CAR_Public/151218.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Friday, December 18, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 252


                            Headlines


AMAZON: Can Use Rejected Settlement Offer to Avert Class Action
ANIMAL AIR: "Diaz" Action Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Manipulates Treasuries, CNB Suit Claims
BECK ENERGY: Supreme Court Hears Case Over Oil/Gas Leases
BOJANGLES' FAMOUS: Employees File Class Action Following Shutdown

BOSTIK INC: "Clark" Action Seeks Damages from Defective Product
BRIAN SELF: Faces Class Action Over Unsolicited Fax Ads
BRICE, OH: Faces Class Action Over Traffic Tickets
CABLEVISION: Settles Class Action Over Set-Top Rental Fees
CANADA: Aboriginal Woman Mulls Class Action v. SHR Over Ligation

CODE 42 SOFTWARE: "Doe" Action Hits Subscription Renewal
DFS GROUP: "Concepcion" Suit Seeks Damages and Overtime Pay
DOLE FOOD: February 8 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
DRAFTKINGS INC: "Facenda" Suit Alleges Rigging in Online Game
DUKE ENERGY: April 18 Approval Hearing on $80.87-Mil. Settlement

DUPONT: Second Trial in C8 Litigation to Start March 21
EMERGENCY MEDICAL: Judge Denies Customers' Class Certification Bid
ENDO PHARMA: Judge Refuses to Remand Birth Control Class Action
EOG RESOURCES: "Chaumont" Action Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
EROS INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Abram" Suit Over Misleading Reports

EXPEDIA: Westchester County Sues Over Underpaid Hotel Taxes
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: "Crump" Suit Alleges Data Breach
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: "Brazzle" Suit Hits Data Breach
FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: "Dong" Action Sues Over Share Price Drop
FORD MOTOR: Plaintiffs Use "Catalyst" Theory in Class Action

GEORGIA: Fired IT Employee Takes Brunt of Blame for Data Breach
GILLETTE CO: CCAF Seeks Review of Duracell Class Suit Settlement
GLOBE SPECIALTY: Feb. 10 Fairness Hearing of $32.5MM Settlement
GOOGLE INC: Seeks Review of Pay-Per-Click Class Action Ruling
GVT: Brazil Commences False Advertising Class Action

JP MORGAN: Hotel Files Class Action Over Mobile Banking App
KYB GROUP: "Adams" Action Hits Price-Fixing of Shock Absorbers
LAMI PRODUCTS: "Cikra" Action Seeks Overtime Pay
LOBLAW COMPANIES: Recalls Ginger Cookie Chips Due to Peanuts
LOBLAW COMPANIES: Recalls Life at Home(R) Multicolour LED Lights

MAHINDRA USA: Recalls Diesel Tractors Due to Fire Hazard
MANNARICH FOOD: Recalls Fish and Seafood Products Due to Egg
MASERATI: Recalls 2016 Models Due to Injury Risk
MEDIVANCE INC: Recalls Temperature Management Systems
MEYER'S UNION: Faces Class Action Over No Tipping Policy

MILLER BREWING: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Beer Label
NEINSTEIN & ASSOCIATES: Ontario Court Certifies Class Action
NESTLE INDIA: Supreme Court Stays Maggi Class Action Proceedings
NEWMAR: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Injury Risk
NEWMAR: Recalls Canyon Star Class A Motorhome 2014 Models

NEWMAR: Recalls King Aire Class A Motorhome 2016 Models
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK: Cop's Sexual Assault Victims File Class Action
POSTURE PRO: Faces "Carradine" Suit Over Unsolicited Faxes
RENO, NV: Awaits Ruling on Class Action v. Housing Authority
RUTH'S HOSPITALITY: "Ware" Action Seeks Overtime Pay

SHORB GROUP: "Castro" Action Seeks to Recover Wages and OT
SOUTHERN RESPONSE: Policyholders Attend Class Action Hearing
SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: TheGrantLawFirm Withdraws Class Action
SUPERIOR PERFORMANCE: "Allen" Action Seeks to Recover OT
SWAGWAY LLC: Faces Class Action Over Defective Scooter

SYNGENTA GROUP: "Fleisher" Suit Alleges Crop Loss Over GMO Corn
TINDER: Faces Consumer Fraud Class Action in California
TAISHAN GYPSUM: Judge Hears Closing Arguments in Drywall Suit
TERRFORM GLOBAL: Hid IPO Sponsor's Losses, "Beltran" Suit Alleges
U.S. MEDICAL MGT: "Chudzik" Suit Claims Back Pay

UBER: Wants Drivers to Sign Agreement Not to Join Class Action
UBER: City of Seattle Allows Drivers to Form Union
UNITED SERVICES: Little Rock Attorney Challenges Settlement
VALEANT PHARMA: Faces "Fein" Securities Action in N.J.
VAN HEUSEN: Settles Background Check Class Action

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Barber" Suit Alleges Emission Test Cheating
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Recall to Commence in January 2016 in Australia
WEN: More Than 200 Women Sue Over Hair Care Product
YACHTING PROMOTIONS: "De Jesus" Action Seeks OT Pay
ZEEKREWARDS.COM: E-Wallet Agrees to Pay $3.5MM to Receivership

* NJ's High Court Justices Mull Insurance Class Action Standard


                    Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: JPL Construction May Have Exposed Workers
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NYC Fibro Plaintiffs Oppose Bid to Quash
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leeds School's Health, Safety Failings Exposed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Cancer Leaves Baby Dreams in Tatters
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Project to Begin at Courthouse

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Order Denying Summary Judgment Reversed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Payment Call for Neighbors of Fibro Waste Plant
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Jury Awards Nearly $7MM in FELA Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. High Ct. Says State Law Blocks Fibro Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Missoula Food Bank Site Has Fibro in Soil

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Halts School Board Renewal Strategy
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Calls for Licensing of Fibro Removal Cos.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Claims Fibro Exposure Caused Mesothelioma
ASBESTOS UPDATE: City Hall Closed Due to Fibro Contamination
ASBESTOS UPDATE: DNR Fibro Report Has Errors, School Dist. Says

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Andrea Electronics Continues to Defend RI Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Had $17.8MM Reserve at September 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Continues to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor Had 5,600 Maremont Claims at Sept. 27
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor Unit Has $41-Mil. Fibro Recoveries

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Haynes Int'l Continues to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mallinckrodt plc Had 12,750 PI Cases at Sept. 25
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scotts Miracle Continues to Defend Fibro Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cabot Corp. Has 38,000 AO Respiratory Claimants
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Esterline Still Subject to Potential Liabilities

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Partially Dismisses "Rhoton"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in "Feaster"





                            *********


AMAZON: Can Use Rejected Settlement Offer to Avert Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Churney, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
Chicago federal judge has ruled a plaintiff, who is leading a
putative class action suit against Amazon for allegedly rejecting
his job application after a background check turned up what the
plaintiff said is a bogus report of a drug conviction, can't stop
the online retailer from using the plaintiff's decision to reject
a settlement offer as a defense to ward off the class action suit.

The reasoning behind this ruling, which concerns Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 68, was delivered in a memorandum opinion Dec. 7
by U.S. District Judge Gary Feinerman.

In November 2013, Gregory Williams, of Irmo, S.C., applied for a
full-time seasonal job with the global retailer Amazon.  After an
interview, Williams was offered the position, but then the
Chicago-based employment agency SMX, under contract with Amazon,
allegedly provided a background check to Amazon that reported
Mr. Williams had a felony conviction for possession of cocaine.
Allegedly as a result, Amazon rescinded its job offer to
Mr. Williams.

Mr. Williams said he had no such conviction, but alleged neither
Amazon nor SMX gave him a chance to review and respond to the
information, as required by the U.S. Fair Credit Reporting Act.
The Act governs the use of background checks for employment
purposes.

In April 2015, Mr. Williams filed suit in U.S. District Court for
Northern Illinois against Amazon and SMX, claiming the companies
violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act.  Mr. Williams eventually
made a motion to make his case a class-action suit, but before
that happened, defendants put forward two settlement offers to
Mr. Williams, the second one the more generous -- $13,000 plus
legal costs. However, Williams purportedly rejected both.

The settlement offers were tendered under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 68, which dictates, should plaintiffs win a judgment
that is no better than an offer they rejected, plaintiffs must
reimburse defendants for costs defendant incurred after the offer
was made.

After the first rejection, defendants sought to dismiss the case,
arguing they offered to give Mr. Williams everything he wanted,
but Mr. Williams continued to sue even though he had for all
purposes won his court action.  Judge Feinerman disagreed, ruling
the relief offered Mr. Williams was incomplete.  After the second
rejection, defendants moved for leave to file an amended motion to
again dismiss, but Judge Feinerman denied the motion for leave.

In the meantime, Mr. Williams had lodged a motion to have the
judge declare the second settlement offer invalid, so he would not
be stuck with defendants' legal costs if he won a judgment no more
favorable than the relief presented in that offer.

On Nov. 17, Judge Feinerman rejected Williams' motion, delivering
a fuller explanation of his thinking in a paper filed Dec. 7.

Mr. Williams had contended Rule 68 doesn't apply in putative class
actions.  However, Judge Feinerman said the defense has to be
allowed to bring up rejected offers, because Rule 68 says
defendants can present an affirmative defense of estoppel or
waiver by showing their offer gave the plaintiff what he wanted.
If such a defense is to be advanced, defendants must be able to
bring forth the offer that was rejected.

Judge Feinerman said he could find no support for Mr. Williams'
position in "rule or statute," but he did track down support in
several federal district court rulings from around the country, in
which judges refused to apply Rule 68 in putative class actions.

Judge Feinerman acknowledged those district rulings seek to
prevent a defendant from using a paltry offer to "kneecap budding
class actions and escape liability" in such suits.  Nonetheless,
Jduge Feinerman said he is obligated to follow precedent laid down
by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals -- which encompasses
Chicago's federal district court -- holding, under Rule 68,
putative class actions can be dismissed if plaintiffs turn down
settlement offers.

The Seventh Circuit also has no problem imposing costs on the
losing parties in putative class actions, according to Judge
Feinerman. The judge cited the 2001 Seventh Circuit decision in
White v. Sundstrand Corp., which asserted nothing "suggests that
cost-shifting is inapplicable to class actions."

Judge Feinerman noted the incentive to undertake class action
suits is still in place, as lawyers handling class actions tend to
profit much more than any of their clients.  This arrangement
encourages such lawyers to pursue class actions despite the danger
of having to pay defendants' costs in the event of loss, because
the lawyers stand to gain significantly.  Besides, class action
lawyers usually handle a number of such cases, losing some and
winning some.  As a result, such lawyers spread their risk among a
number of cases, establishing a form of insurance, the judge said.
All of this serves to reduce the deterrent posed by the
possibility of having to pay defendants' legal costs, he said.

Mr. Williams is represented by the firms of Francis & Mailman, of
Philadelphia; SmithMarco, of Chicago; and Christopher E. Green, of
Seattle.

Amazon and SMX are defended by Ongarao PC, of San Francisco, and
Baker & Hostetler, of Chicago.

A status hearing is set for Feb. 17.


ANIMAL AIR: "Diaz" Action Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Amin Diaz and other similarly-situated individuals, v. Animal Air
Service, Inc. and Luis Enrique Valdivieso, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-24314-PAS (S.D. Fla. Miami Division,
October 20, 2015), seeks to recover monetary damages for unpaid
overtime wages pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 201-219 of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Animal Air Service, Inc. is a Florida Corporation with its place
of business in Dade County. It is an animal transport and handling
company providing services at Miami International Airport with
Luis Enrique Valdivieso as owner.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
      ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
      3100 South Dixie Highway Suite 202
      Miami, FL 33133
      Tel: (305) 446-1500
      Fax: (305) 446-1502
      Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Manipulates Treasuries, CNB Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
CNB Bancorp, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bank of Nova Scotia, New York
Agency; Bmo Capital Markets Corp., BNP Paribas Securities Corp.,
Barclays Capital Inc., Cantorfitzgerald & Co., Citigroup Global
Markets Inc., Countrywide Securities Corporation, Credit Suisse
Securities (USA) LLC; Daiwa Capital Markets America Inc., Deutsche
Bank Securities Inc., Goldman, Sachs & Co., HSBC Securities (USA)
Inc., Jefferies LLC,  J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Merrill Lynch,
Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Mizuho Securities USA Inc.,
Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Nomura Securities International, Inc.;
RBC Capital Markets, LLC; RBS Securities Inc.; SO Americas
Securities, LLC; TD Securities (USA) LLC and UBS Securities LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-00595 (S.D. Ala., November 20, 2015),
seeks to recover damages against Defendants for their violations
of federal antitrust laws.

Defendants allegedly colluded and manipulated the market for U.S.
Treasury securities, including Treasury bills, notes, bonds,
Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities and floating rate notes as
well as derivative instruments based on such securities, including
U.S. Treasury futures and options resulting in reduced competition
in bond auctions and raises costs for taxpayers and investors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Patrick C. Cooper, Esq.
      James S. Ward, Esq.
      WARD & WILSON, L.L.C.
      2100A Southbridge Parkway Suite 580
      Birmingham, AL 35209
      Tel: (205) 871-5404
      Fax: (205) 871-5758
      Email: patrickcharles003@yahoo.com
             jward@wardwilsonlaw.com

           - and -

      Peter H. Burke, Esq.
      Allen Schreiber, Esq.
      BURKE HARVEY, LLC
      3535 Grandview Parkway Suite 100
      Birmingham, AL 35243
      Tel: (205) 930-9091
      Fax: (205) 930-6054
      Email: pburke@burkeharvey.com
             aschreiber@burkeharvey.com

           - and -

      Alfred G. Yates, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ALFRED G. YATES, JR., P.C.
      519 Allegheny Building
      429 Forbes Avenue
      Pittsburgh, PA 15219
      Tel: (412) 391-5164
      Fax: (412) 471-1033
      Email: yateslaw@aol.com

           - and -

      Nicoleta Spilca, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF NICOLETA SPILCA
      500 Marquette NW Suite 1200
      Albuquerque, NM 87102
      Tel: 505-255-0459
      Email: spilca.esq@gmail.com


BECK ENERGY: Supreme Court Hears Case Over Oil/Gas Leases
---------------------------------------------------------
Jamison Cocklin, writing for NGI's Shale Daily, reports that after
years of protracted lawsuits, the Ohio Supreme Court heard oral
arguments on Dec. 14 in a case that could release hundreds of
landowners from undeveloped oil and natural gas lease agreements
and cast doubt on similarly worded leases that have been used for
decades in the state.

Legacy driller Beck Energy Corp. has been fighting two groups of
landowners over leases signed to explore for oil and gas in
southern and eastern Ohio.  The parties, including Beck's partner,
XTO Energy Inc., have claimed the dispute has prevented millions
in bonus payments, royalties and profits.

The high court would decide if the leases signed with Beck are
void because they include language to allow the company to
perpetually control mineral rights without drilling.  If the
landowners are successful, a certified class of 700 of them could
end their leases and negotiate new ones.

In September 2011, five landowners filed a lawsuit in Monroe
County Common Pleas Court against Beck claiming they signed lease
forms, labeled G&T (83), that allowed Beck to control their land
indefinitely without drilling and paying royalties if the company
paid a few hundred dollars per year in rentals for the property.
Beck argued those leases followed decades of precedent under Ohio
law that allowed it to drill within 10 years of the lease and
remain on the land as long as the company continued operations.
The following year, the lower court ruled for the landowners and
declared the leases void as a violation of public policy against
leases that have no end date.

The landowners also filed for class-action certification, alleging
an estimated 700 people throughout the state had signed with Beck.
During that time, Beck signed an agreement with XTO Energy Inc.,
turning over the deep rights on some of the land in question to
the ExxonMobil Corp. subsidiary.  The trial court granted class
action and Beck appealed to the Seventh District Court of Appeals
(see Shale Daily, Feb. 28, 2013).

