
                  simone.jones@sidley.com
                  lkiser@sidley.com

               - and -

          Michael L. Mallow, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          555 West 5th Street, Suite 4000
          Los Angeles, CA 90013
          Telephone: (213) 896-6000
          Facsimile: (213) 896-6600
          E-mail: mmallow@sidley.com

               - and -

          A. Scott Ross, Esq.
          James Franklin Sanders, Esq.
          NEAL & HARWELL
          150 Fourth Avenue, N
          2000 First Union Tower
          Nashville, TN 37219-2498
          Telephone: (615) 244-1713
          E-mail: sross@nealharwell.com
                  jsanders@nealharwell.com


APPLE INC: Faces Another Class Suit Over Wi-Fi Assist
-----------------------------------------------------
Phone Arena reported that a class action suit was filed against
Apple Inc. for failing to tell users that Wi-Fi Assist was eating
through their monthly data allowance. The feature seamlessly
switches an iPhone connected to a Wi-Fi network, over to the
user's cellular carrier if the Wi-Fi signal becomes weak. Sounds
great in theory, but the feature was enabled by default when Apple
disseminated iOS 9.

Apple failed to tell users about this until a month after iOS 9
was pushed out. As a result, some iPhone users were totally
surprised when they received the monthly bill from their carrier,
and saw how much mobile data they used for the month. As a result,
there are now two Class Action suits filed against Apple, both
seeking more than $5 million.

The second suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California by one William B. Cottrell. The
suit charges Apple with violating California's unfair competition
law, and false advertisement law. It also claims that Apple
mislead customers on purpose by omitting or hiding facts about the
feature, including the fact that it was turned on by default.

Apple has stated that most users will see just a "small increase"
in data usage with Wi-Fi Assist. Aftr all, the feature won't
activate when the iPhone user is streaming music or video.  The
plaintiffs who filed the original Class Action suit, claim that
Apple is downplaying the increase in data usage that Wi-Fi Assist
is responsible for.


ARCH COAL: Class Suits Consolidated, Interim Class Counsel Named
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Carol E. Jackson of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted Plaintiffs'
motion to consolidate the actions and appointed interim class
counsel in the case captioned, DOUGLAS R. ROE, on behalf of
himself and Arch Coal, Inc. Employee Thrift Plan, and/or
alternatively on behalf of a class consisting of similarly
situated participants of the Plan, Plaintiff, v. ARCH COAL, INC.,
et al., Defendants. ELMER BUSH, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ARCH COAL, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 4:15-CV-910 (CEJ), 4:15-CV-1026(SNLJ) (E.D.
Mo.).

Plaintiffs filed separate complaints against employees of Arch
Coal, Inc., alleging breach of fiduciary duties in violation of
the Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974. Plaintiffs filed the
complaints as representative actions on behalf of themselves, the
Arch Coal, Inc. Employee Thrift Plan, and similarly situated
participants and beneficiaries of the Plan. The plaintiffs seek
relief pursuant to sections 409 and 502(a)(2) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C.
Sections 1109 and 1132(a)(2) and request the appointment of
proposed interim class counsel in accordance with Rule 23(g)(3).

The Complaints allege that defendant fiduciaries of the Plan
breached their ERISA-mandated fiduciary duties owed to the
participants of the Plan by, inter alia, retaining Arch Coal, Inc.
common stock as an investment option in the Plan when a reasonable
fiduciary under the prudent investor standard would have done
otherwise.

In the motion, Plaintiffs move to consolidate the actions on the
basis of identical questions of law and fact pursuant to Rule
42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  Plaintiffs also
seek an order appointing the law firms of Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP and Stull, Stull & Brody as interim co-lead class
counsel, and appointing the law firm of Blitz, Bardgett & Deutsch,
LC as interim liaison class counsel.

Arch Coal contends that the appointment of class counsel is not
warranted and premature prior to the close of pleadings.
Furthermore, Arch Coal argues that a formal consolidation order is
unnecessary for the meantime.

In her Memorandum and Order dated November 2, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/qTaDfYfrom Leagle.com, Judge Jackson found that the
underlying factual allegations and claims for relief are nearly
identical so that consolidation of the two actions under Rule
42(a) appropriate to avoid the unnecessary waste of judicial
resources and additional cost and delay to the parties.

The Court appointed the firms of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
LLP and Stull, Stull & Brody are appointed as interim co-lead
counsel and the firm of Blitz, Bardgett & Deutsch, LC as interim
liaison counsel.

The Court ordered that defendants shall produce documents or
information sufficient to enable plaintiffs to accurately identify
the specific persons who serve as the Arch Coal Employee Thrift
Plan fiduciaries, including but not limited to: Plan documents and
materials that describe the operation, administration, and
management of the Plan; and documents that identify the Plan
fiduciaries and describe the scope of their fiduciary duties.

Elmer Bush is represented by Don R. Lolli, Esq. --
dlolli@dysarttaylor.com -- DYSART AND TAYLOR, Edward W. Ciolko,
Esq. -- eciolko@ktmc.com -- Julie E. Siebert-Johnson, Esq. --
jsjohnson@ktmc.com -- Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. -- mgyandoh@ktmc.com -
- KESSLER AND TOPAZ


ARLINGTON, NY: Class Suit Against Arlington Fire Dept. Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Fries, writing for Poughkeepsie Journal, reported that a
lawsuit filed by a half-dozen former firefighters against
the Arlington Fire District Board of Fire Commissioners has been
dismissed.

The six firefighters had brought the suit against the fire
district board due to a resolution passed by the board in October
2014 to end the reimbursement of Medicare Part B premium costs
from their retirement plans. The lawsuit potentially had broader
implications for other firefighters.

"The fact that it was dismissed to me was good news for the fire
district," Arlington Fire District board Chairman James Beretta
said. "It's good news for the taxpayers."

Beretta said this saves the district roughly $16,000 this year
that they otherwise would have had to pay for the premium. The
possibility of having to pay this premium again could come up if
it's negotiated back in to another contract, he said. The current
contract expires October 2016.

The plaintiffs failed to file a notice of claim detailing the
allegations against the board in a timely fashion in order for the
lawsuit to proceed further, a Dutchess County Supreme Court
judgement states.

The document was obtained by the Poughkeepsie Journal after
a Freedom of Information Law request was submitted to the
Arlington Fire District.

Medicare Part B premiums in 2015 are $104.90 per month for most
recipients, according to the Medicare website. Part B coverage
includes medically necessary and preventative services, the
website said. In order to be eligible for Medicare most recipients
have to be 65 or older.

While the plaintiffs contended the board was in "breach of
contract," commissioners argued the former firefighters were never
entitled to these benefits under the contract.

Nathaniel Charny of Rhinebeck-based Charny & Associates, who
represented the plaintiffs, declined to comment.

The six plaintiffs, who were employed in the district between 1962
and 2014, include Barry Ireland, Edward Ireland Jr., Earle Bunn,
Patrick McDonald, Arthur Rose and Victor Zamiloff. The complaint
was filed in Dutchess County Supreme Court in February. They were
seeking damages for the "breach" as well as compensation for
expenses incurred because of the resolution, attorney fees and for
the resolution to be "revoked," the initial court filing said.
In addition to the six firefighters, the complaint expanded to
others who retired during the same time frame. A subhead of the
court document called Class Action Allegations said there were
more than 25 putative class members. The class included those that
retired from the district between the years of 1974 and 2014.

Beretta said that labor attorneys did extensive research and came
to the determination that the district wasn't required to make the
payments.

"We are highly confident that the merits of the case would have
held up in our favor," he said in regard to if the case had moved
forward.


ATLANTA, GA: Summary Judgment Affirmed in Breach of Contract Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Presiding Justice P. Harris Hines of the Supreme Court of Georgia
affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants on
Plaintiffs' claims of breach of contract and unconstitutional
impairment of contract and their consequent requests for
declaratory and injunctive relief in the case captioned, BORDERS
et al., v. CITY OF ATLANTA et al, Case No. S15A0816 (Ga.).

The complaint, which was filed on November 14, 2013, alleged that
Defendants breached Plaintiffs' employment contracts and violated
the impairment clause of the State Constitution when Defendants
passed the portions of the Ordinance which increased the amounts
that the Plaintiffs were required to contribute to the Plans, even
though Plaintiffs would receive the same amount of retirement
benefits to which they were already entitled prior to passage of
the Ordinance. Plaintiffs sought a declaration that the subject
portions of the Ordinance violated the Impairment Clause and that
Plaintiffs were not required to continue to make the increased
contributions to the Plans, and an order enjoining and restraining
Defendants from collecting or attempting to collect the increased
contributions. Plaintiffs moved for class certification on
November 14, 2013.

On March 20, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary
judgment on the issue of Defendants' liability. Following a
hearing on the motions on May 15, 2014, the superior court entered
on November 10, 2014, the "final order" now at issue, denying
Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment and granting
summary judgment to Defendants. The superior court did so after
concluding that government employees and their beneficiaries have
no vested rights in an unchanged benefit plan where the pension or
retirement plan at issue unambiguously provides for subsequent
modification or amendment, and that there was no ambiguity in the
City's Enrollment Provisions that they clearly authorized the City
to amend the Plans without breaching Plaintiffs' employment
contracts or violating the Impairment Clause.

On appeal, Plaintiffs challenge the validity of a city ordinance
and the consequent amendment requiring members to contribute 7% of
their annual salary to their pension plan if they did not have a
designated eligible beneficiary, and 8% of their annual salary to
their pension plan if they had a designated eligible beneficiary.

In the Decision dated November 2, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/xfTQC2from Leagle.com, Justice Hines concluded that
the superior court properly granted summary judgment in favor of
Defendants on Plaintiffs' claims of breach of contract and
unconstitutional impairment of contract and that Plaintiffs have
not provided any other meritorious legal basis upon which to find
the Ordinance unreasonable.


BMO HARRIS BANK: Discovery Bid in "Dillon" Granted in Part
----------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge L. Patrick Auld of the United States District
Court for the Middle District of North Carolina granted in part
Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Bay Cities Bank to Produce Documents
in Response to Plaintiff's Requests for Arbitration-Related
Discovery and Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Generations Federal
Credit Union to Produce Documents in Response to Plaintiff's
Requests for Arbitration-Related Discovery in the case captioned,
JAMES DILLON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. BMO HARRIS BANK, N.A., et al., Defendants,
Case No. 1:13CV897.

On October 8, 2013, Plaintiff James Dillon filed a class action
complaint against Generations Federal Credit Union, Bay Cities
Bank and two other banks for their alleged participation in a
scheme to collect unlawful debts through the Automated Clearing
House network, in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and various North Carolina laws.
The Complaint alleges that Generations and Bay Cities enabled
certain out-of-state lenders to make and collect payments on
payday loans that are illegal under North Carolina law.

Pending before the Court are Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Bay
Cities Bank to Produce Documents in Response to Plaintiff's
Requests for Arbitration-Related Discovery and Plaintiff's Motion
to Compel Generations Federal Credit Union to Produce Documents in
Response to Plaintiff's Requests for Arbitration-Related
Discovery.

In the Memorandum Opinion and Order dated October 30, 2015
available at http://is.gd/Yc7yc8from Leagle.com, Judge Auld
concluded Defendants have made a prima facie showing in support of
their common interest privilege contentions, but must produce a
privilege log for all materials withheld on the basis of
privilege. Because they seek merits discovery, however, Requests
relating to class action lawsuits, FTC litigation, and Dillon,
Kohles, and CashCall generally are improper.

On or before November 6, 2015, with the sole exception of
materials withheld on the basis of privilege as identified on the
privilege logs detailed below (i) Bay Cities must produce all
materials responsive to BCRFP 10; (ii) Generations must produce
all materials responsive to GRFPs 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, 16, 17,
18; (iii) Generations must produce all materials on which it
relies for its "third-party beneficiary" and "servicer" arguments,
as specified in GRFPs 3 and 4; and (iv) Generations must produce
all materials related to arbitration responsive to GRFP 11 and Bay
Cities and Generations must each serve on Dillon a privilege log
specifying any documents withheld on the basis of privilege,
including the common interest privilege.

James Dillon is represented by F. Hill Allen, IV, Esq. --
hallen@tharringtonsmith.com -- THARRINGTON SMITH, Hassan A.
Zavareei, Esq. -- hzavareei@tzlegal.com -- TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP,
Jeffrey M. Ostrow, Esq. -- ostrow@kolawyers.com -- KOPELOWITZ
OSTROW P.A.

Defendants are represented by Mark Vasco, Esq. --
mark.vasco@bryancave.com -- Ann W. Ferebee, Esq. --
ann.ferebee@bryancave.com -- Eric Rieder, Esq. --
eric.rieder@bryancave.com -- Michael P. Carey, Esq. --
michael.carey@bryancave.com -- BRYAN CAVE LLP



BNC NATIONAL: "Hedrick" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------
Jerry W. Hedrick, Jr., and all others similarly situated v. BNC
National Bank, Case No. 2:15-cv-09358 (D. Kans., October 27,
2015), seeks damages and other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendant is engaged in interstate commerce by, among other
things, selling mortgage loans and other financial products at its
office location in Overland Park, Kansas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brendan J. Donelon, Esq.
      DONELON, P.C.
      420 Nichols Road, Suite 200
      Kansas City, MO 64112
      Tel: (816) 221-7100
      Fax: (816) 709-1044
      E-mail: brendan@donelonpc.com


CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Abdelhak Salsali, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC, Case No.
1:15-cv-05907 (E.D.N.Y., October 14, 2015) alleges violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Founded in 2002, Cavalry provides services relating to the
acquisition and management of non-performing consumer loan
portfolios.  Cavalry is headquartered in Valhalla, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
          ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          483 Chestnut Street
          Cedarhurst, NY 11516
          Telephone: (516) 791-4400
          Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
          E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


CAREMARK PHC: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss or Stay "Woods" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Stephen R. Bough of the United States District
Court for the Western District of Missouri denied Defendant's
motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to stay case in the case
captioned, TIMOTHY WOODS, Individually and as a representative of
the class, Plaintiff, v. CAREMARK PHC, L.L.C. d/b/a CVS CAREMARK
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 4:15-CV-00535-SRB (W.D. Mo.).

On June 4, 2015, Plaintiff Timothy Woods filed the action in the
Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri. On July 15, 2015,
Defendant Caremark removed the case to the United States District
Court for the Western District of Missouri. On September 3, 2015,
Plaintiff Woods filed his amended complaint. By his amended
complaint, Plaintiff brings a putative class action under the Fair
Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") alleging Defendant willfully
violated the FCRA's stand-alone disclosure requirement, 15 U.S.C.
Sec. 1681b(b)(2).

In the motion, Defendant argues, "Caremark's interpretation that
providing Plaintiff] with the Authorization for Consumer Reports
document satisfied its disclosure obligation is not objectively
unreasonable as a matter of law. Plaintiff asserts the amended
complaint satisfies the pleading standard because it alleges
Defendant knowingly violated the law.

In his Order dated November 2, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/4NFhCcfrom Leagle.com, Judge Bough found that
Plaintiff's complaint sufficient to state a claim that Defendant
Caremark violated the FCRA's stand-alone disclosure requirement
and that the Court exercises its discretion to deny Defendant's
motion to stay the case.


CHAVAM ENTERPRISES: "Campos" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Nerkein Campos, and all others similarly situated v. Chavam
Enterprises Inc., and Chavoita Lesane, Case No. 2:15-cv-14370
(S.D. Fla., October 27, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, unpaid wages, liquidated damages, costs, and
reasonable attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant and a night club, in
St. Lucie County. Chavam is also known as and is advertised as
"Country Kitchen" and "Chavam's Lounge."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rebecca Radosevich, Esq.
      THE TICKTIN LAW GROUP, P.A.
      600 West Hillsboro Boulevard
      Suite 220
      Deerfield Beach, FL 33441-1610
      Tel: (954) 570-6757
      Fax: (954) 570-6760
      E-mail: Rradosevich@LegalBrains.com


CHEF PAM: "Martinez-Guzman" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
Alfredo Martinez-Guzman, and all others similarly situated v. Chef
Pam Corp., Pam Real Thai Food, Inc., Pam Panyasiri and Ronnasit
Panyasiri, Case No. 1:15-cv-08445 (S.D.N.Y., October 27, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for unpaid or underpaid overtime
compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law.

The Defendants own and operate full-service restaurants doing
business as Pam and Chef Pam located in New York and New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John M. Gurrieri, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
      277 Broadway, Suite 408
      New York, NY 10007-2036
      Tel: (212) 229-2249
      Fax: (212) 229-2246
      E-mail: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com


CHEF'S WAREHOUSE: Faces Suit Over Labor Code Violations
-------------------------------------------------------
Shaon Robinson, and all others similarly-situated v. The Chef's
Warehouse, Inc. and Does 1 through 100, Case No. RG15791018 (Cal.
Super., October 26, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid wages,
interest, related penalties, injunctive relief, other equitable
relief, attorneys' fees and costs under the California Labor Code.

Chef's Warehouse is a specialty food distributor that sources
products for high-end chefs across the U.S. and Canada. It serves
restaurants, hotels, caterers and gourmet stores in North America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Hoffman, Esq.
      HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS
      580 California Street, Suite 1600
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Tel: (415) 362-1111
      Fax: (415) 362-1112
      E-mail: mhoffman@employment-lawyers.com


CHEROKEE COUNTY, GA: Judge Dismisses Suit Against Sheriff
---------------------------------------------------------
Cherokee Tribune reported that a federal judge has dismissed a
class action lawsuit initiated by a local woman who claimed the
county, as well as Cherokee Sheriff Roger Garrison, violated the
rights of thousands of individuals by denying them bond.

"We are not surprised by that ruling," Garrison said. "We have
been in compliance with the law and all of the commanders in the
jail are familiar with the law. Those who don't qualify for bond
are not allowed bond."

The Barnett Law Firm in Woodstock filed the class action complaint
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia on April 24. The class, which was represented by the
plaintiff, Patricia Annette Davis, consisted of some 2,600 people
who claimed they were arrested on a Cherokee County State Court
bench warrant and then denied bail, court documents show.

The class was seeking $10 million in damages.

Angela Davis, of Jarrard & Davis, who represented Cherokee County
and Garrison in the class action lawsuit, filed a motion to
dismiss in June and it was granted after the plaintiff abandoned
her claims.

According to court documents, the class representative was
arrested in September 2013 for reckless conduct after she pointed
a pistol at another woman, both misdemeanor offenses. Court
records show that Patricia Davis bonded out of jail on Sept. 30,
2013, after posting a $1,500 bond.

Among other special conditions of the bond, Patricia Davis was
ordered by the court to "appear in court when required" and waive
her rights under state and federal law against search and seizure.

In March 2014, Patricia Davis, who was still on bail, failed to
appear for a calendar call in State Court Chief Judge Alan
Jordan's courtroom, records show. The judge issued a bench
warrant, but it was lifted in May 2014 after Patricia Davis paid a
$150 fee, according to court documents.

Jordan also cancelled a bond forfeiture that he had issued in
March 2014, but, according to court documents, the judge issued
another bench warrant this past January after Patricia Davis again
failed to appear for jury trial.

Attorney Carver DeBord, who was representing Davis in the 2013
criminal case, filed a motion in State Court this past February to
recall the bench warrant. In the motion, DeBord stated that his
client "possessed spirit and determined to test her mettle by
living in a tent on Yellow Creek, suffered losses from a
calamitous flood that washed away her wash tub and most of her
clothing."

It also states that the flood washed away her vehicle.

Court documents show that Patricia Davis was arrested on the
warrant on Feb. 13 when she appeared in court for a hearing on the
motion to recall the bench warrant. The class action lawsuit
contends Patricia Davis was refused bond by the county's sheriff
despite "being possessed with the wherewithal to post bond."

Court records show that Patricia Davis entered a plea of no
contest on Feb. 23 and was ordered to serve 12 months in jail. Her
jail sentence, records show, was suspended upon service of 11 days
in jail.


CINCINNATI: Indian Hill SD Settles Property Tax Suit for $5.5MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Forrest Sellers, writing for Cincinnati.com, reported that
residents in the Indian Hill Exempted Village School District
could potentially see a refund from the school district sometime
in the spring.

The school board approved a $5.5 million payment to taxpayers and
attorneys as part of a recent settlement of a property tax
lawsuit, which has its origins in a decision made by the board in
2009.

The school board passed a resolution to refund a total of $5.5
million, which will be about 4 percent of the total property taxes
paid by individual taxpayers from 2011 to 2014.

According to David Nurre, assistant director of finance for the
Hamilton County Auditor's Office, an estimated 5,629 parcels of
property will be part of the settlement.

The auditor's office was unable to provide a specific refund
amount. Nurre said the auditor's office has not yet seen the
calculations and would need to create some sort of database before
determining the amount of the refund payments.

The district has said even though a settlement agreement was
reached, it will still need to be approved by the court.

Class action notice letters will be sent to residents in the next
two to three months, and pending approval, refund checks would
then be issued within four to six months.

Residents will have an option of donating their refund to the
Indian Hill Public Schools Foundation as a charitable gift.

The lawsuit stems from an inside millage decision made by the
board in 2009 which permitted the board to move 1.25 mills of
inside millage to fund permanent improvements. The state allows
for an inside millage move without a public vote.

However, the Committee for Responsible School Spending contended
the move was unnecessary since the district had an estimated $24
million in cash reserves at the time.

The committee fought to have the tax increase overturned by filing
appeals with both the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals and the Ohio
Supreme Court, which eventually ruled that the additional revenue
from the outside mills was not required.

Earlier this year, the school board requested the 1.25 mills not
be levied in 2015 and said that homeowners would be reimbursed for
additional money.

Shortly after, a lawsuit was filed by Committee for Responsible
School Spending, seeking more than $5 million.

At times the fallout from the lawsuit had been overtly contentious
with residents chiding board members during the public meetings
and asking for some type of resolution.

Board Member Kim Lewis announced the settlement during the Nov. 10
meeting saying that it was "an effort to put this behind us,"
adding that as litigation progressed it would likely have a
detrimental impact on the district.

"This has been a long, difficult process," she said.

Board President Tim Sharp agreed. "Putting the money in taxpayer's
hands is the thing to do," he said.

As part of the resolution, the board has also agreed not to oppose
plaintiffs' request that $860,000 of the refund amount be paid to
the plaintiff's lawyers as attorney fees and costs. An additional
$40,000 of the refund will also be paid to the individual
plaintiffs.

Mary Siegel, a member of the Committee for Responsible School
Spending and also one of the plaintiffs, said she was pleased with
the board's decision.

"I'm happy for this agreement," she said. "I'm glad we can all
move forward, and the new board members can start anew."

Timeline for lawsuit

December 2009: Indian Hill Board of Education approves moving 1.25
mills of inside millage to fund permanent improvements.

2010: Opposition group called Committee for Responsible School
spending forms. Group files appeals with Ohio Board of Tax Appeals
and Ohio Supreme Court.

December 2014: Ohio Supreme Court ruled property tax increase
violated state law.

January 2015: Indian Hill School board announced the district
would refrain from collecting 1.25 mills for the permanent
improvement fund and would also reimburse homeowners an amount to
be determined.

Spring 2015: Committee for Responsible School Spending files
lawsuit seeking more than $5 million.

November 2015: Indian Hill school board announces a settlement of
$5.5 million.



CITY OF NAPLES: "Gomory" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
James Gomory, and all others similarly situated v. City of Naples,
Case No. 2:15-cv-00667 (M.D. Fla., October 27, 2015), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant is a public municipality with principal offices
located at Naples, Florida. The City owns, operates and manages
its own police department under the name Naples Police Department.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq.
      FELDMAN LAW GROUP P.A.
      1715 N. Westshore Blvd., Suite 400
      Tampa, FL 33609
      Tel: (813) 639-9366
      Fax: (813) 639-9376
      E-mail: mfeldman@ffmlawgroup.com


COORDINATED HEALTH: Seeks Dismissal of Facility Fees Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Paul Muschick, writing for The Morning Call, reported that
John Lychak of Lower Saucon Township knew he would receive bills
when he sought treatment last year for a foot ailment. What he
didn't expect was to be billed nearly $1,000 for hospital
"facility fees" for care he didn't consider to have occurred at a
hospital but at a doctor's office.

The debate over facility fees isn't new. It's something I've
written about before, and I still get occasional complaints about
the fees, including one in October. But Lychak and another area
patient, Jamie McFadden of South Whitehall Township, did more than
just complain. They hired a lawyer who in August filed a proposed
class-action lawsuit, contending facility fees charged by entities
associated with Coordinated Health weren't adequately disclosed
and weren't in line with the services provided.


That took the debate to another level.

Their lawsuit against CH Hospital of Allentown, trading as
Coordinated Health and CHS Professional Offices of South
Whitehall, and CHS Professional Practice of Bethlehem, was filed
on behalf of themselves and others who were "misled and charged"
patient facility fees and procedure facility fees for non-hospital
outpatient services.

The lawsuit sought to recover the amounts patients were charged
and sought a judicial declaration that the facility fees "are void
and of no effect."

CH Hospital and CHS Professional Practice filed court papers
arguing the lawsuit should be dismissed because it made broad
allegations not backed by facts showing how the charges were
improper, excessive or unreasonable.

The allegations "consist solely of expressions of opinion,
mischaracterizations and conclusory statements," attorney Candy
Barr Heimbach wrote in objecting to the lawsuit.

Considering the clamor over facility fees, both locally and
nationally, I was curious to see how a judge would rule. But there
won't be a ruling.

The plaintiffs' attorney, James Scanlon of Milford, Pike County,
told me the case was "resolved" confidentially last week. He said
the lawsuit never was certified by a judge as class-action.

It appears a settlement could have been reached. Court records
indicate a hearing had been scheduled for last week in Northampton
County Court but was postponed because attorneys were "engaged in
settlement negotiations."

Coordinated Health doesn't publicly discuss litigation, President
Jim Tsokanos told me. He said the case "is not moving forward" and
referred me to the court documents filed by the facility's
attorney.

Tsokanos said Coordinated Health prominently discloses facility
fees in notices that patients sign; on signs at registration and
outside clinics; and on its website.

He said facility fees are charges for services provided in a
hospital-based outpatient department or location, and Coordinated
Health charges them because its clinics are regarded by the
government as departments of its central hospital. Those clinics
are accredited and meet the same standards and regulations of a
hospital and therefore incur costs for increased equipment,
staffing, training and added construction.

Under that model, known as a "provider-based" or "hospital-based"
health care network, Coordinated Health is required to issue one
bill for the facility and another for the physician or health care
professional, Tsokanos said.

"Sometimes patients will pay more for certain outpatient services
and procedures at hospital-based outpatient locations," he said.
"The amount will depend on their insurance."

According to the lawsuit, Lychak was treated by a physician in
Bethlehem in a facility affiliated with, employed by or part of
Coordinated Health and CHS Professional Practice, but not located
on a hospital campus.

He had an examination and steroid injection, later went for an MRI
and had a follow-up appointment.

He was billed $1,342. That broke down to a physician charge of
$255, a pharmacy charge of $61, a patient facility fee of $369 and
a procedure facility fee of $607, "notwithstanding the fact that
the visit was a non-hospital visit and the treatment was performed
in a doctor's office and not at or near a hospital owned or
operated by CH Hospital," the lawsuit said.

Lychak's health plan requires him to pay 20 percent of medical
bills. In the end, he was responsible for $39 of the physician's
charge and $511 of the facility fees charges.

He had the same outpatient treatment procedure performed
previously by another podiatrist at a cost of less than $150 for
the visit and injection, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit lays out a similar scenario for McFadden, whose out-
of-pocket costs were less, due to his insurance terms.

"There was no reasonable relationship between the patient facility
fees and procedure facility fees that plaintiffs were required to
pay for the services provided, procedure and the cost of any
facilities actually used," the lawsuit alleged.

In court documents arguing the lawsuit should be dismissed,
Heimbach wrote that Lychak and McFadden hadn't alleged "sufficient
facts that plausibly demonstrate that these charges were, in fact,
unrelated to the costs of the services provided."

She argued Lychak and McFadden couldn't claim they suffered
financial losses from the facility fees as those amounts were
billed to them because they hadn't met their annual insurance
deductibles.

I don't expect the debate over hospital facility fees to subside
any time soon. All you can do is be aware of them when you seek
medical treatment at a doctor's office or medical facility. It
might not always be apparent from signs and paperwork whether the
office is affiliated with a hospital, so ask.

St. Luke's University Health Network does not charge facility
fees, spokeswoman Mariella Miller said. Patients at Lehigh Valley
Health Network could incur fees when they are treated at
facilities considered to be "hospital-based," such as imaging,
cardiac diagnostic and rehabilitation, spokesman Brian Downs said.
Patients should ask if the fees would apply.


COVENANT TRANSPORT: "Long" Suit Moved From Calif. to Tennessee
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Tami Long v. Covenant Transport,
Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-07317, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
(Chattanooga).  The Tennessee District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:15-cv-00278-HSM-SKL to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arose from labor-related issues.

Covenant Transport, Inc. is a truckload carrier headquartered in
Chattanooga, Tennessee.  The Company provides temperature
controlled trucking, regional delivery, and longhaul delivery.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig J. Ackermann, Esq.
          ACKERMANN AND TILAJEF PC
          1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610
          Los Angeles, CA 90035
          Telephone: (310) 277-0614
          Facsimile: (310) 277-0635
          E-mail: cja@laborgators.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
          MELMED LAW GROUP PC
          1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610
          Los Angeles, CA 90035
          Telephone: (310) 824-3828
          Facsimile: (310) 862-6851
          E-mail: jm@melmedlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Perry K. Miska, Jr., Esq.
          Richard H. Rahm, Esq.
          Kai-Ching Cha, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON PC
          650 California Street, 20th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108-2693
          Telephone: (415) 433-1940
          Facsimile: (415) 743-6542
          E-mail: pmiska@littler.com
                  rrahm@littler.com
                  kcha@littler.com


CREDIT COLLECTION: Faces Suit in Cal. Alleging TCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ataolah A. Shaouli, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Credit Collection Services, Inc., Case No.
2:15-cv-08075-ODW-JPR (C.D. Cal., October 14, 2015) alleges
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Based in Pensacola, Florida, Credit Collection Services, Inc.
provides commercial and consumer debt collection.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lee Paul Mankin, IV, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF L PAUL MANKIN IV
          8730 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 310
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (800) 219-3577
          Facsimile: (323) 207-3885
          E-mail: pmankin@paulmankin.com


CSX TRANSPORTATION: Plans Finalized to Join Derailment Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Wes Wade, writing for The Daily Times, reported that CSX
Transportation Inc. and several people suing the company over a
July train derailment in Maryville have finalized a plan to merge
several derailment suits.

Three lawsuits filed in Knoxville's U.S. District Court are being
consolidated for pretrial fact-finding purposes to avoid
duplicated hearings, interviews and court filings. If the lawsuits
proceed, the plaintiffs could still go on with separate trials.

CSX is being sued by two groups of Maryville residents who each
filed federal class-action lawsuits in connection with the July 2
derailment and chemical fire. Those residents live within the two-
mile evacuation radius around Mt. Tabor and Old Mt. Tabor roads.
About 5,000 residents in that area were evacuated after a derailed
tank car caught fire and began leaking a toxic chemical called
acrylonitrile.

Several Alcoa Police officers and Blount County deputies who
evacuated residents from the area filed a third suit that claims
they sustained injuries from exposure to the chemical.
Union Tank Car Co., which owned the tank car that derailed and
caught fire, is also a defendant in all three suits.

The parties in each suit have met several times in the last few
weeks finalizing plans to merge the three cases, according to
court documents and filings. They all filed a consolidated plan of
action for how pretrial activities will proceed. Deadlines for
interviews, evidence testing and scheduling orders are all covered
in the plan.

Pinning down the cause of the derailment is one of the first
priorities named in the discovery plan. CSX has reported that the
cause of the derailment was possibly due to a journal, or roller
bearing, failing due to overheating, the plan states.

Consolidated complaints from plaintiffs in each case now state the
tank car actually derailed about nine miles before the train
reached the evacuation area. The complaints state the car derailed
around the Singleton Station Road crossing in Louisville, and the
car was dragged some nine miles before reaching the area of Mt.
Tabor and Old Mt. Tabor roads. At some point in those nine miles,
a broken axle reportedly punctured the tank car and started the
fire.

CSX is facing a fourth lawsuit, another class-action suit,
currently pending in Blount County Circuit Court. CSX filed a
request to have that suit moved to federal court. Additional court
filings show if the litigation is transferred to federal court,
CSX will seek to merge it with the three others.