But because the landowners were not seeking monetary damages with
the class action suit, the group was designated under Ohio law as
one that did not require notification or a right to opt-out as is
typical in class action cases.  The Seventh District reversed the
lower court's ruling in 2013, declaring the leases valid again and
granted an order freezing the leases until the case could be
resolved by the Ohio Supreme Court on appeal by the landowners.

In 2014, a family farm filed a request with the Supreme Court to
prevent its lease from being frozen.  The farm said it should have
been notified of the class action and should not have been
involuntarily included in it.  The high court consolidated the
farm's complaint with the case against Beck and will decide on
both after oral arguments.

At issue is whether the Beck leases contain proper primary and
secondary clauses that require it to drill for oil and gas within
the first 10 years of the lease and control land only after
production has occurred.  The court would also decide if class
members that weren't notified have a right to end their leases and
renegotiate them.

The Ohio Oil and Gas Association (OOGA) has filed an amicus brief
supporting Beck and the appeals court's decision. Six other oil
and gas companies operating in the state have done the same.  In
its brief, OOGA argues that many companies use the G&T (83) leases
or similar ones, saying "countlessly similar worded Ohio leases
will be thrown into doubt," if the landowners are successful.

There were 19 oil and natural gas rigs running in Ohio at the
start of December, according to Baker Hughes data, including
eight rigs in Belmont County and five in Monroe County.


BOJANGLES' FAMOUS: Employees File Class Action Following Shutdown
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Theresa Campbell, writing for Daily Commercial, reports that a
class-action lawsuit and demand for jury trial has been filed on
behalf of an estimated 300 employees, including those in Leesburg,
affected by the abrupt closing of Bojangles' Famous Chicken 'n
Biscuits throughout Central Florida.

Most employees were given two days' notice before eight Bojangles'
restaurants were shuttered on Dec. 6, yet some workers didn't know
of the closing until they showed up for work and found doors
locked, according to attorney Richard Celler.

As managing partner of Celler Legal P.A., of Davie, Mr. Celler
provided the Daily Commercial with a copy of the lawsuit filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
Orlando Division, on behalf of plaintiff Stephen McCowan and other
class employees of the closed Bojangles' against defendant, Hill
Gray Seven LLC.

Drew Hill is listed as owner/manager of Hill Gray Seven LLC.
Mr. Hill could not be reached for comment.

According to the lawsuit, the defendant is liable under the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act of 1988 for
failing to provide employees with at least 60 days' advance notice
of their termination as required by the WARN Act.

"This is a law that is commonly violated," Mr. Celler said on Dec.
15. "Often times, in these kinds of situations, what we get is an
employer who completely shuts his doors and is no longer in
business or has assets.  But, we believe in this instance, the
defendant owns the restaurants or the franchise rights, so we
believe there are appropriate assets to go after to make sure that
these employees are paid properly."

Mr. Celler said if the court grants the class-action grant
certification, all affected employees who lost their jobs will be
included in the lawsuit if they wish.  The attorney said that
according to the WARN Act, the employees should be entitled to the
wages they would have earned during the 60-day period of notice
they before their jobs ended.

"What has been incredibly troubling about this situation has been
the timing of it," Mr. Celler said.  "We're going right into the
holidays, and it is just awful that these employees weren't at
least given the opportunity to plan for what was coming."
"These are not Fortune 500 employees," he added.  "These are
individuals making a fairly low, blue-collar, hourly wage, and
most of these folks live paycheck to paycheck.  And when you take
that away, it's not just the wages they lost, but it's the ripple
effect of not being able to pay their bills and not being able to
provide their kids with Christmas presents.  If I had to use an
expression, this is like the Grinch who stole Christmas this
year."

According to Mr. Celler's website, floridaovertimelawyer.com, in
the last 10 years of his 14-year career, he has recovered, either
by settlement or verdict, over $100 million in damages for workers
around the U.S. regarding labor and employment cases.


BOSTIK INC: "Clark" Action Seeks Damages from Defective Product
---------------------------------------------------------------
Annette Clark, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Bostik, Inc., David C. Greenbaum Co.,
Inc., Leonard's Carpet Services, Inc. and Does 1-100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 8:15-cv-01941 (C.D. Cal., November 20, 2015),
seeks to recover economic loss from the sale of defective
products, cost to repair damage to their homes, necessary
relocation expense, restitution, costs of suit and attorneys' fees
in violation of Civ. Code 1770(a) subsection (5), (7) and (9),
Breach of Express Warranties under Common Law, Cal. Civ. Code 1790
et seq. and Cal. Comm. Code 2313.

Plaintiffs allegedly purchased defective DURABOND D-70 Premium
Flexible Polymer Modified Thin-Set Proven Adhesion and Crack
Suppression Mortar manufactured by defendant Bostik, Inc. supplied
by defendant David C. Greenbaum Co., Inc. and installed by
Leonard's Carpet Services, Inc.

Bostik, Inc., a Delaware corporation, was and is doing business
throughout the State of California. It is a global adhesive
specialist in industrial manufacturing, construction and consumer
markets. Bostik is a wholly-owned company of Arkema, a French
chemical company and maintains a manufacturing facility in
Temecula, California located at 27460 Bostik Court, Temecula, CA
92590.

David C. Greenbaum Co., Inc., a California Corporation, does
business throughout the State of California and is a material
supplier of D-70. Its principal place of business is at 290 E.
Verdugo Ave., Suite 101, Burbank, CA 91502.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stuart M. Eppsteiner, Esq.
      Andrew J. Kubik, Esq.
      EPPSTEINER & FIORICA ATTORNEYS, LLP
      12555 High Bluff Dr., Ste. 155
      San Diego, Ca 92130
      Tel: (858) 350-1500
      Fax: (858) 350-1501
      Email: sme@eppsteiner.com
             ajk@eppsteiner.com


BRIAN SELF: Faces Class Action Over Unsolicited Fax Ads
-------------------------------------------------------
Vimbai Chikomo, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the owner
of an Arizona company that sells spinal decompression equipment
says he made a "one-time mistake" sending a group fax and now
faces bankruptcy because of the ensuing class action lawsuit.

A class was recently certified in a Missouri lawsuit against Brian
Self's company Double Your Decompression, which is accused of
sending hundreds of unsolicited advertisements through fax.
According to the lawsuit, Thomas C. Duke v. Double Your
Decompression, the defendants sent hundreds of unsolicited fax ads
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

The TCPA was passed into law in 1991, and went into effect in
1992. Since then, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and
Congress have made amendments to the statute that permitted some
unsolicited fax transmissions that were previously prohibited
under the statute.

Double Your Decompression's website states that it's a company
that provides "all of your spinal decompression needs under one
roof."

Self, the owner of Double Your Compression stated that he founded
his company in 2011 and claims that he made a one-time mistake of
sending out a fax to a group of people in 2011. He has filed for
bankruptcy.

"Ninety percent of the population has no idea that that's a law. I
have two friends that are lawyers -- they went to law school,
passed the bar and are actual practicing lawyers, and they had no
idea that was actually a law," Self told Legal Newsline.

"Nobody knows that they need to have physical written permission
from people for every single thing that they fax."

Self said that once he understood the law he didn't send out any
more faxes.

"This is my only source of income, and there's no way we could pay
for what might turn out to be a $300,000 to $500,000 lawsuit,"
Self said.

The TCPA allows individuals who have received telemarketing calls,
unsolicited faxes, prerecorded calls, or autodialed calls to
cellphones, may file a lawsuit against any company that violates
the TCPA. Potential judgment for damages under the statute
typically ranges from $500 to $1500 for each violation, which are
paid to the consumer and the plaintiffs attorneys.

A website set up for those wanting to be included in the class
states that "persons who are members of this class must decide
whether to remain in the class or ask to be excluded."

The class in the case against Double Your Decompression is
composed of "all persons and entities whose fax number appears in
the List of Class Members, and to whom defendants or defendants'
agents sent one or more faxes advertising Defendants' products or
services between Nov. 25, 2010 and Nov. 25, 2014."

Ari Rodopoulos, the attorney representing the class, declined to
comment.


BRICE, OH: Faces Class Action Over Traffic Tickets
--------------------------------------------------
Tom Sussi, writing for ABC 6 Investigates, reports that nearly two
years ago to the day, its own lawyers warned the Village of Brice
to stop writing traffic tickets as civil citations.  They feared
the Village exposed itself to serious legal implications.

Now it's happened. Investigator Tom Sussi reports that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against the Village.  Attorneys
David Goldstein and Gina Piacentino say the Village's system is
illegal and unconstitutional.  The suit demands the Village refund
the thousands of motorists ticketed under this controversial
system.

"The purpose of our lawsuit and class action is to get a large
group or people who can't afford a lawyer, and try to get back the
money that we believe they are due owed," Mr. Goldstein said.

Neither Village of Brice Mayor Amy Evans or its solicitor
responded to ABC 6/FOX 28's calls and e-mails.  The Village has 28
days to respond to the lawsuit.

If you're interested in the class action lawsuit, please contact
the law office of Gina Piacentino at 221-0800.


CABLEVISION: Settles Class Action Over Set-Top Rental Fees
----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Frankel, writing for FireceCable, reports that Cablevision
has settled a class-action suit filed against it for tying various
services to set-top rental fees.

According to documents related to the settlement, which were
obtained by Broadcasting & Cable, the settlement obligates
Cablevision to open its systems to certain third-party set-top box
providers.

The MSO has also agreed to provide all of its subscribers four
months free of AMC Networks' streaming channels, whether or not
they were part of the class action.


CANADA: Aboriginal Woman Mulls Class Action v. SHR Over Ligation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Betty Ann Adam, writing for Saskatoon StarPhoenix, reports that an
aboriginal woman who had a tubal ligation at Royal University
Hospital hopes to launch a class-action lawsuit against the
Saskatoon Health Region (SHR) and possibly the provincial and
federal governments.

Melika Popp had the procedure in 2008 when she gave birth by
emergency Cesarean section to her second child.  She said she was
misled into believing the procedure would be reversible.

Ms. Popp called a lawyer after learning in November of at least
two other indigenous women who said they had been pressured into
being sterilized against their wishes.

Lawyer Roch Dupont said he is still analyzing issues in the case.
Popp and other women who have complained publicly were told their
files had been flagged by Social Services for one reason or
another. The purpose of flagging their files is not clear, he
said.

"Why were they flagged? There had to have been a policy somewhere
that said here is the criteria.  I'm sure the flagging wasn't done
because one doctor or one nurse decided this needs to be done,"
Dupont said.

"Was it a provincial government policy? Was it widespread? Was it
from Social Services or was it a Ministry of Health policy?"

Dupont said it seems unlikely front line workers were acting on
their own, without any government authority.

In response to complaints in October, SHR implemented a new
process so that only women who have decided with their physicians
before coming to hospital will undergo tubal ligation following
vaginal delivery.

Jackie Mann, vice-president of integrated services for the health
region, said in October that the health region would bring in an
outside investigator to look into the complaints and examine
current practices.  No one has been contracted to do the job, a
spokesperson confirmed.

The number of tubal ligations after vaginal births fell gradually
to 24 in 2014-15, from 95 in 2010-11, according to Mann.

Popp was a single mother and was considering giving her baby up
for adoption, but she changed her mind after the birth.

She'd arrived at the RUH emergency department six weeks before her
baby's due date and was quickly scheduled for the emergency
procedure.  Ms. Popp said the doctor who was to perform it came to
her room in the maternity ward before the birth and suggested she
have a tubal ligation, so she "wouldn't land in this situation
again."

Ms. Popp said she was told the procedure was reversible and there
would be no other lasting effects on her body.

"I trusted them. I believed them," she said.

"I just feel violated as a human being, as a mother."

Ms. Popp said she feels her lost ability to have children, who
would have become part of future First Nations, magnifies the
disconnection from her people that she suffered as a result of
being taken from her mother in the '60s Scoop and placed with a
family that taught her to feel ashamed of her indigenous identity.

She is among more than 2,300 people in Saskatchewan and Manitoba
who have signed onto a proposed '60s Scoop class action lawsuit.

She wants the courts to confirm that both the '60s Scoop and
uninformed consent for sterilizations were acts of systemic
racism.  She wants Canadian history to recognize the wrongs, she
said.

"It's another form of cultural genocide."

The sterilization lawsuit is not about getting cash, but about
getting governments to take responsibility for helping to heal
people by providing counselling and other services comparable to
the services available to victims of sexual assault, she said,
adding she also wants greater education for the public, police and
health care and child protection workers.

"This healing journey has not been a victory march . . . I've had
my life hijacked by the government," she said.


CODE 42 SOFTWARE: "Doe" Action Hits Subscription Renewal
--------------------------------------------------------
JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Code 42 Software, Inc. and Does 1 - 10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 8:15-cv-01936 (C.D. Cal., November
19, 2015), seeks damages and full restitution in the amount of the
subscription payments in violation of the California Business &
Professional Code 17602.

Defendant operates a website which markets subscriptions for its
"CrashPlan" computer backup services and related computer
services. It allegedly failed to inform the Plaintiff that it was
continuing its subscription.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
      Richard H. Hikida, Esq.
      David W. Reid, Esq.
      Victoria C. Knowles, Esq.
      NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP
      4100 Newport Place, Ste. 800
      Newport Beach, CA 92660
      Tel: (949) 706-6464
      Fax: (949) 706-6469
      Email: sferrell@trialnewport.com
             rhikida@trialnewport.com
             dreid@trialnewport.com
             vknowles@trialnewport.com


DFS GROUP: "Concepcion" Suit Seeks Damages and Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Concepcion, on behalf of himself and on behalf of others
similarly situated, and the general public, v. DFS Group L.P. and
DOES 1-25, Case No. CGC-15-548698 (Cal. Super., San Francisco
County, October 29, 2015), seeks compensatory and statutory
damages and to recover overtime pay according to the Labor Code
226.7 and Wage Order #9 as well as waiting time and statutory
penalties pursuant to Labor Code 201-203 and 558.

DFS Group L.P. is a luxury retailer operating out of duty free
shops in airports worldwide and a California registered
corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Arlo Garcia Uriarte, Esq.
      Un Kei Wu, Esq.
      Ernesto Sanchez, Esq.
      Brent A. Robinson, Esq.
      Liberation Law Group, P.C.
      2760 Mission St.
      San Francisco, CA 94110
      Tel: (415) 695-1000
      Fax: (415) 695-1006


DOLE FOOD: February 8 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP on Dec. 15 disclosed that a securities
class action has been filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons or entities who sold the common stock of Dole Food
Company, Inc. between January 2, 2013 and October 31, 2013,
inclusive.  The complaint charges Dole and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
implemented a fraudulent scheme to acquire the publicly held
shares of Dole in order to convert the Company into a privately-
held enterprise owned by Dole Chairman and CEO, David H. Murdock.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that Defendants made false
and/or misleading negative statements about Dole's operations and
finances, and omitted material information, in order to
artificially lower the price of Dole's stock so that Murdock could
buy the Company at an artificially depressed price.

On June 12, 2013, Murdock made his initial proposal to take Dole
private at $12.00 per share.  On August 12, 2013, the Board
announced that Dole and Murdock had entered into and signed a
definitive merger agreement by which Murdock would acquire all of
the outstanding shares of Dole common stock not currently held by
him for $13.50 per share.  The merger closed on November 1, 2013.

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all Class members
who sold Dole securities during the Class Period.  If you sold
Dole securities you may wish to join in this action to serve as
lead plaintiff.  In order to do so, you must meet certain
requirements set forth in the applicable law and file appropriate
papers no later than February 8, 2016.

A "lead plaintiff" is a representative party that acts on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation.  In order to
be appointed lead plaintiff, the court must determine that the
class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class
members, and that the class member will adequately represent the
class.  Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may
together serve as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any
recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may retain Bernstein Liebhard
LLP, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in
this action.

If you are interested in discussing your rights as a Dole investor
and/or have information relating to the matter, please contact
Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. at (877) 779-1414 or seidman@bernlieb.com.

Bernstein Liebhard LLP has pursued hundreds of securities,
consumer and shareholder rights cases and recovered over $3.5
billion for its clients.  The National Law Journal has recognized
Bernstein Liebhard for twelve consecutive years as one of the top
plaintiffs' firms in the country.

You can obtain a copy of the complaint from the clerk of the court
for the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.

Bernstein Liebhard LLP
10 East 40th Street
New York, New York 10016
(877) 779-1414
www.bernlieb.com


DRAFTKINGS INC: "Facenda" Suit Alleges Rigging in Online Game
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Facenda, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Draftkings, Inc., Defendants., Case No.
2:15-cv-08922-GW-GJS (C.D. Cal., November 17, 2015), seeks
injunction enjoining Defendant from continuing to engage in
business, statutory and punitive damages, equitable relief
including restitution and/or disgorgement in violation of Cal.
Civ. Code 1770(a)(5), 1770(a)(7), 1770(a)(9) and 1770(a)(16).

The class action complaint arises out of an alleged internal
rigging of online gaming website, Daily Fantasy Sports, an online
game that allows paying participants to engage in virtual athletic
drafting with data tied to actual player statistics that allows
game simulations. Draftkings, Inc. and Fanduel, Inc. entice
participants to play by offering cash winnings.

DraftKings is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business located at 225 Franklin St., 26th Floor, Boston,
Massachusetts. FanDuel is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business located at 41 East 11th Street, 10th
Floor, New York, NY.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J. Preusch, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
      1129 State Street, Suite 8
      Santa Barbara, CA 93101
      Tel: (805) 456-1496
      Fax (805) 456-1497
      Email: mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com

          - and -

      Mark A. Griffin, Esq.
      Mike Woerner, Esq.
      Amy Williams-Derry, Esq.
      David Ko, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
      1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
      Seattle, WA 98101-3052
      Tel: (206) 623-1900
      Fax: (206) 623-3384
      Email: mgriffin@kellerrohrback.com
             mwoerner@kellerrohrback.com
             awilliams-derry@kellerrohrback.com
             dko@kellerrohrback.com

          - and -

      Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
      Andrea Gold, Esq.
      TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
      2000 L Street, N.W., Suite 808
      Washington, DC 20036
      Tel: (202) 973-0900
      Fax: (202) 973-0950
      Email: jkaliele@tzlegal.com
             agold@tzlegal.com

          - and -

      Darren Kaplan, Esq.
      STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
      1359 Broadway, Suite 2001
      New York, NY 10018
      Tel: (212) 999-7370
      Email: kaplan@stuevesiegel.com


DUKE ENERGY: April 18 Approval Hearing on $80.87-Mil. Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Markovits, Stock &
DeMarco, LLC and Freking Myers & Reul, LLC.

To:  All ratepayers who received retail electric generation
service from Duke Energy Corp. and/or Cinergy Corp. or their
subsidiaries or affiliates at any time between January 1, 2005,
and December 31, 2008, in the CG&E/Duke Energy Ohio electric
service territory and who did not receive rebates under the side
agreements.

DESCRIPTION OF THE LAWSUIT

This notice is being provided by order of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division
("the Court") in Anthony Williams, et al. v. Duke Energy
International, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:08-cv-00046.  You may be a
member of the class described herein.  Plaintiffs allege that from
2005 to 2008 defendants unlawfully paid rebates through an
affiliate to 24 large industrial or commercial customers under
separate side agreements.  Plaintiffs allege violation of federal
racketeering and antitrust laws, as well as state racketeering and
common law claims.  Defendants deny these allegations, and
maintain that they did not engage in any wrongdoing.

A settlement has been reached in this case with a total value of
$80,875,000.  Residential ratepayers will receive fixed payment
amounts for each qualifying day they paid a tariffed rate during
the class period, from a settlement fund not to exceed
$25,000,000.  The minimum payout for an eligible residential
ratepayer who qualifies for the entire Class Period will be a
total of approximately $40; that amount may go up to a maximum of
approximately $400.  Non-residential ratepayers will receive
fixed, and possibly variable based upon usage, amounts for each
qualifying day they paid a tariffed rate during the class period,
from a settlement fund not to exceed $25,000,000.  The minimum
payout for an eligible non-residential ratepayer that qualifies
for the entire Class Period will be a total of approximately $200;
that amount may go up to a maximum of approximately $4,000.
Ratepayers who qualify for lesser time periods will receive lesser
total payouts so long as they are $10.00 and above.  Also, class
members may receive direct benefits from programs developed using
a minimum of $8,000,000 of settlement monies.

The Court will hold a hearing, where you may appear and object
after submitting adequate documentation to do so, to consider
approving the settlement at 10:00 a.m. on April 18, 2016, at the
Potter Stewart U.S. Courthouse, 100 East Fifth Street, Cincinnati,
Ohio 45202.  If you do nothing, all the Court's orders in this
Action will apply to you.  Plaintiffs' attorneys will request
approval of fees, expenses and class representative incentive
awards at the hearing.  A copy of the case documents can be
obtained by visiting the office of the Clerk of the Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, Joseph P. Kinneary, U.S. Courthouse,
Room 121, 85 Marconi Boulevard, Columbus, Ohio 43215.  For
information you may also go to www.dukeclassaction.com

HOW CAN I PARTICIPATE?

1. I was a Residential Ratepayer. To receive the fixed amount
payment you must, by April 13, 2016, (i) complete a claim form
online at www.dukeclassaction.com, or (ii) return the completed
and signed paper claim form, if one has been mailed to you.  If
you wish to request a paper claim form be mailed to you, please
visit www.dukeclassaction.com

2. I was a Non-Residential Ratepayer. To receive the fixed amount
payment, and an additional payment if the applicable usage
threshold is exceeded, you must, by April 13, 2016, (i) complete a
claim form online at www.dukeclassaction.com, or (ii) return the
completed and signed paper claim form, if one has been mailed to
you.  If you wish to request a paper claim form be mailed to you,
please visit www.dukeclassaction.com

If you do not timely submit a complete and accurate claim form,
you will receive no benefits under the settlement but will still
be bound by the settlement and release of claims.

HOW DO I GET MORE INFORMATION?

For more information about the settlement, including the full
notice describing your rights, to request that a postcard notice,
with attached claim form, be mailed to you, or to update your
current mailing address, you may visit www.dukeclassaction.com,
call 1-(844) 322-8220, or you may write to the Settlement
Administrator at: Williams v. Duke Energy, P.O. Box 10092, Dublin,
OH, 43017-6692.


DUPONT: Second Trial in C8 Litigation to Start March 21
-------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for West Virginia Record, reports that the
next four trials in C8 litigation have been pushed back, so the
second trial would not interfere with the holiday season.

The second trial was supposed to begin on Nov. 30, but, as the
first trial lasted longer than planned, if the second also lasted
as long, it would interfere with the Christmas season.

Kathy Brown of Kathy Brown Law said the second trial will now
start on March 21.  The third trial is scheduled for May, and the
fourth and fifth trials will be Aug. 29 and Nov. 14.

The second trial is a West Virginia case, and although it will be
tried in Columbus under Chief Judge Edmund A. Sargus Jr., it will
be tried under West Virginia law and not Ohio law.

"It's the same place with the same judge, but because there is a
West Virginia plaintiff, it is my understanding it will be tried
under West Virginia law," Ms. Brown said.

The May trial involves a plaintiff with testicular cancer and the
August and November trial involve plaintiffs with kidney cancer.

In October, a seven-member federal jury awarded $1.6 million to an
Ohio woman who developed kidney cancer and claimed it was after
drinking water contaminated with C8.

The jury found that Carla Marie Bartlett's kidney cancer was
contracted after being exposed to C8 discharged by DuPont's
Washington Works facility in Parkersburg into the Ohio River and
her drinking water.

The jury awarded Bartlett $1.1 million in damages due to DuPont's
negligence, and $500,000 for emotional distress due to DuPont's
conduct.  DuPont plans to appeal the verdict.

The litigation between DuPont and the plaintiffs began in 2001 in
a class action lawsuit in Wood Circuit Court and that class action
lawsuit ended in November 2004 when the parties entered into a
class-wide settlement.

The litigation involved C8 that was discharged from DuPont's
Parkersburg plant and the settlement agreement provided that if a
science panel delivered a no probable link finding, the class
members would be forever barred from bringing personal injury or
wrongful death claims against DuPoint.

However, if the science panel found that it was "more likely than
not that there is a link between C8 and a particular human disease
among class members," the panel issued a probable link finding for
that specific disease and DuPont waived its right to challenge
whether it is probable that exposure to C-8 is capable of causing
the linked disease.

The science panel did a six-year study of C8 and found a probable
link between C8 exposure and a variety of illnesses, including
high cholesterol, kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid
disease, inflammatory bowel disease, as well as dangerously high
blood pressure in pregnant women.

In the study, the science panel members also took a variety of
other factors, such as family history and lifestyle choices, into
account when determining if C8 is linked to disease.

Michael K. Rozen of Rozen Law Firm LLP was appointed as Director
of Medical Monitoring in the C8 lawsuits in 2012 and he sends
weekly summary reports and monthly status reports to the judge and
all parties involved in the C8 medical monitoring program.
Mr. Rozen also provides monthly invoices for his services.

"During the month of October 2015, the Director continued to
administer the Medical Monitoring Program on a daily basis,
including communication with and supervision of vendors
HealthSmart and Garden City Group regarding all issues associated
with the program . . . " the October invoice states.

Mr. Rozen's October invoice was for $250,024.58, which included
$250,000 in professional services and $24.58 in additional
charges. His November invoice was for$250,050.02, which included
$250,000 in professional services and $50.02 in additional
charges.

The C8 Health Project was previously administered by Brookmar
Inc., which included blood testing and medical history submissions
of almost 70,000 of the affected class members, said Harry
Deitzler of Hill, Peterson, Carper, Bee & Deitzler.

"The Brookmar budget approved by the court February 28, 2005
included only $2,220,698.20 for administrative staff costs and
provided for more than $30 million worth of laboratory blood
testing to the participants," Mr. Deitzler said.  "By contrast, in
return for his administrative charges of more than $11 million
dollars, lawyer Rozen can only claim physician appointments for
less than 2,000 individuals and a present value (to participants)
of less than $700,000."

Both projects, the Rozen medical monitoring and the Brookmar C8
Health Project, necessitated separate payment for actual services,
such as fees for blood testing and medical interviews or services,
which benefitted the participants.

"Rozen's administrative fees are presently more than 17 times the
cost and value of the benefits provided to the participants,"
Mr. Deitzler said.  "Brookmar Inc. registered and assisted more
than ten times as many of the affected residents as Rozen, but
charged only a fraction of the benefit cost to cover its
administrative fees."

Mr. Rozen is paid by DuPont to administer the medical monitoring
program after the C8 class action lawsuit came to an end in
Parkersburg.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio case number:
2:13-md-02433


EMERGENCY MEDICAL: Judge Denies Customers' Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rianna Pickard, writing for Tulsa World, reports that a judge has
denied a request for class certification in a lawsuit claiming
EMSA wrongly billed some customers who were participants in its
utility fee program.

A Tulsa County judge has ruled in favor of the Emergency Medical
Services Authority by denying plaintiffs' request to apply the
lawsuit's outcome to other individuals who may have been wrongly
billed for ambulance transports.

District Judge Mary Fitzgerald's ruling came about three months
after a three-day court proceeding at which she heard arguments on
the class certification motion filed Feb. 26.

To obtain class-action status, the plaintiffs needed to prove that
their complaints are common or typical to all members of their
defined class.

At the hearing, plaintiffs defined class members as EMSA customers
who were wrongfully billed for emergency services used while they
were participants of the agency's utility fee program.

The program promised to cover out-of-pocket expenses for ambulance
transports in exchange for an added fee on utility bills.

EMSA President Steve Williamson testified at the hearing that a
2007 advertisement falsely represented the program when it stated
that participants would "never pay a bill for emergency ambulance
care."

University of Tulsa math professor William Coberly testified at
the hearing that between 5,000 and 28,000 people may have been
wrongfully billed as participants in the program, based on his
analysis of data from EMSA and a collection agency it uses to bill
customers.

In a written order filed Dec. 10, Judge Fitzgerald ruled that the
plaintiffs did not prove that their complaints were common or
typical to individuals not named in the lawsuit and that their
class definition was not objective enough to apply the lawsuit's
outcome to members without examining their individual
circumstances.

Kristopher Koepsel, an attorney for EMSA, told the Tulsa World on
Dec. 15 that he views Fitzgerald's decision as "a very positive
ruling for EMSA."

Bob Pezold, an attorney who filed the suit, said the plaintiffs
"regret the judge's order" but expect to file another request for
class certification at a later date.

"The important thing to remember is that there can be renewed
motions for class certification, and we expect that's going to
happen in this case," Mr. Pezold said.

The parties in the case are now awaiting Fitzgerald's ruling on
motions for summary judgment submitted by both sides.

Mr. Pezold said the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary
judgment alleges that EMSA's utility fee program didn't require
participants to provide insurance information to the agency as a
prerequisite for the program's benefits.

Mr. Koepsel said the defense motions for summary judgment
challenge each of the plaintiffs' complaints against EMSA.

Mr. Pezold has represented another lawsuit related to EMSA's
utility fee program, in which Bluestone Property Management LLC
was found to have been keeping the monthly program fees paid by
tenants at two Tulsa apartment complexes.

The lawsuit, in which EMSA was not named, claimed that the
management company opted out of the program and kept the portion
of their tenants' utility bills that was supposed to pay for the
agency's emergency transportation services.  The tenants resided
at Westminster Apartments, 4858 S. 78th East Ave., and Wood Creek
Apartments, 11107 E. Brady St.

District Judge Dana Kuehn ruled in the plaintiff's favor and on
Dec. 7 granted a class-action settlement, which Mr. Pezold said
Bluestone has paid and will be distributed.

The tenants who were identified as class members in the lawsuit
have been notified and sent instructions for claiming
reimbursement, Mr. Pezold said.

EMSA operates in Bixby, Jenks, Sand Springs and Tulsa, as well as
in Oklahoma City and several surrounding cities and towns.


ENDO PHARMA: Judge Refuses to Remand Birth Control Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
federal judge declined to remand a lawsuit filed over allegedly
defective birth control pills to a Georgia state court.

The decision by Judge Steve C. Jones of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, came a
month after he denied class certification of the lawsuit.

The proposed class action was originally filed by plaintiff
Lauren Betancourt in Cobb County State Court in September 2011.
The case was then removed to the federal court in Atlanta as a
putative class action.

Ms. Betancourt and fellow plaintiff Angela Shepherd filed a third
amended complaint against defendants Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc.,
Endo Pharmaceuticals Holdings Inc., Vintage Pharmaceuticals LLC
and Patheon Inc. in May 2012.

Ms. Betancourt and Ms. Shepherd alleged the defendants "designed,
manufactured, packaged, sold, and distributed birth control pills"
that were "defectively and dangerously designed, manufactured,
packaged, sold, and distributed."

In particular, the plaintiffs alleged the pills they purchased --
recalled in 2011 -- were packaged "such that select blisters found
inside the pill box were rotated 180 degrees within the card,
reversing the weekly tablet orientation."

As a result of the packaging error, the daily regimen for the
pills left women "without adequate contraception and at risk for
unwanted pregnancy," the plaintiffs alleged.

The parties engaged in mediation to try to settle the case, but
were unsuccessful.