DIAGEO AMERICAS: CA Affirms District Court's Order
--------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge John M. Rogers of the United States Court of
Appeals, Sixth Circuit, affirmed the district court's order in the
case captioned, BRUCE MERRICK, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.
DIAGEO AMERICAS SUPPLY, INC., Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 14-
6198 (6th Cir.).

The plaintiffs are owners, lessors, and renters of nearby
properties affected by whiskey fungus who complained to the air
pollution control district about the proliferation of whiskey
fungus on their properties. The district found that Diageo had
violated District Regulation 1.09 because Diageo caused and
allowed the emission of an air pollutant which crossed its
property line causing an injury and nuisance to nearby
neighborhoods and the public. Diageo's warehouse emissions present
a current and continuing threat to the public, endangering the
comfort and repose of its neighbors. Diageo's warehouse emissions
cause damage to nearby property and have the natural tendency to
continue causing damage.

Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint in federal district
court, seeking compensatory and punitive damages from Diageo for
negligence, nuisance, and trespass, and an injunction requiring
Diageo to abate its ethanol emissions by implementing certain
control technologies at the facilities. Diageo moved to dismiss
the complaint on two grounds. First, Diageo argued that it had no
duty to curb ethanol emissions from its Louisville facilities.
Second, in a notice of supplemental authority, Diageo argued that
plaintiffs' claims were preempted by the Clean Air Act.

The district court largely rejected Diageo's arguments but
dismissed plaintiffs' negligence claim on the ground that
plaintiffs had not pled facts sufficient to establish that Diageo
owed them a duty of care, or that Diageo had breached that duty.
The court, however, with respect to plaintiffs' remaining causes
of action, concluding that plaintiffs had alleged facts sufficient
to establish nuisance and trespass, and to entitle them to
injunctive relief.

On appeal, Diageo argues that the Supreme Court's reasons for
concluding that the Clean Air Act displaces federal common law all
militate with equal force in favor of holding that the Act
preempts state common law.

In the Opinion dated November 2, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/nTOJJsfrom Leagle.com, Judge Rogers concluded that
there is no basis in the Clean Air Act on which to hold that the
source state common law claims of plaintiffs are preempted. In
addition, to the requirements and remedies of state common law the
Circuit Court acknowledged the concern that a comprehensive
federal scheme imposes substantial costs on industries, and that
some suggest it is unduly burdensome for such industries to remain
subject.

Plaintiffs are represented by William F. McMurry, Esq. --
bill@courtroomlaw.com -- WILLIAM F. McMURRY & ASSOCIATES

Diageo Americas Supply is represented by Ryan A. Shores, Esq. --
rshores@hunton.com -- HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP


DRAFTKINGS INC: "McCallie" Suit Alleges Business Code Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
John McCallie, and all others similarly-situated v. DraftKings,
Inc. and FanDuel, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-08463 (S.D.N.Y., October
27, 2015), seek injunctive relief and monetary damages for
Defendants' unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices
under the California Business and Professions Code, and deceptive
acts and practices in violation of the N.Y. General Business Law.

The Defendants operate daily fantasy sports websites. DFS is a
non-regulated industry where individuals compete against other
individuals in fantasy sports games. Defendant FanDuel, Inc., is a
Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New
York, New York. Defendant DraftKings, Inc., is incorporated in
Delaware with its principal place of business in Boston,
Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Amanda M. Steiner, Esq.
      GIRARD GIBBS LLP
      711 Third Ave., 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Tel: (212) 867-1721
      Fax: (212) 867-1767
      E-mail: as@girardgibbs.com


DUKE ENERGY: Court Grants Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr. of the United States District Court for
the Western District of North Carolina granted the Lead Counsel's
Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses in the case
captioned, MAURINE NIEMAN, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. DUKE ENERGY
CORPORATION, ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 3:12-CV-00456-MOC-DSC
(W.D.N.C.).

On August 12, 2015, Lead Counsel moved for an award of attorneys'
fees and expenses and Lead Plaintiff's expenses in the litigation.

In his Order dated November 2, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/JPqkN6from Leagle.com, Judge Cogburn, Jr. granted
attorneys' fees of 18% of the settlement fund, plus expenses in
the amount of $191,738.27, together with the interest earned on
both amounts for the same time period and at the same rate as that
earned on the settlement fund until paid. Lead Plaintiff
Amalgamated Bank is awarded $20,612.50 for its representation of
the Settlement Class during the litigation.

Plaintiffs are represented by Jennifer Sarnelli, Esq. --
jsarnelli@gardylaw.com -- GARDY & NOTIS LLP

     - and -

William Everett Moore, Jr., Esq.
GRAY, LAYTON, KERSH, SOLOMON, SIGMON, FURR & SMITH, PA
516 S New Hope Rd
Gastonia, NC 28054
Tel: (704)865-4400

Defendants are represented by Debbie Weston Harden, Esq. --
dharden@wcsr.com -- Claire J. Rauscher, Esq. -- crauscher@wcsr.com
-- WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE


FAST WATER: Objections to Discovery Bid Sustained in Part
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, MIHAIL SLAVKOV, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FAST
WATER HEATER PARTNERS I, LP, et al., Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-
04324-JST (N.D. Cal.), District Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California:

     -- sustained Defendants' denials of Plaintiffs' class action
        allegations;

     -- sustained Defendants' objections to Plaintiffs' requests
        for production or authentication of documents provided at
        mediation;

     -- overruled Defendants' objections to Plaintiffs' "identity
        all documents" contention interrogatories related to
        Defendants' denials of Plaintiffs' class action
        allegations; and

     -- overruled Defendants' objections to Plaintiffs' requests
        for Defendants' compensation-related documents

The parties filed a joint letter stating that "two general issues
remain outstanding:

     1) to what extent Defendants are required to state all
        facts and produce all documents relating to Defendants'
        denial of Plaintiffs' class action allegations,

     2) the scope and authentication of the production of all
        data relating to putative class members' compensation,
        hours and bonus multipliers."

Plaintiffs served Defendants with requests for admission,
accompanied by (1) interrogatories asking the Defendants to
identify all facts and all documents supporting any denials, and
(2) requests for production asking that such documents be
produced.  Defendants object to these requests on the grounds that
(1) identification of the facts and documents they intend to rely
on is protected by the attorney work product privilege; (2)
Plaintiffs are not entitled to every document in Defendants'
possession; and (3) the document requests accompanying the
interrogatories would require them to produce documents containing
the confidential information of putative class members.

In the motion, Plaintiffs seek to compel Defendants to state all
facts and produce all documents in support of Defendants' denial
of Plaintiffs' class action allegations and request that
Defendants produce certain documents relating to putative class
members' compensation.

In his Order dated October 30, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/pHtWyGfrom Leagle.com, Judge Tigar found it
premature to provide contention interrogatories since discovery
has not yet began. As to the production of documents related to
putative class members' compensation, Defendants have not
quantified either the number of documents or the number of hours
required to retrieve them. With regard to Plaintiffs' request that
Defendants authenticate summaries Defendants provided at
mediation, the Court found that that documents which were prepared
independently of a mediation do not become privileged simply by
virtue of having been exchanged at that mediation.

The parties are ordered to file either a stipulated request for
entry of protective order or competing proposals for such an
order.

Plaintiffs are represented by Page R. Barnes, Esq. --
KOJO@barneslawoffice.net -- BARNES LAW OFFICES & Kevin Francis
Woodall, Esq. -- kevin@kwoodalllaw.com -- WOODALL LAW OFFICES

Defendants are represented by Sue Jacobs Stott, Esq. --
SStott@perkinscoie.com -- Aaron Joseph Ver, Esq. --
AVer@perkinscoie.com -- Jonathan S. Longino, Esq. --
JLongino@perkinscoie.com -- PERKINS COIE LLP


FLINT, MI: Governor Named Defendant in Water Contamination Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crain's Detroit reported that a group of residents has filed a
class-action lawsuit against Gov. Rick Snyder, the State of
Michigan and the City of Flint, as well as state and Flint
municipal employees on claims related to lead contamination of
drinking water in Flint.

Royal Oak-based law firm Pitt McGehee Palmer & Rivers PC issued a
press release saying the plaintiffs claim health and property
damages resulting from exposure to lead-tainted city water.

The complaint was filed in U.S. District Court in Detroit and
asserts these residents have suffered skin lesions, autoimmune
disorders, convulsions and chronic anxiety, among other listed
conditions, as a result of exposure to lead in the drinking water.
Problems with lead in the Flint drinking water surfaced in
September when Virginia Tech researchers released a report saying
Flint's water was creating a health threat in old homes that have
lead pipes or pipes fused with lead solder.

The ensuing firestorm has put pressure on the Snyder
administration. Detractors say the state's emergency manager was
too quick to switch from Detroit's water system to a local Flint
River-based system last year when handling the city's financial
crisis.

The switch was estimated to save $4 million annually.


FORD MOTORS: Judge Partially Shots Down Bid to Deny Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge shot down several of Ford Motor's reasons to deny
class certification in a lawsuit claiming defects in older-model
SUVs cause tailgates to fall off.

Attorneys for Ford and the class sparred in a marathon four-hour
session before U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg, arguing the
merits of motions to exclude evidence and testimony, grant summary
judgment and certify a class of car buyers.

Lead plaintiff Sally Nettleson first sued the automaker in June
2011, claiming Ford hid from customers the safety risks associated
with faulty tailgate parts in 2002-2005 Ford Explorers and Mercury
Mountaineers, along with 2003-2005 Lincoln Aviators.

The plaintiffs claim a glass applique in the affected tailgates is
susceptible to cracking. The cracked glass lets moisture seep in
and corrode metal latches, potentially causing rear glass panels
to shatter and tailgates to fall off cars completely, according to
the complaint.

Ford knew of the defect as early as June 2001 when dealers
reported cracked appliqu‚s on brand new vehicles before they were
sold to customers, the plaintiffs claim.

The automaker received 1,723 reports of the applique detaching
from affected vehicles with some incidents occurring while
vehicles traveled at high speeds, according to evidence cited by
the plaintiffs.

"All plaintiffs have shown is that Ford knew the applique might
crack, not that there was any certainty," Ford attorney Eric Tew
told the Seeborg. "Manufacturers always know problems may happen,
not that they're certain it will affect vehicles."

The plaintiffs asked the judge to certify three classes of car
buyers in New Jersey, Florida and California. Class attorney Adam
Levitt said all three proposed classes meet the requirements
necessary for certification.

Levitt urged the judge to reject Ford's "mischaracterization" of
the defect as a cosmetic issue rather than a safety hazard.

"The dominant question in this case is whether there is a safety
issue," Levitt said.

Tew argued the motion for class certification should be dismissed
on several grounds. He said many of the claims are time-barred;
some vehicles were purchased for commercial rather than personal
use; and different buyers surveyed different information before
buying the cars.

"The logical extension of your argument is that because some
people will never pay attention [to reports of safety risks], you
can never certify a class," Seeborg replied, adding the statute of
limitations and other issues cited by Ford were not valid reasons
for denying class certification.

Ford also sought to exclude the testimony of three expert
witnesses cited by the plaintiffs.

The automaker's attorneys claimed auto glass expert Henry
Chamberlain has no background in auto safety or rust corrosion,
which are key elements of an analysis he conducted on the affected
tailgates.

Ford also argued that Chamberlain haphazardly gathered the 88
tailgates he tested from junkyards, and that the study had no
statistical significance.

"Chamberlain says if you have corroded brackets, it can cause the
glass to shatter," replied plaintiff class attorney John Tangren.
"This is not that controversial."

Ford attorneys asked the judge to disregard the testimony of auto
experts Carl Locke, Donald Phillips and Richard Hixenbaugh as
well.

The plaintiffs say the combined testimony of the experts show a
link between the cracked appliques, corroding metal parts,
shattered glass and safety risks.

Ford also urged the judge to reject Hixenbaugh's appraisal that
the alleged defect cost potential class members damages totaling
15 percent of the value they paid for the vehicles.

"His experience regarding individual vehicles provides no basis to
make this opinion, and this opinion is based on thin air," Tew
said.

Seeborg agreed that an assessment of damages requires more than an
expert's opinion that is based solely on his experience appraising
vehicles.

However, the plaintiffs countered that no comparable market data
exists for Hixenbaugh to analyze because other vehicles with
defects that pose safety risks have been taken off the market or
recalled.

Regarding the motion for summary judgment, Tew argued no named
plaintiffs have experienced any of the safety hazards alleged in
the class action.

"They say you should have disclosed this, and yet they've driven
all these years with a cracked applique showing they're really not
that concerned about the risk," Tew said.

The Ford attorney said the plaintiffs don't seem to truly believe
the cars pose a safety risk, despite a few plaintiffs' anecdotal
stories about getting minor scratches from cracked glass.

Levitt countered that the ascertainable loss among the plaintiffs
does not require that they get hurt, just that they were all
exposed to the same risk and loss in value.

Citing asevidence that Ford knew of and hid the defect, the
plaintiffs pointed to a 2003 email sent by Ford team program plant
manager Joseph Watson, in which he projected a "100 percent
failure rate" for the appliques.

"This person was not an engineer," Tew responded. "We've produced
150,000 pages of documents, and they've seized on this one email."

Levitt replied that despite Ford's attempt to downplay the
manager's role and expertise, the evidence should be weighed by a
jury.

Seeborg ended the hearing after four hours of debate, suggesting
with his questions that he will likely grant the motion for class
certification but giving no clear indication on how he will rule
on the other motions before him.


FPMC SERVICES: "Abraham" Suit Alleges WARN Act Violation
--------------------------------------------------------
Paul Abraham, and all others similarly-situated v. FPMC Services,
LLC, Case No. 5:15-cv-00930 (W.D. Tex., October 27, 2015), seeks
to recover unpaid wages and benefits for 60 calendar days pursuant
to the United States Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification
Act.

The Defendant is liable under the WARN Act for the
failure to provide Plaintiff and other similarly situated former
employees at least 60 days advance notice of their employment
losses, as required by the WARN Act.

The Defendant manages hospital sites committed to providing
personalized patient care in locations throughout Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lawrence Morales II, Esq.
      THE MORALES FIRM, P.C.
      State Bar No. 24051077
      115 E. Travis, Suite 1530
      San Antonio, TX 78205
      Tel: (210) 225-0811
      Fax: (210) 225.0821
      E-mail: lawrence@themoralesfirm.com


FTS INTERNATIONAL: Faces Suit Over FLSA Violation
-------------------------------------------------
Greg Garcia, Filomeno Ramirez, Anthony Minjarez, Steven Gray,
Darrell Livingston, Donald Pierce, Daekendrick Johnson, and all
others similarly situated v. FTS, International, Inc., Case No.
5:15-cv-00250 (S.D. Tex., October 27, 2015), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

FTS, International is a private well completion company that
operates throughout North America. FTSI provides customized
hydraulic fracturing services to extract oil and natural gas from
wells.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      John T. Holleman, Esq.
      HOLLEMAN & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
      1008 West Second Street
      Little Rock, AR 72201
      Tel: (501) 975-5040
      Fax: (501) 975-5043
      E-mail: jholleman@johnholleman.net


GENERAL MILLS: Consumer Watchdog Suing Cheerios for False Ad
------------------------------------------------------------
WWLP.com reported that a familiar food at the breakfast table is
coming under fire. A consumer watchdog group is suing General
Mills, taking aim at Cheerios new "Protein" cereal, accusing the
company of false advertising.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest accuses General
Mills of false and deceptive packaging of the new Cheerios Protein
cereal claiming, gram-for-gram, they added more sugar to the new
Cheerios than protein.

The class action lawsuit claims General Mills' comparison of the
new Cheerios Protein to the original oat cereal is skewed in a way
that is misleading.

The watchdog group known for closely monitoring food additives and
labeling, says the breakfast food titan can promote the new
Cheerios as having more protein because the serving size is nearly
double the plain Cheerios.

General Mills spokesman Mike Siemienas said, in a statement, the
new Cheerios Protein packaging follows strict federal regulations,
and denies there was any attempt by the cereal maker to mislead
consumers.

Siemienas could not say if the Cheerios Protein variety is made at
the General Mills production facility in Buffalo.

Attorneys filed the class action on behalf of three consumers, two
from California, and a third from Long Island.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: "Hunter" Suit Consolidated in Zofran MDL
-------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled Hunter, et al. v. GlaxoSmithKline PLC, et al.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-00544, was transferred from the from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston).  The
Massachusetts District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-13569
to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned In re: Zofran (Ondansetron) Products Liability
Litigation, MDL No. 1:15-md-2657-FDS.

The actions in the litigation share factual questions arising from
allegations that Zofran and its generic equivalent, a prescription
medication for the treatment of nausea, causes birth defects in
children when their mothers ingest the drug while pregnant.

GlaxoSmithKline PLC is a limited liability corporation, organized
under the laws of the state of Delaware.  GSK's sole member is
GlaxoSmithKline Holdings, Inc., which is a Delaware corporation,
and which has identified its principal place of business in
Wilmington, Delaware.  GSK designed, manufactured and distributed
Zofran, the drug that is the subject of the lawsuit.  Zofran is a
drug developed to treat severe nausea on cancer patients resulting
from chemotherapy or radiation therapy.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Honora McKeown Gathings, Esq.
          GATHINGS LAW
          2100 Third Avenue North, Suite 900
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 322-1201
          Facsimile: (205) 322-1202
          E-mail: hgathings@gathingslaw.com

               - and -

          Lloyd W. Gathings, II, Esq.
          William A Lattimore, II, Esq.
          GATHINGS LAW
          2204 Lakeshore Drive, Suite 406
          Birmingham, AL 35209
          Telephone: (205) 322-1201
          Facsimile: (205) 322-1202
          E-mail: lgathings@gathingslaw.com
                  wlattimore@gathingslaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Bryan A. Coleman, Esq.
          Maibeth J. Porter, Esq.
          MAYNARD COOPER & GALE PC
          1901 Sixth Avenue North, Suite 2400
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 254-1000
          Facsimile: (205) 714-6498
          E-mail: bcoleman@maynardcooper.com
                  mporter@maynardcooper.com

               - and -

          Jennifer S. Hill, Esq.
          Madeleine M. McDonough, Esq.
          SHOOK HARDY & BACON LLP
          2555 Grand Boulevard
          Kansas City, MO 64108-2613
          Telephone: (816) 474-6550
          Facsimile: (816) 421-5547
          E-mail: jshill@shb.com
                  mmcdonough@shb.com


GURLEY MOTOR: "Yazzie" Suit May Proceed as Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge James A. Parker of the United States District Court
for the District of New Mexico granted Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification in the case captioned, EUGENE YAZZIE and
PHYLLIS YAZZIE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. GURLEY MOTOR CO. and RED ROCK INVESTMENT
CO., Defendants, Case No. 14-555 JAP/SCY (D. N.M.).

On January 31, 2014, Mr. and Mrs. Yazzie purchased a 2006 Dodge
Ram Truck from Gurley Motor for $18,495. Mr. and Mrs. Yazzie, they
became unable to make the two $500 deferred down payments after
Mr. Yazzie suffered heart problems. On March 2, 2014, agents of
Red Rock, the assignee of Mr. and Mrs. Yazzie's Retail Installment
Contract and Security Agreement, repossessed Mr. and Mrs. Yazzie's
truck.

The Yazzies identify six alleged deficiencies in this form notice:
(1) it fails to state whether the disposition of the vehicle would
be through public or private sale, (2) it fails to state that the
Yazzies were entitled to an accounting of the unpaid indebtedness,
(3) it fails to describe the Yazzies' liability for a deficiency,
(4) it does not include a telephone number Mr. and Mrs. Yazzie
could call to learn the amount needed to redeem their Truck, (5)
it does not provide a telephone number or mailing address for
acquiring additional information concerning the disposition and
the obligation secured, and (6) it misstates the Yazzies' right to
redeem until the actual time of sale.

The Yazzies argue that these deficiencies violate the New Mexico
Uniform Commercial Code.

In the motion, Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify two classes:

     (1) A Loan Agreement Class or TILA Class consisting of all
         natural persons who, beginning on year prior to the
         filing of the Complaint, entered into a Motor Vehicle
         Installment Loan Contract with Gurley to purchase a
         vehicle primarily for personal, family or household
         use, where the loan agreement included a 'deferred
         down payment,' which was listed in the disclosed
         Payment Schedule but not included in the Total of
         Payment; and

     (2) A Notification Class or UCC Class consisting of all
         natural persons who purchased a vehicle from Gurley
         primarily for personal, family or household use, whose
         financing contract was assigned to Red Rock and to
         whom, beginning four years prior to the filing of the
         Complaint, Red Rock sent its legally insufficient
         Notification Before Disposition of Collateral, after
         repossessing the person's vehicle.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated October 30, 2015
available at http://is.gd/8D56dmfrom Leagle.com, Judge Parker
determined that certification is appropriate. Defendants'
superiority challenge does not present a bar to class
certification. The Court found that the benefits of class
certification outweigh Defendants' nebulous damages concerns.

The Court appointed Nicholas H. Mattison and Richard N. Feferman
as class counsel.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

Nicholas H. Mattison, Esq.
Richard N. Feferman, Esq.
FEFERMAN & WARREN
300 Central Avenue SW, Suite 2000 West
Albuquerque, NM 87102
Tel: (505) 243-7773

Defendants are represented by Mark D. Jarmie, Esq. --
mjarmie@jarmielaw.com -- JARMIE & ASSOCIATES


HORIZON MUD: "Melkoski" Suit Removed From S.D. to W.D. Texas
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Melkoski v. Horizon Mud Co.,
Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00177, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas (Midland).  The
Western District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 7:15-cv-00175 to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Horizon Mud Company is a full-service drilling fluid company
headquartered in Midland, Texas, with other strategic locations
across the U.S.  The Company also manufactures and supplies
drilling fluid lubricants, inhibitors, and sealers for troublesome
shale for oil and gas drilling customers; provides Non-Damaging
Reservoir Technology to reduce the finding cost of new reserves
within severely difficult drilling regions; operates diesel and
electric-operated pre-mix pits; and offers liquid and sack
products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
          FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
          1150 Bissonnet
          Houston, TX 77005
          Telephone: (713) 751-0025
          Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
          E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com
                  ADunlap@fibichlaw.com
                  litkin@fibichlaw.com

               - and -

          Richard J. Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Henry Howard Robinson, Esq.
          KELLY, HART & HALLMAN, P.C.
          201 Main Street, Suite 2500
          Fort Worth, TX 76102-0001
          Telephone: (817) 878-3558
          Facsimile: (817) 878-9280
          E-mail: henry.robinson@kellyhart.com


HUTCHINGS COURT: "Wentzell" Suit Alleges Misrepresentation
----------------------------------------------------------
Joseph P. Wentzell, and all others similarly-situated v. Hutchings
Court Reporters, LLC, Case No. 15-6112 (Mass. Cmmw., October 26,
2015), seeks damages against the Defendant for misrepresentation,
fraud and deceit, and/or for money had and received.

The Defendant provides court reporting services throughout the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin J. McCullough, Esq.
      FORREST, LAMOTHE, MAZOW,
      MCCULLOUGH, YASI & YASI, P.C.
      2 Salem Green, Suite 2
      Salem, MA 01970
      Tel: (617) 231-7829
      Fax: (877) 599-8890
      E-mail: kmccullough@forrestlamothe.com


INTRALINK HOLDINGS: Court OKs $14MM Settlement of Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge has granted final approval of the $14 million
settlement in a class action lawsuit alleging violations of the
federal securities laws against IntraLinks Holdings Inc., a
virtual data room (VDR) -- or cloud computing -- company, and
other defendants for allegedly misleading statements and omissions
regarding the strength of the company's business, and failing to
disclose to investors the loss of the company's largest client.

The settlement in the lawsuit, Wallace v. IntraLinks Holdings,
Inc., et al, reached by Lead Counsel Cohen Milstein Sellers Toll
PLLC on behalf of Lead Plaintiff Plumbers and Pipefitters National
Pension Fund, was approved on Nov. 12, by Judge Thomas Griesa, of
the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York.

"This settlement is a great result that will resolve a hotly
contested case," said Lead Attorney Carol Gilden, a Partner at
Cohen Milstein. "It will provide eligible class members with a
long-awaited recovery."

The settlement was the culmination of nearly four hard-fought
years of litigation in which the Lead Plaintiff successfully
obtained certification of a class of IntraLinks investors who
purchased IntraLinks stock between Feb. 17 and Nov. 11, 2011, and
a subclass of investors who purchased stock in the company's April
6, 2011, secondary offering. The decision was significant in that
it was one of the first such decisions following the U.S. Supreme
Court's opinion in Halliburton II, which held that defendants
could defeat class certification by rebutting the "fraud-on-the-
market" theory of reliance with evidence that the alleged
misrepresentations had no impact on the price of the stock in
question.

Judge Griesa had previously granted preliminary approval of the
settlement on July 31, 2015, and ordered that notice of the
pending settlement and Cohen Milstein's fee and expense request be
disseminated to the Class. Since then, more than 31,000 notices
have been disseminated to potential class members and their
nominees.

To participate in the settlement, Class Members need to submit a
proof of claim form with the requested supporting documentation.
The deadline to submit claim forms is Nov. 30, 2015.  Claim forms
can be downloaded from the Settlement Website at
www.IntraLinksSecuritiesSettlement.com.

In addition to Lead Attorney Carol Gilden, others involved in the
case and settlement were Steve Toll, Joshua Devore, Kenneth Rehns,
and Elizabeth Aniskevich, all of Cohen Milstein.

For more information about Wallace v. IntraLinks Holdings, Inc.,
et al, visit http://www.cohenmilstein.com/news.php?NewsID=814

Founded in 1969, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC is a national
leader in plaintiff class action lawsuits and litigation. As one
of the premier firms in the country handling major complex cases,
including consumer protection and product liability issues, Cohen
Milstein, with over 80 attorneys, has offices in Washington, D.C.,
New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, Palm Beach Gardens, Fla., and
Denver, Colo. For more information, visit
http://www.cohenmilstein.comor call (202) 408-4600.


JCY FRUIT: "Acosta" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------
Damirsy Rodriguez Acosta, and all others similarly-situated v. JCY
Fruit Stand, Inc., dba Soriano Brothers, Case No. 1:15-cv-24017
(S.D. Fla., October 27, 2015), seeks double damages and reasonable
attorney fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant is a corporation that regularly transacts business
within Miami-Dade County, and operates under a fictitious name
otherwise known as Soriano Brothers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. Zidell, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Tel: (305) 865-6766
      Fax: (305) 865-7167
      E-mail: zabogado@aol.com


JEFFERSON PARISH, LA: Judge OKs $1.7MM Deal in Camera Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Times-Picayune reported that a $7.1 million settlement of a
class-action lawsuit involving the controversial red-light camera
system used in Jefferson Parish from 2007 until 2010 has been
approved.

The Advocate reports checks will go out in January to 147,000
people who were issued tickets through the so-called Redflex
system in Jefferson.

Steven Mauterer, the attorney representing one of the two
plaintiff classes, said anyone who paid their ticket without
contesting it will receive a little more than $20 per ticket;
those who contested theirs but ultimately paid will get just over
$30 per ticket.

The amount of the settlement is not enough to pay drivers the full
amount of the penalty they were charged, typically $110.

Mauterer says about a third of the settlement will go to
attorneys' fees.


JOE ARPAIO: Informant Says Judge Wiretapped Sheriff
---------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News reported that a confidential informant gave a
flowchart to a federal judge in Washington, D.C. that claimed the
judge overseeing Sheriff Joe Arpaio's contempt-of-court hearing
conspired with the Justice Department to wiretap Arpaio, an
investigator testified.

Mike Zullo, an investigator in Arpaio's Cold Case Posse, told the
court during the last day of testimony that he made three visits
to U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth in Washington to have
Lamberth review information that Dennis Montgomery, a former CIA
consultant, was providing to Arpaio's office.

Montgomery claimed that the federal government had illegally
accessed the bank and IRS records of about 150,000 Maricopa County
residents. Judge Lamberth formerly served on the U.S. Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court.

"Mr. Montgomery brought information with him," Zullo said. "I seem
to recall the flowchart being handed to [Lamberth], I don't
remember anything else."

The flowchart alleges that U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow
directed a wiretap on Arpaio's phone, and connects the judge with
former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and the Covington &
Burling law firm, which represents the plaintiffs in a 2007 racial
profiling class action against Arpaio.

Judge Snow is overseeing the civil contempt hearing in which
Arpaio and four of his current and former aides are accused of
violating a court order in that class action.

"Do you see in the upper right-hand corner there's a reference to
a DOJ wiretap?" asked plaintiffs' attorney Stanley Young, with
Covington & Burling. "It says under there in yellow font, 'G.
Murray Snow Orders.' Did you discuss that aspect of this flowchart
with Lamberth?"

Zullo denied talking about the wiretap with Lamberth. He said
Montgomery handed the flowchart to the judge because he sought
whistleblower protection status from the federal government.

"I think we advised the judge none of this had been corroborated
by us," Zullo said. Detective Brian Mankiewicz also attended the
meetings with Lamberth.

Zullo testified that he and Montgomery searched the bank records
that Montgomery retrieved of Mary Rose Wilcox, a former member of
the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors.

Wilcox was granted a $975,000 settlement after she sued Arpaio and
then-County Attorney Andrew Thomas in 2011, claiming they had her
indicted twice for "participating in decisions of the Board of
Supervisors when she had a conflict of interest." Those charges
were dismissed. Thomas was disbarred in 2012.

While Wilcox's bank information was not found, her husband Earl
appeared in the list of Maricopa County residents and they were
also able to find bank information on their restaurant, El Portal,
Zullo said.

"When you found Mary Rose Wilcox's restaurant's name, did you
mention this to Sheriff Arpaio?" Young asked.

"His reaction was the same as with this judge, it was 'He's a
victim,'" Zullo said. "As far as Mary Rose not coming up, I
explained to him that I was actually relieved she did not come
up."

Snow has scheduled the parties' oral arguments for Nov. 20. Arpaio
and his aides face fines, sanctions and possible criminal charges
if found to be in contempt.

Snow indicated that if he does refer any of the five to Arizona
U.S. Attorney John Leonardo for criminal prosecution, he may
include names of additional parties.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Clouden" Suit Included in China Flooring MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Clouden, et al. v. Lumber
Liquidators, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00734, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
(Alexandria).  The Virginia District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:15-cv-02766-AJT-TRJ to the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In re: Lumber Liquidators Chinese-Manufactured Flooring Products
Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, MDL
No. 1:15-md-02627-AJT-TRJR.

The actions in the litigation involve common factual questions
regarding whether Lumber Liquidators falsely represented that its
Chinese-manufactured laminate flooring complied with California
Air Resources Board standards and other legal requirements
governing the emissions of formaldehyde.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Theodoros Basdekis, Esq.
          SCARZAFAVA, BASDEKIS LAW FIRM
          48 Dietz Street, Suite C
          Oneonta, NY 13820-5107
          Telephone: (607) 432-9341
          Facsimile: (607) 432-1986
          E-mail: scarzafavalaw@yahoo.com


MANPOWER INC: Padilla and Guido May File 2nd Amended Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lucy H. Koh of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California grants in part Plaintiffs'
motion to file a Second Amended Complaint in the case captioned,
JUVENTINA MATA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MANPOWER INC./CALIFORNIA
PENINSULA, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:12-CV-04000-SC (N.D.
Cal.).

Plaintiffs Claudia Padilla and Lesli Guido bring the wage and hour
class action against Defendants Manpower, Inc./California
Peninsula, Manpower US Inc., Manpower Inc., ManpowerGroup Inc.,
and ManpowerGroup US Inc. The original complaint sought
compensation and penalties for alleged violations during a "Class
Period" defined as "the period of time beginning four years before
the commencement of this action through the date on which each
class or subclass herein is confirmed."  On July 21, 2014,
Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC). Among other
changes, the FAC changed the proposed Class Period to "the period
of time beginning February 13, 2009 through the date of entry of
Judgment herein."

In the motion, Plaintiffs assert that Defendants did not pay
Plaintiff wages for engaging in these activities, nor did
Defendants reimburse them for expenses incurred related to these
activities.  Plaintiffs filed suit in California state court on
May 29, 2014 asserting several claims under California law.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants: (1) failed to adequately pay
Plaintiffs for reporting to work; (2) failed to pay wages for
attending trainings and meetings; (3) failed to pay wages
following Plaintiffs' demands; (4) failed to pay minimum wage; (5)
failed to provide legally compliant wage statements; (6) failed to
pay wages within a legally mandated timeframe; (7) failed to pay
all wages upon termination; Plaintiffs also assert claims under
(8) California's Private Attorneys General Act; and (9)
California's Unfair Competition Law.

The proposed Second Amended Complaint (SAC) would (1) name
ManpowerGroup Inc. as Defendant, taking into account an alleged
name change from Manpower Inc. and Manpower US Inc. to
ManpowerGroup Inc.; (2) revise the FAC's proposed class
definitions; and (3) allege an earlier date of March 17, 2007 for
the beginning of the Class Period.

In her Order dated October 29, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/idKmzUfrom Leagle.com, Judge Koh granted Plaintiffs'
motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint to name
ManpowerGroup Inc. as a defendant and to revise the FAC's proposed
class definitions. The Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for leave
to amend the complaint to allege an earlier date for the beginning
of the class period.

Plaintiffs are represented by David E. Cameron, Esq. --
dcameron@wjhattorneys.com -- Patrick Darryn Toole, Esq. --
ptoole@wjhattorneys.com -- WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC

     - and -

Charles Swanston, Esq.
Bernard James Fitzpatrick, Esq.
FITZPATRICK SPINI & SWANSTON
555 South Main St.
Salinas, CA 93901

Defendants are represented by Spencer C. Skeen, Esq. --
spencer.skeen@ogletreedeakins.com -- Francis Lawrence Tobin, Esq.
-- francis.tobin@ogletreedeakins.com -- James Patrick Allen, Esq.
-- james.allen@ogletreedeakins.com -- Jesse Carter Ferrantella,
Esq. -- jesse.ferrantella@ogletreedeakins.com -- Timothy Lloyd
Johnson, Esq. -- timothy.johnson@ogletreedeakins.com -- OGLETREE
DEAKINS NASH SMOAK AND STEWART, P.C.


MARYLAND: Faces Constitutional Challenges to Tax Code
-----------------------------------------------------
Ian Duncan, writing for The Baltimore Sun, reported that
Florida man filed a constitutional challenge to a Maryland law
designed to soften the financial blow of a court ruling against
part of Maryland's tax code -- a lawsuit that could end up costing
the state $38 million on top of an already hefty refund bill from
the original case.

The high court ruled in May that Maryland could not refuse to give
taxpayers credit for taxes they paid on out-of-state income. That
ruling could cost local governments up to $42 million a year and
leaves tax authorities on the hook for about $200 million in
refunds, officials have estimated.

In 2014, the General Assembly passed a law slashing the interest
rate on potential tax refunds stemming from the case from 13
percent to about 3 percent, a move designed to save the state
about $38 million.

But in the new lawsuit, Michael J. Holzheid, who used to live in
Maryland, alleges that it was unlawful for the state to
retroactively change the rate. Holzheid's personal stake in the
case is small -- just $131 -- but as many as 55,000 taxpayers are
in line for payouts, and his attorneys are seeking class-action
status for the lawsuit.

Daniel Goldstein, one of Holzheid's lawyers, said that by changing
the law, legislators had taken money from people without due
process.

"We hope that the state of Maryland will quickly acknowledge the
error of its ways and do right by these taxpayers," he said in a
statement.

A spokesman for state Comptroller Peter Franchot, who is named as
a defendant in the suit, declined to comment on the case. A
spokesman for Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh said his
office will review the allegations.

Before the Supreme Court ruling, taxpayers in Maryland could
receive a credit for income taxes paid to another state. But the
credit did not apply to so-called piggyback taxes that Maryland
passes on to local governments.

Brian and Karen Wynne, a Howard County couple, alleged that the
arrangement was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ultimately
agreed, ruling 5-4 that the setup meant that some income was taxed
twice and discouraged business that crossed state lines.

In September, Gov. Larry Hogan encouraged people to come forward
and claim any money due to them, saying he looked forward to
having "the pleasure of sending refund checks."


MISSOURI BASIN: "Crouch" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Crouch, and all others similarly situated v. Missouri Basin
Well Service, Inc. dba MBI Energy Services and MBI Energy
Logistics, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-00150 (D.N.D., October 27, 2015),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants provide broad-based oilfield services including oil
hauling, water hauling, water transfer, water disposal, service
rigs, crane services, trucks, and equipment for oil and gas
industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Leo F.J. Wilking, Esq.
      WILKING LAW FIRM, PLLC
      3003 32nd Ave. S., Suite 240
      P.O. Box 3085
      Fargo, ND 58108-3085
      Tel: (701) 356-6823
      Fax: (701) 478-7621
      E-mail: lwilking@wilkinglaw.com

          - and -

      Galvin B. Kennedy, Esq.
      KENNEDY HODGES, LLP
      711 W. Alabama Street
      Houston, TX 77006
      Tel: (713) 523-0001
      Fax: (713) 523-1116
      E-mail: gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com


MUNICIPAL TECHNOLOGIES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Norris, and all others similarly-situated v. Municipal
Technologies, LLC and Steven Murray, Case No. 15-018836 (Fla.
Cir., October 23, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants provide management and development of IT
infrastructure which includes administrative and financial
support, as well as desktops and servers, telecom, and the city's
website.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott M. Behren, Esq.
      BEHREN LAW FIRM
      2893 Executive Park Drive, Suite 110
      Weston, FL 33331
      Tel: (954) 636-3802
      Fax: (772) 252-3365
      E-mail: scott@behrenlaw.com


NELSON WESTERBERG: May File Revised Summary Judgment Bid
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Gary Feinerman of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois denied Defendants' motion to
reconsider but granted their request for leave to file a revised
summary judgment motion in the case captioned, THOMAS MERVYN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. NELSON WESTERBERG, INC., NEWESCO, INC., NELSON
WESTERBERG INTERNATIONAL, and ATLAS VAN LINES, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 11 C 6594 (N.D. Ill.).

Defendants may file a revised summary judgment motion, strictly
limited to the question whether they breached a lease agreement.

In the putative class action against Nelson Westerberg, Inc.,
Newesco, Inc., Nelson Westerberg International and Atlas Van
Lines, Inc., Thomas Mervyn alleges violations of 49 C.F.R. Sec.
376.12, a provision of the Truth-in-Leasing regulations
promulgated by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to
implement the Motor Carrier Act of 1980as well as common law
unjust enrichment. The court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), except insofar as
the complaint sought the remedies of disgorgement, restitution, or
constructive trust for the Sec. 376.12 claims.

The Defendants moved for summary judgment which was denied by the
court on the ground that they had violated Local Rule 56.1 by
filing briefs that cited directly to the record materials attached
to the parties' Local Rule 56.1 statements and responses rather
than to the statements and responses themselves.

In the motion, Defendants have asked the court to reconsider its
Local Rule 56.1 ruling, arguing that Local Rule 56.1 does not
require parties to cite the Local Rule 56.1 statements and
responses themselves or, put another way, does not prohibit
parties from directly citing the record materials cited by and
attached to those statements and responses. In the alternative to
seeking reconsideration, Defendants seek leave to file a revised,
compliant summary judgment motion.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated November 1, 2015
available at http://is.gd/MW3rjIfrom Leagle.com, Judge Feinerman
noted in denying summary judgment on the breach issue, where
arguments presented in a summary judgment motion are fact-
intensive, it is essential to the court's proper consideration of
those arguments for the parties to brief their legal and factual
positions with reference to the Local Rule 56.1 statements and
responses and not to the record materials themselves. Local Rule
56.1 statements and responses establish the bridge between the
record and the parties' arguments, and the value of those
statements and responses is largely lost if the parties' briefs
ignore them and instead cite the record.

Plaintiffs are represented by Marvin Alan Miller, Esq. --
mmiller@millerlawllc.com -- Andrew Szot, Esq. --
aszot@millerlawllc.com -- Lori Ann Fanning, Esq. --
lfanning@millerlawllc.com -- Matthew E. Van Tine, Esq. --
mvantine@millerlawllc.com -- MILLER LAW LLC

Defendants are represented by David H. Levitt, Esq. --
dlevitt@hinshawlaw.com -- Steven M. Puiszis, Esq. --
spuiszis@hinshawlaw.com -- HINSHAW & CULBERTSON


NEOPETS INC: Faces Suit Over California Business Code Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Doe, and all others similarly situated v. Neopets, Inc. and
Does 1-10, Case No. 2:15-cv-08395 (C.D. Calif., October 27, 2015),
seeks damages, restitution, injunctive and other equitable relief,
and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under California Business
and Professional Code and California Code of Civil Procedure.

The Defendant operates a virtual pet website where subscribers may
create accounts, own virtual pets, play games, and purchase
virtual items using virtual currencies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
      NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP
      4100 Newport Place, Ste. 800
      Newport Beach, CA 92660
      Tel: (949) 706-6464
      Fax: (949) 706-6469
      E-mail: sferrell@trialnewport.com


NEW YORK: Traffic Court Judge Sues City State to Regain Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The New York Post reported that a former Long Island politician
who was accused of being a "sexual predator" by her harbor-master
ex-lover has a second act as a Queens traffic-court judge -- and
is suing the city and state to regain the benefits she enjoyed as
an elected representative.

Susan Scarpati-Reilly, who once served on the Huntington Town
Council, is now an administrative judge deciding traffic cases.

Scarpati-Reilly and a colleague, Susan Weinman Resch, filed a
class-action lawsuit in Manhattan Supreme Court claiming they have
been improperly denied benefits like holiday pay, pensions and
overtime.

The traffic jurists say they don't get the perks because they lack
collective bargaining rights.

The 1972 state law that created the Traffic Violations Bureau said
its judges would not be considered city employees as a cost-saving
measure, according to the suit.

Their lawyer, William Sipser, said they function more like per-
diem workers, making $40 an hour.

City and state reps did not comment.


OREGON: DHS Settles Class Suit Over Violation of ADA
----------------------------------------------------
The Oregon Department of Human Services (DHS) announced a proposed
settlement to a 2012 class action lawsuit that alleged that the
state's reliance on sheltered workshops as employers for
individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD)
violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The premise of the lawsuit was that sheltered workshops
unnecessarily segregated people with disabilities from the general
population. The settlement will expand options for supported
employment for individuals with IDD and reduce the use of
sheltered workshops.

In the proposed settlement, Oregon pledged to expand its
Employment First program over the next seven years to provide
1,115 working-age adults with IDD who are currently served in
segregated sheltered workshops with opportunities for competitive
jobs and supportive services. At least 4,900 youth ages 14 to 24
years old will receive supported employment services designed to
assist them to choose, prepare for, get, and keep work in a
typical work setting. Of the transition-age youth who apply to the
state's Office of Vocational Rehabilitation Services and are found
eligible for services, about half will get an Individual Plan for
Employment. In all, the settlement will impact approximately 7,000
Oregonians with IDD who can and want to work in typical employment
settings in the community.

Sheltered workshops are segregated facilities that exclusively or
primarily employ people with disabilities. As a result, the
employees have little or no contact with non-disabled persons
besides paid staff. Further, federal rules have provisions that
allow sheltered workshops to pay people with IDD hourly wages well
below the federal minimum wage. A sheltered workshop setting is
not considered to be supported employment because it is not an
integrated setting. In 2008, Oregon was one of the first states to
adopt an Employment First policy; previously most people were
referred to day services. From 2010 to 2012, DHS focused on
outreach to promote the Employment First policy.

The class action lawsuit, Lane v. Kitzhaber (since renamed Lane v.
Brown), was filed in January 2012, by eight named individuals and
United Cerebral Palsy of Oregon and Southwest Washington, on
behalf of themselves and other individuals with IDD who are in
Oregon sheltered workshops or have been referred to sheltered
workshops. In March 2013, the Department of Justice (DOJ)
intervened in the lawsuit; the DOJ also contended that Oregon
violated the ADA by unnecessarily segregating adults with IDD in
sheltered workshops and by placing Oregon youth with IDD at
unnecessary risk of segregation in sheltered workshops.

Approximately 1,900 Oregonians with disabilities currently receive
services in sheltered workshops. Since the initiation of the
lawsuit, approximately 3,900 Oregonians with disabilities received
some level of services in sheltered workshops, and historically
hundreds of students have transitioned each year from Oregon
public schools to sheltered workshops.

The proposed agreement recognizes that Oregon has made substantial
progress in providing employment services to and improving
employment outcomes for individuals with IDD since the filing of
the plaintiffs' complaint and the department's complaint-in-
intervention. In April 2013, former Governor Kitzhaber issued an
Executive Order affirming Oregon's commitment to offering
integrated employment services for people IDD. In May 2013, the
Oregon Office of Developmental Disability Services, Vocational
Rehabilitation, the Department of Education, and the Oregon
Council on Developmental Disabilities, signed a Memorandum of
Understanding on Transition of Students with Disabilities to the
Workforce. This agreement was made to help support and increase
the number of students with disabilities transitioning from
secondary schools to integrated, community-based employment or
post-secondary education. In February 2015, Governor Kitzhaber
issued a follow-up Executive Order 15-01, which set specific
targets for the number of people to be served each year.

The private plaintiffs in Lane v. Brown were represented by the
Center for Public Representation, Disability Rights Oregon and the
law firms of Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP and Perkins Coie LLP.
The parties' proposed settlement agreement was announced by the
DOJ on September 8, 2015. The agreement has been submitted to the
court, but court approval is still pending.


PELLA CORPORATION: Court Trims Claims in "Dineen" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge David C. Norton of the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina granted in part Pella
Corporation's motion to dismiss the case captioned, MARTIN DINEEN
and MARIANNE DINEEN, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PELLA CORPORATION, Defendant,
Case No. 2:14-MN-00001-DCN, 2:14-CV-03479-DCN.

On August 13, 2014, the Dineens filed a class action complaint
against Pella in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, alleging jurisdiction based on diversity of
citizenship. The complaint brings the following ten causes of
action: (1) violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act (FDUTPA); (2) negligence; (3) negligent
misrepresentation; (4) breach of implied warranty of
merchantability; (5) breach of implied warranty of fitness for a
particular purpose; (6) breach of express warranty; (7) fraud; (8)
fraudulent concealment; (9) unjust enrichment; and (10)
declaratory relief. On August 28, 2014, the United States Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the Dineens' case as
part of the consolidated multidistrict litigation.

Pella contends that the Dineens' claims should be dismissed in
their entirety, arguing that they are barred by their respective
statutes of limitations and that they are inadequately pleaded.

In his Order dated October 30, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/zXSxILfrom Leagle.com, Judge Norton dismissed
without prejudice the Dineens' claims for FUDTPA violations;
unjust enrichment; breach of implied warranty of fitness for a
particular purpose; declaratory judgment; fraud-based claims to
the extent they rely on affirmative representations; and negligent
misrepresentation claim to the extent it relies on affirmative
representations.

Plaintiffs are represented by Scott A. George, Esq. --
sgeorge@seegerweiss.com -- SEEGER WEISS

     - and -

April Goodwin, Esq.
Jordan Lucas Chaikin, Esq.
PARKER WAICHMAN
111 Great Neck Rd
Great Neck, NY 11021
Tel: (212) 267-6700

Home Depot, Inc. is represented by John P. Mandler, Esq. --
john.mandler@FaegreBD.com -- Kevin L. Morrow, Esq. --
kevin.morrow@FaegreBD.com -- Mark J. Winebrenner, Esq. --
mark.winebrenner@FaegreBD.com -- Shane A. Anderson, Esq. --
shane.anderson@FaegreBD.com -- FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Ellen Toohey, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, PRA
Group, Inc., and Malen & Associates, P.C., Case No. 1:15-cv-08098-
GBD (S.D.N.Y., October 14, 2015) accuses the Defendants of
violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, and PRA Group, Inc., are
American debt buyers based in Norfolk, Virginia.  Malen &
Associates, p.c. is a law firm based in Westbury, New York, with
its practice limited to creditor's rights, collections,
bankruptcy, foreclosure and real estate closings.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory Alan Frank, Esq.
          FRANK LLP
          275 Madison Avenue, Suite 801
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 682-1818
          Facsimile: (212) 682-1892
          E-mail: gfrank@frankllp.com


PREMIER FOODS: Antitrust Attys Call for Clarity on Leniency Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roxanne Henderson, writing for Business Day Live, reported that
experts have called on the South African Competition Commission to
clarify its leniency policy after the Supreme Court of Appeal let
a big company off the hook for its role in the bread cartel.

The appeal court ruled that the Competition Tribunal's declaration
that Premier Foods engaged in a prohibited practice under
competition laws was a nullity. Without this declaration, trade
federation Cosatu, the National Consumer Forum and others planning
to sue bread cartelists in a class action cannot sue Premier
Foods.

During an investigation into the bread cartel in 2006, Premier
Foods applied for immunity under the Competition Commission's
corporate leniency policy in exchange for assisting the commission
in its investigation.

Premier gave evidence against Tiger Brands and Pioneer Foods and
also blew the whistle on Foodcorp, with whom it had also colluded
on a national scale. Despite this, the Competition Tribunal issued
certification declaring that Premier had broken the law, opening
it up to civil claims. Now the court has shut that door, agreeing
with Premier's argument that the Competition Tribunal had
overstepped the mark.

Premier Foods marketing executive Siobhan O'Sullivan said: "The
commission chose not to refer Premier (which had applied for
leniency as a whistleblower) to the tribunal. As the court held,
the commission's election meant the tribunal did not have
jurisdiction to make orders against Premier."

The Competition Commission investigates and prosecutes companies
found to be colluding. Upon referral to the Competition Tribunal,
which adjudicates cases, a guilty party may be fined up to 10% of
its annual turnover. Pioneer was fined R195.7m for its involvement
in the cartel, while Tiger Brands and Foodcorp negotiated fines of
R98m and R45m, respectively.

The appeal court said the leniency policy did not give applicants
immunity in civil actions. Instead the problem lay in the
commission's failure to refer Premier to the tribunal.

Competition lawyer Jennifer Finnigan said the leniency policy
required clarification. She said there was confusion about whether
a leniency applicant could be referred to the Competition Tribunal
for the purposes of a prohibited practice declaration but not an
administrative fine.

Lawyer Charles Abrahams, acting for Cosatu, the Children's
Resource Centre Trust, the National Consumer Forum, the Black Sash
Trust and others, said that their application for class-action
certification pending before the High Court in Cape Town against
Tiger Brands, Pioneer Foods and Premier Foods would continue after
the appeal.

If the appeal failed, the class action would go ahead without
Premier, he said.


QUALITEST PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Birth Control Pills
--------------------------------------------------------
Paul Samakow, writing for Communities Digital News, reported that
one hundred and thirteen women have filed a class action lawsuit
in Philadelphia against Qualitest Pharmaceuticals claiming the
"reverse" packaging of birth control pills manufactured by the
company led to their pregnancies. Mothers in 28 states are seeking
millions of dollars, including claims for the cost of raising
their children into adulthood and the cost of education.

Qualitest did recall eight types of oral contraceptives in 2011
after it was discovered that rows of pills were reversed, meaning
women may have taken the sugar or placebo pills when they should
have taken the actual contraceptives.

What if you do not want children and your birth control method has
failed? What the issue was more than just not wanting children?
What if you simply could not afford to raise a child? What if your
genetic family history has persuaded you not to have children?
What if you sought information about your genetic background were
given the wrong information?

The legal issues surrounding the birth of unwanted children have
different answers around the country. Should there be legal
uniformity nation wide?

Our nation's highest court has ruled on issues of abortion and
same-sex marriage and has provided, at the very least, a backbone
upon which all states may rest in viewing how to adjudicate these
types of issues when presented in courtrooms. Perhaps the many
issues attendant to unwanted children might also benefit from a
uniform Federal law. But perhaps not, as it can be argued that the
will of the people is best represented on a state-by-state basis.
Moving past a policy discussion, the immediate question is, will
these women in the cases above find success in this lawsuit?

A bit of history may provide the answer.

By the late 1970s, the practice of suing doctors for failed
sterilization procedures had gained acceptance in most states.
Lawsuits seeking damages for unplanned or unwanted pregnancies
were allowed when medical negligence was proven. With
technological advances in birth control methods such as pills, the
"morning-after" pill, intra-uterine devices and safe access to
abortions and more reliable genetic testing, courts had to look at
new types of lawsuits when unintended pregnancies occurred.

These new types of lawsuits have been termed wrongful pregnancy,
wrongful birth and wrongful life.

Wrongful pregnancy is a claim that a doctor's negligence caused an
unwanted or unplanned pregnancy. Most states recognize this claim
if the pregnancy resulted from a failed tubal ligation or
vasectomy or from a failed contraceptive pill or device, or if
there was a continuing pregnancy after a failed abortion.

Courts generally allow damages to include the cost of the
pregnancy as well as pain and suffering and emotional distress
related to the unwanted pregnancy; costs associated with the
delivery; and damages for any of the mother's injuries or death if
such occur and were related to the pregnancy or delivery.

Mothers in most of these cases have not been allowed to recover
any costs associated with raising the child. In six states where
such "raising the child" costs are allowed, they are offset by the
monetary and non-monetary benefits conferred by the child.

Wrongful birth cases allege that a doctor's action or omission
prevented the would-be mother from making an informed choice about
whether to terminate a pregnancy that resulted in the birth of a
child with a congenital impairment or disability. About half of
the states recognize this type of case. The gist of these claims
is that the doctor failed to inform the mother of potential
problems, genetic markers, etc., that could result in delivering a
child that was not perfectly healthy and thus deprived the mother
of the choice of whether to carry the pregnancy to term.

These cases generally allow for compensation similar to those
detailed above and similarly prohibit child-rearing expenses. Some
states allow for "extra-ordinary" damages such as compensation for
medical specialists, behavioral modification therapy, orthopedic
aids and medications.

Wrongful life cases are very close to wrongful birth cases. The
difference is that in wrongful life cases, the child is the one
filing the lawsuit claiming that because his or her mother was
deprived of the informed choice to terminate the pregnancy, the
child was forced to live a life of pain and suffering.

Most states will not allow this claim, believing that life in and
of itself cannot be an injury. Four states, California, New
Jersey, Louisiana and Washington allow the claim and allow
compensation for extraordinary damages.

The list of possible defendants (those being sued) has grown over
the years. In addition to suing a doctor, now, depending upon the
claim, a woman may sue her pharmacist, her genetic counselor, her
non-physician health care provider, drug companies and possibly
others.

A case in Michigan filed against a pharmacist who provided
tranquilizers instead of contraceptives was seen. A condom
manufacturer was sued in New Jersey. A Delaware case included not
only suing doctors, but also the medical center employing the
doctors for failing to perform testing procedures that would have
revealed the child to be born had Down Syndrome. A California
laboratory was sued following negligent blood testing procedures
undertaken to determine if a child had Tay-Sachs disease.

Will the women in this Philadelphia lawsuit win? Probably. Will
they recover all of the compensation they are seeking? Probably
not.

In 2011, a jury awarded a couple $4.5 million in a wrongful birth
case against a doctor and an ultrasound technician who failed to
properly read the test on their child, who was born with no arms
and only one leg. The couple said they would have terminated the
pregnancy.

The parents of a child born with Down Syndrome were awarded $3
million in a wrongful birth case, even though an early prenatal
test found the child did not have the genetic marker associated
with the disorder.

Notwithstanding these results and many others, the overwhelming
sentiment of courts is that life is valuable, and there is joy in
parenting. Judges are not comfortable viewing life as a form of
damage. The sentiment is that the costs of raising a child are
offset by the blessings of parenting.

Some inquiring minds might delve into possible "defenses" in these
cases, that is, claims that might result in the cases being thrown
out or which would limit the amount of compensation if the mom
were to win the case. It would be easy to defend a case by
claiming the mom should either have had an abortion or should have
given the child up for adoption.

Some states permit the woman's failure to have an abortion to be
used against her, viewing the mother's "failure to mitigate" her
damages a reasonable consideration in assessing those damages. In
other states, defendants are prohibited from claiming the mother
suing should have had an abortion.

Regarding adoption, some states hold that it is unreasonable to
require the mother to place a child up for adoption in order to
mitigate damages. Other courts have held that the woman's decision
to keep the child rather than putting it up for adoption amounts
to a determination by the woman that the benefits of parenthood
outweigh the costs. Thus, the jury should be allowed to offset any
compensation award by the monetary and non-monetary benefits
conferred by the child.

The expansion and diversity of available contraceptive products
and technologies are resulting in more people using them. Due to
this ever-growing rate of increase, the individuals or companies
providing these devices, products and procedures are facing
greater and greater exposure to liability when the contraception
fails. Courts and legislatures will continue to deal with and
struggle with what are clearly complex issues. The law will
develop in this area.

Paul A. Samakow is an attorney licensed in Maryland and Virginia
and has been practicing since 1980.  He represents injury victims
and routinely battles insurance companies and big businesses that
will not accept full responsibility for the harms and losses they
cause. He can be reached at any time by calling 1-866-SAMAKOW (1-
866-726-2569), via email, or through his website.


REEBOK INT'L: Faces "Del-Orden" Suit Alleging Violations of ADA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Del-Orden, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Reebok International Ltd., Case No. 1:15-cv-08101-PKC
(S.D.N.Y., October 14, 2015) alleges violations of the Americans
with Disabilities Act.

Canton, Massachusetts-based Reebok International Ltd. designs,
markets, and distributes sports, fitness, and casual footwear,
apparel, and equipment.  The Company's product line includes
footwear and apparel products for football, baseball, soccer,
track and field, and other sports, as well as women's category
products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465-1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
          E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


REGUS MANAGEMENT: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Circle Click Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Samuel Conti of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California denied all pending motions
by both parties in the case captioned, CIRCLE CLICK MEDIA LLC, a
California limited liability company, and CTNY INSURANCE GROUP
LLC, a Connecticut limited liability company, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. REGUS
MANAGEMENT GROUP LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; REGUS
BUSINESS CENTRE LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; REGUS
plc, a Jersey, Channel Islands public limited company; HQ GLOBAL
WORKPLACES LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and DOES 1
through 50, Defendants, Case No. 3:12-CV-04000-SC.

In July 2012, Plaintiffs filed this action against Defendants in
California state court. The action was subsequently removed, and
several rounds of pleading followed. The gravamen of Plaintiffs'
Second Amended Complaint (2AC), Plaintiffs' operative pleading, is
that Regus and the other Defendants routinely assessed Plaintiffs
for charges that were not disclosed in the OSA. For example,
according to Plaintiffs' complaint, the monthly fee listed in
Circle Click's OSA was $2,461, but Circle Click received monthly
invoices ranging from $2,559.67 to $6,653.79. The Court's April
22, 2013 Order dismissed several of Plaintiffs' claims with
prejudice. The following causes of action were left undisturbed:
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL); violation
of California's False Advertising Law (FAL); and unjust
enrichment. As part of the UCL claim, Plaintiffs allege violations
of the unfair, fraudulent, and unlawful prongs of the UCL. As part
of their FAL and UCL claims, Plaintiffs assert violations of
California Business and Professions Code section 17509 and CPUC
section 2890.

In the motion, Regus moves the Court to dismiss Plaintiffs' case
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the grounds that
Plaintiffs lack standing and Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify
two proposed classes "consisting of a California class pursuing
claims on all causes of action and a New York class pursuing the
unjust enrichment cause of action" arguing that the proposed
classes satisfy the prerequisites of Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(a) and
fulfill the requirements for class certification under Rule
23(b)(3).

In his Order dated October 29, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/1LzYrhfrom Leagle.com, Judge Conti found that the
dismissed claim was based on a New York law which applied only to
"those who purchase goods and services for personal, family or
household use, however, California's FAL does not have the same
limitation. The Court also found that Plaintiffs do not satisfy
the typicality requirement as to their class certification claim.

Plaintiffs may, if they choose, file a new motion for class
certification with revised class definitions.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

Ali Ari Aalaei, Esq.
Alyce Winn Foshee, Esq.
Craig P. Ramsdell, Esq.
ARI LAW, P.C.
90 New Montgomery St Suite 905
San Francisco, CA 94105

     - and -

S. Chandler Visher, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF S. CHANDLER VISHER
44 Montgomery St # 3830
San Francisco, CA 94104
Tel: (415) 901-0500

Defendants are represented by Meryl Macklin, Esq. --
meryl.macklin@bryancave.com -- Tracy Marie Talbot, Esq. --
tracy.talbot@bryancave.com -- Christopher John Schmidt, Esq. --
christopher.schmidt@bryancave.com -- Daniel Thomas Rockey, Esq.
-- daniel.rockey@bryancave.com -- Darci F. Madden, Esq. --
darci.madden@bryancave.com -- Kenneth Lee Marshall, Esq. --
kenneth.marshall@bryancave.com -- Sara Ahmed, Esq. --
sara.ahmed@bryancave.com -- Stephanie Ann Blazewicz, Esq. --
stephanie.blazewicz@bryancave.com -- BRYAN CAVE LLP


REMEX INC: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.J.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Deborah Cohen, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Remex, Inc., and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:15-cv-
07510-MAS-TJB (D.N.J., October 14, 2015) accuses the Defendants of
violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Remex, Inc., has been recovering delinquent accounts receivable
since 1983.  The Company is authorized to collect in all 50
states, the Remex call center is located in Princeton, New Jersey.
Remex provides services to financial institutions including
retailers, banks, credit card issuers, finance companies and other
consumer credit grantors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS ZELMAN, LLC
          1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (347) 526-4093
          Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
          E-mail: yzelman@marcuszelman.com


SAFEWAY: Aptos Man Sues Over Underfilled Canned Tuna
----------------------------------------------------
Samanthah Clark, writing for Santa Cruz Sentinel, reorted that
Safeway, the nation's second largest supermarket chain, is accused
of shortchanging customers by selling them underfilled store brand
canned tuna in a class action lawsuit filed on Nov. 5 in
California Northern District federal court in San Francisco.

Plaintiff Ehder Soto of Aptos said in court documents that recent
government testing uncovered that the cans of tuna he purchased
regularly from a local Safeway didn't contain the full 5 ounces of
tuna advertised on the label. Attempts to reach him and his
attorneys at Bursor & Fisher in Walnut Creek and New York were
unsuccessful.

Soto says he bought five cans of tuna every two weeks from 2012 to
2014 and that the labels influenced his purchasing choices.
"I would not have purchased Safeway Chunk Light Tuna in Water if I
had known that the cans were underfilled and underweight," Soto
states in court documents.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration found 106 out
of 108 Safeway tuna cans did not have as much tuna as promised.
They contained an average of 2.29 ounces of tuna, which is 19.4
percent below the federally mandated minimum standard of fill for
2.84 ounces, according to the lawsuit.

Soto also asserts that "Safeway Tuna did not have the
characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits or quantities as
promised," the lawsuit states.

He filed claims against Safeway for breach of express warranty,
breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, breach of the
implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, unjust
enrichment, negligent misrepresentation and fraud. He also accused
the grocery store of violating the state's Consumers Legal
Remedies Act, Unfair Competition and False Advertising laws.

The class action lawsuit seeks to represent anyone in the U.S. who
purchased the tuna products. They can inquire about joining by
contacting Bursor & Fisher at info@bursor.com

Members of the proposed class are seeking more than $5 million and
have requested a jury trial.

Safeway denied to comment.

Earlier this year, StarKist Co. paid $12 million to settle a
similar lawsuit filed by Bursor & Fisher. Consumers also alleged
the company didn't put enough tuna in its cans. Starkist claimed
that it and other top tuna companies had petitioned previously the
Federal Food and Drug Administration to change the standard of
fill.

People who've purchased certain Starkin tuna products between 2009
and 2014 may be eligible to $25 in cash or $50 of tuna. They have
until Nov. 20 to sign up for the settlement at www.tunalawsuit.com


SCM I INVESTMENTS: Court Trims Claims in "Rodrigues" Case
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John E. Steele of the United States District Court
for Middle District of Florida granted in part Defendant's Partial
Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned, MICHAELENE RODRIGUES, an
individual, SUZANNE FORTE, an individual, and CHRISTIANE LEVESQUE,
an individual, and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiffs, v. SCM I INVESTMENTS, LLC, a Florida limited liability
company, Defendant, Case No. 2:15-CV-128-128-FTM-29CM (M.D. Fla.).

Plaintiffs Michaelene Rodrigues, Suzanne Forte and Christiane
Levesque are former employees of defendant SCM I Investments, LLC
d/b/a The Wine Loft of Naples filed a complaint which contains
three counts. Rodrigues alleges age discrimination claims in
violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act in Counts I
and II. While not named-plaintiffs in these two counts, Forte and
Levesque allege they are similarly situated and are therefore opt-
in plaintiffs. Rodriques, Forte, and Levesque all allege age
discrimination claims in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act
(FCRA) in Count III. All three counts assert that there are other
similarly situated plaintiffs, and the case seeks to proceed as a
collective action under the ADEA.