Eventually, they engaged in discovery on the class issues, and the
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification.

At the same time, the plaintiffs also moved before the U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for centralization of
the case.

However, the panel declined to centralize the cases because it
found that "individualized facts -- particularly relating to
whether each plaintiff received an improperly packaged Qualitest
birth control product and whether she became pregnant as a result
of taking the pills in the wrong order -- will predominate over
the common factual issues alleged by plaintiffs."

The defendants in September 2011 issued a nationwide recall of
eight different oral contraceptive products packaged by Patheon
for Qualitest, a company that distributes pills to distributors
and pharmacies.

The recall was initiated when a pharmacist in Iowa returned three
blister packs of Cyclafem 7/7/7 because one of the packs had been
packaged upside down, obscuring the lot number and expiration
date.

The Iowa package is the only known defective package received by a
consumer.  And of the 507,966 blister packs that were returned in
the recall, only 53 were improperly packaged in the reverse order,
according to the federal court.

"Plaintiffs have not proffered evidence to show that the blister
packs they bought and consumed were improperly manufactured -- or
offered a plan for how potential class members could demonstrate
that their products were defectively packaged," Judge Jones wrote
in his Nov. 4 order denying certification.

"Neither named Plaintiff here retained the packaging from their
pills and they offer no information as to whether consumers
generally retain this material."

In addition to the two named plaintiffs, class counsel claimed to
represent 117 women, 113 of whom became pregnant, 94 of whom
carried the babies to term, 17 women who did not carry the babies
to term and four who did not become pregnant.

The plaintiffs proposed a nationwide class with four subclasses.

The class would have included "all persons within the United
States of America, who, within the applicable limitations period,
purchased and/or ingested the defectively designed, manufactured,
packaged, sold, and distributed birth control pills with the
trademark names Cyclafem 1/35, Cyclafem 7/7/7, Emoquette, Gildess
FE 1.5/30, Gildess FE 1/20, Orsythia, Previfem, and Tri-Previfem."

Subclass A would have included "class members as defined above,
those persons who ingested none of the birth control pills and/or
ingested the birth control pills and experienced no significant
physical symptoms."

Subclass B would have included "class members as defined above,
those persons who experienced significant physical symptoms.

Subclass C would have included "class members as defined above,
those persons who became pregnant, and the pregnancy was not
carried to term."

Subclass D would have included "class members as defined above,
those persons who became pregnant; and, the pregnancy resulted in
the live birth of a baby."

The defendants argued the members of the proposed class and
subclasses are not "ascertainable" because there is no way of
knowing which consumers purchased or digested birth control pills
that had been improperly packaged.

Judge Jones agreed, noting that the court has "numerous concerns"
with the manner in which the plaintiffs pled their class
certification issues.

"As an initial matter, Plaintiffs have not proffered any means of
identifying class members. Defendants' records show only products
sold to distributors and retailers, but not to individuals," the
judge wrote.  "Potential plaintiffs are unlikely to have retained
sales receipts because of the small amount of money involved in
the purchase.  Thus, the only means of identifying purchasers
would be through self-identification affidavits."

But some courts have held that self-identification is improper.
Some even have gone so far as to describe it as a potential due
process issue, Judge Jones noted.

"Even if self-identification were an acceptable means of
determining the class, Plaintiffs have not proffered any plan for
how to address issues of ascertainability beyond contending that
Plaintiffs could submit affidavits that they purchased these birth
control pills," he wrote.

Moreover, the judge explained, reimbursement was handled on a
pharmacist-by-pharmacist basis, depending on what state law
required.

Thus, membership for Subclass A would require inquiry to the
pharmacist who provided the pills to the consumer to see whether
that pharmacist allowed reimbursement requests and whether the
individual consumer followed through on the process.

"Even if this information could be obtained, it still would only
identify consumers who had been sold 'recalled' products," Judge
Jones wrote.  "Significantly, the class definition, proposed by
Plaintiffs' themselves, requires the consumer to be have been
provided 'defective' pills.

"Plaintiffs miss this important element of the proposed class when
they assert that it only requires pharmacy records to identify
potential members of the class."

Six days after Judge Jones issued his order, Ms. Betancourt and
Ms. Shepherd filed a motion to remand their lawsuit to Cobb County
State Court.

They argued in their Nov. 10 motion that since the federal court
denied their motion for class certification, federal jurisdiction
no longer exists.

But Judge Jones, in his Dec. 7 order, pointed out that the case
was originally filed in state court and removed to federal court
on the basis of diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action
Fairness Act.

"Thus, this case falls into the 'species' of subject matter
jurisdiction known as 'removal jurisdiction,'" the judge wrote.
"In 'removal jurisdiction' cases, subsequent events do not divest
the court of jurisdiction."

Judge Jones pointed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has noted
that "removal cases raise forum-manipulation concerns that simply
do not exist when it is the plaintiff who chooses the federal
forum and then pleads away jurisdiction through amendment."

Also, Judge Jones noted, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit has held that in such removal jurisdiction cases
an order denying class certification is a "post-removal event"
that does not alter jurisdiction.

"Thus, the Court finds that it retains jurisdiction over this
matter despite the fact that the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification," the judge concluded.

Judge Jones also denied as moot a motion for leave to file sur-
reply.

James Beck -- jmbeck@reedsmith.com -- an attorney at the
Philadelphia office of Reed Smith who handles complex personal
injury and product liability litigation, wrote in a recent blog
post that the pleaded facts were "overreaching."

Mr. Beck, in pointing to reports that a number of the plaintiffs
have jumped ship after the federal court's denial of class
certification and have become litigation "tourists" in
Philadelphia, argued that the plaintiffs and their counsel were
"blatantly abusing" Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, which governs the procedure and conduct of class action
lawsuits brought in federal courts.


EOG RESOURCES: "Chaumont" Action Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Chaumont, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. EOG Resources, Inc. (f/k/a Enron Oil And
Gas Company), Oaks Personnel Services, Inc. (a/k/a Oaks Group) and
Cielo Energy Consulting, LLC, Defendants, Case 5:15-cv-01003 (W.D.
Tex., San Antonio Division), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and  liquidated damages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act 29 U.S.C. 225(a).

EOG Resources, Inc. is incorporated under the laws of the State of
Delaware and has business in the State of Texas with principal
office at 1111 Bagby Street, Sky Lobby 2, Houston, Texas 77002.

Oaks Personnel Services, Inc. is incorporated under the laws of
the State of Texas with principal office at 1511 Katy Freeway,
Suite 605, Houston, Texas 77079.

Cielo Energy Consulting, LLC is a limited liability company
incorporated under the laws of the State of Texas with principal
place of business is located at 1115 17th Street, Hondo, Texas
78861.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Allen R. Vaught
      BARON & BUDD, P.C.
      3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
      Dallas, Texas 75219
      Tel: (214) 521-3605
      Fax: (214) 520-1181
      Email: avaught@baronbudd.com


EROS INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Abram" Suit Over Misleading Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mathew Abram, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Eros International PLC, Rishika Lulla,
David Maisel, Dilip Thakkar, Naresh Chandra, Sunil Lulla, Vijay
Ahuja, Andrew Heffernan, Prem Parameswaran, Jyoti Deshpande, And
Kishore Lulla, Defendants., Case No. 2:15-cv-08122-WHW-CLW
(D.N.J., November 17, 2015), seeks compensatory damages and
extraordinary equitable and/or injunctive relief in violation of
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and SEC
Rule 10b-5.

Eros allegedly feigned its reported finances that resulted in the
drop in share prices upon disclosure.

Eros produces, acquires, and distributes Indian language films in
various formats worldwide. The Company is incorporated in Isle of
Man and maintains its U.S. executive offices in Secaucus, New
Jersey.

Kishore Lulla is the Company's Executive Chairman. He served as
director since 2005 and was the Company's Chief Executive
Officer from June 2011 to May 2012.

Jyoti Deshpande is the Company's CEO since June 2012.

Prem Parameswaran is the Company's Chief Financial Officer and has
served in that role since June, 2015.

Andrew Heffernan is the former CFO of Eros, having served in that
role from 2006 to June of 2015.

Vijay Ahuja is the Company's Vice Chairman and has been a director
since April 2006.

Sunil Lulla, Naresh Chandra, Dilip Thakkar, David Maisel, Rishika
Lulla, Rajeev Misra and Michael Kirkwood are directors of Eros.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark C. Gardy, Esq.
      Jennifer Sarnelli, Esq.
      GARDY & NOTIS LLP
      560 Sylvan Avenue, Suite 3085
      Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
      Tel: (201) 567-7377
      Fax: (201) 567-7337
      Email: mgardy@gardylaw.com
             jsarnelli@gardylaw.com

          - and -

      Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
      Steven P. Harte, Esq.
      Bradley J. Vettraino, Esq.
      BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
      155 Federal Street, Suite 400
      Boston, MA 02110
      Tel: (617) 398-5600
      Fax: (617) 507-6020
      Email: Jeff@blockesq.com
             Steven@blockesq.com
             Brad@blockesq.com


EXPEDIA: Westchester County Sues Over Underpaid Hotel Taxes
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mark Lungariello, writing for lohud, reports that travel-booking
websites will be checking in for their day in court to answer
claims they underpaid hotel taxes to Westchester County.

The county Board of Legislators voted on Dec. 14 to hire an
attorney to go after websites such as Expedia and Hotels.com that
officials say purchased blocks of rooms at a discounted rate, sold
them to consumers at a marked-up price but then paid taxes based
on the lower rate.

In 2013, Westchester joined a class-action suit filed by Nassau
County against various travel-booking sites but an appeals court
ruled in October that the language of Nassau's hotel-tax law
blocked the class-action status.  That left Westchester to pursue
its own legal action as an intervening party or in a new lawsuit.

The board voted to hire New York City law firm Zwerling, Schachter
& Zwerling, the same firm that is handling the Nassau litigation.
The county will pay 28.5 percent of any money recovered by the
firm.

"If for some reason we don't win, there's no cost to the county,"
Legislator Gordon Burrows, R-Yonkers, said at the legislative
meeting on Dec. 14.

The county's hotel tax, also called an occupancy tax or bed tax,
tacks 3 percent onto all room bookings.  Westchester took in $5.7
million from the tax in 2014. Rockland County, which made $1.2
million from the tax last year, had opted out of the class action.
Putnam County doesn't have a hotel tax.

Westchester has no estimated figure as to how much it thinks it
has been underpaid.  The companies have said the retail rate
includes a surcharge and that taxing the difference would
constitute a new tax on hotels.

Several local governments in Westchester charge their own tax on
hotel bookings in addition to the county tax.  Rye Brook, Rye
city, New Rochelle and White Plains have had their own taxes for
several years.  This year, the state Legislature approved 14 more
communities to issue the tax in the region, including Yonkers,
Greenburgh, Harrison and Port Chester.


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: "Crump" Suit Alleges Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------
GWENDOLYN CRUMP, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. EXPERIAN INFORMATION
SOLUTIONS, INC., an Ohio corporation; EXPERIAN HOLDINGS,
INC.; EXPERIAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Defendants., Case No. 2:15-cv-08463 (C.D. Cal., October 29, 2015),
seeks damages resulting from negligence in breach Of third-party
beneficiary contract, implied contract, fiduciary duty and
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, California Unfair
Competition law and California Consumer Records Act.

Experian allegedly did not have adequate data security and lacked
sufficient privacy practices to safeguard the personal information
collected by T-Mobile regarding consumers who applied for
telephone services and/or purchase financing with T-Mobile.

Experian Holdings, Inc., Experian North America, Inc. and Experian
Information Solutions, Inc. are based in 475 Anton Blvd., Costa
Mesa, California 92626.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Graham B. LippSmith, Esq.
      Jaclyn L. Anderson, Esq.
      KASDAN LIPPSMITH WEBER TURNER LLP
      500 S. Grand Ave., Suite 1310
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Tel: (213) 254-4800
      Fax: (213) 254-4801
      Email: glippsmith@klwtlaw.com
             janderson@klwtlaw.com


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: "Brazzle" Suit Hits Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------
ELLEEN BRAZZLE, APRIL LANEY and LAURA DELLO, individuals on behalf
of themselves and all similarly situated persons and the general
public, Plaintiffs, v. EXPERIAN HOLDINGS, INC., EXPERIAN
INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC. and Does 1-25, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 8:15-cv-1779 (C.D. Cal., October 31, 2015), seeks actual
and statutory damages, restitution, and attorney's fees and costs
resulting from the defendants' violation of California's Online
Privacy Protection Act, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 22576.

Experian allegedly did not have adequate data security and lacked
sufficient privacy practices to safeguard the personal information
collected by T-Mobile regarding consumers who applied for
telephone services and/or purchase financing with T-Mobile.

Experian Holdings, Inc. and Experian Information Solutions, Inc.
are based in 475 Anton Blvd., Costa Mesa, California 92626.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Reuben D. Nathan, Esq.
      NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC
      2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 350
      Newport Beach, CA 92663
      Tel: (949) 263-5992
      Fax: (949) 209-1948
      Email: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com

           - and -

      Ross Cornell, Esq., APC
      111 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 400
      Long Beach, CA 90802
      Tel: (562) 612-1708
      Fax: (562) 394-9556
      Email: ross.law@me.com


FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: "Dong" Action Sues Over Share Price Drop
-----------------------------------------------------------
Qingfeng Dong, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Flotek Industries, Inc., John W. Chisholm,
H. Richard Walton and Robert M. Schmitz, Defendants, Case No.
4:15-cv-03417 (S.D. Tex., November 19, 2015), seeks damages in
violation of the Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

Plaintiff acquired Flotek securities at allegedly artificially
inflated prices and lost substantially upon the revelation of
alleged corrective disclosures.

Flotek is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business located at 10603 W. Sam Houston Parkway N., Suite 300,
Houston, Texas. It is a global diversified, technology-driven
company that develops and supplies oilfield products, services
and equipment to the oil, gas and mining industries and high value
compounds to companies that make cleaning products, cosmetics,
food and beverages and other products that are sold in consumer
and industrial markets.

John W. Chisholm served as the Company's President, Chief
Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board.

H. Richard Walton has served as the Company's Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer.

Robert M. Schmitz has served as the Company's Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer since May 29, 2015.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sammy Ford IV, Esq.
      ABRAHAM, WATKINS, NICHOLS, SORRELS, AGOSTO & FRIEND
      800 Commerce Street
      Houston, TX 77002
      Tel: (713) 222-7211
      Fax: (713) 225-0827

           - and -

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
      Marc Gorrie, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 661-1100
      Fax: (212) 661-8665
      Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
             ahood@pomlaw.com
             mgorrie@pomlaw.com

          - and -

      Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Tel: (312) 377-1181
      Fax: (312) 377-1184
      Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


FORD MOTOR: Plaintiffs Use "Catalyst" Theory in Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Melanie S. Joo, Esq. -- mjoo@thompsoncoburn.com -- and Natalie
Ikhlassi, Esq. -- nikhlassi@thompsoncoburn.com -- of Thompson
Coburn LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that on November 2,
2015, a group of plaintiffs won a motion for attorneys' fees
against Ford Motor Company, even though Ford's voluntary recall of
vehicles mooted the plaintiffs' lawsuit.  In MacDonald v. Ford
Motor Company, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California detailed how such fees could be granted by applying
a "catalyst" theory to California Civil Code Sec. 1021.5.

Section 1021.5 and the Catalyst Theory

Section 1021.5 provides an exception to the general rule that each
party to a lawsuit must bear its own attorneys' fees.  Under
section 1021.5, a court can award attorneys' fees to a "successful
party" when a lawsuit results in the enforcement of an important
right affecting the public interest if (a) the enforcement creates
a significant benefit for the general public or a large group of
people; (b) the necessity and financial burden of enforcement make
the award appropriate; and (c) the fees should not in the interest
of justice be paid out of the plaintiff's recovery.