In the motion, Defendant seeks dismissal of portions of the
Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Defendant asserts that: (1) Rodrigues failed to exhaust
administrative remedies regarding her ADEA claim, (2) Forte and
Levesque cannot "piggyback" on Rodrigues' charge of discrimination
to pursue their collective action ADEA claims, and (3) Plaintiffs'
claims under the FCRA are untimely. Defendant seeks dismissal of
the ADEA claims with prejudice, dismissal of Forte and Levesque's
FCRA claims with prejudice, and dismissal or limitation of
Rodrigues' claims under the FCRA to the extent they are based on
conduct that occurred more than 365 days prior to the filing of
her charge of discrimination.

In his Opinion and Order dated November 2, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/jYjTeSfrom Leagle.com, Judge Steele found that
defendant's Motion to Dismiss is granted as to Forte's claims as
an opt-in plaintiff as to Counts I and II and Count III and denied
as to Levesque.

The Court directed the Defendant to file a responsive pleading.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

Lowell J. Kuvin, Esq.
Sundeep K. Mullick, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF LOWELL J. KUVIN, LLC
17 E Flagler St #223
Miami, FL 33131
Tel: (305) 358-6800

SCM I Investments is represented by Christine E. Howard, Esq. --
choward@laborlawyers.com -- Marci E. Britt, Esq. --
mbritt@laborlawyers.com -- FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP


SIENTRA INC: Wagner Firm Files Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
The Wagner Firm announces that a class action has been filed on
behalf of investors of Sientra, Inc. ("Sientra" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ:SIEN) securities between Mar 18, 2015 to Sept 24, 2015,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors that have suffered a
loss on their Sientra securities holdings are encouraged to
contact Avi Wagner, Esq. to discuss their legal rights prior to
the November 24, 2015 lead plaintiff deadline.

On September 23, 2015, the Company announced the closing of a
public offering of 3 million shares of common stock. Then on
September 24, 2015, the Company disclosed that the U.K.'s
Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency has suspended
distribution of its Silimed products due to issues with a
manufacturing facility in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. On this news the
Company's shares fell $10.88 per share, or over 52%, to close on
September 24, 2015 at $9.70 per share. The Company's shares have
continued to decline on news in further disruptions to production
at the Company's Rio de Janeiro manufacturing facility.

The complaint alleges that Sientra, made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Sientra's exclusive
reliance on Silimed's Brazilian manufacturing facilities carried
significant quality control risks; (ii) the manufacturing
processes at the Silimed Rio de Janeiro manufacturing plant were
contaminated; and (iii) as a result, the Company's statements
regarding quality control and other financial statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

If you purchased shares of Sientra, if you have information or
would like to learn more about these claims, or if you wish to
discuss these matters or have any questions concerning this
announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Avi Wagner, Esquire, of The Wagner Firm,
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067,
at (310) 491-7949, by e-mail at info@thewagnerfirm.com, or visit
our website at http://thewagnerfirm.com


ST. CLAIR COUNTY, IL: Case Management Conference Order Issued
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Nancy J. Rosentengel of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois issued an order for
case management conference in the case captioned, TYRONE GRAHAM,
Jr., # 432985, and BLOCK AA, Plaintiffs, v. RICHARD WATSON,
PHILLIP McLAURIN, and UNKNOWN PARTY, Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-
01114-NJR (S.D. Ill.).

Plaintiff Tyrone Graham, Jr., currently detained at St. Clair
County Jail and proceeding pro se, filed a complaint pursuant to
42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 against numerous St. Clair County officials.
In the complaint, Plaintiff Graham alleges that all "Block AA
Offenders" have endured unconstitutional conditions of confinement
at the Jail since August 11, 2015. On that date, thirty offenders
were moved from Block AA to the gym when a light broke in their
cell block. They have since been forced to share a single toilet
and eat and sleep amidst pests on the gym floor.  Plaintiff seeks
an Order requiring the Jail to return the Block AA Offenders to
their cell block "with better living conditions."

The Court noted that the action appears to involve more than one
plaintiff. Plaintiff Graham signed the complaint. He also signed
and filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and a
motion for recruitment of counsel. But the case caption also lists
"Block AA" as a plaintiff. The narrative portion of the complaint
is written in third person, and the request for relief pertains to
all Block AA Offenders. Along with the complaint, Plaintiff Graham
filed a "petition" dated August 19, 2015, that refers to Major
McLaurin as a "Defendant" and is signed by nineteen individuals
who are referred to as "Plaintiff AA Offenders."

The action is before the Court for case management.

In her Memorandum and Order dated November 2, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/LlHvvMfrom Leagle.com, Judge Rosentengel offered all
Block AA Offenders, other than Plaintiff Graham, whom it
designates as the "lead" Plaintiff in the case, an opportunity to
notify the Court of their intentions to proceed together with
Plaintiff Graham in the action or not by bringing a separate
action or no action at all.

Plaintiffs are cautioned that future group motions or pleadings
that do not comply with the court's requirement shall be stricken
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 11(a).


TELEXFREE LLC: Case Spawns Counterclaims "Like High-stake Poker"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Eckelbecker, writing for Telegram & Gazette, reported that in
a fifth-floor federal courtroom jammed with lawyers focused on
alleged pyramid and Ponzi scheme TelexFree LLC, U.S. District
Judge Timothy S. Hillman peered out from the bench.

"Mr. Roffman," he said, holding up a marred paper from a legal
filing while calling Ian D. Roffman, lead counsel for Fidelity
Bank of Fitchburg to a lectern, "this is my 8-month-old grandson's
opinion of your argument, not mine."

The line got a laugh, but not for long. Mr. Roffman was just one
of many lawyers lined up to speak in the case, known as
multidistrict litigation, or MDL. Time was ticking away, so he
started speaking.

Everything about TelexFree is big: the $360 million the former
Marlboro company collected in just two years and the more than 1
million people around the world who got involved. In a case so
big, it makes sense the legal fallout is big, too.

The Securities and Exchange Commission has filed a civil action
against TelexFree. Federal prosecutors have charged the defunct
company's officers with criminal fraud. A bankruptcy trustee is
figuring out how to distribute the company's assets, about $107
million, according to recent filings.

And then there are the former TelexFree participants, some of whom
claim they lost money and have signed on with class action lawyers
to sue TelexFree and about 40 of its officers, lawyers,
accountants, bankers and even some of those who apparently made
money from the entity.

Bundled together into one MDL, their case is moving through
federal court at the same time criminal and bankruptcy cases are
going on.

TelexFree collapsed in 2014 amid investigations by state and
federal authorities into whether the company, which claimed to
sell Internet telephone service, was really a Ponzi and pyramid
scheme.

Company officers Carlos N. Wanzeler of Northboro and James M.
Merrill of Ashland are facing charges of criminal fraud. Mr.
Wanzeler fled to his native Brazil and is a fugitive. Mr. Merrill
has pleaded not guilty and remains under house arrest awaiting
trial.

Robert FitzPatrick, who runs the website pyramidschemealert.org
and author of "False Profits: Seeking Financial and Spiritual
Deliverance in Multi-level Marketing and Pyramid Schemes," said
pyramid schemes appeal to people as income opportunities and are
so widespread that virtually every household in America has been
touched by one in some way.

"It's a magical proposition that on the face of it is impossible,"
Mr. FitzPatrick said. "It's a chain letter dressed up to look like
a business."

The TelexFree MDL case is one of about a dozen MDL cases under way
in Massachusetts. Some are focused on contract or antitrust
questions. The largest consolidates about 4,300 claims alleging
injury and death linked to dialysis products from Fresenius
Medical Care.

For those involved in an MDL action, there are risks. Cases can go
on for years. Lawyers for alleged victims work on contingency,
only getting paid when a case resolves.

"It's like high-stakes poker," said Jeffrey N. Catalano,
president-elect of the Massachusetts Bar Association and a partner
at Todd & Weld in Boston. He is involved in the Fresenius MDL
case. "You're in for a lot of money. There's a high risk
associated with it. But it's exciting. You are collaborating with
lawyers across the country, all of whom in my experience are
pretty dedicated and committed to the cause. You're up against
powerful attorneys on the other side who also are extremely
skilled and knowledgeable."

In the TelexFree MDL case, class action lawyers also have come up
against some of the officials targeting TelexFree.

The U.S. Attorney's office has asked the court to halt the class
action lawyers from going after evidence, saying it could hinder
the criminal trial against Mr. Wanzeler and Mr. Merrill.

Bankruptcy trustee Stephen B. Darr has opposed the class action
lawyers' request to recover damages from those who profited from
TelexFree, arguing that it interferes with his right to find and
distribute fraudulently obtained assets.

Against banks, the class action lawyers are arguing, in part, that
each institution "was a substantial and integral cog in
TelexFree's unlawful United States pyramid scheme, and, without
that assistance, the scheme would not have been able to get off
the ground, develop, maintain or thrive," according to a
complaint.

Robert W. Fuller, a lawyer for Wells Fargo Bank, told Judge
Hillman during a recent day of marathon arguments that it was an
allegation with "the heft of a feather in outer space."
"They haven't pleaded anything to show we had knowledge of
anything," Mr. Fuller said in his argument.

"It's preposterous for the banks here to say they didn't have
actual knowledge," Mr. Bonsignore said in his remarks.


TICC CAPITAL: "Barnes" Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cooper Barnes and Charles Thibedau, and all others similarly
situated v. TICC Capital Corp., Jonathan H. Cohen, Charles M.
Royce, Steven P. Novak, G. Peter O'Brien, Tonia L. Pankopf, and
Saul B. Rosenthal, Case No. 3:15-cv-01564 (D. Conn., October 27,
2015), seek to remedy the Defendants' alleged violations of the
federal securities laws and breaches of the common law fiduciary
duties.

TICC is a public company with its principal place of business in
Greenwich, Connecticut. It owns investible assets which are
managed by an entity called TICC Management, LLC. TICC Management
is owned and controlled by defendants Jonathan H. Cohen, the TICC
CEO and a member of the TICC Board of Directors; Charles M. Royce,
the Chairman of the TICC Board of Directors; and Saul B.
Rosenthal, the TICC President. The individual Defendants are the
current members of TICC's Board of Directors and, its President.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Henry Elstein, Esq.
      GOLDMAN, GRUDER & WOODS, LLC
      105 Technology Drive
      Trumbull, CT 06611
      Tel: (203) 880-5333
      Fax: (203) 880-5332

          - and -

      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Tel: (310) 201-9150
      Fax: (310) 201-9160

          - and -

      Avi Wagner, Esq.
      THE WAGNER FIRM
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Tel: (310) 491-7949
      Fax: (310) 694-3967


TULSA, OK: Firm Settles Class Action for $1.3 Million
-----------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that a settlement has been reached
in a class-action lawsuit on behalf of former residents of the old
mining town of Picher against a Tulsa-based appraisal firm
involved with the federal buyout of property in the area.

The Joplin Globe reports that a judge signed off on the $1.3
million settlement. The 161 plaintiffs could receive their share
of the settlement before Christmas.

The former residents of Picher had alleged that their properties
were intentionally undervalued by the appraisal company, Cinnabar
Service Co. The company conducted appraisals for the Lead-Impacted
Communities Relocation Assistance Trust, which oversaw the buyout
of Picher with guidance from state environmental officials.

The settlement provides $650,000 to the plaintiff's lawyers and
$650,000 to the plaintiffs. Each of the Cinnabar-appraised
households could receive about $4,000, which is about $1,700 less
than originally anticipated.


TWEEN BRANDS: "Loor" Case Stayed Pending Approval of Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. of the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida granted Defendant's
Motion to Stay Pending Judicial Approval of Nationwide Settlement
of Class Action in the case captioned, YANETSY LOOR, Plaintiff, v.
TWEEN BRANDS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 6:15-CV-953-ORL-37DAB
(M.D. Fla.).

On June 11, 2015, Florida resident Yanesty Loor initiated this
action against Tween Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation, with
its principal place of business in Ohio. Plaintiff alleges that in
2014 and 2015, she spent $239.48 on purportedly discounted
merchandise at a store located in this judicial district, which
Defendant owns and operates.  Plaintiff further alleges that
Defendant falsely represented to her on her receipts and through
advertising on signs and elsewhere that Plaintiff received a
substantial discount (at least 40%) off of the "regular price" of
the Merchandise.

Based on Defendant's allegedly fraudulent advertising and sales
practices, Plaintiff asserts unjust enrichment, breach of
contract, and breach of express warranty claims on behalf of
herself and a class of plaintiffs throughout the U.S. (National
Class). Plaintiff defines the putative National Class as "All
individuals who, while they were residents of any state other than
Ohio, purchased any product(s) from Defendant, in one of
Defendant's stores other than Defendant's Ohio stores, during any
day that Defendant advertised a discount of 40% off entire store,
or other similar discount language, and where the product(s) was
not sold at the non-discount price for at least 28 of the last 90
days prior to the purchase."

Defendant requests that the Court stay the action pending a final
ruling on a proposed class action settlement that will cover
Plaintiff's claims.

In his Order dated November 3, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/nELERLfrom Leagle.com, Judge Dalton, Jr. agreed to
stay the Loor case because it appears that the Plaintiff would
violate the order in the Rougvie proceedings if she attempted to
pursue her claims in the Court before resolution of the Rougvie
proceedings.

The Loor action is stayed until May 31, 2016. After the Rougvie
Hearing, the parties shall confer in person concerning the steps
necessary to resolve this action, and they shall then file a joint
status report with the Court on or before May 27, 2016.

Yanetsy Loor is represented by Gary C. Rosen, Esq. --
grosen@becker-poliakoff.com -- Evan Benjamin Berger, Esq. --
eberger@bplegal.com -- BECKER & POLIAKOFF, PA

     - and -

Nicole T. Fiorelli, Esq.
DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., LPA
60 S Park Pl
Painesville, OH 44077
Tel: (216) 861-4211

Tween Brands, Inc. is represented by Brian Michael Ercole, Esq.
-- bercole@morganlewis.com -- Ezra D. Church, Esq. --
echurch@morganlewis.com -- Gregory T. Parks, Esq. --
gparks@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP


UNITED COLLECTION: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Podrigal, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. United Collection Bureau, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-05910 (E.D.N.Y., October 14, 2015) alleges violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

United Collection Bureau, Inc. is a national Revenue Cycle and
Accounts Receivable Management company based in Toledo, Ohio.  The
Company provides an array of revenue cycle and account receivable
services and products to the Financial Services, Healthcare,
Telecommunications, Government, Utility, and Commercial markets.


UNITED RECOVERY: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
------------------------------------------------------------
Moshe Perlstein and Raizy Perlstein, on behalf of themselves and
all other similarly situated consumers v. United Recovery Systems
LP, Case No. 1:15-cv-05927 (E.D.N.Y., October 14, 2015) alleges
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

United Recovery Systems, LP is a Texas-based Limited Partnership
headquartered in Houston, Texas, with offices in Arizona,
Kentucky, and Oklahoma.  URS provides collection services to its
clients.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395-3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


VENGROFF WILLIAMS: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Kivo, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Vengroff Williams, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-05915-JMA-
AKT (E.D.N.Y., October 14, 2015) is brought over alleged
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Vengroff Williams, Inc. engages in third-party debt collection and
subrogation of (assumption of authority to collect) insurance
claims.   The Company also compiles credit reports for clients.
The Company was founded in 1963 and is headquartered in Sarasota,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abraham Kleinman, Esq.
          KLEINMAN, LLC
          626 RXR Plaza
          Uniondale, NY 11556-0626
          Telephone: (516) 522-2621
          Facsimile: (888) 522-1692
          E-mail: akleinman@kleinmanllc.com


VOLKSWAGEN: Offers $1,000 Gift Package to Car Owners Amid Scandal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Abigail Genn Briones, writing for VINE Report, reported that
Volkswagen small diesel-powered car owners are entitled to $1,000
worth in gift cards and vouchers as the car company seeks to
regain their customers' trust after confessing to rigging more
than 11 million of their vehicles worldwide with software that
makes it appear as if the cars are compliant with United States
emissions standards, USA Today reports.

The goodwill offering is divided into two $500 cards: a $500 Visa
debit card to be spent at the holder's discretion; and the other,
a $500 dealership credit to be used in availing services at VW
dealerships, such as an oil change. The offer also includes three
years of free roadside assistance to owners of the diesel cars.
VW's efforts to placate their customers have no strings attached.
This was confirmed in an email to USA Today by Volkswagen
spokeswoman Jeannine Ginivan, saying, "There are no stipulations."

Acceptance of the offer will in no way prohibit the car owners
from taking part in any class-action or individual suit against
the company, or exclude them from any future compensation.

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

Not only is the offer designed to appease the affected owners, it
is also a means to boost the car dealers who, as yet, are
inhibited from selling vehicles which have the reported software
or even those pre-owned ones until a solution is arrived at.

According to US News, 482,000 owners of diesel Volkswagens and
Audis in the U.S. have been "in limbo" since the middle of
September when the scandal broke out. Apparently, the software
installed in the cars concerned turns on pollution controls during
emission tests but turn them off when the car is driven on the
road, meaning that, during all these vehicles' sojourns on the
road, emissions of nitrogen oxide exceed normal and safe limits.
The Associated Press reports that the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency has found that cars with the 2-liter 4-cylinder
diesel engines emit from 10 up to 40 times the allowable amount
while being driven.

There are 11 million VW cars worldwide fitted with the software.
The company is in the process of recalling 2009 to 2015 model year
vehicles across Europe which come up to about 8.5 million.
According to the Transport Ministry in Germany, as Fox News
reveals, there are 540,000 of 2.4 million recalled cars in Germany
which need the hardware and software fixes. It says that
Volkswagen will be informing the owners concerned.


VOLKSWAGEN: Owners Still in Dark Over Australian Car Recall
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hawthorne, writing for The Age, reported that thousands of
Volkswagen owners in Australia caught up in the Dieselgate scandal
have received letters from the company notifying them of a recall,
but the carmaker is still unable to tell customers just how or
when their cars will be fixed.

Letters from Volkswagen Group Australia have been sent to owners
of impacted Golf and Polo models, as well as owners of new Tiguan,
Jetta, Passat and Caddy cars that have the EA189-series engine at
the heart of the scandal.

Volkswagen Australia has confirmed at least 78,000 Volkswagen
vehicles have been sold in Australia with a so-called "defeat
device" fitted to engines, including an estimated 61,000 passenger
cars. The device allow cars to pass strict emissions testing.

The letter from Volkswagen Australia managing director Michael
Bartsch was sent out in the first week of November, more than
month after the local arm of the automaker announced the recall
after the global emissions-rigging scandal.

The letter identifies the model and VIN number of the affected
vehicle, and tells the owner "the type EA 189 engine built into
your [vehicle] is affected by software that causes discrepancies
in the values of oxides for nitrogen (NOx) during laboratory
testing. This means Volkswagen Australia has initiated a recall on
your vehicle."

Owners, however, are given no timeframe for that recall.

"Our parent company, Volkswagen AG, is working to design a
technical solution for each vehicle," states the letter. "Once the
technical solution is ready, we will contact you. Rest assured
Volkswagen will cover the cost of all necessary measures to
rectify the issue."'

There are three generations of the 2.0-litre turbo-diesel four-
cylinder engine that will be recalled, and all will require
different fixes. According to reports in the United States, these
could range from simple software updates to potentially
performance-crippling replacement of engine parts.

The company has given owners no indication of what work needs
doing, or when it will begin.

The letter was dated November 4, just days after the first class
action in Australia against Volkswagen was lodged with the Federal
Court.

Sydney-based Bannister Law filed two class actions on October 30.
The first was against Volkswagen Australia and the second was
against its sister company, Audi Australia.

Class action firm Maurice Blackburn Lawyers has announced it will
also lead a class action on behalf of consumers.

Volkswagen sales in Australia have slumped since the Dieselgate
scandal broke in early September.

According to industry data from VFACTS, Volkswagen diesel sales in
October were down 27 per cent on the year-to-date average.

Sales of petrol variants also notched their third-lowest monthly
total in the past year.

While Audi also recorded a drop in diesel sales, down 21 per cent
on the yearly average for the month of October, sales of its
petrol cars have more made up for that.

Registrations of petrol Audi variants were up 45 per cent in
October, to give the car company its third best month in the past
year.

Impacted Volkswagen cars
Volkswagen Passenger Cars -- 61,000

Golf (2009-2013)
Polo (2009-2014)
Tiguan (2008-2015)
Jetta (2010-2015)
Passat (2008-2015)
Volkswagen CC (2011-2015)
Eos (2008-2014)

Volkswagen Commercial Vehicles -- 17,200

Amarok (2011-2012)
Caddy (2010-2015)


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Romero" Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Romero v. Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc., Case No. 2015-CH-14177, was removed from the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-
09109 to the proceeding.

The Complaint seeks to certify a statewide class of all present
and former owners or lessees in Illinois of Volkswagen and Audi
vehicles with 2.0 liter "clean diesel" engines.

Volkswagen Group is incorporated under the laws of the state of
New Jersey and maintains its headquarters and principal place of
business in the state of Virginia.

The Defendant is represented by:

          James K. Toohey, Esq.
          Garrett L. Boehm, Jr., Esq.
          Brian C. Langs, Esq.
          JOHNSON & BELL, LTD.
          33 W. Monroe St., Suite 2700
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 372-0770
          Facsimile: (312) 372-2881
          E-mail: tooheyj@jbltd.com
                  boehmg@jbltd.com
                  langsb@jbltd.com


WAL-MART: Urges Justices to Review Renewed Gender Bias Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reported that Wal-Mart has urged the U.S. Supreme Court to
review a Sixth Circuit decision reviving a regional gender bias
suit brought by a group of female employees in the wake of the
decertification of the nationwide Dukes class, saying the suit's
continuation creates a severe schism in class action tolling
precedent.

The Sixth Circuit denied Wal-Mart Stores Inc.'s petition for a
full panel rehearing of its decision to reverse and remand the
Tennessee area suit claiming the discount retailer discriminates
against female employees with wages and promotions.


WEST VIRGINIA: Plaintiff Seeks Injunction in Medicaid Case
----------------------------------------------------------
David Beard, writing for The D Post, reported that the plaintiffs
in a federal suit filed against the state Department of Health and
Human Resources regarding its decision to reduce services in a
Medicaid waiver program for the intellectually and developmentally
disabled are seeking a preliminary injunction to have their 2014
levels of funding restored pending the outcome of the case.

The five plaintiffs are also asking the court to certify that
4,629 similarly situated people in the state are part of a class
in order to confirm the case as a class-action suit.

Mountain State Justice, a nonprofit law firm specializing in
litigation on behalf of low-income residents, filed the suit in
July in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia. It names five individuals with disabilities, all but one
represented by their guardians, as plaintiffs.

DHHR and Secretary Karen Bowling in her official capacity are
named as defendants.

Mountain State discussed the proposed benefit restoration in a
separate motion.

The reason for the motion, Mountain State said, is so the
plaintiffs "may continue to live in community-integrated settings
as is their right and avoid being relegated to segregated
institutions."


WORLEYPARSONS: Names New CFO Amid Securities Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
Jenny Wiggins, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reported
that WorleyParsons is expected to overhaul its financial reporting
systems after naming former Transurban executive Tom Honan as its
new group managing director of finance, replacing Simon Holt.

Mr Honan's unexpected appointment comes as WorleyParsons faces
class action lawsuits alleging continuous disclosure breaches
after a series of profit warnings and struggles to adapt its
engineering business to more competitive global markets.
WorleyParsons chief executive Andrew Wood said Mr Honan would play
"a significant role in stewarding WorleyParsons through the
current adverse market conditions".

WorleyParsons' stock, which fell 19› to $5.55 on Nov. 16, is
trading at its lowest levels for more than 10 years, having more
than halved in value over the past 12 months.

Analysts said Mr Honan would bring a breadth of experience to
WorleyParsons, given his work across a range of industries, and
was expected to improve its financial systems and processes.

"He'll provide a fresh set of eyes, which is what the company
needs," one analyst said, adding the engineering group had tended
to be too "reactive" in tackling the resources slump, which has
reduced demand for its services.

Mr Wood has acknowledged the company has been to slow to respond
to the economic slowdown.

The engineering group has also had a poor track record on
transparency and analysts have been worried by the lack of
financial guidance for fiscal 2016.

WorleyParsons reported a $39 million annual net loss for 2014-15
and did not give any financial forecasts for 2016.

Some WorleyParsons shareholders joined in a $50 million class
action claim filed by ACA Lawyers in October, alleging the
engineering group breached its continuous disclosure obligations
when it gave profit guidance in mid-2013 and then subsequently
announced a profit downgrade, wiping $1 billion off its market
value.

WorleyParsons, which has been shedding 400 jobs each month to cut
costs, has denied there is "a proper basis" for the class action.
Mr Honan was Transurban's chief financial officer for several
years, before leaving in early 2012 after missing out on the chief
executive job at the tollroad group to outsider Scott Charlton.
He subsequently joined shopping centre group Federation Centres
but left the company in June after it merged with Novion Property
Group.

Before joining Transurban in 2008, Mr Honan was chief financial
officer of share registry group Computershare, where he led a
series of acquisitions, and previously held senior roles with
Nike, based in the US state of Oregon, and ExxonMobil.

Mr Honan will start at the engineering group on December 1.

Mr Holt, who has worked for WorleyParsons since 2007 and
has been its chief financial officer since October 2012, after
working previously in finance jobs at retail group Westfield, will
leave WorleyParsons in early 2016.

Mr Honan will be a member of WorleyParson's group leadership team
and will have overall responsibility for finance, information
management, assurance, development, communications and investor
relations.

He has an MBA from Melbourne Business School and a degree in
economics from Monash University.



                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Generation Continues to Defend PI Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation and two of its subsidiaries, Baltimore Gas and
Electric and Exelon Generation Company, continue to defend
themselves against two asbestos-related premises liability cases,
LLC, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2015.

Since 1993, BGE and certain Constellation (now Exelon Generation
Company, LLC) subsidiaries have been involved in several actions
concerning asbestos.  The actions are based upon the theory of
"premises liability," alleging that BGE and Generation knew of and
exposed individuals to an asbestos hazard.  In addition to BGE and
Generation, numerous other parties are defendants in these cases.
Approximately 468 individuals who were never employees of BGE or
certain Constellation subsidiaries have pending claims each
seeking several million dollars in compensatory and punitive
damages.  Cross-claims and third-party claims brought by other
defendants may also be filed against BGE and certain Constellation
subsidiaries in these actions.  To date, most asbestos claims
which have been resolved have been dismissed or resolved without
any payment by BGE or certain Constellation subsidiaries and a
small minority of these cases has been resolved for amounts that
were not material to BGE or Generation's financial results.

Discovery begins in these cases after they are placed on the trial
docket.  At present, only two of the pending cases are set for
trial.  Given the limited discovery in these cases, BGE and
Generation do not know the specific facts that are necessary to
provide an estimate of the reasonably possible loss relating to
these claims; as such, no accrual has been made and a range of
loss is not estimable.  The specific facts not known include:

    * the identity of the facilities at which the plaintiffs
      allegedly worked as contractors;

    * the names of the plaintiffs' employers;

    * the dates on which and the places where the exposure
      allegedly occurred; and

    * the facts and circumstances relating to the alleged
      exposure.

Insurance and hold harmless agreements from contractors who
employed the plaintiffs may cover a portion of any awards in the
actions.

Exelon Corporation is an energy provider and holding Company for
several energy businesses.  Exelon is engaged in the energy
generation business through its Exelon Generation Company, LLC
(Generation) subsidiary; wholesale and retail energy sales through
its Constellation business unit and the energy delivery business
through its Baltimore Gas and Electric (BGE), Commonwealth Edison
Company (ComEd) and PECO Energy Company (PECO) subsidiaries.
Generation's integrated business consists of its owned and
contracted electric generating facilities and investments in
generation ventures that are marketed through its customer-facing
activities.  ComEd's energy delivery business consists of the
purchase and regulated retail sale of electricity and the
provision of transmission and distribution services to retail
customers in northern Illinois.  PECO's energy delivery business
in southeastern Pennsylvania and BGE's in central Maryland.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Generation Had $95MM PI Claims Reserve
--------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation's subsidiary, Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
had reserved approximately $95 million for asbestos-related bodily
injury claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2015.

Generation maintains a reserve for claims associated with
asbestos-related personal injury actions in certain facilities
that are currently owned by Generation or were previously owned by
ComEd and PECO.  The reserve is recorded on an undiscounted basis
and excludes the estimated legal costs associated with handling
these matters, which could be material.

At September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, Generation had
reserved approximately $95 million and $100 million, respectively,
in total for asbestos-related bodily injury claims.  As of
September 30, 2015, approximately $20 million of this amount
related to 217 open claims presented to Generation, while the
remaining $75 million of the reserve is for estimated future
asbestos-related bodily injury claims anticipated to arise through
2050, based on actuarial assumptions and analyses, which are
updated on an annual basis.  On a quarterly basis, Generation
monitors actual experience against the number of forecasted claims
to be received and expected claim payments and evaluates whether
an adjustment to the reserve is necessary.

On November 22, 2013, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that
the Pennsylvania Workers Compensation Act does not apply to an
employee's disability or death resulting from occupational
disease, such as diseases related to asbestos exposure, which
manifests more than 300 weeks after the employee's last
employment-based exposure, and that therefore the exclusivity
provision of the Act does not preclude such employee from suing
his or her employer in court.  The Supreme Court's ruling reverses
previous rulings by the Pennsylvania Superior Court precluding
current and former employees from suing their employers in court,
despite the fact that the same employee was not eligible for
workers compensation benefits for diseases that manifest more than
300 weeks after the employee's last employment-based exposure to
asbestos.  Since the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's ruling in
November 2013 , Exelon, Generation, and PECO have experienced an
increase in asbestos-related personal injury claims brought by
former PECO employees, all of which have been reserved against on
a claim by claim basis.  Those additional claims are taken into
account in projecting estimated future asbestos-related bodily
injury claims.

On June 27, 2014, the Illinois Court of Appeals ruled that the
Illinois Worker's Compensation law should not apply in cases where
the diagnosis of an asbestos related disease occurred after the
25-year maximum time period for filing a Worker's Compensation
claim.  This decision is now on appeal to the Illinois Supreme
Court.  If confirmed on appeal, former employees could file suit
against Exelon, Generation, and ComEd, similar to the way former
employees are filing suit against Exelon in Pennsylvania.
Currently, Exelon, Generation, and ComEd are unable to predict
whether and to what extent they may experience additional claims
in the future as a result of this ruling; as such, no increase to
the asbestos-related bodily injury liability has been recorded as
of September 30, 2015.

Exelon Corporation is an energy provider and holding Company for
several energy businesses.  Exelon is engaged in the energy
generation business through its Exelon Generation Company, LLC
(Generation) subsidiary; wholesale and retail energy sales through
its Constellation business unit and the energy delivery business
through its Baltimore Gas and Electric (BGE), Commonwealth Edison
Company (ComEd) and PECO Energy Company (PECO) subsidiaries.
Generation's integrated business consists of its owned and
contracted electric generating facilities and investments in
generation ventures that are marketed through its customer-facing
activities.  ComEd's energy delivery business consists of the
purchase and regulated retail sale of electricity and the
provision of transmission and distribution services to retail
customers in northern Illinois.  PECO's energy delivery business
in southeastern Pennsylvania and BGE's in central Maryland.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Baltimore Gas Continues to Defend PI Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation and two of its subsidiaries, Baltimore Gas and
Electric and Exelon Generation Company, LLC, continue to defend
themselves against two asbestos-related premises liability cases,
LLC, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2015.

Since 1993, BGE and certain Constellation (now Exelon Generation
Company, LLC) subsidiaries have been involved in several actions
concerning asbestos.  The actions are based upon the theory of
"premises liability," alleging that BGE and Generation knew of and
exposed individuals to an asbestos hazard.  In addition to BGE and
Generation, numerous other parties are defendants in these cases.
Approximately 468 individuals who were never employees of BGE or
certain Constellation subsidiaries have pending claims each
seeking several million dollars in compensatory and punitive
damages.  Cross-claims and third-party claims brought by other
defendants may also be filed against BGE and certain Constellation
subsidiaries in these actions.  To date, most asbestos claims
which have been resolved have been dismissed or resolved without
any payment by BGE or certain Constellation subsidiaries and a
small minority of these cases has been resolved for amounts that
were not material to BGE or Generation's financial results.

Discovery begins in these cases after they are placed on the trial
docket.  At present, only two of the pending cases are set for
trial.  Given the limited discovery in these cases, BGE and
Generation do not know the specific facts that are necessary to
provide an estimate of the reasonably possible loss relating to
these claims; as such, no accrual has been made and a range of
loss is not estimable.  The specific facts not known include:

    * the identity of the facilities at which the plaintiffs
      allegedly worked as contractors;

    * the names of the plaintiffs' employers;

    * the dates on which and the places where the exposure
      allegedly occurred; and

    * the facts and circumstances relating to the alleged
      exposure.