A plaintiff does not have to win in the lawsuit to be a
"successful party" under the catalyst theory.  A party is
"successful" if (a) the lawsuit was a substantial factor in
motivating the defendants to provide the relief sought; (b) the
lawsuit had merit and achieved its catalytic effect by threat of
victory and not because it would be a nuisance or expensive, and
(c) the plaintiffs attempted to settle before filing the lawsuit.

Notably, the Court did not require direct evidence that the
lawsuit prompted Ford to act.  Rather, as the Court explained,
"the chronology of events may raise an inference that the
litigation was the catalyst for relief."

Facts and the Court's Analysis

On June 28, 2013, plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against Ford alleging
violations of the California Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Unfair
Competition Law (UCL), Song-Beverly Act, and the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act.  Plaintiffs claimed certain Ford cars had defective
cooling pumps that could cause an abrupt loss of power to the car.

Ford moved to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint.  On March 31, 2014,
the Court granted in part and denied in part Ford's motion. The
CLRA and UCL claims survived. On September 2, 2014, Ford informed
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of its
intent to perform a voluntary safety recall.

Ford presented evidence that its decision to issue the recall was
independent of the lawsuit.  In 2009, Ford's Early Warning Data
Trend Specialist, Kenneth Lilly, determined that certain Ford cars
had an above average stall rate.  Then, in February 2014,
Transport Canada (Canada's counterpart to the NHTSA) emailed
Ford's Canadian subsidiary to report incidents of stalling Fords.
Consequently, in April 2014, Lilly (again) reviewed the data.
Unaware of the lawsuit, he then reported the issue to others at
Ford.  After further analysis, Ford's Technical Review Group
recommended a safety recall; and Ford's Field Review Committee
approved the recall on August 25, 2014.

Nevertheless, the Court found that the "chronology of events . . .
raise[d] an inference that the litigation was the catalyst for
relief."  The Court was not convinced that an email inquiry from
Transport Canada inspired Lilly to report the issue when several
complaints to NHTSA and a class action lawsuit did not.  It also
found Ford's actions were "just too much of a coincidence to be a
coincidence," noting Lilly's report came only after Ford lost its
motion to dismiss the CLRA and UCL claims.  Additionally, the
Court was troubled by the lack of evidence relating to the
identity of the person who made the final decision to issue the
recall and whether this person was aware of the plaintiffs'
lawsuit.

The Court is scheduled to hear the parties' arguments over the
amount of the attorneys' fee award on January 14, 2016.
Plaintiffs' papers, filed on December 2, 2015, indicate plaintiffs
seek at least $800,000 in attorneys' fees.

Key Issue for Automakers

The Court's attention to the timing of events reinforces the need
for automakers to have constant internal coordination on safety
issues, recalls and product/defect litigation.  With the
automotive industry facing an unprecedented number of recalls, the
implementation of such internal processes will help satisfy the
organizational communication, transparency and accountability
expected of automakers by federal regulators.  The bright spot is
that an effective internal process will also help automakers get
ahead of a plaintiff who tries to claim he or she was a catalyst
for a recall.


GEORGIA: Fired IT Employee Takes Brunt of Blame for Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kristina Torres, writing for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution,
reports that The IT employee fired over a massive data breach in
the Georgia Secretary of State's Office took the brunt of the
blame in a state report released on Dec. 14.

That employee, longtime state programmer Gary Cooley, flouted
office protocol and policy, according to the report, which was
done jointly by the office and the state Department of Human
Resources.

"The data release issue internally was due to Mr. Cooley working
outside of and circumventing established policies and procedures,"
the report concluded. It called for more training and clearer
policies and management.

In an exclusive interview with The Atlanta Journal-Constitution,
Cooley acknowledged that he should have been more cautious in the
chain of events leading up to the breach.  But Cooley also
outlined a more complicated series of missteps and
miscommunication, both within the office and with PCC Technology
Group, an outside vendor tasked with managing voter data for the
state.

The report's release came as a member of Georgia's congressional
delegation called for federal authorities to investigate a breach
of sensitive data affecting more than 6 million Peach State
voters.


GILLETTE CO: CCAF Seeks Review of Duracell Class Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
Washington, D.C.-based public interest law firm is asking the U.S.
Supreme Court to review a consumer fraud class action settlement,
claiming plaintiffs lawyers "plainly received by far" the largest
share of the benefits the settlement produced.

The Center for Class Action Fairness, now a subunit of the
Competitive Enterprise Institute, on Dec. 11 filed a petition for
a writ of certiorari with the nation's highest court.

Ted Frank, considered a leading critic of abusive class action
settlements, is the objector in the challenge to the settlement in
Poertner v. Gillette Co.

Frank, in CCAF's petition to the Supreme Court, is asking justices
to review an abusive part of this and other settlements -- the use
of cy pres awards, or money that trial lawyers are given to hand
out to nonprofits and universities of their choosing.

CCAF argues the practice may make the lawyers look good to the
groups receiving the money, but it has nothing to do with helping
those who were allegedly harmed.

"This case is an object lesson in how the class action mechanism
can go wrong, and how doctrines adopted in other circuits would
have set it right," Mr. Frank wrote.  "Here, counsel settled a
case about how Duracell deceptively marketed certain batteries by
creating a huge class releasing the claims of 7.26 million
plaintiffs nationwide in exchange for a relief package with (let's
say) questionable value to that massive class.

"The parties' counsel structured the settlement to provide class
counsel more than $5.6 million -- a multiple of the 'lodestar'
value of their hourly bills -- while all their clients together
realized less than $345,000 in total and 99 percent of them got
nothing at all."

Mr. Frank argues that when class counsel requested requested their
$5 million-plus fee, they estimated the settlement value at nearly
$50 million based on the assumption that every class member would
file a claim, even though they knew for certain that only a tiny
fraction would.

The parties also agreed that Duracell would give $6 million worth
of batteries, retail value, to third-party charities of its own
choosing over five years, and to an injunction governing only a
line of batteries Duracell had already discontinued, Mr. Frank
notes.

"Class counsel plainly received by far the largest share of
whatever benefits this settlement produced.  And yet the Eleventh
Circuit approved it because its precedent allows vague notions of
the settlement's overall value to be included in assessing the
share of pecuniary benefit that flows to the class as compared to
its attorneys," he wrote.

In 2014, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida entered an order and final judgment approving the
settlement, resolving class action lawsuits that alleged Gillette
and P&G engaged in deceptive and misleading advertising and
marketing of Duracell Ultra Batteries.

The plaintiffs claimed that the use of statements such as "Up to
30 Percent Longer in Toys* *vs. Ultra Digital" and "Our Longest
Lasting" deceived consumers into purchasing Duracell Ultra
Batteries.

Gillette and P&G have denied all wrongdoing and continue to stand
by their Duracell products and advertising, but agreed to provide
refunds to consumers under the settlement.

Under the deal, class counsel was awarded $5,680,000 in attorneys'
fees, costs and expenses. The class, itself, received only
$344,850 -- amounting to $3-12 per person.

CCAF objected to the settlement; however, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit went on to uphold the deal, on
the grounds that its cy pres and injunctive relief provisions made
it fair.

CCAF notes, in filing its petition with the Supreme Court, that
its previous objection led class counsel to admit that the vast
majority of consumer fraud settlements leave more than 99 percent
of class members uncompensated.

"The basic problem is this: While class counsel and defendants
have an incentive to bargain effectively over the size of a
settlement, similar incentives do not govern their critical
decisions about how to divvy it up -- including the portion
allocated to counsel's own fees," Mr. Frank wrote in CCAF's
petition.

"The defendant cares only about the bottom line, and will take any
deal that drives it down.  Meanwhile, class counsel have an
obvious incentive to seek the largest possible portion for
themselves, and will accept bargains that are worse for the class
if their share is sufficiently increased."

He continued, "That is hugely problematic because our adversary
system -- and the valuable role class actions play within it --
both depend upon unconflicted counsel's zealous advocacy for their
clients, especially where (as here) those clients do not even get
to choose their counsel for themselves."

CCAF presented the Supreme Court with two questions:

1. Whether, or in what circumstances, a settlement that provides a
disproportionate allocation of its pecuniary benefit to class
counsel is "fair, reasonable, and adequate," under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(e)(2); and

2. Whether, or in what circumstances, the use of a cy pres remedy
in lieu of attempting further distributions to actual class
members is "fair, reasonable, and adequate," under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(e)(2).


GLOBE SPECIALTY: Feb. 10 Fairness Hearing of $32.5MM Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Prickett, Jones &
Elliott, P.A.; Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP; Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP; and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
regarding the In re Globe Specialty Metals, Inc., Stockholders
Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 10865-VCG (Del. Ch.).

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN RE GLOBE SPECIALTY METALS, INC. STOCKHOLDERS LITIGATION,
Consol. C.A. No. 10865-VCG

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, PROPOSED SETTLEMENT,
SETTLEMENT HEARING AND RIGHT TO APPEAR

TO: All record and beneficial holders of common stock of Globe
Specialty Metals, Inc. ("Globe") who hold such stock at any time
during the period from February 22, 2015 through and including the
date of the consummation of the Proposed Transaction and who were
allegedly damaged as a result of Defendants' conduct alleged in
the Consolidated Complaint filed in the consolidated stockholder
class action lawsuit (the "Litigation") on June 15, 2015 (the
"Settlement Class").

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY.  YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED
BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Delaware Court of Chancery
Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1) and 23(b)(2) and an Order of the Delaware
Court of Chancery (the "Court"), that the Litigation has been
preliminarily certified as a non-opt out class action on behalf of
the Settlement Class, except for certain persons and entities who
are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition as set forth
in the full printed Notice of Pendency of Class Action, Proposed
Settlement, Settlement Hearing and Right to Appear (the "Notice").

YOU ARE ALSO HEREBY NOTIFIED that Plaintiffs have reached a
proposed settlement of the Litigation (the "Settlement") on the
terms and conditions set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement entered into by and among Plaintiffs and Defendants on
October 30, 2015 (the "Stipulation").  The proposed Settlement
provides for a cash payment of $32.5 million (the "Cash Payment")
and various corporate benefits for the benefit of the Settlement
Class, in addition to certain supplemental information provided to
the Globe board of directors and stockholders prior to the
Settlement as a consequence of the Litigation.  If approved, the
Settlement will resolve all claims in the Litigation.

A settlement hearing will be held on February 10, 2016 at 1:00
p.m. at the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, 34 The
Circle, Georgetown, DE 19947, to determine, among other things,
(i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Litigation should be
dismissed with prejudice and the Releases specified and described
in the Stipulation (and in the Notice) should be granted; and
(iii) whether Lead Counsel's application for an award of
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses should be approved.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE
AFFECTED BY THE PENDING LITIGATION AND THE SETTLEMENT.  If you
have not yet received the Notice, you may obtain a copy of the
Notice by contacting the Settlement Administrator at (855) 907-
3147.  Copies of the Notice can also be downloaded from the
settlement website,
www.GlobeSpecialtyMetalsStockholdersLitigation.com

If you hold shares of Globe common stock that are exchanged for
shares of Ferroglobe PLC ("Ferroglobe") common stock in the
proposed merger between Globe and Grupo FerroAtlantica, S.A.U.
(the "Proposed Transaction"),1 which as of the date this notice
was approved for publication, Defendants anticipated will close in
the fourth quarter of 2015, you are eligible to receive a
distribution from the Cash Payment.  If you are eligible to
receive a distribution, you do not have to submit a claim form in
order to receive your share of the Settlement proceeds.  If the
Settlement is approved, the Proposed Transaction closes, and
certain other conditions of the Settlement specified and described
in the Stipulation (and in the Notice) are satisfied, your
distribution from the Cash Payment will be paid to you directly in
the same manner in which you receive your shares of Ferroglobe
common stock in the Proposed Transaction.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement and/or Lead Counsel's
application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
litigation expenses, must be filed with the Register in Chancery
and delivered to Representative Lead Counsel and Representative
Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than
January 29, 2016, in accordance with the instructions set forth in
the Notice.

PLEASE DO NOT CALL OR WRITE THE COURT OR THE OFFICE OF THE
REGISTER IN CHANCERY REGARDING THIS NOTICE.  Inquiries, other than
requests for the Notice, may be made to the following Lead
Counsel:

Corinne Elise Amato, Esq.
Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A.
1310 North King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
(302) 888-6500

Requests for the Notice should be made to:

In Re Globe Specialty Metals, Inc. Stockholders Litigation
c/o GCG
PO Box 9349
Dublin, OH 43017-4249
(855) 907-3147
www.GlobeSpecialtyMetalsStockholdersLitigation.com

DATED: December 15, 2015

BY ORDER OF THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

1 Pursuant to the Proposed Transaction, Globe and FerroAtlantica
will combine in an all-stock transaction under a new holding
company named VeloNewco Limited, which will be renamed Ferroglobe
PLC.  Upon the closing of the Proposed Transaction, shares of
Globe common stock will be exchanged for shares of Ferroglobe
common stock.


GOOGLE INC: Seeks Review of Pay-Per-Click Class Action Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for MediaPost, reports that Google will ask
the U.S. Supreme Court to review a decision granting class-action
status to pay-per-click marketers who are suing the company for
placing their ads on "low quality" sites.

The search company revealed its plans on Dec. 14, when it filed
papers asking the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to stay its recent
decision allowing the marketers to proceed as a class.  Google
argues that it's entitled to a stay on the grounds that the
Supreme Court is "reasonably likely" to side with the company.

Google's battle with the marketers centers on the company's
"parked domains" and "errors" programs, which often serve ads on
sites that aren't fully developed, and on typo sites that people
visit accidentally.

Several pay-per-click marketers -- including law firm Pulaski &
Middleman and retailer RK West -- alleged in a 2009 lawsuit that
ads on Google's AdSense for Domains and AdSense for Errors
programs result in fewer purchases than ads on Google's search
results pages.  The marketers, who are seeking restitution, also
claimed that ads on parked domains could damage their reputations.

In 2012, U.S. District Court Judge Edward Davila in the Northern
District of California rejected the marketers' bid for class-
action status.  Judge Davila ruled that a class-action would be
inappropriate on the grounds that calculating restitution would
require individualized determinations.

A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit reversed that decision in
September, ruling that the marketers had presented legitimate
proposals for determining restitution on a class-wide basis.  The
appellate judges appeared to endorse at least one methodology --
the "Smart Pricing" approach, which sets the amount of restitution
as "the difference between the amount the advertiser actually paid
and the amount paid reduced by the Smart Pricing discount ratio."

Google then unsuccessfully asked the appellate court to re-hear
the case, reiterating the argument that restitution can't be
determined on a class-wide basis. The company says that many
advertisers -- including RK West -- "achieve higher conversion
rates on parked domains and error pages than on the Smart Pricing
benchmarks."

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce backed Google's request.  The
business organization argued in a friend-of-the-court brief that
the panel's decision "will only perpetuate abuses of class action
litigation, unjustifiably raise the cost of doing business in a
wide variety of industries, and burden the American economy."

The 9th Circuit denied Google's request to reconsider the ruling.
The court said in a one-page order that none of the judges on the
9th Circuit wanted to vote on Google's application.


GVT: Brazil Commences False Advertising Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Telecompaper reports that Brazil's State Prosecutor's Office has
proposed a class action against telephony, internet and cable TV
provider GVT following dozens of complaints made by consumers in
the period from January 1, 2014 to September of this year, reports
Correio do Estado.

Prosecutor Eteocles Brito Mendonca Dias Junio has asked the court
to grant a preliminary injunction requiring the company to fulfill
the promises of packages sold, or get charged a daily fine of not
less than BRL15.000.  Any amounts paid would be allocated to the
State Consumer Fund.