Insurance and hold harmless agreements from contractors who
employed the plaintiffs may cover a portion of any awards in the
actions.

Exelon Corporation is an energy provider and holding Company for
several energy businesses.  Exelon is engaged in the energy
generation business through its Exelon Generation Company, LLC
(Generation) subsidiary; wholesale and retail energy sales through
its Constellation business unit and the energy delivery business
through its Baltimore Gas and Electric (BGE), Commonwealth Edison
Company (ComEd) and PECO Energy Company (PECO) subsidiaries.
Generation's integrated business consists of its owned and
contracted electric generating facilities and investments in
generation ventures that are marketed through its customer-facing
activities.  ComEd's energy delivery business consists of the
purchase and regulated retail sale of electricity and the
provision of transmission and distribution services to retail
customers in northern Illinois.  PECO's energy delivery business
in southeastern Pennsylvania and BGE's in central Maryland.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Corp. Units Continue to Defend PI Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation's subsidiaries continue to defend asbestos-
related bodily injury claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

Exelon Corporation's subsidiary, Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
had reserved approximately $95 million for asbestos-related bodily
injury claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2015.

Generation maintains a reserve for claims associated with
asbestos-related personal injury actions in certain facilities
that are currently owned by Generation or were previously owned by
ComEd and PECO.  The reserve is recorded on an undiscounted basis
and excludes the estimated legal costs associated with handling
these matters, which could be material.

At September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, Generation had
reserved approximately $95 million and $100 million, respectively,
in total for asbestos-related bodily injury claims.  As of
September 30, 2015, approximately $20 million of this amount
related to 217 open claims presented to Generation, while the
remaining $75 million of the reserve is for estimated future
asbestos-related bodily injury claims anticipated to arise through
2050, based on actuarial assumptions and analyses, which are
updated on an annual basis.  On a quarterly basis, Generation
monitors actual experience against the number of forecasted claims
to be received and expected claim payments and evaluates whether
an adjustment to the reserve is necessary.

On November 22, 2013, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that
the Pennsylvania Workers Compensation Act does not apply to an
employee's disability or death resulting from occupational
disease, such as diseases related to asbestos exposure, which
manifests more than 300 weeks after the employee's last
employment-based exposure, and that therefore the exclusivity
provision of the Act does not preclude such employee from suing
his or her employer in court.  The Supreme Court's ruling reverses
previous rulings by the Pennsylvania Superior Court precluding
current and former employees from suing their employers in court,
despite the fact that the same employee was not eligible for
workers compensation benefits for diseases that manifest more than
300 weeks after the employee's last employment-based exposure to
asbestos.  Since the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's ruling in
November 2013 , Exelon, Generation, and PECO have experienced an
increase in asbestos-related personal injury claims brought by
former PECO employees, all of which have been reserved against on
a claim by claim basis.  Those additional claims are taken into
account in projecting estimated future asbestos-related bodily
injury claims.

On June 27, 2014, the Illinois Court of Appeals ruled that the
Illinois Worker's Compensation law should not apply in cases where
the diagnosis of an asbestos related disease occurred after the
25-year maximum time period for filing a Worker's Compensation
claim.  This decision is now on appeal to the Illinois Supreme
Court.  If confirmed on appeal, former employees could file suit
against Exelon, Generation, and ComEd, similar to the way former
employees are filing suit against Exelon in Pennsylvania.
Currently, Exelon, Generation, and ComEd are unable to predict
whether and to what extent they may experience additional claims
in the future as a result of this ruling; as such, no increase to
the asbestos-related bodily injury liability has been recorded as
of September 30, 2015.

Exelon Corporation is an energy provider and holding Company for
several energy businesses.  Exelon is engaged in the energy
generation business through its Exelon Generation Company, LLC
(Generation) subsidiary; wholesale and retail energy sales through
its Constellation business unit and the energy delivery business
through its Baltimore Gas and Electric (BGE), Commonwealth Edison
Company (ComEd) and PECO Energy Company (PECO) subsidiaries.
Generation's integrated business consists of its owned and
contracted electric generating facilities and investments in
generation ventures that are marketed through its customer-facing
activities.  ComEd's energy delivery business consists of the
purchase and regulated retail sale of electricity and the
provision of transmission and distribution services to retail
customers in northern Illinois.  PECO's energy delivery business
in southeastern Pennsylvania and BGE's in central Maryland.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ComEd Awaits PI Law Ruling Appeal Outcome
----------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation's subsidiary, Commonwealth Edison Company, is
awaiting the outcome of an appeal involving asbestos Worker's
Compensation claim, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2015.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, maintains a reserve for claims
associated with asbestos-related personal injury actions in
certain facilities that are currently owned by Generation or were
previously owned by ComEd and PECO.  The reserve is recorded on an
undiscounted basis and excludes the estimated legal costs
associated with handling these matters, which could be material.

At September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, Generation had
reserved approximately $95 million and $100 million, respectively,
in total for asbestos-related bodily injury claims.  As of
September 30, 2015, approximately $20 million of this amount
related to 217 open claims presented to Generation, while the
remaining $75 million of the reserve is for estimated future
asbestos-related bodily injury claims anticipated to arise through
2050, based on actuarial assumptions and analyses, which are
updated on an annual basis.  On a quarterly basis, Generation
monitors actual experience against the number of forecasted claims
to be received and expected claim payments and evaluates whether
an adjustment to the reserve is necessary.

On November 22, 2013, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that
the Pennsylvania Workers Compensation Act does not apply to an
employee's disability or death resulting from occupational
disease, such as diseases related to asbestos exposure, which
manifests more than 300 weeks after the employee's last
employment-based exposure, and that therefore the exclusivity
provision of the Act does not preclude such employee from suing
his or her employer in court.  The Supreme Court's ruling reverses
previous rulings by the Pennsylvania Superior Court precluding
current and former employees from suing their employers in court,
despite the fact that the same employee was not eligible for
workers compensation benefits for diseases that manifest more than
300 weeks after the employee's last employment-based exposure to
asbestos.  Since the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's ruling in
November 2013 , Exelon, Generation, and PECO have experienced an
increase in asbestos-related personal injury claims brought by
former PECO employees, all of which have been reserved against on
a claim by claim basis.  Those additional claims are taken into
account in projecting estimated future asbestos-related bodily
injury claims.

On June 27, 2014, the Illinois Court of Appeals ruled that the
Illinois Worker's Compensation law should not apply in cases where
the diagnosis of an asbestos related disease occurred after the
25-year maximum time period for filing a Worker's Compensation
claim.  This decision is now on appeal to the Illinois Supreme
Court.  If confirmed on appeal, former employees could file suit
against Exelon, Generation, and ComEd, similar to the way former
employees are filing suit against Exelon in Pennsylvania.
Currently, Exelon, Generation, and ComEd are unable to predict
whether and to what extent they may experience additional claims
in the future as a result of this ruling; as such, no increase to
the asbestos-related bodily injury liability has been recorded as
of September 30, 2015.

Commonwealth Edison Company is engaged in the purchase and
regulated retail sale of electricity and the provision of
distribution and transmission services in northern Illinois,
including the City of Chicago.  CommEd is a subsidiary of Exelon
Corporation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Haven Probes Wallace St. for Fibro Content
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mary O'Leary, writing for New Haven Register, reported that
federal, state and local officials descended on Wallace Street to
determine whether a permit was needed to remove asbestos from a
former automotive store.

This was the second visit to 206-220 Wallace St. by health and
environmental personnel since.

The former Auto Electric: Sperry Automotive Warehouse was bought
by 206 Wallace Street LLC for $285,000 from Sawco Associates,
according to land records.

A principal in 206 Wallace Street LLC is Aleks Rakaj, according to
business filings at the secretary of the state's office.

Rakaj also owns Federal Oil LLC in Seymour. He did not return a
call seeking comment.

Paul Kowalski, division director at the city's Health Department,
said an investigator from his department, as well as the state
Department of Energy and Environmental Protection and Building
Official Jim Turcio, went to the address after getting a call from
the federal Occupational and Safety Health Administration.

He said there were bags of material inside, but nothing in a
Dumpster on the property. "We don't believe anything left the
site," Kowalski said.

The work was shut down and on, the state Department of Health's
Asbestos Program sent an inspector to meet with Rakaj.

The meeting was also attended by local building and health
personnel, as well as by a representative of OSHA from its
Bridgeport office.

Kowalski said staff reported that when the officials attempted to
talk to the workers on, they excused themselves to get something
from their cars and then left.

He said the state Department of Health has jurisdiction and the
local department acted on its behalf until it sent its own
investigator. The tiles at the closed Sperry Automotive and other
material on the site will be tested for asbestos, Kowalski said.

William Gerrish, spokesperson for the state Department of Public
Health, said a preliminary review of the state files found "no
notification for asbestos abatement had been filed with the agency
related to ongoing work at the site."

Gerrish said they advised the owner that he needed to hire an
asbestos consultant to assess the situation and develop a plan for
site clean-up and asbestos abatement, if needed. This plan would
require review and approval by the state Department of Public
Health, he said.

"We have an ongoing investigation into the matter," Gerrish said.

Kang Yi, assistant area director at OSHA in Bridgeport, said he
was awaiting a report from his staff member who looked into the
situation on.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Waste in Australia Piling Up
---------------------------------------------------
Marc Moncrief, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reported
that about 20 kilograms of asbestos-contaminated waste is
generated for every person in Australia, and the problem is
growing.

A federal government report out says the volume of asbestos waste
needing to be disposed of is likely to grow by about 2.8 per cent
a year for the next 20 years, but there are "no good plans" to
deal with the growing mountain of deadly waste.

"Waste policy is driven by the requirements of most waste, but
asbestos is a real exception," said the report's author, Joe
Pickin of consultant group Blue Environment.

"I don't think you would say that there is a good strategic plan
in any state or even nationally."

The increased volume of the highly toxic waste and a decline in
the number places to safely dump it is a problem keenly felt in
the asbestos disposal industry.

Andrew Morrison, owner of Warrnambool-based Andrew's Asbestos
Solutions spends his days disposing of the old sheds that dot the
landscape throughout Victoria's south-west.

He says that his prospective clients often get spooked by the cost
of delivering deadly asbestos to the tip in Stawell or even
Geelong.

"They'll ring up wanting to do the right thing but they can't
believe how much it costs," he says.

He knows that, in many cases, the farmer will decide instead to
bring down the shed himself and dump the asbestos somewhere in the
bush.

Mr Morrison says he's called out "two or three times a year" to
collect asbestos that's been dumped or hidden in other waste and
been dropped at the tip.

"I used to get upset about it but I really can't blame them
anymore," he says.

It's a local problem with national resonance.

During consultations for the report, the ACT was the only state or
territory that was able to say its facilities would be adequate to
store the volume of asbestos waste expected in "the foreseeable
future".

It found "inconsistent tracking" of asbestos waste between the
different states and territories.

South Australia, Tasmania, Western Australia and the Northern
Territory did not track asbestos waste at all.

ASEA chief executive Peter Tighe said part of the problem was the
lack of consistency between jurisdictions, or even between
different tips.

He said all state and territory governments were consulted during
the development of the report and had indicated they would work
towards nationally consistent solutions.

"Fees for the disposal of asbestos are set by private landfill
operators, and when the costs are high, it leads to illegal
dumping, asbestos being hidden in general waste or diversion to
distant sites, increasing the risks," Mr Tighe said.

The report also says there us a national preference for
consolidating landfills into transfer stations, many of which will
decide not to accept asbestos.

"This creates a tension between Australia's long-term waste
management direction of replacing landfills with transfer
stations, and the need for readily available asbestos disposal
options," the report says.

Mr Morrison used to use the tip at Portland, but that facility is
being converted to a transfer station. The extra travelling he's
now faced with means a job that once took him two hours can now
stretch to five or six.

" I have to pass the costs on of course," he says.

"To me it makes my business fairly expensive and it just
encourages people to do the wrong thing."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found in Industrial Sawmill Site
------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Paul, writing for Albany Democrat-Herald, reported that not
surprisingly, some roofing materials in the former Willamette
Industries sawmill storage buildings that were destroyed by arson,
contain asbestos, according to Ralph Wyatt, county administrator.

Wyatt said the county contracted with W.L. Thomas Environmental to
complete an assessment of the site that burned Oct. 31.

"We just received the initial report," Wyatt said morning. "It
suggests we separate the roofing materials that contain asbestos
from those that don't and then ship the asbestos-containing
materials in sealed dumpsters to an appropriate disposal site."

Wyatt said the materials are intermingled as this time.

"The good news is that it's the rainy season and we don't believe
these materials will go anywhere; they won't fly around the
neighborhood," Wyatt said.

Wyatt said the initial estimate is that it will cost about
$132,000 to complete the asbestos removal and transfer.

Wyatt said the county will continue to monitor the site and do
more assessment.

"In the meantime, we will look for state or federal funding to
help with this," Wyatt said. "We don't see this posing a risk to
anyone. We've installed a fence, so people should not be on that
site."

About 5 p.m. on, Oct. 31, the Sweet Home Police Department and
Sweet Home Fire and Ambulance District were notified of a possible
fire near the mill at 2210 Tamarack.

When they arrived on scene, they found the large lumber and
plywood storage buildings were on fire. The three-sided buildings
that were several hundred feet long and wide were destroyed in the
blaze.

The following day, a 14-year-old Sweet Home boy, Charles James
Marvel, was taken into custody and charged with second-degree
arson.

Investigators learned that Marvel and several other young people
had been riding skateboards at the site. When interviewed
individually, each of the other young people said Marvel started
the fire.

Marvel was lodged at the Linn-Benton Juvenile Detention Center in
Albany.

All of the youth lived near the former mill site, which has been
idle since the early 1990s.

Eight fire units from Sweet Home, Lebanon and Brownsville
responded to the fire.

A pallet construction business leases space from Linn County,
which owns the site, and it was not damaged.

The county took over the property in lieu of $500,000 in back
taxes in 2010. At the time, the property was owned by Western
States Land Reliance Trust, which had planned to create a housing
and commercial district on more than 400 acres bordering the
SouthSantiamRiver.

When it was operating, the mill produced both structural lumber
and plywood.

The state Department of Environmental Quality is in the process of
completing an environmental assessment on the site under contract
with Linn County. The county received a $350,000 federal grant to
perform the assessment.

The Environmental Protection Agency has already conducted an
emergency asbestos removal project that cost more than $1.1
million, before the county took possession of the property.

Much of that asbestos was in the form of pipe insulation.

In August, the city of Sweet Home and Linn County held a meeting
at the site, seeking comments about how local residents would like
to see the property developed.

The Sweet Home City Council will hold a work session at 6 p.m. to
discuss the possibility of developing an Urban Renewal District.
If such a district is formed, the mill site could be one of the
community's key renewal projects.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firm Fined for Workers' Fibro Exposure
-------------------------------------------------------
Gloria Gonzalez, writing for Business Insurance, reported that the
U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration has cited and
proposed $112,000 in total fines against three Texas commercial
real estate services companies for exposing workers to asbestos at
a residential apartment construction worksite in San Antonio.

FBZ Broadway L.P., One Eighty Construction Inc. and Roscoe
Properties Inc., all owned by Jason Berkowitz and based in Austin,
Texas, were cited by the agency, OSHA said in a statement.

FBZ and Roscoe were cited for one willful violation for failing to
determine the location and quantity of asbestos -- a violation FBZ
was previously cited for in April, according to the statement.
OSHA proposed a $14,000 penalty against FBZ and a $63,000 fine
against Roscoe, according to the citations.

One Eighty was cited for one willful violation for failing to
ensure that workers followed asbestos removal practices and issued
a $35,000 fine.

"This commercial building renovator is responsible for protecting
workers from asbestos hazards and failed to do so despite previous
citations for asbestos exposure," Alejandro Porter, OSHA's area
director in San Antonio, said in the statement. "There is simply
no excuse for continuing to expose workers to this danger.
Exposure to asbestos can lead to lung disease and cancer years
after initial exposure."

Representatives for the companies could not be reached immediately
for comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Found at Aorangi School Site
---------------------------------------------------------
Charlie Mitchell, writing for Stuff.co.nz, reported that asbestos
has been found at the site of John Key's former primary school,
concerning neighbours who have been breathing in dust from the
area for months.

They have yet to be spoken to about the contamination or any risks
they may face but the regional council says the asbestos is
contained.

Aorangi School in Bryndwr opened in the 1950s and was shut down by
the Government in 2010.

The site is being developed into a subdivision.

A surveying document dated November 17 identifies large parts of
the site that have "ACM", or asbestos contaminated material.

It says soil in those areas must not be disturbed until further
notice.

The contaminated piles are adjacent to Colwyn St and Brookside
Tce, just metres from road-facing properties.

One neighbouring couple, who did not wish to be named, said they
had been bombarded by dust from the site for months.

"The dust has been terrible at times. If you look at the house,
it's just covered in it. We're not happy about it.

"It gets in your hair, it gets in everything. Everything in the
house has got a layer of dust on it."

No-one had told them about the contamination at the site, which
left them speculating about what had been discovered.

They only knew there was a problem because they noticed workers
wearing protective equipment.

"It's all been covered with polythene, so it makes you wonder --
it makes you think it could have been something like [asbestos],
but we don't know."

Other neighbours confirmed they had not been told about asbestos
at the site.

Asbestos inhalation has been linked to various illnesses, due to
fine particles that can settle in the lungs.

A 2015 report commissioned by the Ministry of Health described
inhalation of asbestos as a "serious public health risk", but said
low-level exposure was unlikely to cause health issues.

James Tricker, project manager of earthquake waste management at
Environment Canterbury, said the regional council was working
alongside WorkSafe to contain the contaminated area.

The asbestos had been bound in the rubble and authorities would be
working to remediate the site.

"With the polymer spray, that's kind of keeping everything under
control for now."

He said the responsibility of informing neighbours about the
contamination was up to the developer or its environmental
consultant, which would likely take place once the process of
removing the asbestos began.

A WorkSafe spokesman said it was monitoring progress at the site
to ensure clean-up work was managed appropriately.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plano Council Mulls Suit vs. Fibro Removal Co.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Doug Michaels, writing for WSPYNews.com, reported that at a Plano
City Council meeting, aldermen approved the third payout to
Dynamic Construction in an amount just over $444,000 for the
asbestos clean-up at the former Monarch Foundry site on the east
side of town.

According to Plano officials, the amount is well above the
original bid because asbestos was found buried on the site.

Plano Mayor Bob Hausler expressed his concern night about the
Monarch asbestos clean-up.

The City Council approved the hiring of Julie Cibulskis as legal
council in a probable lawsuit against the former asbestos removal
company, GNG Demolition and Salvage, which worked on the site back
in 2010 and 2011.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: UK Company Fined GBP11K for Fibro Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
The Health and Safety Executive reported that an engineering firm
has been fined after asbestos was found at their factory and they
failed to document or manage the risks to employees or visitors to
the site.

Darlington Magistrates' Court heard how Blue Diamond Engineering
Limited of County Durham, was notified of the presence of asbestos
materials during a survey carried out at the company's factory
premises in 2006.

Work undertaken at the premises had the potential to disturb the
hazardous asbestos materials, and until HSE's intervention, the
company had not documented or implemented an Asbestos Management
Plan to adequately control the risk of exposure.

Blue Diamond Engineering Limited, of Shildon Industrial Estate,
Shildon, was fined a total of GBP11,000, with costs of GBP1,610
after pleading guilty to offences under Regulation 4(8)(b) of the
Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012.

Speaking after the hearing Health and Safety Executive Inspector
Michael Kingston said: "Asbestos kills around 5,000 workers each
year, this is more than the number killed on UK roads. Asbestos
can be present within any premises built or refurbished before the
year 2000. This prosecution should serve as a warning to companies
to properly manage the risks of asbestos exposure. Whenever
asbestos containing materials are found to be present, companies
have a legal duty to document and implement an Asbestos Management
Plan which includes measures to adequately control the risk of
exposure to asbestos fibres."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Syracuse Lab Fined for Fibro Removal Crime
-----------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Syracuse.com, reported that a Syracuse
environmental laboratory has been ordered to pay more than
$400,000 and placed on probation for allowing asbestos to be
released into the air.

U.S. District Judge David Hurd ordered Certified Environmental
Services, Inc. to pay $409,830 in restitution and placed the
company on probation for five years.

CES pleaded guilty in May to a misdemeanor count of negligently
releasing asbestos into the air, thereby placing people in
imminent danger of death or serious injury.

Hurd credited CES for the $87,960 in restitution payments it has
already made. He also credited the company with the five years of
probation it has already served.

CES "was the gatekeeper for the environment, but violated
requirements and provided final clearances when asbestos
contamination remained," U.S. Attorney Richard Hartunian said in a
news release.

The company cut corners on asbestos-removal jobs, resulting in the
release of toxic asbestos fibers into the air, he said.

In 2010, a jury convicted CES of environmental crimes and mail
fraud. But a federal appeals court overturned that conviction
after finding an assistant U.S. attorney committed prosecutorial
misconduct during the trial.

The company admitted that for eight years ending in 2007, when it
was in the business of air-monitoring of asbestos-removal
projects, it provided air-sampling and laboratory analysis for
AAPEX Environmental Services Inc., and Paragon Environmental
Services Inc.

Those two companies had performed illegal "rip and run" removals
in which asbestos was stripped and removed dry, scattered and left
behind and allowed to migrate outside the facility and into the
air, prosecutors said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Continues at County Care Facility
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jamee A. Pierson, writing for Newton Daily News, reported that
following the completion of the asbestos survey at the Jasper
County Care Facility, additional asbestos was found present at the
facility, Shive-Hattery Engineer Christopher Bauer said. He told
the Jasper County Board of Supervisors that more than $23,000
worth of asbestos needs to be removed.

"There were a number of asbestos containing materials identified
in the county home. We did contact the contractor and pushed them
to take care of anything that could be remotely linked to the
original asbestos survey. That includes a lot of the roofing
materials, all of the flooring materials and they have agreed to
do that," Bauer said.

Additionally, new areas in the building were found in the survey
to have asbestos containing materials that were not identified in
the original survey and report. Those include sinks, interior
window glazing and roof field asbestos.

REW, which was also the original asbestos contractor, submitted
the low bid for the new abatement at $5,500, which was under the
$7,200 estimated cost.

Following the completion of the abatement, Bauer said the asbestos
issues should be resolved and work on demolition design plans can
start. He said they are hoping to get the bid process started
toward the end of December or beginning of January with a
tentative February start date for demolition.

The board also approved a resolution supporting Home Base Iowa, an
initiative that is designed to help attract veterans who have
recently completed their active duty and are transitioning into
civilian life. With the approval, a sign will be placed at an
entrance to the county stating that Jasper County is a Home Base
Iowa community.

"Right now we already have 22 businesses in the county that have
signed on," said Jasper County Treasurer Doug Bishop. "The idea is
veterans at various bases throughout the country say where do I
want to land, I am getting downsized or my 20-year career is
coming to an end. We're making it very enticing to get them here."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ogdensburg Seeks EPA Grant for Fibro Removal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Robinson, writing for Watertown Daily Times, reported that
the city once again is seeking a federal Environmental Protection
Agency grant to clean up asbestos and other potentially hazardous
substances at the former St. Joseph's Home at 420 Lafayette St.

The City Council voted unanimously to allow Planning and
Development Director Andrea L. Smith to apply for so-called
brownfield cleanup funds for the removal of asbestos from the
31,088-square-foot former nursing home that sits on two acres of
land along Lafayette, Caroline and Franklin streets.

A similar funding application submitted was unsuccessful,
according to city officials.

Ms. Smith said the most recent City Council authorization allows
the Planning Department to reapply for a fresh round of cleanup
money needed to address environmental concerns at the home. The
city acquired the property in 2011 because of nonpayment of taxes.

An asbestos survey of the building confirmed the presence of both
friable and nonfriable asbestos-containing materials in floor and
ceiling tiles, surfacing materials, Sheetrock, Sheetrock paper,
pipe joints and elbows, roofing, wood and tar materials, chimney
cap, insulation and pipe joints, according to the city.

Cleanup and demolition at the site is expected to cost between
$250,000 and $350,000, Ms. Smith said. She said the city's latest
funding application to the EPA for 2016 is for up to $200,000,
with a 20 percent match.

To make up the difference, Ms. Smith said, the city plans to apply
for additional funding through the National Grid Shovel Ready
Brownfield Program and other local and regional funding sources.
The city has tried unsuccessfully in recent years to market 420
Lafayette and the adjoining property. Cleaning up the property
first is now seen as the only viable option for enticing a buyer
for the sprawling facility, which once served as an 82-bed nursing
home.

The assessment on the property has steadily in declined recent
years, from $228,000 in 2010-11 to the property's current assessed
value of $25,000, according to city officials.

The interior of the former St. Joseph's Home includes a chapel, a
kitchen, dining rooms, common areas and a full basement. The
property was built in 1960 and an addition was built in about
1985, according to officials.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pigeons Pecking Fibro on Roof Cause Death
----------------------------------------------------------
Richard Smith, writing for Mirror.co.uk, reported that a
warehouseman died from lung cancer caused by birds pecking the
asbestos roof of a store where he used to work, an inquest heard.

For 12 years the deadly dust floated down on Anthony Jones, who
got a job at the cash and carry when he was 15 but left three
decades ago.

He was killed, aged 57, by mesothelioma -- a type of lung cancer
whose only known cause is asbestos fibres.

Mr Jones had said after being told he had terminal cancer: "I
can't recall ever working with or near asbestos.

"My exposure was most likely at the firm's ex-premises in
Gloucester, as I was told there was always a problem with birds
pecking the asbestos-based roof."

A post-mortem on the bachelor, of Frampton on Severn, found 19,355
asbestos fibres per gram of dry lung tissue, a level consistent
with work exposure.

Coroner Katy Skerrett recorded a verdict of death due to
industrial disease and said: "It's not the type of employment
where you'd expect to be exposed to asbestos."

The victim's sister Margaret Ball, 72, said after the Gloucester
inquest: "This dust was floating down on him all that time at work
and seems that is why he got this terrible disease years later."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NES Seeks Dismissal of Fibro Exposure Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Glover, writing for Fox17.com, reported that Nashville
Electric Service says it didn't mean to put workers in harm's way
after employees filed a lawsuit claiming the utility the company
exposed them to asbestos.

Attorneys hired by NES are trying to dismiss the case. According
to a legal answer, attorneys allege the public utility can be
treated like a government entity and should be immune from this
particular lawsuit under the Tennessee Worker's Compensation Act.

According to NES' website, the American Public Power Association
gave the Tennessee utility a safety award in 2014. It's the same
year Tennessee Occupational Safety and Health Administration
investigators issued the power entity 17 violations for allegedly
exposing its workers to asbestos.

"Our inspection documented that NES knew that there was
potentially asbestos fibers present and they had relied on some
sampling that was incomplete," Steve Hawkins said, TOSHA
administrator.

The workers were splicing underground cables. According to a TOSHA
inspection report, the violations included "not providing HEPA
vacuums to collect the dust and debris, not providing employees
with half-mask air purifying respirators and not instituting an
asbestos training program consistent with EPA requirements."

Though TOSHA says NES corrected its violations months later, the
incident sparked a lawsuit. Employees are hoping to be compensated
and get medical costs covered.

In response, attorneys hired by NES filed a legal answer saying
the employees who were allegedly exposed "are attempting to obtain
relief that is outside of the scope of the Worker's Compensation
Act," and that Tennessee courts have held "exposing employees to
hazardous conditions including asbestos, does not constitute a
deliberate intent to injure."

Attorneys also alleged the asbestos is a "latent condition."

A hearing for this case is scheduled for December 11.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sanctions Sought Against Fibro Lawyers
-------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reported that
attorneys for defendants in a Cook County asbestos case have
brought an action against the opposing counsel in the case, asking
the court to punish the plaintiff's attorneys and the counsel for
John Crane Inc., one of the other defendants named in the case,
for their alleged use of Crane as a "shill" to prevent defendants
from transferring the case and others like it out of Cook County
Circuit Court.

On Nov. 19, attorneys Steven B. Moore and Gregory T. Henry, of
Kansas City, Mo., filed a motion on behalf of Genuine Parts Co.,
joining with Ford Motor Company and its attorneys from the firm of
Sanchez Daniels & Hoffman, of Chicago, in demanding the court
impose sanctions on attorneys from the firms of Connelly &
Vogelzang, of Chicago, and O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns, of
Chicago, for their alleged actions in this case and others.

Moore and Henry are affiliated with the firm of Rasmussen, Willis,
Dickey & Moore, of Kansas City.

Ford and the Sanchez firm had made a similar demand over similar
allegations earlier in November, at the same time the court was
preparing to sign off on a settlement deal to end the litigation.

According to the motion they filed, Moore and Henry alleged court
inquiry would "demonstrate that there is a pattern by plaintiff's
law firm and by the law firm representing John Crane Inc. as a
defendant in prior asbestos matters filed by Connelly and
Vogelzang in Illinois state courts to cooperate with one another
to allow John Crane to remain as a defendant in such law suits
without putting on a meaningful defense, all in an effort to
thwart opportunities by defendants to remove cases to federal
court based in diversity of jurisdiction."

The matter arose as the parties moved to conclude an asbestos
liability lawsuit brought in February 2014 by plaintiffs Bertha
and Moses Winford against a number of companies, including Dana
Companies, Ford Motor Company, Genuine Parts Company and other
defendants, including many who routinely land on lists of
defendants in asbestos exposure complaints. The lawsuit sought
damages for mesothelioma the Winfords said they contracted because
of exposure to asbestos in products made by the defendant
companies. That list of defendants also included John Crane Inc.,
a manufacturer of packing and gasket products, based in Chicago.

Following about 20 months of court proceedings, court documents
indicate the parties reached a settlement agreement, and on Nov.
13, Cook County Judge Daniel Joseph Lynch ordered the case
dismissed with prejudice "pursuant to settlement."

However, Lynch said he was retaining jurisdiction over the case to
consider the motions for sanctions brought by the defendants.

A status hearing was held on the sanctions motions on Nov. 20, and
continued until Dec. 21, according to court records.

In the motion supplementing Ford's filing, the attorneys for
Genuine Parts Co. argued "gamesmanship" on the part of Crane's
attorneys and those for the plaintiffs, saying the plaintiffs'
attorneys installed Crane as a "straw man Illinois defendant" to
"act as a shill at trial." This, they said, deprived the
defendants of their rights to remove the case to federal court and
"unnecessarily lengthened the pretrial proceedings."

They argued the court record demonstrated plaintiffs had "no good
faith basis" for including Crane among the defendants on the case,
as no Crane products were in use or present at the job sites on
which the plaintiffs purportedly worked, and "no exposure could be
identified" by any witness.

They said the "gamesmanship" began during opening statements, when
Crane's attorney purportedly "provided a potential roadmap to the
jury for a compromised verdict; i.e., they could easily find no
liability to John Crane and the other defendants look 'bad' by
comparison."

The defendants' attorneys argued such tactics are part of a long-
running cooperation between the plaintiff's attorneys and those
for Crane. Under the alleged "gamesmanship," plaintiffs' attorneys
include Crane among the defendants to prevent the matter from
being dismissed from Cook County court, and ultimately make Crane
pay no damages at the conclusion of the litigation.

"In cases where John Crane is the only Illinois defendant, the
pattern appears to be to have the John Crane attorney try to
elicit some John Crane product identification into the case --
just enough to preclude defendants from removing to federal court,
but not enough to subject them to a jury award of any
significance," the attorneys for Genuine Parts wrote in their Nov.
19 filing. "Then, as the trial date approaches, the plaintiffs
make no settlement demands against John Crane and John Crane
offers no money.

"The Bertha Winford case illustrates this point."

The defendants' attorneys said they believed discovery in the
matter would reveal Connelly & Vogelzang have named Crane as a
defendant in "a large majority . . . of their asbestos cases," and
that number may approach "100 percent." Further, they said they
believed court records would reveal "Crane has not filed and
argued a motion for summary judgment more than a handful of times;
perhaps never" in asbestos cases brought by Connelly & Vogelzang.

And they said, they believed court records would further show
"that in nearly 100 percent of the cases Connelly & Vogelzang does
not dismiss John Crane until after all other defendants have been
dismissed or have settled."

They suggested the court inquire into "phone records, email chains
and/or billing records between and among Connelly & Vogelzang,
O'Connell/Tivin and John Crane," as it "may reveal discussions
concerning the pattern as a whole and the manner in which it
played out in the Winford case in particular."