According to a statement from the State Prosecutor's Office, GVT
did not report in the pre-contractual stage the details of the
packages and the main complaints are related to the number of
channels actually offered, the internet speed below the one
contracted, promotional discounts and their duration at odds with
what had been previously established.


JP MORGAN: Hotel Files Class Action Over Mobile Banking App
-----------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record.com, reports that
potential loopholes in a mobile banking application which could
allow depositors to cash the bank notes more than once have
prompted a Lakeview hotel business to bring a class action against
JP Morgan Chase.

Plaintiff 1409 West Diversey Corp., which does business as the
Bellwood Hotel, filed its putative class action against JP Morgan
Chase in Cook County Circuit Court Dec. 9, claiming its mobile
check capture service allows bank customers to deposit checks more
than once, exposing the check guarantor to financial liability.
The plaintiff stated "some current estimates of total duplicate or
multiple check fraud exceed $864 million in the United States per
year."

The hotel, for example, related an account of an employee who in
February 2014 was issued payroll checks totaling $473.98.  The
woman purportedly used the smartphone app to deposit the amounts
into her personal account; her bank presented the checks to the
hotel's bank, MB Financial, which deducted the total from 1409
West Diversey.  However, the employee soon thereafter attempted to
cash the paper checks at a local currency exchange, which "honored
the checks, paid the presenter . . . and in turn presented them to
MB Financial for payment."

MB Financial marked the checks "refer to maker" and returned them
to the currency exchange.  When the corporation refused to honor
the checks -- since the amount had already been deducted from its
account -- the currency exchange filed a complaint against the
hotel under the Illinois Commercial Code.

"Because (the currency exchange) was a holder in due course and
because 1409 West Diversey refused to pay two checks that were
valid on their face," the suit stated, "1409 West Diversey was
presumptively guilty of fraud and was legally at risk to honor the
checks and pay treble damages, costs and attorneys' fees to (the
currency exchange.)"

In settling that case, the hotel "incurred more than $2,200 in
costs, attorney's fees and damages," the complaint said.

The hotel said it contacted JP Morgan Chase to complain about an
absence of security procedures that would have prevented the
double dip.

"JP Morgan Chase, however, refused to accept responsibility for
causing 1409 West Diversey to have to pay the check twice, in
addition to the treble damages and costs and attorneys' fees
associated with the suit brought by Clark-Diversey," the complaint
said.

In seeking class action, 1409 West Diversey said the class would
be open to any person or entity that suffered a loss on a doubly-
deposited check through JP Morgan Chase.

The complaint asserted "JP Morgan Chase Bank had a duty, in
connecting with its Mobile Check Capture service, to provide
security sufficient to prevent its customers from cashing checks
after those same checks had been deposited via Mobile Check
Capture.  JP Morgan Chase breached this duty."

Further, the hotel said the trouble it experienced is "simply
illustrative of the larger problem of inadequate security by banks
that accept deposits by Mobile Deposit Capture.  Duplicate or
multiple check presentment is becoming epidemic.  For example, in
2006, banks expected to receive five to seven duplicate items per
million payments.  Today, a few years later, that number has
swollen to 40 to 100 duplicate items per million payments
processed, an increase of more than 1,100 percent."

In addition to class certification, 1409 West Diversey has
demanded actual and punitive damages, as well as legal fees.

The Bellwood Hotel operators are represented in the action by
attorneys Edward A. Berman and Terrence Buehler, both of Chicago.


KYB GROUP: "Adams" Action Hits Price-Fixing of Shock Absorbers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ifeoma Adams, Halley Ascher, Gregory Asken, Melissa Barron,
Kimberly Bennett, David Bernstein, Ron Blau, Tenisha Burgos, Kent
Busek, Jennifer Chase, Rita Cornish, Nathan Croom, Lori Curtis,
Jessica Decastro, Alena Farrell, Jane Fitzgerald, Carroll Gibbs,
Dori Gilels, Jason Grala, Ian Groves, Curtis Gunnerson, Paul
Gustafson, Tom Halverson, Curtis Harr, Andrew Hedlund, Gary Arthur
Herr, John Hollingsworth, Leonard Julian, Carol Ann Kashishian,
Elizabeth Kaufman, Robert Klingler, Kelly Klosterman, James
Marean, Michelle Mcginn, Rebecca Lynn Morrow, Edward T. Muscara,
Stacey Nickell, Sophie O'keefe-Zelman, Roger Olson, William
Picotte, Whitney Porter, Cindy Prince, Janne Rice, Robert Rice,
Jr., Frances Gammell-Roach, Darrel Senior, Meetesh Shah, Darcy
Sherman, Erica Shoaf, Arthur Stukey, Kathleen Tawney, Jane Taylor,
Keith Uehara, Michael Wick and Phillip Young on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Kayaba Industry Co., LTD D/B/A KYB Corporation And KYB Americas
Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-14080-RHC-RSW (E.D.
Mich., November 20, 2015), seeks damages and injunctive relief
pursuant to the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, federal and state
antitrust laws, unfair competition, consumer protection laws and
the common law of unjust enrichment.

Plaintiffs purchased or leased vehicles that included one or more
shock absorbers as a component part and allegedly paid
artificially inflated prices for shock absorbers manufactured,
marketed and sold by the Defendants.

Kayaba Industry Co. Ltd., d/b/a KYB Corporation is a Japanese
corporation with its primary place of business in Tokyo, Japan.
KYB is the world's largest manufacturer of shock absorbers.

KYB Americas Corporation is an Indiana corporation with its
principal place of business in Greenwood, Indiana. It is a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Kayaba Industry Co. Ltd. It manufactures,
markets and/or sells shock absorbers throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      E. Powell Miller, Esq.
      Devon P. Allard, Esq.
      THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
      950 W. University Drive, Suite 300
      Rochester, MI 48307
      Tel: (248) 841-2200
      Fax: (248) 652-2852
      Email: epm@millerlawpc.com
             dpa@millerlawpc.com

          - and -

      Hollis Salzman, Esq.
      Bernard Persky, Esq.
      William V. Reiss, Esq.
      ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
      601 Lexington Avenue, Suite 3400
      New York, NY 10022
      Tel: (212) 980-7400
      Fax: (212) 980-7499
      Email: HSalzman@RobinsKaplan.com
             BPersky@RobinsKaplan.com
             WReiss@RobinsKaplan.com

          - and -

      Marc M. Seltzer, Esq.
      Steven G. Sklaver, Esq.
      SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
      1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950
      Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029
      Tel: (310) 789-3100
      Fax: (310) 789-3150
      Email: mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com
             ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com

          - and -

      Terrell W. Oxford, Esq.
      Omar Ochoa, Esq.
      SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
      901 Main Street, Suite 5100
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Tel: (214) 754-1900
      Fax: (214)754-1933
      Email: toxford@susmangodfrey.com
             oochoa@susmangodfrey.com

          - and -

      E. Lindsay Calkins, Esq.
      SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
      1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800
      Seattle, WA 98104
      Tel: (206) 516-3800
      Fax: (206) 516-3883
      Email: lcalkins@susmangodfrey.com

          - and -

      Steven N. Williams, Esq.
      Adam J. Zapala, Esq.
      Elizabeth Tran, Esq.
      COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
      San Francisco Airport Office Center
      840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
      Burlingame, CA 94010
      Tel: (650) 697-6000
      Fax: (650) 697-0577
      Email: swilliams@cpmlegal.com
             azapala@cpmlegal.com
             etran@cpmlegal.com


LAMI PRODUCTS: "Cikra" Action Seeks Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------
Donald Cikra, Maryann Sonnett, Colleen Carlock, Gail Richmond,
Caralee Brush, and Mary Hurtado, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LaMi Products LLC,
seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-06166-WB (E.D.Pa., October 17 20, 2015), seeks
all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.
201, et seq.

Plaintiffs work as merchandisers for the Defendant and were
allegedly not paid overtime.

LaMi Products LLC is a duly registered company in Pennsylvania
with headquarters in Huntington Valley. They employ over 600
merchandisers who maintain product displays throughout the
country.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Santillo, Esq.
      R. Peter Winebrake, Esq.
      Mark Gottesfeld, Esq.
      WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
      715 Twining Rd #211
      Dresher, PA 19025
      Tel: (215) 884-2491
      Email: mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com

          - and -

      Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
      Peter M. Delano, Esq.
      LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
      729 Boylston St #2000
      Boston, MA 02114
      Tel: (617) 994-5800
      Email: hlichten@llrlaw.com
             pdelano@llrlaw.com


LOBLAW COMPANIES: Recalls Ginger Cookie Chips Due to Peanuts
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 5, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Peanut
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Loblaw Companies Limited
Distribution: National
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10158

Loblaw Companies Limited (Loblaw) is recalling President's Choice
brand Ginger Cookie Chips from the marketplace because it may
contain peanut which is not declared on the label. People with an
allergy to peanut should not consume the recalled product
described below.

The following product has been sold in the following Loblaw banner
stores:

Ontario: Fortinos(R), Loblaws(R), Real Canadian Superstore(R),
Valu-Mart(R), Your Independent Grocer(R), Zehrs(R) and affiliated
independent stores

Atlantic: Atlantic Superstore(R), Dominion(R), Your Independent
Grocer(R) and affiliated independent stores

Quebec: Loblaws(R), Maxi(R), Maxi & Cie(R), Provigo(R) and
affiliated independent stores

West: Extra Foods(R), Real Canadian Superstore(R), Your
Independent Grocer(R), Wholesale Club(R) and affiliated
independent stores

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.

If you have an allergy to peanut, do not consume the recalled
product as it may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

There have been no reported reactions associated with the
consumption of this product.

This recall was triggered by the company. The Canadian Food
Inspection Agency (CFIA) is conducting a food safety
investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If
other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the
public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.

  Brand name   Common name    Size    Code(s) on   UPC
  ----------   -----------    ----    product      ---
                                      ----------
  President's  Ginger Cookie  170 g   2016 AU 02   0 60383-
  Choice       Chips                               16176 7

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/WLclcR


LOBLAW COMPANIES: Recalls Life at Home(R) Multicolour LED Lights
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 12, 2015
Posting date: November 12, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Household Items, Tools and Electrical Products
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-55802

This recall involves Life at Home(R) Indoor M5 Multicolour LED Set
of 70 seasonal lights. The affected product has a length of
approximately 7.21 meters (23.7 feet), has multi-coloured bulbs
and a green wire. The recalled product has model number
HPCAL70CX/2S, manufacturing date 06/2015, CSA file number 241989
and UPC 058703379152.  Consumers are able to locate the model
number, manufacturing date and CSA file number on the white tag
affixed to the wire and the UPC on the back of the product's
packaging.

Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has determined
that the recalled seasonal lights may pose an overheating and fire
hazard.

Neither Health Canada nor Loblaw Companies Ltd. has received any
reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of
these products.

Approximately 61 units of the seasonal lights were sold at Loblaw
Companies Ltd banner stores across Canada.

The recalled products were sold from September 2015 to October
2015.

Manufactured in China.

Importer: Loblaw Companies Ltd.
          Brampton
          CANADA

Manufacturer: Taizhou Hongpeng Colour Lanterns Co. Ltd.
              Zhejiang
              CHINA

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled seasonal
lights and return it to any Loblaw Companies Ltd. banner store for
a full refund.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/0OF5zG


MAHINDRA USA: Recalls Diesel Tractors Due to Fire Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 12, 2015
Posting date: November 12, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Outdoor Living
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-55810

This recall involves Mahindra eMax compact diesel tractors
designed for residential use. They are red with a black seat. The
model number and "Mahindra" are in white lettering on the each
side of the hood. Serial numbers for the recalled models are
located on the right side of the frame above the front axle.

The model and Serial numbers are as follows:

  Recalled Model       Serial Numbers
  --------------       --------------
  eMax 22G             22GRH00001-22GRH00596
  eMax 22H             22HRH00001-22HRH00710
  eMax 25H             25HRH00001-25HRH00816

The affected unit's fuel lines can break or leak, posing a fire
hazard.

The firm received 61 reports of cracks in the fuel tank pipe.
Neither Health Canada or the US CPSC has received any reports of
injuries related to the use of these compact diesel tractors.

Approximately 95 of the recalled tractors were sold in Canada.
Approximately 2,000 were distributed in the United States.

The recalled products were sold from March 2014 through September
2015 in Canada and the United States.

Manufactured in Korea.

Manufacturer: Tong Yang Mulsan Co., Ltd
              TYM
              KOREA, DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF'

Distributor: Mahindra USA, Inc.,
             Houston
             Texas
             UNITED STATES

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/8mA20g


MANNARICH FOOD: Recalls Fish and Seafood Products Due to Egg
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 6, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Egg
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Mannarich Food Inc.
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Newfoundland and
Labrador, Ontario, Quebec
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10150

Mannarich Food Inc. is recalling Mannarich Food, Ocean Chinese
Food Products and Parker Lee brand fish and seafood products from
the marketplace because they contain egg which is not declared on
the label. People with an allergy to eggs should not consume the
recalled products described below.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.

If you have an allergy to eggs, do not consume the recalled
products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

There have been no reported reactions associated with the
consumption of these products.

This recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's
(CFIA) inspection activities. The CFIA is conducting a food safety
investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If
other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the
public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.

  Brand name   Common      Size    Code(s) on        UPC
  ----------   name        ---     product           ---
               ------              ----------
  Mannarich    Shrimp      180 g   All codes where   0 68636-
  Food Inc.    Flavoured           egg is not        02010 6
               Fish Balls          declared on the
                                   label
  Mannarich    Fried       160 g   All codes where   0 68636-
  Food Inc.    Shrimp              egg is not        02020 5
               Flavoured           declared on the
               Fish Balls          label

  Mannarich    Fish Balls  180 g   All codes where   0 68636-
  Food Inc.    with Dace           egg is not        03010 5
                                   declared on the
                                   label

  Mannarich    Taste of    400 g   All codes where   0 68636-
  Food Inc.    China Hot           egg is not        31101 3
               Pot                 declared on the
               Assortment          label
  Mannarich    Fish Balls  180 g   All codes where   6 77825-
  Food Inc.                        egg is not        40015 7
                                   declared on the
                                   label
  Ocean        Fish Balls  270 g   All codes where   6 77825-
  Chinese                          egg is not        40115 4
  Food                             declared on the
  Products                         label
  Ocean        Cuttlefish  180 g   All codes where   6 77825-
  Chinese      Ball                egg is not        40022 5
  Food                             declared on the
  Products                         label
  Ocean        Cuttlefish  270 g   All codes where   6 77825-
  Chinese      Ball                egg is not        40122 2
  Food                             declared on the
  Products                         label
  Ocean        Fat Choy    270 g   All codes where   6 77825-
  Chinese      Fish Ball           egg is not        40019 5
  Food                             declared on the
  Products                         label
  Ocean        Fried       240 g   All codes where   6 77825-
  Chinese      Shrimp              egg is not        40121 5
  Food         Flavoured           declared on the
  Products     Fish Balls          label
  Ocean        Shrimp Ball 180 g   All codes where   6 77825-
  Chinese                          egg is not        40020 1
  Food                             declared on the
  Products                         label
  Ocean        Fried       160 g   All codes where   6 77825-
  Chinese      Shrimp              egg is not        40021 8
  Food         Balls               declared on the
  Products                         label
  Parker Lee   Sole Filet  500 g   All codes where   0 68636-
               in Black            egg is not        20021 8
               Bean Sauce          declared on the
               with Rice           label
  Parker Lee   Shrimp      375 g   All codes where   0 68636-
               Wonton              egg is not        01196 8
               Soup Bowl           declared on the
                                   label
  Parker Lee   Teriyaki    375 g   All codes where   0 68636-
               Fish Filet          egg is not        02014 4
               Rice Bowl           declared on the
                                   label

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/NR443O


MASERATI: Recalls 2016 Models Due to Injury Risk
------------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 6, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Structure
Units affected: 3
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015530TC
ID number: 2015530
Manufacturer recall number: 292

On certain vehicles, passenger side door latch components may not
have been heat treated at time of manufacture. This could decrease
the door latch strength and potentially allow the door to open
when subjected to crash forces. This could increase the risk of
injury and/or damage to property. Correction: dealers will replace
the passenger door latch assembly.