The attorneys pointed to other asbestos cases involving their
clients in which Crane was named as a defendant. In those cases,
Crane's counsel repeatedly opposed motions to transfer the case to
other jurisdictions. And in at least one case, after the case was
transferred, the lawsuit was refiled in Utah against all of the
same defendants, with the exception of Crane, the motion noted.

The motion specifies the defendants' attorneys are seeking the
sanctions to apply only to the attorneys against whom the
allegations have been leveled, and not against the Winfords or
their family.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Substance Found at Carnlough Play Park
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Gamble, writing for Larne Times, reported that Mid and
East Antrim Borough Council could be faced with a costly clean-up
bill, after asbestos was discovered at the site of an under-
construction children's play park.

Following enquiries by the Times, the local authority confirmed
that the potentially-deadly contamination was found after work on
the new GBP100,000 facility in Carnlough began earlier.

The council said detail on the expense of the clean-up operation
is still being "worked out", but we understand the projected cost
of the play park scheme could soar to twice its original estimate
as a result of the discovery.

A council spokesperson added: "Some additional costs are
anticipated due to the remedial works and ongoing contractor costs
arising from the necessary suspension."

Work on the project -- which is located on council-owned land --
is currently suspended, but councillors have resolved that
construction should recommence at the site once the contamination
has been removed.

East Antrim MLA Oliver McMullan said: "Hopefully the decision will
be ratified at full council meeting."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: RFS Training Facility Closed Due to Fibro Scare
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mohamed Taha, writing for ABC News, reported that a major Rural
Fire Services training facility for south-west Sydney has been
closed because of asbestos contamination concerns from the
neighbouring Western Depot in Kemps Creek.

The ABC reported the Environmental Protection Authority was
investigating up to 15 sites that could be affected by the
contaminated landfill, which could have come from the council's
soil storage facility at the depot.

A Liverpool Council whistleblower spoke out about how managers
told workers to turn a blind eye to asbestos contamination after
an investigation by the EPA.

A NSW RFS spokesperson said the site has now been closed because
of contamination fears.

"The NSW Rural Fire Service has become aware of concerns of the
potential contamination of a training site at Kemps Creek," they
said.

"As a result, we have immediately suspended the use of the site.

"The health and welfare of our members is the highest priority."

The spokesperson said the RFS would be working with Liverpool
Council, who own and manage the site, to address the problem.

"We will be working with the council and other agencies to
establish the extent of any contamination and any course of
action."

Liverpool Council says it's remediating the depot and training
site

Liverpool Council chief executive Carl Wulff said the council had
received a clearance certificate from hygienists from Greencapp
NAA, which "confirmed no visual asbestos has been located at the
Western Depot or NSW RFS Training Ground".

"In receipt of this letter, council has now made arrangements to
have contaminated stockpiles removed from the Western Depot and
taken to a licensed facility by May, 2016," he said.

However Mr Wulff said in the process, small shards of asbestos had
been found and were being managed in consultation with the EPA.

"It is noted that during recent operations to screen the stockpile
only a few small shards of bonded asbestos material were
discovered," he said.

"This is being appropriately managed in consultation with the NSW
Environment Protection Authority, is currently covered and will
remain so until complete removal by qualified contractors."

Mr Wulff said council would notify the RFS of its "decision to
remove the asbestos from site now that it is safe to do so".

"In the meantime council will continue working with the NSW RFS,
Council staff and the NSW Environment Protection Authority to
ensure the health and safety of workers and the community is
maintained," he said.

Volunteer firefighter says he is worried about his health

A volunteer firefighter, who did not want to be named, said
several hundred firefighters had used the RFS Macarthur training
site in the past few years.

"Over the past five years, I would have made 10 visits to the site
for training," he said.

"It's the main training ground for 20 fire brigades, which covers
the rural fire brigades in the Camden, Liverpool and Campbelltown
local government areas.

"It's quite important, other districts occasionally use the site
as well."

The firefighter said he found out about the asbestos contamination
concerns through ABC media reports and linked it to a cancellation
of a course assessment at the site.

He said the site was on the same block of land as the depot and no
fence separated the two sites.

"The trucks sometimes drive through there and they have soil on
their wheels," he said.

"Any fill from the soil or any wind; it would end up in the same
place where everyone is training."

He said he was very concerned for his health.

"In our training, if we suspect any asbestos at a fire incident,
there are strict protocols to deal with asbestos including
cordoning off the area and de-contaminating the personnel and
equipment that may have been affected," he said.

"So this is no laughing matter, it's a serious matter, there's a
lot of concern because even one fibre can be an issue."

He said he and other firefighters were disappointed they were not
told about the contamination by RFS management or Liverpool
Council.

"There's been no official communication about this entire
situation, no email, no letter of explanation," he said.

"The general membership has not had this explained to them at all.

"To have firefighters left out of the loop, not told anything
about it is very disappointing.

"This seems to be have been dealt with rather flippantly by
Liverpool Council."

He said he wanted the RFS and the council to provide testing for
concerned firefighters.

"If we require testing or treatment, we shouldn't have to battle
for it because we can't undo that we may be exposed or not, we
just want the appropriate consideration."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Footscray Pupils Banned from Fibro-riddled Oval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Millar, writing for Star Weekly, reported that parents
are demanding a clean-up of Footscray Primary School's asbestos-
riddled oval after it was closed down by the principal over safety
fears.

Footscray primary school principal Philip Fox said he has closed
the oval to students due to ongoing deterioration of the surface,
which has resulted in rocks protruding and an uneven and hard
surface.

"My first priority is the welfare and safety of students," he
said.

"This is a precautionary measure to ensure no child falls and
injures themselves on the hazards identified, and parents have
been notified by school newsletter."

Mr Fox said future use of the oval will be determined following a
meeting between the school and representatives from the Education
Department.

"The Department has also engaged an expert hygienist to undertake
an extended monitoring program for the School's grounds which has
been conducted over several months," he said.

"The Department's expert hygienist conducted air quality
monitoring and no asbestos fibres were detected, the fragments
were removed and the area was issued with a clearance certificate.

"The Department has advised me that the oval is safe to occupy
from an asbestos perspective."

'Wasteful' patch ups

However parents have criticised the Department for "dragging its
heels" on fixing the oval following four separate discoveries of
asbestos over the past 18 months.

Phyllis Campbell-McCrae said the money spent on four separate,
piecemeal patch-ups should have gone into a more permanent
solution.

"It seems like a real waste. I would think that after the second
time a survey of the whol playing field would have occurred."

School council president Mark Hollis told Fairfax Media an
external audit ordered by the Education Department revealed that
140 out of 170 pieces of cement sheeting found at the school
tested positive to asbestos.

A large number of these pieces of cement sheeting were found on
the oval, which is built above demolished houses.

Ms Campbell-McCrae said parents have worked hard over the years to
raise money to improve the playing field.

She said about 500 children have now been left with no green
space, whereas the Department could have remediated the site over
a previous summer school holiday break.

Government called on to act

Western suburbs Greens MP Colleen Hartland raised the matter in
Parliament on, calling on Education Minister James Merlino to act
on as issue the government has been aware of since 2011.

"Parents and the school have reported asbestos to the government a
number of times over the years," she said.

"Each time they came and dealt with that little bit, rather than
assessing the whole oval to identify the wider problem. This
failure of process by the Labor Government and the Liberal
Government before them has put the kids at risk."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Factory Worker Dies of Fibro-related Death
-----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Robinson, writing for The Telegraph and Argus, reported
that a factory worker died of asbestos-related cancer only four
months after being diagnosed with mesothelioma.

The widow of Gerald McNeil is now appealing to his former
colleagues to provide information about working conditions at two
engineering companies where he worked in the 1960s.

Mr McNeil, of Woodside, Wrose, Shipley, began having breathing
problems but it was not until July that doctors in Bradford
confirmed he was suffering from mesothelioma, an asbestos-related
cancer.

He died at the age of 67, leaving his wife Sherry devastated.

The couple had been together since 1974 and had six children.

She said the whole family had been left shocked by her husband's
diagnosis and sudden death.

"Our family were shocked and devastated by Gerald's diagnosis and
are struggling to come to terms with it.

"In his last few months he tried to spend as much time with our
children and grandchildren as possible.

"However, he did struggle with his condition on a daily basis.

"We never knew that the work he did so many years ago would affect
his life now and take him from us so suddenly."

Mr McNeil's family and their lawyer are now appealing for
information about his working conditions at two firms.

The Jamaican-born family man had worked at Hepworth & Grandage, an
engineering company which made pistons and aeroplane parts, in
1964-65, and at Lancashire Steel Manufacturing Company Ltd in
1966-67.

Industrial disease experts at law firm Irwin Mitchell are
investigating how Mr McNeil was exposed to deadly asbestos dust.

Nicola Handley, a specialist industrial disease lawyer at Irwin
Mitchell, who is representing the family, said: "Mesothelioma is
an aggressive and incurable cancer which causes so much distress
for victims like Gerald who worked in industries where asbestos
was regularly used.

"Sadly, many employers did not do enough to manage the risks of
asbestos exposure, despite knowing how dangerous it is.

"We hope that Gerald's former co-workers will come forward to help
us with our investigations. It's important that we now help his
family get answers about his exposure to the deadly dust."

Before his death, Mr McNeil recalled dusty and dirty conditions at
both factories. He remembered that pipework had been lagged with
asbestos.

At his time at Hepworth and Grandage he recalled large furnaces in
the factory which were connected by pipes which had asbestos
lagging on them.

Lancashire Steel was a large steel corporation which had two sites
in Warrington and Irlam -- it employed more than 9,000 employees
at the time and later became part of the British Steel
Corporation.

Mr McNeil worked at the site in Warrington for about six months.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leeds Man Dies from Fibro-related Cancer
---------------------------------------------------------
Yorkshire Evening Post reported that the family of a retired
joiner from Leeds who died from an asbestos-related cancer is
appealing for his former colleagues to help with an investigation.

Before his death aged 92 in April 2013, Edward 'Ted' Lawn, of
Kippax, told his family he believed he was exposed to asbestos
while working as a joiner at Leeds City Council, Wakefield Council
and St James's Hospital in Leeds in the 1970s and 1980s.

Ha also recalled working at Ferrybridge Power Station for Turriff
Construction Limited in the 1960s. He believed he was exposed to
asbestos on the cooling towers and in the turbine room.

At an inquest into his death last July, a coroner ruled that Mr
Lawn died from malignant mesothelioma caused by exposure to
asbestos dust.

Mr Lawn's family has instructed law firm Irwin Mitchell to
investigate where he was exposed to asbestos and why he wasn't
provided with adequate safety equipment to protect him.

His family and Irwin Mitchell are appealing for Mr Lawn's former
colleagues to help with the investigation as they may have crucial
information on the working conditions he was exposed to.

Mr Lawn's son Andrew, 50, said: "My father was elderly but he was
fit and well prior to his diagnosis. He enjoyed tending to his
allotments regularly but regrettably he was quickly unable to do
this. My father took the diagnosis very badly and he rapidly went
downhill.

"It has also been difficult to come to terms with the fact that my
father's illness was caused by his exposure to asbestos decades
ago simply by going to work and it is very important that we now
find the answers to how this happened."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Store Manager Dies From Fibro-related Cancer
-------------------------------------------------------------
Staffordshire Newsletter reported that a retired electrical store
manager died from a cancer associated with working with asbestos,
an inquest heard.

Robert William Milligan, 80, from Stuart Close North, Walton,
Stone, died from mesothelioma at the Douglas Macmillan Hospice in
Stoke on October 13, 2015.

An inquest held in Cannock heard Mr Milligan was diagnosed with
mesothelioma in February 2015. He was deemed not fit for surgery
and received palliative radiotherapy in March. On October 8 he
started to deteriorate and he began receiving end of life care.

Cause of death was given as mesothelioma, a form of cancer
associated with exposure to asbestos dust.

Mr Milligan made a statement before he died providing useful
information about his life. He said he had worked at electrical
engineering firm CBM in Burslem in 1951, repairing irons. He had
also been removing old asbestos padding and replacing it. He was
not provided with any protective equipment.

He also worked for F Fradley in Stoke as an electrician in 1952.
He worked with electric cables in private and commercial buildings
and was exposed again to asbestos dust.

Assistant Coroner for South Staffordshire Margaret Jones said
inquests were hearing more and more cases of people like Mr
Milligan who were exposed many years ago, before the dangers of
these materials were recognised. She recorded a conclusion of
death from an industrial disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Awards $1.7MM in Landmark Fibro Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Eric Terry, writing for The Legal Examiner, reported that the
estate of a deceased factory worker and his wife were recently
awarded $1.7 million by a Philadelphia jury in the first asbestos
case successfully tried against an employer. The award, $1 million
to Doris A. Busbey and $700,000 to the estate of John F. Busbey,
was made under the Wrongful Death Act and Survival Act. The
employer, ESAB Group, was found 100 percent liable for their
employee's mesothelioma and subsequent death.

Verdict a First for Pennsylvania

According to the plaintiff's attorney, the verdict is a first
against an employer for asbestos-related claim in the state since
Pennsylvania's Supreme Court began allowing employees to bring
similar cases against their employers. Prior to that, employers
were only held liable through the Workers' Compensation Act.

In November 2013, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the
Workers' Compensation Act does not cover occupational diseases
like mesothelioma that can take more than 300 weeks after
employment ends to manifest, freeing potential plaintiffs to seek
compensation from former employers through civil actions.

A Career of Asbestos Exposure

John Busbey began working at a factory owned by Chemtron Corp.,
later Alloy Rods Inc. and finally ESAB Group, from 1962 until
2001. Busbey worked in several positions for the company and was
frequently exposed to asbestos when he worked close to the welding
rod and welding wire ovens.

He was officially diagnosed with mesothelioma in January 2012 and
died six months later. Studies from 2008 and 2009 showed plaque
and thickening of his lungs, and 2011 and 2012 studies linked
those findings to asbestos exposure, according to court documents
Evidence of asbestos abatement that the plant underwent between
the 1980s through the 2000s was likely effective in convincing the
jury.

Once called the "miracle mineral" for its resistance to heat,
fire, and various chemicals, asbestos was used in numerous
everyday products, including building materials and fireproof
protective gear. It is now widely known that asbestos exposure can
cause various health problems including mesothelioma, a fatal
cancer that affects the lining of the lungs, as well as other
cancers and lung-related illnesses.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ship Worker Seeks Justice for Fibro Cancer
-----------------------------------------------------------
Megi Rychlikova, writing for York Pres, reported that a retired
ship worker from North Yorkshire is hoping his former work
colleagues will help him get justice for his asbestos-related
cancer.

Donald Watson, 81, of Easingwold, worked at the Swan Hunter &
Wigham Richardson Ltd shipyard on the Tyne as a painter and
decorator.

Earlier, he was diagnosed with mesothelioma, an incurable form of
cancer caused by exposure to asbestos, which he believes is the
result of working conditions in the yard.

He is appealing for anyone who also worked in the Swan Hunter yard
to come forward to help his solicitors, Irwin Mitchell of Leeds,
investigate whether the firm could have done more to protect him.

"I was very shocked by the diagnosis and am coming to terms with
it," he said. "I'm managing to cope on a daily basis and I just
make sure that I don't overdo things."

Mr Watson, originally from Gateshead, worked for several different
companies in Tyneside as a painter and decorator.

He said that during his time at the Swan Hunter & Wigham
Richardson shipyard in 1961, he worked near pipework lagged with
asbestos. He daily painted in areas including engine rooms,
corridors and cabins, sanded down pipework and repainted it. He
was also part of the team that built SSP Principe Perfeito, a
Portuguese passenger ship.

In 2014, he started feeling unwell and after medical tests, he was
diagnosed with mesothelioma in February.

"I never knew that the work that I did so many years ago would
affect my life now," he said. "I really hope that former employees
will now help the team at Irwin Mitchell to give any information
about the conditions that I worked in so my family and I can get
the justice that I deserve."

Nicola Handley, a specialist industrial disease lawyer at Irwin
Mitchell's Leeds office, said asbestos was regularly used in the
shipbuilding industry.

"Sadly, many employers did not do enough to manage the risks of
asbestos exposure, despite knowing how dangerous it is," she said.

"We hope that former employees who worked at Swan Hunter & Wigham
Richardson Ltd will come forward to help us with our
investigations. It's important that we now help Donald and his
family get answers about his exposure to the deadly dust."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Cases Rising, Aussie Study Shows
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daryl Passmore, writing for The Courier Mail, reported that tens
of thousands of unsuspecting Australians face the horror of
asbestos-related diseases as a hidden wave of home renovations
victims emerges.

New research shows a growing proportion of mesothelioma cases
involve people exposed to the deadly building material in the home
rather than the workplace.

The so-called "third wave" trend will intensify over coming
decades as more people who breathed in the fibres during home
improvements are diagnosed.

"We are going to see increased cases of mesothelioma, which means
increased deaths," Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency chief
executive Peter Tighe said.

The first two waves were people involved in asbestos mining and
manufacturing asbestos products or who regularly worked with
products such as those in the construction industry.

A study of the national mesothelioma register, commissioned by the
agency, shows that a third of cases reported since 2010 were "non-
occupational" and almost half involved women.

"The strong trend is these cases where people's only exposure was
during renovations decades ago," Mr Tighe said.

The research forecasts that almost 20,000 new cases will be
diagnosed before the end of this century, more than 40 per cent of
them "third wave" such as renovations-related.

Once asbestos-related lung cancers are included, that number will
double.

"We're only seeing the tip of the iceberg," Mr Tighe said.

It takes on average 40 years for symptoms to start so many of
those yet to be diagnosed were exposed to asbestos through
renovations years ago.

But Mr Tighe said he was concerned that people were still taking
risks while renovating older houses despite the dangers from
damaged asbestos now being well known.

The same concern prompted Gold Coaster Diana Widdicombe to speak
at an international conference on asbestos awareness and
management in Brisbane.

The 63-year-old was diagnosed with mesothelioma in August 2014. "I
was mystified as to how I had got it," she told The Sunday Mail,
until she recalled her exposure during renovation 25 years ago of
their first home in Brisbane.

"We never thought a thing about it because we had no idea of the
risks," Ms Widdicombe said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Center Urges Veteran to Seek Top Fibro Atty
------------------------------------------------------------
The California Mesothelioma Victims Center is urging a recently
diagnosed US Navy Veteran in California, or their family members
to call them anytime at 866-714-6466 to ensure they really are
talking to the top mesothelioma lawyers in the nation, as opposed
to a mesothelioma marketing law firm, or a less than qualified
local personal injury law firm.

They are calling their initiative the Challenge, because as they
would like to explain anytime, "When it comes to getting the best
possible mesothelioma compensation, it is vital to have the
nation's top lawyers that specialize in mesothelioma financial
claims." http://California.MesotheliomaVictimsCenter.Com

The Center says, "We hear about situation, after situation where a
diagnosed US Navy Veteran, or industrial worker with mesothelioma
thought a local car accident law firm, or a cable TV mesothelioma
law firm could handle their compensation claim for this rare for
of cancer, and they got shortchanged. There are probably a half
dozen best of the best law firms in the nation that have the most
experience, and skill when it comes to mesothelioma compensation
claims, and we are urging a Veteran, or trades worker in
California to call us, or their family member to call us at 866-
714-6466 to make certain you do get the best of the best lawyers.

"The skill of the lawyers who will develop the mesothelioma
compensation claim means everything, as we would like to explain
anytime."

For the best possible mesothelioma treatment options in California
the California Mesothelioma Victims Center strongly recommends the
following heath care facilities with the offer to help a diagnosed
victim, or their family get to the right physicians at one of
these four hospitals:

   * Cedars-Sinai Medical Center Los Angeles, California:
http://www.cedars-sinai.edu/Patients/Programs-and-Services/Samuel-
Osc . . . nstitute-/

   * UCLA Medical Center Los Angeles, California:
http://www.cancer.ucla.edu/

   * Stanford Cancer Institute Stanford, California:
http://cancer.stanford.edu/

   * University of California San Francisco, San Francisco,
California:http://mountzion.ucsfmedicalcenter.org/

The California Mesothelioma Victims Center also wants to emphasize
their's is a statewide unsurpassed service that is available to
any diagnosed victim in California including communities such as
Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, Riverside,
Fresno, Sacramento, Oceanside, Palm Springs, Riverside, or
Eureka.http://California.MesotheliomaVictimsCenter.Com

High risk work groups for exposure to asbestos In California
include US Navy Veterans, power plant workers, shipyard workers,
oil refinery workers, manufacturing workers, plumbers,
electricians, auto mechanics, machinists, or construction workers.
Typically the exposure to asbestos occurred in the 1950's, 1960's,
1970's, or 1980's.

According to the US Center for Disease Control the average age for
a diagnosed victim of mesothelioma is 72 years old. Frequently
victims of mesothelioma are initially misdiagnosed with pneumonia.
between 2500, and 3000 US citizens will be diagnosed with
mesothelioma. Mesothelioma is attributable to exposure to
asbestos.

According to the CDC the states indicated with the highest
incidence of mesothelioma include Maine, Massachusetts,
Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, West
Virginia, Virginia, Michigan, Illinois, Minnesota, Louisiana,
Washington, and Oregon.

The California Mesothelioma Victims Center says, "Before you hire
a mesothelioma attorney to advance a mesothelioma compensation
claim please call us at 866-714-6466, and compare the
qualifications of who we consider to be the nation's most skilled
mesothelioma attorneys to any other lawyer, or law firm.

"When it comes to obtaining the best mesothelioma compensation
settlement, the quality of the attorney matters, as we would like
to explain anytime."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Refugees Removing Nauru Fibro w/o Protection
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Walsh, writing for ABC News, reported that refugees and
local workers on Nauru are being hired to remove asbestos from
houses on the island without proper protection from the hazardous
material.

The ABC has also learned the material is not being disposed of
safely and could pose a future health threat.

The work is linked to a $5.5 million housing renovation scheme
announced in September by the government of Nauru, which hopes to
deal with the roofing and cladding of up to 41 per cent of the
island's residences, plus key facilities, that contain the deadly
material.

"This program is safe and greatly beneficial to the people of
Nauru," the government said in a statement, adding: "No refugees
are involved in this project."

But a Rohingya refugee who asked to remain anonymous because of
concerns he could get into trouble for speaking to foreign media
said he was hired to do construction work as part of the scheme.

The refugee said his employer did not tell him he would be tasked
with removing asbestos materials.

"He didn't say anything, he told me the morning I got there 'Hey,
you take up the roofing, get on', just like that, didn't tell me
about danger or anything," he said.

"One month I worked there. A lot of people looked at me and said
'Hey, you don't do it like that because you're not using tools,
not using the gloves, not using the masks. It's a very big problem
for you and your body'."

While the government of Nauru said the renovation program was
safe, the refugee said workers were not given the appropriate
safety gear and sometimes went without any protection at all.

"Sometimes they give me masks and they give me one glove. After
maybe two days, three days, another one. After three days they
didn't give me anything, no gloves, no mask," he said.

Opposition MP and former president Sprent Dabwido has seen some of
the renovation work himself and said he was concerned about safety
on the sites.

"Those refugees are willing to do the hard work but I don't think
they know the safety risk they're taking by doing this job," he
said.

"They climb onto the house, they remove the asbestos with no
safety equipment."

The ABC has received photographs of a group of Nauruans and
refugees attaching a new roof to a house, removing the existing
deteriorated asbestos roofing.

The photographs show workers wearing their own clothes, instead of
coveralls, with only hats and pieces of cloth as head protection.

Asbestos review cites existing contamination

A report from June 2015, funded by the European Union and
implemented by the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment
Program (SPREP), found that 212,000 square metres of asbestos-
laden material is on buildings on Nauru.

It found that "asbestos roofing and cladding on residential
dwellings is often 60-70 years old and in bad condition".

A risk assessment and baseline work discovered that "all asbestos
is old and in various stages of deterioration". It added that "in
many cases it is in an advanced stage of deterioration" which were
in danger of releasing asbestos fibres.

"Asbestos fibres in areas where people are able to breathe them in
pose an ongoing and real health risk of asbestos-related diseases
including debilitating conditions such as asbestosis and ...
mesothelioma," it added.

While the building material tends to be relatively safe if kept in
good condition, decades of poor maintenance in a tropical
environment have left most roofs in poor shape.

Swab tests by EMS Laboratories of California found "significantly
high" results of asbestos fibres in four locations including the
maternity unit at Republic of Nauru Hospital, the port, the power
plant, at two locations in the prison and in a government
building.

Mr Dabwido believes little direction had been given to workers
removing the asbestos.

"Even the hammering, I don't think there's any training because
they throw the roofing off the top of the house and once it hits
the ground it breaks and there's dust everywhere," he said.

Stewart Williams from SPREP, the organisation that recently
completed the report on the asbestos hazards, said renovation work
involving the removal of asbestos could be risky.

"Asbestos roofing, asbestos cladding, it's either nailed or
screwed or otherwise attached to the rafters or framework. When
that's removed it can break and fibres can be released," he said.

"Best practice, which is endorsed at the international level, is
that when workers are working on asbestos cement sheeting they
have to have the appropriate personal protective equipment to stop
them taking asbestos dust off the site, to stop them inhaling the
asbestos dust, or even creating asbestos dust.

"They have to have coveralls, they have to have respirators, they
have to have gloves. They have to have them on prior to going on-
site, and they have to take them off before they leave the site."

The photographs obtained by the ABC also show pieces of removed
asbestos next to the house and directly behind workers which
should be placed in sealed bags. Other photos show broken roof
sheets sitting uncovered in a local tip site.

Mr Williams said there were prescribed ways of handling asbestos,
with specific options for Nauru detailed in the 2015 report.

"When they are removing the material itself it must be wetted
down, usually with a soapy water mix. That material should be
carefully removed to try not to break it, and that should be
placed in plastic or 'haz-bags' and secured, wrapped up, so that
it can't release asbestos fibres," he said.

"It's contrary to best practice if people are doing any removal
activities, transport activities or disposal not following those
requirements."

The June 2015 report also found that asbestos was currently dumped
at the local tip, along with all other refuse.

"Scavenging of all refuse is common, including asbestos," it said.

There is little epidemiological evidence to indicate that
asbestosis and mesothelioma have developed in Nauru's population
after living in close proximity with the material for decades as
"health records are not detailed and were partly lost in the 2013
fire at the hospital".

In its statement to the ABC, the Nauru government did not give
specific details about safety precautions on the worksites, nor
how the removed asbestos was being disposed of.

"We'd suggest you don't rely in social media for your facts," it
said, adding: "Any claims that this program is unsafe are false
and more typical nonsense from the ABC."

The report estimates that it will cost about $24 million to remove
asbestos from Nauru, a cost which does not include cleaning-up its
contaminated sites.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NRG Energy Has Adequate Reserve for Fibro Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NRG Energy, Inc., says it has established an adequate reserve to
deal with potential asbestos liabilities, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

NRG Energy, Inc., through its subsidiary, Midwest Generation, may
be subject to potential asbestos liabilities as a result of its
acquisition of EME.  The Company is currently analyzing the scope
of potential liability as it may relate to Midwest Generation.
The Company believes that it has established an adequate reserve
to deal with these cases.

NRG Energy, Inc. (NRG) is a power company that produces, sells and
delivers energy, and energy products and services in power markets
in the United States.  NRG's business segments are NRG Business,
NRG Home, NRG Renew, NRG Yield and corporate activities.  NRG
Business consists of NRG's wholesale operations, including plant
operations, commercial operations, engineering, procurement and
construction (EPC), energy services and other related functions.
NRG Home includes the Company's NRG Home Retail and NRG Home Solar
businesses.  NRG Renew includes the Company's solar and wind
assets.  NRG Yield includes NRG's contracted generation assets.
As of December 31, 2014, NRG owned and operated approximately
52,000 megawatts (MW) of generation; transacted in and traded fuel
and transportation services, and directly sold energy, services,
and sustainable products and services to retail customers under
the name NRG and other retail brand names owned by NRG.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Inc. Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tenneco Inc. continues to defend itself against lawsuits alleging
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 September 30, 2015.

The Company states: "We are subject to lawsuits initiated by a
significant number of claimants alleging health problems as a
result of exposure to asbestos.  In the early 2000's we were named
in nearly 20,000 complaints, most of which were filed in
Mississippi state court and the vast majority of which made no
allegations of exposure to asbestos from our product categories.
Most of these claims have been dismissed and our current docket of
active and inactive cases is less than 500 cases nationwide.  A
small number of claims have been asserted against one of our
subsidiaries by railroad workers alleging exposure to asbestos
products in railroad cars.  The substantial majority of the
remaining claims are related to alleged exposure to asbestos in
our automotive products although a significant number of those
claims appear to involve workers in industries that are not
automotive-related or otherwise do not include sufficient
information to determine whether there is any basis for a claim
against us.  We believe, based on scientific and other evidence,
it is unlikely that claimants were exposed to asbestos by our
former products and that, in any event, they would not be at
increased risk of asbestos-related disease based on their work
with these products.  Further, many of these cases involve
numerous defendants, with the number in some cases exceeding 100
defendants from a variety of industries.  Additionally, the
plaintiffs either do not specify any, or specify the
jurisdictional minimum, dollar amount for damages.  As major
asbestos manufacturers and/or users continue to go out of business
or file for bankruptcy, we may experience an increased number of
these claims.  We vigorously defend ourselves against these claims
as part of our ordinary course of business. In future periods, we
could be subject to cash costs or charges to earnings if any of
these matters are resolved unfavorably to us.  To date, with
respect to claims that have proceeded sufficiently through the
judicial process, we have regularly achieved favorable
resolutions.  Accordingly, we presently believe that these
asbestos-related claims will not have a material adverse impact on
our future consolidated financial position, results of operations
or liquidity."

Tenneco Inc. is a producer of emission control and ride control
products and systems for light, commercial and specialty vehicle
applications. The Company serves both original equipment vehicle
manufacturers (OEMs) and the repair and replacement markets, or
aftermarket, worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Inc. Continues to Defend PI Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
AMETEK, Inc., continues to defend itself 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 September 30, 2015.

The Company (including its subsidiaries) has been named as a
defendant, along with many other companies, in a number of
asbestos-related lawsuits.  Many of these lawsuits either relate
to businesses which were acquired by the Company and do not
involve products which were manufactured or sold by the Company or
relate to previously owned businesses of the Company which are
under new ownership.  In connection with many of these lawsuits,
the sellers or new owners of such businesses, as the case may be,
have agreed to indemnify the Company against these claims (the
"Indemnified Claims").  The Indemnified Claims have been tendered
to, and are being defended by, such sellers and new owners.  These
sellers and new owners have met their obligations, in all
respects, and the Company does not have any reason to believe such
parties would fail to fulfill their obligations in the future;
however, one of these companies filed for bankruptcy liquidation
in 2007.  To date, no judgments have been rendered against the
Company as a result of any asbestos-related lawsuit.  The Company
believes it has strong defenses to the claims being asserted and
intends to continue to vigorously defend itself in these matters.

AMETEK, Inc., (AMETEK) is a manufacturer of electronic instruments
and electromechanical devices with operations in North America,
Europe, Asia and South America.  AMETEK markets and sells its
products through two groups: Electronic Instruments (EIG) and
Electromechanical (EMG).  The Company's EIG segment designs and
manufactures advanced instruments for the process, aerospace,
power and industrial markets.  It offers process control
instruments for the oil and gas, petrochemical, pharmaceutical,
semiconductor and factory automation industries.  The Company's
EMG segment offers electrical connectors and electronics packaging
used in aerospace and defense, medical and industrial
applications, as well as its advanced technical motor and motion
control products, which are used in a range of medical devices,
office and business equipment, factory automation, robotics and
other applications.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CERC Corp. Continues to Defend PI Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. continues to defend itself
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 September 30, 2015.

CERC Corp. is an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of CenterPoint
Energy, Inc., a public utility holding company.

Some facilities owned by CERC's predecessors contain or have
contained asbestos insulation and other asbestos-containing
materials.  CERC or its predecessor companies 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
CERC, but most existing claims relate to facilities previously
owned by CERC's subsidiaries.  CERC anticipates that additional
claims like those received may be asserted in the future.
Although their ultimate outcome cannot be predicted at this time,
CERC intends to continue vigorously contesting claims that it does
not consider to have merit and, based on its experience to date,
does not expect these matters, either individually or in the
aggregate, to have a material adverse effect on its financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows.

CenterPoint Energy, Inc. is a public utility holding company whose
indirect wholly owned subsidiaries include CenterPoint Energy
Houston Electric, LLC (CenterPoint Houston), which engages in the
electric transmission and distribution business in a 5,000-square
mile area of the Texas Gulf Coast, which includes the city of
Houston, and CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. (CERC Corp. and,
together with its subsidiaries, CERC), which owns and operates
natural gas distribution systems in six states.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.R. Grace Accrues for Unresolved PD Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co. has accrued for those unresolved other asbestos
property damage claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

Grace emerged from an asbestos-related Chapter 11 bankruptcy on
February 3, 2014 (the "Effective Date").  Under its plan of
reorganization, all pending and future asbestos-related claims are
channeled for resolution to either a personal injury trust (the
"PI Trust") or a property damage trust (the "PD Trust").  The
trusts are the sole recourse for holders of asbestos-related
claims.  The channeling injunctions issued by the bankruptcy court
prohibit holders of asbestos-related claims from asserting such
claims directly against Grace.

Grace has satisfied all of its financial obligations to the PI
Trust.  Grace has fixed and contingent obligations remaining to
the PD Trust.  With respect to property damage claims related to
Grace's former attic insulation product installed in the U.S.
("ZAI PD Claims"), the PD Trust was funded with $34.4 million on
the Effective Date. Grace is obligated to make a payment of $30
million to the PD Trust in respect of ZAI PD Claims on February 3,
2017, and has recorded a liability of $28.9 million representing
the present value of this amount in "debt payable after one year"
in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets.  Grace is also
obligated to make up to 10 contingent deferred payments of $8
million per year to the PD Trust in respect of ZAI PD Claims
during the 20-year period beginning on the fifth anniversary of
the Effective Date, with each such payment due only if the assets
of the PD Trust in respect of ZAI PD Claims fall below $10 million
during the preceding year.  Grace has not accrued for the 10
additional payments as Grace does not currently believe they are
probable.  Grace is not obligated to make additional payments to
the PD Trust in respect of ZAI PD Claims beyond the payments.
Grace has satisfied all of its financial obligations with respect
to Canadian ZAI PD Claims.

With respect to other asbestos property damage claims ("Other PD
Claims"), claims unresolved as of the Effective Date are to be
litigated in the bankruptcy court and any future claims are to be
litigated in a federal district court, in each case pursuant to
procedures to be approved by the bankruptcy court.  To the extent
any such Other PD Claims are determined to be allowed claims, they
are to be paid in cash by the PD Trust.  Grace is obligated to
make a payment to the PD Trust every six months in the amount of
any Other PD Claims allowed during the preceding six months plus
interest (if applicable) and the amount of PD Trust expenses for
the preceding six months (the "PD Obligation").  The aggregate
amount to be paid under the PD Obligation is not capped and Grace
may be obligated to make additional payments to the PD Trust in
respect of the PD Obligation.  Grace has accrued for those
unresolved Other PD Claims that it believes are probable and
estimable.  Grace has not accrued for other unresolved or
unasserted Other PD Claims as it does not believe that payment is
probable.

All payments to the PD Trust required after the Effective Date are
secured by the Company's obligation to issue 77,372,257 shares of
Company common stock to the PD Trust in the event of default,
subject to customary anti-dilution provisions.

W.R. Grace & Co. (Grace) is engaged in the production and sale of
specialty chemicals and specialty materials on a global basis.
The Company operates in three segments: Grace Catalysts
Technologies, which includes catalysts and related products and
refining, petrochemical and other chemical manufacturing
technologies; Grace Materials Technologies, which includes
packaging technologies and engineered materials, and Grace
Construction Products, which includes specialty construction
chemicals and specialty building materials. Its brands include
Sylojet, Syloid, Shieldex, Sylosiv, Sylowhite, Durafill, Ludox,
Sylodent, Syloblanc, Daraclar, Trisyl, Perkasil, Phonosorb,
Sylobead, Cryosiv, Safetysorb, Poliedge, Sylobloc, Synthetech,
Davisil, Vydac, Modcol, Spring, Multipacker, Reveleris, Revealx,
Graceresolv, Visionht, Vydac, Alltech, Alltima, Sodasorb, Darex,
Daraform, Daraseal, Darablend, Sincera, Celox, Apperta and
Sistiaga.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Accrues $8-Mil. Fibro Liability
-----------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison, Inc., accrued $8 million liability for
asbestos suits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2015.

Suits have been brought in New York State and federal courts
against the Utilities and many other defendants, wherein a large
number of plaintiffs sought large amounts of compensatory and
punitive damages for deaths and injuries allegedly caused by
exposure to asbestos at various premises of the Utilities.  The
suits that have been resolved, which are many, have been resolved
without any payment by the Utilities, or for amounts that were
not, in the aggregate, material to them.  The amounts specified in
all the remaining thousands of suits total billions of dollars;
however, the Utilities believe that these amounts are greatly
exaggerated, based on the disposition of previous claims.  At
September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, Con Edison and CECONY
had accrued their estimated aggregate undiscounted potential
liabilities for these suits and additional suits that may be
brought over the next 15 years of $8 million and $7 million,
respectively.  The estimates were based upon a combination of
modeling, historical data analysis and risk factor assessment.
Trial courts have begun, and unless otherwise determined by an
appellate court may continue, to apply a different standard for
determining liability in asbestos suits than the standard that
applied historically.  As a result, the Companies currently
believe that there is a reasonable possibility of an exposure to
loss in excess of the liability accrued for the suits.  The
Companies are unable to estimate the amount or range of such loss.
In addition, certain current and former employees have claimed or
are claiming workers' compensation benefits based on alleged
disability from exposure to asbestos.  Under its current rate
plans, CECONY is permitted to defer as regulatory assets (for
subsequent recovery through rates) costs incurred for its asbestos
lawsuits and workers' compensation claims.

Consolidated Edison, Inc. (Con Edison) is a holding company, which
owns Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (CECONY), which
delivers electricity, natural gas and steam to customers in New
York City and Westchester County; Orange and Rockland Utilities,
Inc. (O&R) (together with CECONY referred to as the Utilities),
which delivers electricity and natural gas to customers primarily
located in southeastern New York, and northern New Jersey and
northeastern Pennsylvania, and competitive energy businesses,
which provide retail and wholesale electricity supply and energy
services.  CECONY's business operations are its regulated
electric, gas and steam delivery businesses.  O&R's business
operations are its regulated electric and gas delivery businesses.
In July 2012, Consolidated Edison Development, a wholly owned
subsidiary of ConEdison, and GCL Solar Energy Inc., a wholly owned
subsidiary of GCL-Poly Energy Holdings Limited, acquired two solar
photovoltaic projects.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison's CECONY Accrues $7MM Fibro Liability
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison, Inc., reported that its subsidiary,
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (CECONY), accrued
$7 million liability for asbestos suits, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

Suits have been brought in New York State and federal courts
against the Utilities and many other defendants, wherein a large
number of plaintiffs sought large amounts of compensatory and
punitive damages for deaths and injuries allegedly caused by
exposure to asbestos at various premises of the Utilities.  The
suits that have been resolved, which are many, have been resolved
without any payment by the Utilities, or for amounts that were
not, in the aggregate, material to them.  The amounts specified in
all the remaining thousands of suits total billions of dollars;
however, the Utilities believe that these amounts are greatly
exaggerated, based on the disposition of previous claims.  At
September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, Con Edison and CECONY
had accrued their estimated aggregate undiscounted potential
liabilities for these suits and additional suits that may be
brought over the next 15 years of $8 million and $7 million,
respectively.  The estimates were based upon a combination of
modeling, historical data analysis and risk factor assessment.
Trial courts have begun, and unless otherwise determined by an
appellate court may continue, to apply a different standard for
determining liability in asbestos suits than the standard that
applied historically.  As a result, the Companies currently
believe that there is a reasonable possibility of an exposure to
loss in excess of the liability accrued for the suits.  The
Companies are unable to estimate the amount or range of such loss.
In addition, certain current and former employees have claimed or
are claiming workers' compensation benefits based on alleged
disability from exposure to asbestos.  Under its current rate
plans, CECONY is permitted to defer as regulatory assets (for
subsequent recovery through rates) costs incurred for its asbestos
lawsuits and workers' compensation claims.

Consolidated Edison, Inc. (Con Edison) is a holding company, which
owns Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (CECONY), which
delivers electricity, natural gas and steam to customers in New
York City and Westchester County; Orange and Rockland Utilities,
Inc. (O&R) (together with CECONY referred to as the Utilities),
which delivers electricity and natural gas to customers primarily
located in southeastern New York, and northern New Jersey and
northeastern Pennsylvania, and competitive energy businesses,
which provide retail and wholesale electricity supply and energy
services.  CECONY's business operations are its regulated
electric, gas and steam delivery businesses.  O&R's business
operations are its regulated electric and gas delivery businesses.
In July 2012, Consolidated Edison Development, a wholly owned
subsidiary of Con Edison, and GCL Solar Energy Inc., a wholly
owned subsidiary of GCL-Poly Energy Holdings Limited, acquired two
solar photovoltaic projects.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Accrues $50MM Rupture Liability
-----------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison, Inc., accrued its estimated liability of
$50 million relating to suits due to the rupture of its
subsidiary's steam main in midtown Manhattan for the suits,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2015.

In July 2007, a CECONY steam main located in midtown Manhattan
ruptured.  It has been reported that one person died and others
were injured as a result of the incident.  Several buildings in
the area were damaged. Debris from the incident included dirt and
mud containing asbestos.  The response to the incident required
the closing of several buildings and streets for various periods.
Approximately 90 suits are pending against the company seeking
generally unspecified compensatory and, in some cases, punitive
damages, for wrongful death, personal injury, property damage and
business interruption.  The company has notified its insurers of
the incident and believes that the policies in force at the time
of the incident will cover the company's costs to satisfy its
liability to others in connection with the suits.  In the
company's estimation, there is not a reasonable possibility that
an exposure to loss exists for the suits that is materially in
excess of the estimated liability accrued.  At September 30, 2015,
the company has accrued its estimated liability for the suits of
$50 million and an insurance receivable in the same amount.

Consolidated Edison, Inc. (Con Edison) is a holding company, which
owns Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (CECONY), which
delivers electricity, natural gas and steam to customers in New
York City and Westchester County; Orange and Rockland Utilities,
Inc. (O&R) (together with CECONY referred to as the Utilities),
which delivers electricity and natural gas to customers primarily
located in southeastern New York, and northern New Jersey and
northeastern Pennsylvania, and competitive energy businesses,
which provide retail and wholesale electricity supply and energy
services.  CECONY's business operations are its regulated
electric, gas and steam delivery businesses.  O&R's business
operations are its regulated electric and gas delivery businesses.
In July 2012, Consolidated Edison Development, a wholly owned
subsidiary of Con Edison, and GCL Solar Energy Inc., a wholly
owned subsidiary of GCL-Poly Energy Holdings Limited, acquired two
solar photovoltaic projects.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Unit Has $551-Mil. Fibro Reserves
--------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Corporation's subsidiary, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC,
has recognized asbestos-related reserves of $551 million,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2015.

Duke Energy Carolinas has experienced numerous claims for
indemnification and medical cost reimbursement related to asbestos
exposure.  These claims relate to damages for bodily injuries
alleged to have arisen from exposure to or use of asbestos in
connection with construction and maintenance activities conducted
on its electric generation plants prior to 1985.  As of September
30, 2015, there were 150 asserted claims for non-malignant cases
with the cumulative relief sought of up to $37 million, and 63
asserted claims for malignant cases with the cumulative relief
sought of up to $9 million.  Based on Duke Energy Carolinas'
experience, it is expected that the ultimate resolution of most of
these claims likely will be less than the amount claimed.

Duke Energy Carolinas has recognized asbestos-related reserves of
$551 million at September 30, 2015 and $575 million at
December 31, 2014.  These reserves are classified in Other within
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities and Other within Current
Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.  These
reserves are based upon the minimum amount of the range of loss
for current and future asbestos claims through 2033, are recorded
on an undiscounted basis and incorporate anticipated inflation.
In light of the uncertainties inherent in a longer-term forecast,
management does not believe they can reasonably estimate the
indemnity and medical costs that might be incurred after 2033
related to such potential claims.  It is possible Duke Energy
Carolinas may incur asbestos liabilities in excess of the recorded
reserves.

Duke Energy Corporation is an energy company.  Duke Energy
conducts its operations in three business segments: Regulated
Utilities, International Energy and Commercial Power.  The
Company's Regulated Utilities segment conducts operations
primarily through Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress,
Duke Energy Florida, Duke Energy Indiana and Duke Energy Ohio. The
Company's International Energy segment principally operates and
manages power generation facilities and engages in sales and
marketing of electric power, natural gas, and natural gas liquids
outside the United States.  The Company's Commercial Power builds,
develops and operates wind and solar renewable generation and
energy transmission projects throughout the continental United
States.  Duke Energy operates in the United States and Latin
America primarily through its direct and indirect subsidiaries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Unit Has $599MM Fibro Receivables
--------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Corporation's subsidiary, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC,
has $599 million receivables for insurance recoveries related to
asbestos-related injuries and damages, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

Duke Energy Carolinas has third-party insurance to cover certain
losses related to asbestos-related injuries and damages above an
aggregate self-insured retention.  Duke Energy Carolinas'
cumulative payments began to exceed the self-insurance retention
in 2008. Future payments up to the policy limit will be reimbursed
by the third-party insurance carrier.  The insurance policy limit
for potential future insurance recoveries indemnification and
medical cost claim payments is $847 million in excess of the self-
insured retention. Receivables for insurance recoveries were $599
million at September 30, 2015 and $616 million at December 31,
2014.  Duke Energy Carolinas believes the insurance recovery asset
is probable of recovery as the insurance carrier continues to have
a strong financial strength rating.

Duke Energy Corporation is an energy company.  Duke Energy
conducts its operations in three business segments: Regulated
Utilities, International Energy and Commercial Power. The
Company's Regulated Utilities segment conducts operations
primarily through Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress,
Duke Energy Florida, Duke Energy Indiana and Duke Energy Ohio. The
Company's International Energy segment principally operates and
manages power generation facilities and engages in sales and
marketing of electric power, natural gas, and natural gas liquids
outside the United States.  The Company's Commercial Power builds,
develops and operates wind and solar renewable generation and
energy transmission projects throughout the continental United
States.  Duke Energy operates in the United States and Latin
America primarily through its direct and indirect subsidiaries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Unit Had 2,971 New Fibro Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary, Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company, received 2,971 new 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
September 30, 2015.

MLIC is and has been a defendant in a large number of asbestos-
related suits filed primarily in state courts.  These suits
principally allege that the plaintiff or plaintiffs suffered
personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos and seek both
actual and punitive damages.  MLIC has never engaged in the
business of manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling
asbestos or asbestos-containing products nor has MLIC issued
liability or workers' compensation insurance to companies in the
business of manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling
asbestos or asbestos-containing products.  The lawsuits
principally have focused on allegations with respect to certain
research, publication and other activities of one or more of
MLIC's employees during the period from the 1920's through
approximately the 1950's and allege that MLIC learned or should
have learned of certain health risks posed by asbestos and, among
other things, improperly publicized or failed to disclose those
health risks.  MLIC believes that it should not have legal
liability in these cases.  The outcome of most asbestos litigation
matters, however, is uncertain and can be impacted by numerous
variables, including differences in legal rulings in various
jurisdictions, the nature of the alleged injury and factors
unrelated to the ultimate legal merit of the claims asserted
against MLIC.  MLIC employs a number of resolution strategies to
manage its asbestos loss exposure, including seeking resolution of
pending litigation by judicial rulings and settling individual or
groups of claims or lawsuits under appropriate circumstances.
Claims asserted against MLIC have included negligence, intentional
tort and conspiracy concerning the health risks associated with
asbestos.  MLIC's defenses (beyond denial of certain factual
allegations) include that: (i) MLIC owed no duty to the plaintiffs
-- it had no special relationship with the plaintiffs and did not
manufacture, produce, distribute or sell the asbestos products
that allegedly injured plaintiffs; (ii) plaintiffs did not rely on
any actions of MLIC; (iii) MLIC's conduct was not the cause of the
plaintiffs' injuries; (iv) plaintiffs' exposure occurred after the
dangers of asbestos were known; and (v) the applicable time with
respect to filing suit has expired.  During the course of the
litigation, certain trial courts have granted motions dismissing
claims against MLIC, while other trial courts have denied MLIC's
motions.  There can be no assurance that MLIC will receive
favorable decisions on motions in the future.  While most cases
brought to date have settled, MLIC intends to continue to defend
aggressively against claims based on asbestos exposure, including
defending claims at trials.

As reported in the 2014 Annual Report, MLIC received approximately
4,636 asbestos-related claims in 2014.  During the nine months
ended September 30, 2015 and 2014, MLIC received approximately
2,971 and 3,641 new asbestos-related claims, respectively.  The
number of asbestos cases that may be brought, the aggregate amount
of any liability that MLIC may incur, and the total amount paid in
settlements in any given year are uncertain and may vary
significantly from year to year.

The ability of MLIC to estimate its ultimate asbestos exposure is
subject to considerable uncertainty, and the conditions impacting
its liability can be dynamic and subject to change.  The
availability of reliable data is limited and it is difficult to
predict the numerous variables that can affect liability
estimates, including the number of future claims, the cost to
resolve claims, the disease mix and severity of disease in pending
and future claims, the impact of the number of new claims filed in
a particular jurisdiction and variations in the law in the
jurisdictions in which claims are filed, the possible impact of
tort reform efforts, the willingness of courts to allow plaintiffs
to pursue claims against MLIC when exposure to asbestos took place
after the dangers of asbestos exposure were well known, and the
impact of any possible future adverse verdicts and their amounts.
The ability to make estimates regarding ultimate asbestos exposure
declines significantly as the estimates relate to years further in
the future.  In the Company's judgment, there is a future point
after which losses cease to be probable and reasonably estimable.
It is reasonably possible that the Company's total exposure to
asbestos claims may be materially greater than the asbestos
liability currently accrued and that future charges to income may
be necessary.  While the potential future charges could be
material in the particular quarterly or annual periods in which
they are recorded, based on information currently known by
management, management does not believe any such charges are
likely to have a material effect on the Company's financial
position.

The Company believes adequate provision has been made in its
consolidated financial statements for all probable and reasonably
estimable losses for asbestos-related claims.  MLIC's recorded
asbestos liability is based on its estimation of the following
elements, as informed by the facts presently known to it, its
understanding of current law and its past experiences: (i) the
probable and reasonably estimable liability for asbestos claims
already asserted against MLIC, including claims settled but not
yet paid; (ii) the probable and reasonably estimable liability for
asbestos claims not yet asserted against MLIC, but which MLIC
believes are reasonably probable of assertion; and (iii) the legal
defense costs associated with the foregoing claims.  Significant
assumptions underlying MLIC's analysis of the adequacy of its
recorded liability with respect to asbestos litigation include:
(i) the number of future claims; (ii) the cost to resolve claims;
and (iii) the cost to defend claims.

MLIC reevaluates on a quarterly and annual basis its exposure from
asbestos litigation, including studying its claims experience,
reviewing external literature regarding asbestos claims experience
in the United States, assessing relevant trends impacting asbestos
liability and considering numerous variables that can affect its
asbestos liability exposure on an overall or per claim basis.
These variables include bankruptcies of other companies involved
in asbestos litigation, legislative and judicial developments, the
number of pending claims involving serious disease, the number of
new claims filed against it and other defendants and the
jurisdictions in which claims are pending.  Based upon its
reevaluation of its exposure from asbestos litigation, MLIC has
updated its liability analysis for asbestos-related claims through
September 30, 2015.

MetLife, Inc., (MetLife) is a provider of life insurance,
annuities, employee benefits and asset management. The Company's
segments include Retail; Group, Voluntary & Worksite Benefits, and
Corporate Benefit Funding.  Its three geographic segments are
Latin America (collectively, the Americas); Asia, and Europe, the
Middle East and Africa (EMEA).  In addition, MetLife's Corporate &
Other includes MetLife Home Loans LLC (MLHL), the surviving, non-
bank entity of the merger of MetLife Bank, National Association
(MetLife Bank) with and into MLHL, and other business activities.
Through its subsidiaries and affiliates, it operates in the United
States, Japan, Latin America, Asia, Europe and the Middle East.
The Company's businesses in the Americas offer a range of
protection products and services.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Energy Continues to Defend PI Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy, Inc., continues to defend itself 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 September 30, 2015.

Some facilities owned by CenterPoint Energy contain or have
contained asbestos insulation and other asbestos-containing
materials.  CenterPoint Energy or its subsidiaries have been
named, along with numerous others, as a defendant in lawsuits
filed by a number of individuals who claim injury due to exposure
to asbestos.  Some of the claimants have worked at locations owned
by subsidiaries of CenterPoint Energy, but most existing claims
relate to facilities previously owned by CenterPoint Energy's
subsidiaries.  In 2004 and early 2005, CenterPoint Energy sold its
generating business, to which most of these claims relate, to a
company which is now an affiliate of NRG.  Under the terms of the
arrangements regarding separation of the generating business from
CenterPoint Energy and its sale of that business, ultimate
financial responsibility for uninsured losses from claims relating
to the generating business has been assumed by the NRG affiliate,
but CenterPoint Energy has agreed to continue to defend such
claims to the extent they are covered by insurance maintained by
CenterPoint Energy, subject to reimbursement of the costs of such
defense by the NRG affiliate.  CenterPoint Energy anticipates that
additional claims like those received may be asserted in the
future.  Although their ultimate outcome cannot be predicted at
this time, CenterPoint Energy intends to continue vigorously
contesting claims that it does not consider to have merit and,
based on its experience to date, does not expect these matters,
either individually or in the aggregate, to have a material
adverse effect on CenterPoint Energy's financial condition,
results of operations or cash flows.

CenterPoint Energy, Inc. is a public utility holding company whose
indirect wholly owned subsidiaries include CenterPoint Energy
Houston Electric, LLC (CenterPoint Houston), which engages in the
electric transmission and distribution business in a 5,000-square
mile area of the Texas Gulf Coast, which includes the city of
Houston, and CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. (CERC Corp. and,
together with its subsidiaries, CERC), which owns and operates
natural gas distribution systems in six states.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Int'l. Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Manitex International, Inc., continues to defend itself against
asbestos-related product liability lawsuits, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

The Company has been named as a defendant in several multi-
defendant asbestos related product liability lawsuits.  In certain
instances, the Company is indemnified by a former owner of the
product line in question.  In the remaining cases the plaintiff
has, to date, not been able to establish any exposure by the
plaintiff to the Company's products.  The Company is uninsured
with respect to these claims but believes that it will not incur
any material liability with respect to these claims.

Manitex International, Inc. is engaged in providing engineered
lifting solutions.  The Company operates in two segments: Lifting
Equipment segment and Equipment Distribution segment.  The
Company, in its Lifting Equipment segment, designs, manufactures
and distributes a group of products that serve different functions
and are used in a variety of industries.  Through its subsidiary,
Manitex, Inc., the Company markets a line of boom trucks and sign
cranes.  Manitex's boom trucks and crane products are primarily
used for industrial projects, energy exploration and
infrastructure development, including roads, bridges and
commercial construction.  The Company, in its Equipment
Distribution segment, operates a crane dealership located in
Bridgeview, Illinois that distributes Terex rough terrain and
truck cranes, Fuchs material handlers, and Manitex boom trucks and
sky cranes.  In December 2013, the Company announced that it has
completed the acquisition of Valla, SpA, of Piacenza, Italy.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Unit Has $551-Mil. Fibro Reserves
--------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Corporation's subsidiary, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC,
has recognized asbestos-related reserves of $551 million,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2015.

Duke Energy Carolinas has experienced numerous claims for
indemnification and medical cost reimbursement related to asbestos
exposure.  These claims relate to damages for bodily injuries
alleged to have arisen from exposure to or use of asbestos in
connection with construction and maintenance activities conducted
on its electric generation plants prior to 1985.  As of September
30, 2015, there were 150 asserted claims for non-malignant cases
with the cumulative relief sought of up to $37 million, and 63
asserted claims for malignant cases with the cumulative relief
sought of up to $9 million.  Based on Duke Energy Carolinas'
experience, it is expected that the ultimate resolution of most of
these claims likely will be less than the amount claimed.

Duke Energy Carolinas has recognized asbestos-related reserves of
$551 million at September 30, 2015 and $575 million at
December 31, 2014.  These reserves are classified in Other within
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities and Other within Current
Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.  These
reserves are based upon the minimum amount of the range of loss
for current and future asbestos claims through 2033, are recorded
on an undiscounted basis and incorporate anticipated inflation.
In light of the uncertainties inherent in a longer-term forecast,
management does not believe they can reasonably estimate the
indemnity and medical costs that might be incurred after 2033
related to such potential claims.  It is possible Duke Energy
Carolinas may incur asbestos liabilities in excess of the recorded
reserves.

Duke Energy Corporation is an energy company.  Duke Energy
conducts its operations in three business segments: Regulated
Utilities, International Energy and Commercial Power.  The
Company's Regulated Utilities segment conducts operations
primarily through Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress,
Duke Energy Florida, Duke Energy Indiana and Duke Energy Ohio. The
Company's International Energy segment principally operates and
manages power generation facilities and engages in sales and
marketing of electric power, natural gas, and natural gas liquids
outside the United States.  The Company's Commercial Power builds,
develops and operates wind and solar renewable generation and
energy transmission projects throughout the continental United
States.  Duke Energy operates in the United States and Latin
America primarily through its direct and indirect subsidiaries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Unit Has $599MM Fibro Receivables
--------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Corporation's subsidiary, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC,
has $599 million receivables for insurance recoveries related to
asbestos-related injuries and damages, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

Duke Energy Carolinas has third-party insurance to cover certain
losses related to asbestos-related injuries and damages above an
aggregate self-insured retention.  Duke Energy Carolinas'
cumulative payments began to exceed the self-insurance retention
in 2008. Future payments up to the policy limit will be reimbursed
by the third-party insurance carrier.  The insurance policy limit
for potential future insurance recoveries indemnification and
medical cost claim payments is $847 million in excess of the self-
insured retention. Receivables for insurance recoveries were $599
million at September 30, 2015 and $616 million at December 31,
2014.  Duke Energy Carolinas believes the insurance recovery asset
is probable of recovery as the insurance carrier continues to have
a strong financial strength rating.

Duke Energy Corporation is an energy company.  Duke Energy
conducts its operations in three business segments: Regulated
Utilities, International Energy and Commercial Power. The
Company's Regulated Utilities segment conducts operations
primarily through Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress,
Duke Energy Florida, Duke Energy Indiana and Duke Energy Ohio. The
Company's International Energy segment principally operates and
manages power generation facilities and engages in sales and
marketing of electric power, natural gas, and natural gas liquids
outside the United States.  The Company's Commercial Power builds,
develops and operates wind and solar renewable generation and
energy transmission projects throughout the continental United
States.  Duke Energy operates in the United States and Latin
America primarily through its direct and indirect subsidiaries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Houston Wire Continues to Defend PI Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Houston Wire & Cable Company continues to defend itself against
asbestos-related individual personal injury lawsuits, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015.

As part of the acquisition of Southwest and Southern Wire made in
2010, the Company assumed the liability for the post-remediation
monitoring of the water quality at one of the acquired facilities
in Louisiana.  The expected liability of $95 at September 30, 2015
relates to the cost of the monitoring, which the Company estimates
will be incurred over approximately the next 2 years, and also the
cost to plug the wells.  Remediation work was completed prior to
the acquisition in accordance with the requirements of the
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality.

The Company, along with many other defendants, has been named in a
number of lawsuits in the state courts of Illinois, Minnesota,
North Dakota, and South Dakota alleging that certain wire and
cable which may have contained asbestos caused injury to the
plaintiffs who were exposed to this wire and cable.  These
lawsuits are individual personal injury suits that seek
unspecified amounts of money damages as the sole remedy.  It is
not clear whether the alleged injuries occurred as a result of the
wire and cable in question or whether the Company, in fact,
distributed the wire and cable alleged to have caused any
injuries.  The Company maintains general liability insurance that,
to date, has covered the defense of and all costs associated with
these claims.  In addition, the Company did not manufacture any of
the wire and cable at issue, and the Company would rely on any
warranties from the manufacturers of such cable if it were
determined that any of the wire or cable that the Company
distributed contained asbestos which caused injury to any of these
plaintiffs.  In connection with ALLTEL's sale of the Company in
1997, ALLTEL provided indemnities with respect to costs and
damages associated with these claims that the Company believes it
could enforce if its insurance coverage proves inadequate.

There are no legal proceedings pending against or involving the
Company that, in management's opinion, based on the current known
facts and circumstances, are expected to have a material adverse
effect on the Company's consolidated financial position, cash
flows, or results of operations.

Houston Wire & Cable Company is a holding company.  The Company is
a provider of electrical and mechanical wire and cable, hardware
and related services.  Its cable management program includes
purchasing and storing inventory for product availability.  It
offers products in categories of wire and cable, including
continuous and interlocked armor cable; control and power cable;
electronic wire and cable; flexible and portable cord;
instrumentation and thermocouple cable; lead and high temperature
cable; medium voltage cable; premise and category wire and cable;
primary and secondary aluminum distribution cable; steel wire rope
and wire rope slings, and synthetic fiber rope slings, chain,
shackles, and other related hardware.  It also offers private
branded products, including its brand LifeGuard, a low-smoke,
zero-halogen cable. Its products are used in repair and
replacement work, also referred to as maintenance, repair and
operations (MRO), and related projects.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: VWR Int'l. Continues to Face Fibro Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
VWR International Inc. continues to face asbestos-related
exposure lawsuits stemming from the distribution of certain of
its products, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2015.

The Company states: "From time to time, we are named as a
defendant in cases as a result of our distribution of laboratory
supplies, including litigation resulting from the alleged prior
distribution of products containing asbestos by certain of our
predecessors or acquired companies.  While the impact of these
disputes or litigation has historically been immaterial, and we
believe the range of reasonably possible loss from current matters
continues to be immaterial, there can be no assurance that the
impact of the pending and any future claims will not be material
to our business, financial condition or results of operations in
the future."

Based in West Chester, Pa., VWR International Inc. distributes
products like chemicals, glassware, instruments, protective
clothing and other assorted laboratory products.  The Company
maintains operations in more than 20 countries and processes an
average of 52,000 order lines daily from 20 strategically
located distribution centers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Partners Unit Has 1,346 Fibro Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Steel Partners Holdings L.P.'s subsidiary, BNS Sub, has been named
defendant in 1,346 alleged asbestos-related toxic-tort claims,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2015.

BNS Sub has been named as a defendant in 1,346 and 1,326 alleged
asbestos-related toxic-tort claims as of September 30, 2015 and
December 31, 2014, respectively.  The claims were filed over a
period beginning 1994 through September 30, 2015.  In many cases
these claims involved more than 100 defendants.  Of the claims
filed, 1,190 and 1,108 were dismissed, settled or granted summary
judgment and closed as of September 30, 2015 and December 31,
2014, respectively.  Of the claims settled, the average settlement
was less than $3.  There remained 156 and 218 pending asbestos
claims as of September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014,
respectively.  There can be no assurance that the number of future
claims and the related costs of defense, settlements or judgments
will be consistent with the experience to date of existing claims.

BNS Sub has insurance policies covering asbestos-related claims
for years beginning 1974 through 1988 with estimated aggregate
coverage limits of $183,000, with $2,102 at September 30, 2015 and
December 31, 2014 in estimated remaining self-insurance retention
(deductible).  There is secondary evidence of coverage from 1970
to 1973 although there is no assurance that the insurers will
recognize that the coverage was in place.  Policies issued for BNS
Sub beginning in 1989 contained exclusions related to asbestos.
Under certain circumstances, some of the settled claims may be
reopened.  Also, there may be a significant delay in receipt of
notification by BNS Sub of the entry of a dismissal or settlement
of a claim or the filing of a new claim.  BNS Sub believes it has
significant defenses to any liability for toxic-tort claims on the
merits.  None of these toxic-tort claims has gone to trial and,
therefore, there can be no assurance that these defenses will
prevail.  In addition, there can be no assurance that the number
of future claims and the related costs of defense, settlements or
judgments will be consistent with the experience to date of
existing claims, and that BNS Sub will not need to increase
significantly its estimated liability for the costs to settle
these claims to an amount that could have a material effect on the
consolidated financial statements.