  Make        Model           Model year(s) affected
  ----       -----            ----------------------
  MASERATI   GRANTURISMO      2016
  MASERATI   GRANTURISMO      2016
             CONVERTIBLE


MEDIVANCE INC: Recalls Temperature Management Systems
-----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 9, 2015
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type III
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-55986

Bard has identified Arctic Sun 5000 Temperature Management Systems
with specific serial numbers that may contain electronic
components that lead to a premature drainage of the internal
control panel coin cell battery responsible for maintaining the
system clock and static random access memory (SRAM). This
premature coin cell battery drainage could render your device
unresponsive upon system startup.

Affected products: ARCTIC SUN 5000 TEMP MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Lot or serial number: More than 10 numbers, contact manufacturer.
Model or catalog number: 5000-00-00

Manufacturer: Medivance, Inc.
              321 South Taylor avenue, Suite 200
              Louisville
              80027
              Colorado
              UNITED STATES


MEYER'S UNION: Faces Class Action Over No Tipping Policy
--------------------------------------------------------
Harriet Alexander, writing for The Telegraph, reports that one of
New York's most prominent restaurateurs, who shocked the culinary
world when he banned tipping at his flagship restaurant, is being
sued by two former employees over his tip policy.

Danny Meyer, whose 13 restaurants across the city range from
Michelin-starred fine dining establishments to casual cafes,
ignited a storm of controversy with his ban on tips.

He argued that tipping was unfair because it meant waiters were
receiving a disproportionate sum, and kitchen staff missing out.
At the end of November he ended tipping at The Modern, his
restaurant inside the MoMA art gallery by Central Park, and raised
his prices instead to give all staff a fairer wage.  By the end of
2016 all of his restaurants will have a "no tipping" policy.
Eyebrows were raised, but the policy is spreading. Eleven Madison
Avenue, described as offering one of New York's finest tasting
menus, followed suit shortly after.  On Dec. 14, a celebrated
Basque restaurant in the East Village, Huertas, became the latest
to announce that they too were banning tipping.

But on Dec. 11 two former employees of Gramercy Tavern begun legal
action against Mr. Meyer's Union Square Hospitality Group over his
current policy on tipping -- which will be replaced next year
under the new scheme.

Uzzol Siddiky was employed as a "busser" -- clearing plates from
the tables -- for five months this year, from July to November.
Kawsar Maruf did the same job, from June 2010 to the end of
December 2012.

Both men are demanding that they be paid damages for a failure to
pay them the correct wage.  They argue that they were paid a lower
minimum wage of $5 an hour, the amount given to staff who receive
tips, when they should have been paid $8.75 -- the amount for
those who do not benefit from gratuities.  They say that the fact
they had to share their tips with other staff, including glass
polishers and wine servers, meant that the higher minimum wage
should have applied.

"New York restaurant mogul Danny Meyer, the celebrity chef who
owns and operates the Michelin star-rated Gramercy Tavern, is the
so-called 'poster child of all that is good about American food
today,'" said Jeanne Christensen, lawyer for the pair, in court
documents.

"Unfortunately for service employees, all that is good about
American food today appears to include the practice of nickel and
diming employees out of wages and tips they are lawfully entitled
to receive."

Ms. Christensen accused Mr. Meyer's group of "an attempt at
'robbing Peter to pay Paul'; that is, to unlawfully augment the
wages Defendants pay to tip-ineligible employees with the tips
earned by Plaintiffs and other service staff through their hard
work and dedicated service to customers."

Messrs. Siddiky and Maruf said they were taking the case as a
class-action suit, on behalf of over 100 other employees in a
similar position.

But Mr. Meyer's group insist that they always treat their
employees fairly.

"Union Square Hospitality Group has systems in place to comply
with all employment regulations," said Kate Lindquist, spokesman
for the restaurant company.

"We have always cared deeply about cultivating a strong employee-
first culture, and we will review this matter thoroughly."


MILLER BREWING: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Beer Label
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Begley, writing for Daily News, reports that a New York man
has sued Miller Brewing Co. over Foster's beer not being brewed in
Australia.

The lawsuit, a proposed class action filed in Brooklyn Federal
Court, contends that advertising misled Leif Nelson into
purchasing the beer because it was portrayed as being brewed in
Australia, when in fact he contends the brewing operation moved to
Texas in 2011, the New York Daily News reports.

Mr. Nelson's suit reportedly says he would continue to purchase
the beer if it were accurately labeled.  Mr. Nelson declined to
comment and calls from the Daily News to Miller were not
immediately returned.


NEINSTEIN & ASSOCIATES: Ontario Court Certifies Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Julius Melnitzer, writing for Financial Post, reports that the
Divisional Court has certified a class action authorizing up to
6,000 clients of Toronto personal injury lawyer Gary Neinstein and
his law firm, Neinstein & Associates, to participate in a lawsuit
alleging that the firm entered into improper fee agreements, took
unauthorized fees, failed to obtain required court approval and
charged illegal interest rates on disbursements.

None of the allegations have been proven in court.

But Kirk Baert of Koskie Minsky, a veteran of the plaintiffs'
class action bar, calls the decision a "stunning reversal" of the
original ruling by Justice Paul Perell of the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice, who refused to certify the case.

Contingency fees are legal in Ontario.  But contingency agreements
may not give lawyers both a percentage of the client's award and a
portion of the costs awarded to the client, unless judicial
approval is obtained.  If the firm does not obtain the required
approval, the Solicitors Act, which governs Ontario lawyers'
conduct, states that the agreement is "unenforceable."

The Neinstein firm worked almost exclusively on contingency fees.
According to the Divisional Court, the "norm" for Neinstein was to
include the recovery of costs plus a percentage of the damages as
fees for payment for its services.  It was "not the practice" of
the firm to obtain court approval for such agreements, nor did the
agreement include a required provision that the clients was
entitled to any costs recovered unless a judge ordered otherwise.

In 2010, Cassie Hodge, the representative plaintiff in the class
action, signed such a contingency agreement.  She eventually
recovered an "all-in" settlement of $150,000 for damages sustained
in a car accident.  Mr. Neinstein advised her that the $150,000
consisted of $100,000 for damages and $50,000 for costs.

"Gary Neinstein admitted under cross-examination that he
arbitrarily made this division himself," the Divisional Court
noted.

Ms. Hodge sought certification of a class action declaring that
the firm's contingency agreements were unenforceable.

Justice Perell dismissed the motion on the basis that the remedies
available to clients under Ontario's Solicitors Act did not
include the bringing of a class actions seeking a declaration of
unenforceability. He also concluded that the "common issues"
criteria was not met and that the class action was not the
"preferable" way of proceeding.

The Divisional Court disagreed.

"The motion judge erred in principle in failing to find a triable
cause of action with respect to the clients' right to apply for a
declaration that the contingency fee arrangements at issue are
unenforceable," a unanimous Divisional Court concluded.  "Flowing
from the error, the motion judge failed to recognize viable common
issues and reached a wrong conclusion with respect to preferable
procedure. In [the court's opinion], all of the criteria for
certification have been met."


NESTLE INDIA: Supreme Court Stays Maggi Class Action Proceedings
----------------------------------------------------------------
Meenakshi Verma Ambwani, writing for Hindu Business Line, reports
that the Supreme Court on Dec. 16 put a stay on the ongoing
proceedings before the National Consumer Dispute Redressal
Commission (NCDRC) in the class action against Nestle India
concerning Maggi Noodles.

NCDRC was hearing the class action suit filed by the Centre
against Nestle India seeking damages worth Rs. 640 crore.

It also directed that the fresh tests that NCDRC had asked to be
done at a Chennai lab, will now be conducted at Mysuru-based
Central Food Technological Research Institute.

"Reports of the 13 samples already sent to CFTRI Mysore and the
additional 16 samples, which are being sent to CFTRI now, are to
be forwarded to the Supreme Court instead of NCDRC," Nestle said,
adding that it is awaiting the formal order.

The company said that in recent months it had done over 3,500
tests on 200 million packs at national and international
accredited labs for testing and that all reports are clear.

"100% of the samples tested show Maggi Noodles is safe for
consumption and indicate lead to be much below the limit
stipulated by the regulatory authorities.  This was also validated
by the reports from three accredited laboratories mandated by the
Hon'ble Bombay High Court to test the samples," the company's
statement added.


NEWMAR: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Injury Risk
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 10, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Motorhome
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Accessories
Units affected: 24
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015534TC
ID number: 2015534

On certain vehicles, the engine cooling fan may separate from the
drive without warning. If the engine area is open and the cooling
fan is operating and detaches, it could potentially cause personal
injury. Correction: Dealers will replace the engine fan drive.

  Make       Model                Model year(s) affected
  ----       -----                ----------------------
  NEWMAR     MOUNTAIN AIRE        2007
             CLASS A MOTORHOME
  NEWMAR     ESSEX CLASS A        2006, 2007
             MOTORHOME


NEWMAR: Recalls Canyon Star Class A Motorhome 2014 Models
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 12, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Motorhome
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Accessories
Units affected: 1
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015537TC
ID number: 2015537

On certain motorhomes, a defect in the on-demand hot water heater,
manufactured by Atwood Mobile Products, could result in a risk of
scalding injury due to excessive hot water temperature.
Correction: Owners will be provided with instructions from Atwood
Mobile Products on how and where to have repairs completed.

  Make      Model               Model year(s) affected
  ----      -----               ----------------------
  NEWMAR    CANYON STAR         2014
            CLASS A MOTORHOME


NEWMAR: Recalls King Aire Class A Motorhome 2016 Models
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 12, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Motorhome
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Accessories
Units affected: 2
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015536TC
ID number: 2015536

Certain motorhomes may not have been manufactured with an egress
window on the opposite side of the entry door. A lack of emergency
exits could increase the risk of injury under certain
circumstances. Correction: Dealers will install an egress window
at the driver side dinette table.

  Make      Model               Model year(s) affected
  ----      -----               ----------------------
  NEWMAR    KING AIRE CLASS     2016
            A MOTORHOME


OKLAHOMA CITY, OK: Cop's Sexual Assault Victims File Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Murphy, writing for the Associated Press, reports that
attorneys for several women who accused a former Oklahoma City
police officer of sexual assault asked a federal judge on Dec. 14
to allow a civil case to move forward now that a jury found him
guilty of rape and other charges.

Attorneys for the women filed an application to lift the stay
after the recent verdict finding Daniel Holtzclaw guilty of 18 of
36 charges alleging he raped and sexually victimized women he
encountered while patrolling low-income neighborhoods on the
city's northeast side.

The jury recommended a total of 263 years in prison. Formal
sentencing is scheduled for January.

Seven of the 13 women who accused Mr. Holtzclaw in the criminal
case are plaintiffs in the lawsuit that has been transferred from
Oklahoma County to U.S. District Court in Oklahoma City.  The
defendants are Holtzclaw and the city of Oklahoma City.

The women, who are seeking class-action status, allege the city
was negligent in its hiring and supervision of Mr. Holtzclaw and
should have known about Mr. Holtzclaw's dangerous conduct.  The
suit claims Mr. Holtzclaw's actions violated the women's civil
rights and seeks damages of more than $75,000.

A telephone message left with the women's lead attorney,
Mark Hammons, was not immediately returned.

The city opposes a class-action suit and denies it failed to
properly supervise or investigate Mr. Holtzclaw.  Attorneys for
the city also note several of the women failed to properly file a
tort claim against the city.

Oklahoma City attorney Richard Smith in the city's litigation unit
said police detectives aggressively pursued the case against
Mr. Holtzclaw as soon as he was identified as the suspect in the
assaults.

Most of the victims in Mr. Holtzclaw's case never came forward
until police identified him as the assailant and arrested him.


POSTURE PRO: Faces "Carradine" Suit Over Unsolicited Faxes
----------------------------------------------------------
Carradine Chiropractic Center, Inc., individually, and as the
representatives of a class of similarly-situated persons,
Plaintiffs, v. Posture Pro, Inc., and John Does 1-10, Defendants,
Case No. 4:15-cv-02378-BYP (N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division, November
20, 2015), seeks statutory damages under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, modified and renamed the Junk Fax Prevention Act
codified at 47 U.S.C. 227; and seeks to enjoin Posture Pro from
continuing to send unsolicited faxes.

Carradine Chiropractic is an Ohio corporation, and it operates a
chiropractic clinic located at 8286 South Ave, Building B in
Boardman, OH 44512.

Posture Pro, Inc. is a California corporation with its principal
place of business is located at 18584 Main Street in Huntington
Beach, CA 92647. Posture Pro sells medical equipment such as back
and neck pain relieving products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      George D. Jonson, Esq.
      Matthew E. Stubbs, Esq.
      MONTGOMERY, RENNIE & JONSON
      36 E. Seventh Street, Suite 2100
      Cincinnati, OH 45202
      Tel: (513) 241-4722
      Fax: (513) 241-8775
      Email: gjonson@mrjlaw.com
             mstubbs@mrjlaw.com


RENO, NV: Awaits Ruling on Class Action v. Housing Authority
------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a federal judge who once was
legal counsel for a public housing authority in Las Vegas is
sending mixed signals about whether he'll grant class-action
status for a lawsuit accusing the Reno Housing Authority of
breaking U.S. labor laws.

The suit claims the Reno authority illegally hires assistant
apartment managers at public housing units for less than minimum
wage with no overtime, in exchange for free rent.

The authority's lawyer denied the allegations during a hearing on
Dec. 10 before U.S. District Judge Robert C. Jones.

Judge Jones says he represented the Clark County authority for a
decade.

He began the hearing by warning that plaintiffs face an "uphill
battle" to secure class-action status, but later appeared to
soften his stance.  He said he planned to rule on that question
within 10 days.


RUTH'S HOSPITALITY: "Ware" Action Seeks Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------
Alice Ware, and on behalf of all those similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Ruth's Hospitality Group, Inc. d/b/a Ruth's Chris
Steakhouse, Defendant. Case No. 9:15-cv-81510-KAM (S.D. Fla. Palm
Beach Division, October 30, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 207 and 216.

The Plaintiff allegedly did not receive proper overtime
compensation for work performed over 40 hours in a workweek.

Ruth's Hospitality Group, Inc., is based in 1030 West Canton Ave.,
Suite 100, Winter Park, FL 32789 and does business as Ruth's Chris
Steakhouse.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      R. Edward Rosenberg, Esq
      MORGADO, P.A.
      382 NE 191st Street #84164
      Miami, Florida 33179
      Tel: (855) 8999121 Ext. 102
      Fax: (855) 4999191
      Email: rer@morgado.us


SHORB GROUP: "Castro" Action Seeks to Recover Wages and OT
----------------------------------------------------------
Rene Castro, Justiniano G. Mendez and Angel Miner, Plaintiffs, on
behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals, v.
JOHN SHORB LANDSCAPING, INC., JOHN SHORB LANDSCAPING II, LLC,
SHORB TRUCKING, LLC, SHORB PROPERTIES II, LLC, JOHN W. SHORB, Case
No. 1:15-cv-02011-APM (D.D.C., October 17, 2015), seeks to recover
damages over the Defendants' alleged failure to pay all wages due,
including overtime, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
29 U.S.C. 201 et seq., District of Columbia Minimum Wage Act, D.C.
Code, 32-1001 et seq., District of Columbia Wage Payment and
Collection Law, D.C. Code 32-1301 et seq., Maryland Wage and Hour
Law, Md. Code, Lab. & Empl. Art. 3-401 et seq. and the Maryland
Wage Payment and Collection Law, Md. Code, Lab. & Empl. Art.,
3-501 et seq.