BNS Sub annually receives retroactive billings or credits from its
insurance carriers for any increase or decrease in claims accruals
as claims are filed, settled or dismissed, or as estimates of the
ultimate settlement and defense costs for the then-existing claims
are revised.  As of September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, BNS
Sub has accrued $1,422 relating to the open and active claims
against BNS Sub.  This accrual represents the Company's best
estimate of the likely costs to defend against or settle these
claims by BNS Sub beyond the amounts accrued by the insurance
carriers and previously funded, through the retroactive billings
by BNS Sub.  However, there can be no assurance that BNS Sub will
not need to take additional charges in connection with the
defense, settlement or judgment of these existing claims or that
the costs of future claims and the related costs of defense,
settlements or judgments will be consistent with the experience to
date relating to existing claims.  These claims are now being
managed by the BNS Liquidating Trust.

Steel Partners Holdings L.P. (SPH) is a global diversified holding
Company.  The Company is engaged in multiple businesses, including
diversified industrial products, energy, defense, supply chain
management and logistics, banking, food products and services,
oilfield services, sports, training, education and the
entertainment, and lifestyle industries.  The Company operates
business through four segments, which include diversified
industrial, energy, financial services, and corporate and other.
SPLP's energy segment consists of its consolidated subsidiaries
Steel Excel, which provides drilling and production services to
the oil and gas industry.  The Company's financial services
segment consists of its consolidated and wholly-owned subsidiary,
WebFinancial Holding Corporation.  The diversified industrial
segment consists of Handy & Harman Ltd.  The corporate and other
segment consists of several consolidated subsidiaries, as well as
various investments, and cash and cash equivalents.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntington Ingalls Continues to Defend PI Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc., continues to defend itself
against a longstanding series of asbestos-related cases, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015.

HII and its predecessors-in-interest are defendants in a
longstanding series of cases that have been and continue to be
filed in various jurisdictions around the country, wherein former
and current employees and various third parties allege exposure to
asbestos containing materials while on or associated with HII
premises or while working on vessels constructed or repaired by
HII.  The cases allege various injuries, including those
associated with pleural plaque disease, asbestosis, cancer,
mesothelioma and other alleged asbestos related conditions. In
some cases, several of HII's former executive officers are also
named as defendants.  In some instances, partial or full insurance
coverage is available to the Company for its liability and that of
its former executive officers.  Although the Company believes the
ultimate resolution of these cases will not have a material effect
on its consolidated financial position, results of operations, or
cash flows, it cannot predict what new or revised claims or
litigation might be asserted or what information might come to
light and can, therefore, give no assurances regarding the
ultimate outcome of asbestos related litigation.

Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. (HII) designs, builds,
overhauls and repairs ships for the United States Navy and the
United States Coast Guard.  The Company is the designer, builder
and refueler of nuclear powered aircraft carriers, the builder of
amphibious assault and expeditionary warfare ships for the United
States Navy and the sole builder of National Security Cutters for
the United States Coast Guard.  The Company designs and builds
nuclear-powered submarines for the United States Navy and builds
the Navy's fleet of DDG51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers.  The
Company operates its shipbuilding business through Huntington
Ingalls Incorporated subsidiary, which is organized into two
segments: Ingalls Shipbuilding (Ingalls), which includes non-
nuclear ship design, construction, repair and maintenance
businesses, and Newport News Shipbuilding (Newport News), which
includes the nuclear ship design, construction, overhaul,
refueling, and repair and maintenance businesses.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: DuPont Had 2,360 PI Claims Pending at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Chemours Company disclosed that E. I. du Pont de Nemours and
Company (DuPont) had 2,360 pending asbestos exposure-related
personal injury suits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2015.

At September 30, 2015, there were approximately 2,360 lawsuits
pending against DuPont alleging personal injury from exposure to
asbestos.  These cases are pending in state and federal court in
numerous jurisdictions in the U.S. and are individually set for
trial.  Most of the actions were brought by contractors who worked
at sites between 1950 and the 1990s.  A small number of cases
involve similar allegations by DuPont employees.  A limited number
of the cases were brought by household members of contractors or
DuPont employees.  Finally, certain lawsuits allege personal
injury as a result of exposure to DuPont products.  At September
30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, Chemours had an accrual of $38
related to this matter.  Additionally, Chemours had an accrual for
$2 for asbestos cases outside the U.S. at September 30, 2015.
Management believes that the likelihood is remote that Chemours
would incur losses in excess of the amounts accrued in connection
with this matter.

Effective prior to the opening of trading on the New York Stock
Exchange on July 1, 2015, DuPont completed the previously
announced separation of the businesses comprising DuPont's
Performance Chemicals reporting segment, and certain other assets
and liabilities, into Chemours, a separate and distinct public
company.

Based in Wilmington, Del., The Chemours Company delivers
customized solutions with a wide range of industrial and specialty
chemical products for markets including plastics and coatings,
refrigeration and air conditioning, general industrial, mining and
oil refining.  Principal products include titanium dioxide (TiO2),
refrigerants, industrial fluoropolymer resins, sodium cyanide,
sulfuric acid and aniline.  Chemours consists of three reportable
segments: Titanium Technologies, Fluoroproducts and Chemical
Solutions.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Unit Has $551-Mil. Fibro Reserves
--------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Corporation's subsidiary, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC,
has recognized asbestos-related reserves of $551 million,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2015.

Duke Energy Carolinas has experienced numerous claims for
indemnification and medical cost reimbursement related to asbestos
exposure.  These claims relate to damages for bodily injuries
alleged to have arisen from exposure to or use of asbestos in
connection with construction and maintenance activities conducted
on its electric generation plants prior to 1985.  As of September
30, 2015, there were 150 asserted claims for non-malignant cases
with the cumulative relief sought of up to $37 million, and 63
asserted claims for malignant cases with the cumulative relief
sought of up to $9 million.  Based on Duke Energy Carolinas'
experience, it is expected that the ultimate resolution of most of
these claims likely will be less than the amount claimed.

Duke Energy Carolinas has recognized asbestos-related reserves of
$551 million at September 30, 2015 and $575 million at
December 31, 2014.  These reserves are classified in Other within
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities and Other within Current
Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.  These
reserves are based upon the minimum amount of the range of loss
for current and future asbestos claims through 2033, are recorded
on an undiscounted basis and incorporate anticipated inflation.
In light of the uncertainties inherent in a longer-term forecast,
management does not believe they can reasonably estimate the
indemnity and medical costs that might be incurred after 2033
related to such potential claims.  It is possible Duke Energy
Carolinas may incur asbestos liabilities in excess of the recorded
reserves.

Duke Energy Corporation is an energy company.  Duke Energy
conducts its operations in three business segments: Regulated
Utilities, International Energy and Commercial Power.  The
Company's Regulated Utilities segment conducts operations
primarily through Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress,
Duke Energy Florida, Duke Energy Indiana and Duke Energy Ohio. The
Company's International Energy segment principally operates and
manages power generation facilities and engages in sales and
marketing of electric power, natural gas, and natural gas liquids
outside the United States.  The Company's Commercial Power builds,
develops and operates wind and solar renewable generation and
energy transmission projects throughout the continental United
States.  Duke Energy operates in the United States and Latin
America primarily through its direct and indirect subsidiaries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Unit Has $599MM Fibro Receivables
--------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Corporation's subsidiary, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC,
has $599 million receivables for insurance recoveries related to
asbestos-related injuries and damages, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

Duke Energy Carolinas has third-party insurance to cover certain
losses related to asbestos-related injuries and damages above an
aggregate self-insured retention.  Duke Energy Carolinas'
cumulative payments began to exceed the self-insurance retention
in 2008. Future payments up to the policy limit will be reimbursed
by the third-party insurance carrier.  The insurance policy limit
for potential future insurance recoveries indemnification and
medical cost claim payments is $847 million in excess of the self-
insured retention. Receivables for insurance recoveries were $599
million at September 30, 2015 and $616 million at December 31,
2014.  Duke Energy Carolinas believes the insurance recovery asset
is probable of recovery as the insurance carrier continues to have
a strong financial strength rating.

Duke Energy Corporation is an energy company.  Duke Energy
conducts its operations in three business segments: Regulated
Utilities, International Energy and Commercial Power. The
Company's Regulated Utilities segment conducts operations
primarily through Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Progress,
Duke Energy Florida, Duke Energy Indiana and Duke Energy Ohio. The
Company's International Energy segment principally operates and
manages power generation facilities and engages in sales and
marketing of electric power, natural gas, and natural gas liquids
outside the United States.  The Company's Commercial Power builds,
develops and operates wind and solar renewable generation and
energy transmission projects throughout the continental United
States.  Duke Energy operates in the United States and Latin
America primarily through its direct and indirect subsidiaries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tampa Electric Settles Asbestos Exposure Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tampa Electric Company disclosed that on August 6, 2015, the
Company agreed to a settlement which resolved the asbestos
expsure-related case filed by the estate and family of a thirty-
six year old man, who died from mesothelioma in March 2014,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2015.

A thirty-six year old man died from mesothelioma in March 2014.
His estate and his family sued Tampa Electric as a result.  The
man allegedly suffered exposure to asbestos dust brought home by
his father and grandfather, both of whom had been employed as
insulators and worked at various job sites throughout the Tampa
area.  Plaintiff's case against Tampa Electric and fourteen other
defendants had alleged, among other things, negligence, strict
liability, household exposure, loss of consortium, and wrongful
death.  On August 6, 2015, Tampa Electric agreed to a settlement
which resolved the case in its entirety.

Tampa Electric Company is a regulated utility company that serves
nearly 700 million customers in Florida.  The Company is the main
subsidiary of TECO Energy, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Has 57,040 American Optical PI Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. disclosed that there were 57,040 asbestos-related
personal injury claims naming American Optical as one of the
defendants, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 27, 2015.

Between 1967 and 1982, Warner-Lambert owned American Optical
Corporation, which manufactured and sold respiratory protective
devices and asbestos safety clothing.  In connection with the sale
of American Optical in 1982, Warner-Lambert agreed to indemnify
the purchaser for certain liabilities, including certain asbestos-
related and other claims.  As of September 27, 2015, approximately
57,040 claims naming American Optical and numerous other
defendants were pending in various federal and state courts
seeking damages for alleged personal injury from exposure to
asbestos and other allegedly hazardous materials. Warner-Lambert
was acquired by Pfizer in 2000 and is now a wholly owned
subsidiary of Pfizer.  Warner-Lambert is actively engaged in the
defense of, and will continue to explore various means of
resolving, these claims.

Numerous lawsuits are pending against Pfizer in various federal
and state courts seeking damages for alleged personal injury from
exposure to products containing asbestos and other allegedly
hazardous materials sold by Gibsonburg Lime Products Company
(Gibsonburg).  Gibsonburg was acquired by Pfizer in the 1960s and
sold products containing small amounts of asbestos until the early
1970s.

There also are a small number of lawsuits pending in various
federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged exposure to
asbestos in facilities owned or formerly owned by Pfizer or its
subsidiaries.

Pfizer Inc. is a global biopharmaceutical company.  The Company is
engaged in the discovery, development and manufacture of
healthcare products.  Its products include Lyrica, the Prevnar
family of products, Enbrel, Celebrex, Lipitor, Viagra, Zyvox,
Sutent, EpiPen, Toviaz, Tygacil, Rapamune, Xalkori, Inlyta,
Norvasc, BeneFIX, Genotropin, ReFacto, Xyntha and Enbrel, among
others.  It operates in three segments: Global Innovative
Pharmaceutical segment (GIP), Global Vaccines, Oncology and
Consumer Healthcare segment (VOC) and Global Established
Pharmaceutical segment (GEP).  GIP is focused on developing,
registering and commercializing medications in therapeutic areas,
such as inflammation, cardiovascular/metabolic, neuroscience and
pain, rare diseases and women's/men's health.  VOC focuses on the
development and commercialization of vaccines and products for
oncology and consumer healthcare.  GEP includes its sterile
injectable products and bio similar development portfolio.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Precision Castparts Continues to Face PI Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Precision Castparts Corp. continues to face lawsuits alleging
personal injury as a result of exposure to chemicals and
substances in the workplace, including asbestos, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 27, 2015.

The Company states: "Like many other industrial companies in
recent years, we are defendants in lawsuits alleging personal
injury as a result of exposure to chemicals and substances in the
workplace, including asbestos.  To date, we have been dismissed
from a number of these suits and have settled a number of others.
The outcome of litigation such as this is difficult to predict,
and a judicial decision unfavorable to us could be rendered,
possibly having a material adverse effect on our business."

Headquartered in Portland, Ore., Precision Castparts Corp. is a
worldwide manufacturer of complex metal components and products,
provides high-quality investment castings, forgings and
fasteners/fastener systems for critical aerospace and industrial
gas turbine applications.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp. Continues to Defend Stearns Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rexnord Corporation continues to defend itself against numerous
lawsuits alleging personal injuries arising from asbestos
allegedly present in products manufactured by the Stearns
division, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2015.

Multiple lawsuits (with approximately 400 claimants) are pending
in state or federal court in numerous jurisdictions relating to
alleged personal injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos
in certain brakes and clutches previously manufactured by the
Company's Stearns division and/or its predecessor owners.
Invensys and FMC, prior owners of the Stearns business, have paid
100% of the costs to date related to the Stearns lawsuits.

Similarly, the Company's Prager subsidiary is a defendant in two
pending multi-defendant lawsuits relating to alleged personal
injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos in a product
allegedly manufactured by Prager.  Additionally, there are
numerous individuals who have filed asbestos related claims
against Prager; however, these claims are currently on the Texas
Multi-district Litigation inactive docket.  The ultimate outcome
of these asbestos matters cannot presently be determined. To date,
the Company's insurance providers have paid 100% of the costs
related to the Prager asbestos matters.

The Company believes that the combination of its insurance
coverage and the Invensys indemnity obligations will cover any
future costs of these matters.

Rexnord Corporation (Rexnord) is a multi-platform industrial
company.  The Company operates through two business segments: the
Process & Motion Control platform and Water Management platform.
The Process & Motion Control platform designs, manufactures,
markets and services specified and engineered mechanical
components used within systems where reliability requirements and
cost of failure or downtime is high.  The platform's product
portfolio includes gears, couplings, industrial bearings,
aerospace bearings and seals, FlatTop chain, engineered chain and
conveying equipment.  The Water Management platform designs,
procures, manufactures and markets products that provide and
enhance water quality, safety, flow control and conservation.  The
Water Management product portfolio includes professional grade
specification drainage products, flush valves and faucet products,
engineered valves and gates for the water and wastewater treatment
market, and PEX piping.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp.'s Zurn Unit Has 6,000 PI Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rexnord Corporation's subsidiary, Zurn, is a defendant in
approximately 6,000 asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2015.

Certain Water Management subsidiaries are also subject to asbestos
litigation.  As of September 30, 2015, Zurn and numerous other
unrelated companies were defendants in approximately 6,000
asbestos related lawsuits representing approximately 19,000
claims.  Plaintiffs' claims allege personal injuries caused by
exposure to asbestos used primarily in industrial boilers formerly
manufactured by a segment of Zurn.  Zurn did not manufacture
asbestos or asbestos components.  Instead, Zurn purchased them
from suppliers.  These claims are being handled pursuant to a
defense strategy funded by insurers.

As of September 30, 2015, the Company estimates the potential
liability for the asbestos-related claims, as well as the claims
expected to be filed in the next ten years to be approximately
$35.0 million, of which Zurn expects its insurance carriers to pay
approximately $27.0 million in the next ten years on such claims,
with the balance of the estimated liability being paid in
subsequent years.  The $35.0 million was developed based on an
actuarial study and represents the projected indemnity payout for
claims filed in the next ten years.  However, there are inherent
uncertainties involved in estimating the number of future asbestos
claims, future settlement costs, and the effectiveness of defense
strategies and settlement initiatives.  As a result, actual
liability could differ from the estimate described herein.
Further, while this current asbestos liability is based on an
estimate of claims through the next ten years, such liability may
continue beyond that time frame, and such liability could be
substantial.

Management estimates that its available insurance to cover this
potential asbestos liability as of September 30, 2015, is
approximately $246.2 million, and believes that all current claims
are covered by insurance.  However, principally as a result of the
past insolvency of certain of the Company's insurance carriers,
certain coverage gaps will exist if and after the Company's other
carriers have paid the first $170.2 million of aggregate
liabilities.

As of September 30, 2015, the Company had a recorded receivable
from its insurance carriers of $35.0 million, which corresponds to
the amount of this potential asbestos liability that is covered by
available insurance and is currently determined to be probable of
recovery.  However, there is no assurance that $246.2 million of
insurance coverage will ultimately be available or that this
asbestos liability will not ultimately exceed $246.2 million.
Factors that could cause a decrease in the amount of available
coverage include: changes in law governing the policies, potential
disputes with the carriers regarding the scope of coverage, and
insolvencies of one or more of the Company's carriers.

Rexnord Corporation (Rexnord) is a multi-platform industrial
company.  The Company operates through two business segments: the
Process & Motion Control platform and Water Management platform.
The Process & Motion Control platform designs, manufactures,
markets and services specified and engineered mechanical
components used within systems where reliability requirements and
cost of failure or downtime is high.  The platform's product
portfolio includes gears, couplings, industrial bearings,
aerospace bearings and seals, FlatTop chain, engineered chain and
conveying equipment.  The Water Management platform designs,
procures, manufactures and markets products that provide and
enhance water quality, safety, flow control and conservation.  The
Water Management product portfolio includes professional grade
specification drainage products, flush valves and faucet products,
engineered valves and gates for the water and wastewater treatment
market, and PEX piping.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp. Continues to Defend Falk Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rexnord Corporation continues to defend itself against lawsuits
alleging personal injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos
in certain clutches and drives previously manufactured by The Falk
Corporation, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2015.

In connection with the acquisition of The Falk Corporation
("Falk"), Hamilton Sundstrand has provided the Company with
indemnification against certain products-related asbestos exposure
liabilities.  The Company believes that, pursuant to such
indemnity obligations, Hamilton Sundstrand is obligated to defend
and indemnify the Company with respect to the asbestos claims, and
that, with respect to these claims, such indemnity obligations are
not subject to any time or dollar limitations.

Falk, through its successor entity, is a defendant in multiple
lawsuits pending in state or federal court in numerous
jurisdictions relating to alleged personal injuries due to the
alleged presence of asbestos in certain clutches and drives
previously manufactured by Falk.  There are approximately 100
claimants in these suits.  The ultimate outcome of these lawsuits
cannot presently be determined.  Hamilton Sundstrand is defending
the Company in these lawsuits pursuant to its indemnity
obligations and has paid 100% of the costs to date.

Rexnord Corporation (Rexnord) is a multi-platform industrial
company.  The Company operates through two business segments: the
Process & Motion Control platform and Water Management platform.
The Process & Motion Control platform designs, manufactures,
markets and services specified and engineered mechanical
components used within systems where reliability requirements and
cost of failure or downtime is high.  The platform's product
portfolio includes gears, couplings, industrial bearings,
aerospace bearings and seals, FlatTop chain, engineered chain and
conveying equipment.  The Water Management platform designs,
procures, manufactures and markets products that provide and
enhance water quality, safety, flow control and conservation.  The
Water Management product portfolio includes professional grade
specification drainage products, flush valves and faucet products,
engineered valves and gates for the water and wastewater treatment
market, and PEX piping.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Univar Inc. Had 177 McKesson Fibro Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Univar Inc. disclosed that as of September 30, 2015, there were
fewer than 177 asbestos-related claims for which the Company has
liability for defense and indemnity pursuant to the
indemnification obligation related to Univar USA Inc.'s 1986
purchase of McKesson Chemical Company from McKesson Corporation,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2015.

The Company is subject to liabilities from claims alleging
personal injury from exposure to asbestos.  The claims result
primarily from an indemnification obligation related to Univar USA
Inc.'s 1986 purchase of McKesson Chemical Company from McKesson
Corporation ("McKesson").  Univar USA's obligation to indemnify
McKesson for settlements and judgments arising from asbestos
claims is the amount which is in excess of applicable insurance
coverage, if any, which may be available under McKesson's
historical insurance coverage.  Univar USA is also a defendant in
a small number of asbestos claims.  As of September 30, 2015,
there were fewer than 177 asbestos-related claims for which the
Company has liability for defense and indemnity pursuant to the
indemnification obligation.  Historically, the vast majority of
the claims against both McKesson and Univar USA have been
dismissed without payment.  While the Company is unable to predict
the outcome of these matters, it does not believe, based upon
currently available facts, that the ultimate resolution of any of
these matters will have a material effect on its overall financial
position, results of operations or cash flows.  However, the
Company cannot predict the outcome of any present or future claims
or litigation and adverse developments could negatively impact
earnings or cash flows in a particular future period.

Headquartered in Downers Grove, Ill., Univar Inc. is a global
distributor of commodity and specialty chemicals.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sydow's Bid to Amend Fibro Suit Okayed
-------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Wesley Sydow and his wife Theresa Sydow allege a
variety of claims arising out of Wesley Sydow's exposure to
asbestos, which culminated in mesothelioma diagnosis.  Wesley
Sydow passed away on March 29, 2015, leaving his wife, Theresa
Sydow, to pursue their claims.

Among several motions pending in that case are (1) former-
defendant Owens-Illinois' motion to dismiss for failure to
substitute timely;(2) defendants 3M's and Weyerhaeuser's motions
to join that motion to dismiss, and (3) plaintiffs' related motion
for leave to file a third amended complaint.

Judge William M. Conley of the United States District Court for
the Western District of Wisconsin ruled as moot defendant Owens-
Illinois's motion to dismiss; denied defendants 3M and
Weyerhaeuser Company's motions to join, and granted the
plaintiff's motion for leave to file third amended complaint.

The case is THERESA SYDOW, Individually and as Special
Administrator on behalf of the Estate of Wesley Sydow, Plaintiff,
v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, 3M, and METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendants, NO. 14-CV-219-WMC (W.D. Wis.)

A full-text copy of the Opinion and Order dated November 10, 2015
is available at http://is.gd/RRICgafrom Leagle.com.

Wesley F. Sydow, Plaintiff, is represented by Michael P.
Cascino, Esq. -- CASCINO VAUGHAN LAW OFFICES, LTD., Alyssa
R. Segawa, Esq. -- info@galiherlaw.com -- GALIHER
DEROBERTIS WAXMAN, Anthony Carr, Esq. --
info@galiherlaw.com -- GALIHER DEROBERTIS WAXMAN, Gary O.
Galiher, Esq. -- info@galiherlaw.com -- GALIHER DEROBERTIS
WAXMAN, Ilana Waxman, Esq. -- info@galiherlaw.com --
GALIHER DEROBERTIS WAXMAN, James Nicholas Hoey Esq. --
CASCINO VAUGHAN LAW OFFICES, LTD., John Eugene Herrick,
Esq. -- jherrick@motleyrice.com  -- MOTLEY RICE LLC, Robert
G. McCoy Esq. -- CASCINO VAUGHAN LAW OFFICES, LTD., & W.
Christopher Swett, Esq. -- cswett@motleyrice.com -- MOTLEY
RICE LLC.

Weyerhaeuser Company, Defendant, represented by Joshua J.
Metcalf, Esq. -- Joshua.Metcalf@formanwatkins.com -- FORMAN WATKINS &
KRUTZ, LLP, Mitch McGuffey, Esq. -- Mitch.McGuffey@formanwatkins.com
-- FORMAN WATKINS & KRUTZ, LLP, Ruth F. Maron, Esq.
Ruth.Maron@formanwatkins.com -- FORMAN WATKINS & KRUTZ, LLP,
LLP, Tanya D. Ellis, Esq. -- Tanya.Ellis@formanwatkins.com --  FORMAN
WATKINS & KRUTZ, LLP & Thomas Benton York, Esq. --
Benton.York@formanwatkins.com -- FORMAN WATKINS & KRUTZ, LLP.

3M Company, Defendant, represented by Edward J.
McCambridge, Esq. -- emccambridge@smsm.com -- SEGAL MCCAMBRIDGE
SINGER & MAHONEY, LTD., Jason Patrick Eckerly, Esq. --
jeckerly@smsm.com -- SEGAL MCCAMBRIDGE SINGER & MAHONEY,
LTD., Bradley R. Bultman, Esq. -- bbultman@smsm.com -- SEGAL
MCCAMBRIDGE SINGER & MAHONEY, LTD. & Emily Zapotocny, Esq.
-- ezapotocny@smsm.com -- SEGAL MCCAMBRIDGE SINGER & MAHONEY,
LTD.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented
by Smitha Chintamaneni, Esq. -- schintam@vonbriesen.com -- VON
BRIESEN & ROPER.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: John Crane Wins Summary Judgment Bid in "Bell"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Staci M. Yandle of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois granted the Motion for Summary
Judgment filed by Defendant John Crane Inc. in the asbestos-
related lawsuit filed by Sharon Bell.

John Crane asserts that the proffered evidence does not prove the
Decedent Richard W. Bell was exposed to any of John Crane's
asbestos-containing products or that these products were a
substantial factor in the Decedent's lung cancer which the Court
agrees.

Judge Yandle found that there is insufficient evidence to connect
Bell with any John Crane products or to connect a John Crane
product with asbestos that caused Bell's lung cancer.  The
Plaintiff's sole witness Michael Loveless was unsure whether he
worked with Bell and Loveless only worked with a Bell while
serving in laundry sorting detail, Judge Yandle noted.

Although Loveless testified that he may have used packing
manufactured by John Crane, there is no evidence that Bell also
worked with or around any packing materials, Judge Yandle pointed
out.  Loveless testified that he never witnessed Bell working with
or around any packing material and the Plaintiff also did not know
whether Bell worked with packing while in the military, Judge
Yandle said.

The case is SHARON BELL, Executor of the Estate of Mr. Richard W.
Bell, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. THE ABB GROUP, INC., et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 13-CV-1338-SMY-SCW.

A full-text copy of the Memorandum and Order dated November 24,
2015, is available at http://is.gd/MLAvAmfrom Leagle.com.

Sharon Bell, Plaintiff, is represented by Ben A. Vinson, Jr., Esq.
-- VINSON LAW, John D Sloan, Jr, Esq. -- SLOAN, BAGLEY,
HATCHER & PERRY, Zane T. Cagle, Esq. -- CAGLE LAW FIRM, LLC & Clay
Zelbst, Esq. -- SLOAN, BAGLEY, HATCHER & PERRY.

John Crane, Inc., Defendant, represented by Sean P. Fergus, Esq.
-- sean@otmblaw.com -- O'CONNELL, TIVIN, MILLER & BURNS
L.L.C., Caroline Linder Olson, Esq. -- s colson@otmblaw.com --
O'CONNELL, TIVIN, MILLER & BURNS L.L.C. & Simon B. Purnell, Esq.
-- spurnell@otmblaw.com -- O'CONNELL, TIVIN, MILLER & BURNS
L.L.C.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cos. Win Summary Judgment Bid in "Schneider"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Karin Hill, the personal representative of the estate of Heinz
Schneider brought a wrongful death claim, alleging that he had
died from asbestos related diseases.  It is undisputed that the
statute of limitations for bringing a personal injury action based
on Schneider's exposure to asbestos had expired before his death.
Thus, Schneider lacked "a valid subsisting cause of action" and
his estate's personal representative may not bring a wrongful
death claim.

On summary judgment, the defendants argued that the personal
representative could not bring a wrongful death claim because
Schneider had failed to bring a personal injury claim within three
years of discovering his asbestos related diseases.  In response,
the personal representative argued that a wrongful death claim is
independent of a personal injury claim.  Thus, according to the
personal representative, the statute of limitations for the
wrongful death claim began to run when Schneider died.

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants.

The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One, affirms the
trial court's grant of summary judgment to defendants.

The case is KARIN HILL, as Personal Representative for the Estate
of HEINZ GERHARD SCHNEIDER, Deceased, Appellant, v. BARTELLS
ASBESTOS SETTLEMENT TRUST; BOUTEN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY; COLONIAL
SUGAR REFINING COMPANY; GRINNELL LLC (fka GRINNELL CORPORATION,
aka GRINNELL FIRE); MAX J. KUNEY COMPANY; NEUPS, INC.; and FIRST
DOE through ONE HUNDREDTH DOE; Respondents, NO. 73960-3-I (Wash.
App.).

A full-text of the Memorandum and Order dated November 23, 2015,
is available at http://is.gd/QNFLanfrom Leagle.com.

Meredith Boyden Good, Esq. -- BRAYTON PURCELL LLP, 806 Sw
Broadway Ste 1100, Portland, OR, 97205-3333, Counsel for
Appellants.

J Scott Wood, Esq. -- swood@foleymansfield.com  -- FOLEY &
MANSFIELD PLLP, 999 3rd Ave Ste 3760, Seattle, WA, 98104-
4009; Daniel Ruttenberg, Esq. --
druttenberg@foleymansfield.com  -- FOLEY & MANSFIELD PLLP,
999 3rd Ave Ste 3760, Seattle, WA, 98104-4009, Bonnie Lynn
Black, Esq., Attorney at Law, 1020 N. K St Apt D, Tacoma,
WA, 98403-1861; Jan Elizabeth Brucker, JAN BRUCKER,
Attorney, 800 Fifth Ave Ste 3850, Seattle, WA, 98104-
3101; Stephen Garrett Leatham, Esq. -- sgl@hpl-law.com  --
HEURLIN POTTER JAHN LEATHAM HOLTMANN &, 211 E. Mcloughlin
Blvd Ste 100, Vancouver, WA, 98663-3368; Ronald Clayton
Gardner, Esq. -- rgardner@gandtlawfirm.com -- GARDNER TRABOLSI
& ASSOCIATES PLLC, 2200 6th Ave Ste 600, Seattle, WA,
98121-1849, Counsel for Respondents.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Kelleher" Remanded to Illinois State Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Kelleher originally filed an action in the Third Judicial
Circuit, Madison County, Illinois, alleging injuries due to
exposure to asbestos.

The Plaintiff alleges exposure from his employment from 1958 until
2006 as an aircraft mechanic, helicopter mechanic, and laborer at
various locations throughout the United States.  The Plaintiff
testified that he worked as a civilian aircraft mechanic on
commercial, non-military aircrafts for United Airlines from 1966
until 2000.  For the two years prior to his employment with
United, the Plaintiff served as a helicopter mechanic in the
United States Army.

Judge Staci M. Yandle of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois granted the Plaintiff's Motion to
Remand and case is remanded to the Third Judicial Circuit, Madison
County, Illinois.

The case is THOMAS KELLEHER, Plaintiff, v. A.W. CHESTERTON
COMPANY, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 15-CV-893-SMY-SCW (S.D.
Ill.).

A full-text of the Memorandum and Order dated November 23, 2015 is
available at http://is.gd/SCNNHifrom Leagle.com.

Thomas Kelleher, Plaintiff, is represented by Melissa Crowe
Schopfer, Esq. -- mschopfer@simmonsfirm.com -- SIMMONS HANLY CONROY
& Jean-Michel LeCointre, Esq. --  jlecointre@simmonsfirm.com -- SIMMONS
HANLY CONROY.

Boeing Company, Defendant, is represented by Greg M McMahon,
Esq. -- gmcmahon@smsm.com SEGAL, MCCAMBRIDGE SINGER & MAHONEY,
LTD & Mark Coad Sampson, Esq. -- msampson@smsm.com -- SEGAL,
MCCAMBRIDGE SINGER & MAHONEY, LTD.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Westinghouse Wins Summary Judgment in "Wilson"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert J. Krask of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia, Newport News Division, granted
Westinghouse's motion for summary judgment and denied as moot its
motion to exclude or limit the testimony of Dr. Castleman in the
asbestos-related lawsuit captioned RORIE N. WILSON, Plaintiff, v.
AC&S, INC. et al. Defendants, ACTION NO. 4:14CV91 (E.D. Va.).

A full-text of the Opinion dated November 19, 2015, is available
at http://is.gd/Pi5ziWfrom Leagle.com.

Rorie N. Wilson, Plaintiff, represented by Paul A. Weykamp, LAW
OFFICES OF PAUL A. WEYKAMP.

CBS Corporation f/k/a Viacom, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Henry N. Ware, Jr., Esq. -- hnware@spottsfain.com  -- SPOTTS
FAIN PC, Maurice Francis Mullins, Esq. -- mfmullins@spottsfain.com
-- SPOTTS FAIN PC, Patricia Bugg Turner, Esq. --
pbturner@spottsfain.com  -- SPOTTS FAIN PC, William Davis Harvard,
Esq. -- wdharvard@ewhlaw.com -- EVERT WEATHERSBY HOUFF, William
Randolph Robins, Jr., Esq. -- wrrobins@spottsfain.com  -- SPOTTS
FAIN PC & John Michael Erbach, Esq. -- jmerbach@spottsfain.com  --
SPOTTS FAIN PC.


                            *********

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  * * *