Plaintiffs allegedly were not paid one and one-half times their
regular hourly rate for hours worked in excess of 40 in any one
workweek.

John Shorb Landscaping, Inc. is a Maryland corporation with
principal office located at 10518 Warfield Street, Kensington, MD
20895. John Shorb, Inc. is registered as a foreign corporation
within the District of Columbia.

John Shorb, Inc. has four active licenses to operate and apply
pesticides within the District of Columbia.

John Shorb Landscaping II, Limited Liability Company is a District
of Columbia limited liability company. Its principal office is
located at 1122 Bladensburg Road NE, Washington, DC 20002.

Shorb Trucking, LLC is a Maryland limited liability company
located at 10518 Warfield Street, Kensington, MD 20895.

Shorb Trucking owns and maintains the work vehicles used by
Defendants.

Shorb Properties II, LLC is a Maryland limited liability company
with principal office located at 10518 Warfield Street Kensington,
MD 20895.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin Zelikovitz, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN ZELIKOVITZ, PLLC
      519 H Street NW Washington, DC 20001
      Tel: (202) 803-6081
      Fax: (202) 683-6102
      Email: justin@dcwagelaw.com


SOUTHERN RESPONSE: Policyholders Attend Class Action Hearing
------------------------------------------------------------
Grant Cameron, the lawyer acting for the Southern Response
policyholders bringing a class action, confirmed on Dec. 16 that
the group would be appearing before the High Court in Christchurch
at 9:00 a.m. on December 16.

"Our group of policyholders are seeking redress from the court for
alleged breaches of contract by the insurer" he said.  "The
hearing tomorrow is a preliminary one designed to settle the
question of whether the case can proceed through the courts as a
representative action.  Southern Response has maintained that the
policyholders cannot bring this sort of proceeding because the
damage in each case is different, as is the repair strategy.
However, we believe that is to miss the point," said Mr. Cameron.

"There is no difficulty in the parties agreeing what the damage is
and how it might be fixed in particular cases, but had this been
properly progressed by the insurer to date, most policyholders
would have had their claims settled a long time ago.  The issue is
not about 'different damage' but instead, is all about how the
insurer chooses to interpret the policy or discharge its
obligations" said Mr. Cameron.

"Like the 46 policyholders presently in the action and nearly 3000
other unsettled claimants, effective progress will require the
court to decide how the policy is to be interpreted in important
respects.  Therefore, although the case is a little different to
other class actions, the group is very optimistic that the court
will agreed that the case should proceed as a representative
action"

"Class action members believe the insurer is happy to take such
technical points in the hope that a court decision that the case
not proceed as a representative action would mean policyholders
could not bring any form of litigation before the courts.  Put
simply, this issue is all about access to the courts and the
ability of the man in the street to obtain remedies from the
court. In the present circumstances, virtually no policyholders
can afford to 'go it alone' and so the only way forward is for
policyholders to join together and proceed with the support of a
litigation funder", he said.

Francis Cooke QC will advance the policyholder's case before
Justice Mander, with Mike O'Brien QC appearing for the insurer.


SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: TheGrantLawFirm Withdraws Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
On November 17, 2015, TheGrantLawFirm, PLLC, disseminated a notice
to shareholders under the PSLRA, announcing that it filed a class
action complaint on behalf of all securities holders who purchased
securities of Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. during the period
between May 7, 2015 until October 23, 2015, inclusive.  Since the
publication of the PSLRA notice, TheGrantLawFirm, PPLC has
withdrawn the complaint.


SUPERIOR PERFORMANCE: "Allen" Action Seeks to Recover OT
--------------------------------------------------------
Gary Allen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Superior Performance, Inc., Defendant., Case No.
2:15-cv-00469 (S.D. Tex., Corpus Christi Division, October 17,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act, 29
U.S.C. 216(b).

Plaintiff allegedly never received overtime pay for work performed
in excess of 40 hours in a week.

Superior Performance, Inc. is based in 660 W. FM 2410, Harker
Heights, Texas 76548 and is into inspection and operation of
drilling related equipment for oil and gas service companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
      Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
      Jessica M. Bresler, Esq.
      FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
      1150 Bissonnet
      Houston, TX 77005
      Tel: (713) 751-0025
      Fax: (713) 751-0030
      Email: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com
             litkin@fibichlaw.com
             adunlap@fibichlaw.com
             jbresler@fibichlaw.com

          - and -

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


SWAGWAY LLC: Faces Class Action Over Defective Scooter
------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Bates, writing for for Dailymail.Com, reports that leading
hoverboard-maker -- Swagway -- has been slapped with a class
action lawsuit, Daily Mail online can exclusively reveal.

Michael Brown is suing because the device that he bought as a
Hanukkah present for his children burst into flames inside his
home.

In court documents obtained by Daily Mail Online -- Mr. Brown is
asking for "punitive" damages that could run to millions of
dollars and accuses Swagway hoverboards of being defective and
"not fit for purpose".

The lawsuit also claims the company was "misleading and deceptive"
when it fraudulently claimed that the product was safe.
The lawsuit was filed after Amazon, Target and major airlines
banned Swagway and other brands of hoverboards over safety
concerns.

Hoverboards, or self-guiding Segway-like machines, are currently
the most in demand present but at least eleven devices in ten
states have caught fire.

Firemen across the country are warning consumers not to overcharge
them as their batteries may turn into a fireball.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and US Customs and
Borders are also carrying out separate investigations into
hoverboards and their supply chains.

The lawsuit names Swagway LLC, which is based in South Bend
Indiana, and Modell's Sporting Goods, a New York-based chain store
where Brown bought his hoverboard.

It says: "The Swagway Hoverboard is unsafe for its intended use
inasmuch as it is defective and presents a material likelihood
that it will self-combust or short-circuit while charging, leading
to fire and/other damage.

"In marketing and selling Swagway Hoverboards on its website,
Swagway did not disclose the defects in the product that could
cause it to be self-combusting and otherwise dangerous, and,
rather, impliedly or expressly represented that the product would
be safe for its intended purposes".

Mr. Brown bought his Swagway hoverboard on November 24 for $443.49
from the Modell's website as a Hanukkah present for his kids.
He says that they used it for 30 minutes at their home in
Chappaqua, New York on December 6 and then plugged it in to charge
when it said the battery was dead.

Some 45 minutes later it burst into a fireball, the lawsuit
states, also igniting packaging material that was nearby.  The
fire was so bad Brown dialed 911 and the fire department had to
put it out.

The lawsuit alleges that one of the issues in the case will be
when Swagway "learned that there was a substantial risk that the
Swagway Hoverboard was defective and posed a danger of a fire
hazard".

The lawsuit, filed in the Northern District of Indiana, claims
that Swagway has breached the Consumer Protection from Deceptive
Acts and Practices Act.

It also alleges that Swagway has also breached its implied
warranty and was guilty of unjust enrichment, conduct which was
"unconscionable or fraudulent".

Swagway became arguably the best known brand of hoverboard after a
string of glowing online reviews.

It was also featured on Good Morning America, the Ellen Degeneres
show, CBS This Morning, USA Today and Wired.

Daily Mail Online has reached out to Swagway's spokeswoman for
comment but have yet to hear back.

The company has in the past claimed that it has been unfairly
singled out and that is uses quality Samsung and LG batteries that
meet industry safety standards.

CPSC spokeswoman Patty Davis said it was working to determine the
manufacturers and importers of the hoverboards that burst into
flames,

She said: "Our investigation involves multiple products sold
through multiple retail sources.

"Consumers deserve answers, especially since this is such a
popular toy this holiday."


SYNGENTA GROUP: "Fleisher" Suit Alleges Crop Loss Over GMO Corn
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel E. Fleisher, Gail W. Adams and James E. Adams Plaintiffs,
v. Syngenta Corporation, Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC and
Syngenta Seeds, Inc. Defendants., Case No. 1:15-cv-05657 (S.D.
Ohio, Western Division - Cincinnati, October 30, 2015), seeks to
recover compensatory damages together with appropriate equitable
relief as a result of manufacturing, marketing and sale of
genetically modified corn seed by the Defendants.

The actions by the Defendants allegedly caused the depression of
U.S. corn prices resulting in over $1.4 billion in damages to U.S.
corn market and over $145,635,600 of damages to Ohio corn farmers.

Syngenta Corporation is a Delaware corporation with a principal
place of business at 3411 Silverside Road #100, Wilmington,
Delaware 19810.

Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, is a limited liability company
organized and operating under the laws of the State of Delaware
with its principal place of business at 410 South Swing Road,
Greensboro, North Carolina 27409.

Syngenta Seeds, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its  principal
place of business at 11055 Wayzata Boulevard, Minnetonka,
Minnesota 55305.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bryce A. Lenox, Esq.
      Brian T. Giles, Esq.
      GILES LENOX
      1018 Delta Avenue, Suite 202
      Cincinnati, OH 45208
      Tel: (513) 520-9829
      Fax: (513) 824-8160
      Email: Bryce@GilesLenox.com
             Brian@GilesLenox.com


TINDER: Faces Consumer Fraud Class Action in California
-------------------------------------------------------
Brenda Craig, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reports that
Tinder, a global dating app's website, is the focus of a consumer
rights class-action lawsuit launched in California.

The "find-a-match-anywhere-anytime" with a simple "swipe" on your
smartphone has become a favorite with 20-somethings around the
world.

But now comes a class-action suit in which the dating app is
alleged to have run afoul of a state consumer law known as the
Dating Service Act.  A somewhat unique piece of legislation, it
covers dating services and gym memberships and requires that these
kinds of service businesses afford consumers a "cooling-off
period" after they sign up and put their money down.

"California has some unique consumer laws," says attorney
Matthew Loker, from the Kazerouni Law Group.

"Many nationwide companies complain about California's extensive
consumer laws but if they are going to do business nationwide,
they should be familiar with these statutes," he adds.

According to Mr. Loker's research, Tinder earns as much as $9
million a month from subscriptions.

Mr. Loker's client, the lead plaintiff in the suit, signed up for
Tinder's Premium Package at a cost of $9.99 a month on May 13,
2015.  Then on May 15, 2015, two days later, he changed his mind
and decided to cancel his subscription.

Tinder charged the plaintiff for the whole month rather than
canceling it immediately, according to the statement of claim.

The claim contends Tinder failed to recognize the consumer's right
to cancel within a 3-day period, and failed to include "on its
face and in close proximity to the space reserved for the
signature of the buyer a conspicuous statement" clearly stating
that "you the buyer may cancel this agreement without penalty or
obligation, at any time prior to midnight of the original contract
seller's third day of business following the date of this
contract."

The claim also says that Tinder failed to provide the buyer with
an address where the cancellation could be sent.

Mr. Loker points out that there are two separate groups that
qualify as members of the class.

The first group applied to persons who tried to opt out within the
first three days.  The second group applies to persons who opted
out after the 3-day period and weren't reimbursed on a "pro-rata"
basis.

Potential class members must have signed their contract while
residing in California.

"There are two decision sections in the statute and we believe
both these groups are entitled to class-action status," notes
Mr. Loker.

The suit is currently in discovery phase.

Tinder Inc. has made a court application for a change of venue.
It wants the case to be heard in Texas.


TAISHAN GYPSUM: Judge Hears Closing Arguments in Drywall Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Janet McConnaughey, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
a federal judge would hear closing arguments on Dec. 15 about
whether a Chinese drywall manufacturer held back information about
its U.S. sales by failing to disclose a former official's
whereabouts.

Peng Wenlong was head of foreign sales for Taishan Gypsum Co. Ltd.
when it sold drywall that thousands of homeowners in six states
say released sulfur fumes that made them sick and corroded metals,
plaintiffs' attorney Fred Longer said on Dec. 14.

"We were told repeatedly that he'd left the company and no one
knows where he is, when in fact he went to work for the owner's
wife and they always knew where he was," Mr. Longer said.

Taishan's attorneys did not immediately respond to a request for
comment.

Mr. Longer said plaintiffs' attorneys received Peng's computer and
hard drives only this year.  They found evidence that could have
eliminated a long court fight over whether courts in this country
had any right to handle the case, had it been produced when first
requested four or five years ago, he said.

"There were just a lot of legal resources that were squandered as
a result of them hiding the tea -- hiding the evidence," Longer
said.

U.S. District Judge Eldon Fallon heard evidence about the matter
in November, but sealed those records.  However, the Dec. 15
closing arguments will be open.

Judge Fallon also is considering how much Taishan Gypsum should
pay people for damage from the drywall, but has not said when he
will rule on that.  He heard evidence about that question in June.

Taishan paid seven Virginia homeowners and their attorneys $2.7
million, plus about $500,000 interest earlier this year.

It would be unfair to use those figures as the basis for figuring
damages in a class-action suit involving 2,700 homes in Florida,
Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, and elsewhere in Virginia,
Taishan's attorneys said during arguments in June.

Claims dropped from the class action, such as loss and enjoyment
of property, attorneys' fees and "move-in/move-out" costs, are to
be tried separately, and about 1,000 more cases don't fit into the
dollars-per-square-foot formula to be set by Fallon and will be
tried individually, plaintiffs' attorneys have said.


TERRFORM GLOBAL: Hid IPO Sponsor's Losses, "Beltran" Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan M. Rodriguez Beltran, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. Terraform Global, Inc.,
Sunedison, Inc., Ahmad Chatila, Carlos Domenech Zornoza, Jeremy
Avenier, Martin Truong, Brian Wuebbels, J.P. Morgan Securities
LLC., Barclays Capital Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Morgan
Stanley & Co. LLC, Goldman Sachs & Co., Merrill Lynch, Pierce,
Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., BTG
Pactual US Capital, LLC, Itau BBA USA Securities, Inc., SMBC Nikko
Securities America, Inc., SG Americas Securities, LLC. and Kotak
Mahindra, Inc., Defendants., Case No. 3:15-cv-04981 (N.D. Cal.,
October 29, 2015), seeks to recover damages  under Section 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the purchases of
TerraForm Global's shares.

The class action arises out of an alleged deliberate effort to
conceal information regarding the Initial Public Offering of
TerraForm. SunEdison, the IPO's sponsor, sustained considerable
financial losses prior to the IPO and whose condition was not made
known to the shareholders.

TerraForm Global owns and operates renewable energy generation
assets worldwide. The Company generates electricity through solar,
wind, and hydro-electric projects and serves utility, commercial,
industrial and government customers. TerraForm Global holds wind
and solar projects in South Africa, India and China.

SunEdison develops, manufactures, and sells silicon wafers and is
a major developer and seller of photovoltaic energy solutions. The
company's subsidiary, SunEdison LCC, is one of the world's leading
developers of solar energy projects.

Carlos Domenech Zornoza was, at the time of the offering, Chief
Executive Officer and director of the Company.

Jeremy Avenier was TerraForm Global's Chief Financial Officer.

Ahmad Chatila was, at the time of the offering, Chairman and
director of the company.

Martin Truong served as SunEdison's Vice President, General
Counsel and Secretary since April of 2013.

Brian Wuebbels was a director of the Company.

J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Barclays Capital Inc., Citigroup
Global Markets Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Goldman, Sachs &
Co., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., Deutsche Bank
Securities Inc., BTG Pactual US Capital, LLC, Itau BBA USA
Securities, Inc., SMBC Nikko Securities America, Inc., SG Americas
Securities, LLC and Kotak Mahindra, Inc. were an underwriters for
the IPO Offering.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John T. Jasnoch, Esq.
      SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
      707 Broadway, Suite 1000
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 233-4565
      Fax: (619) 233-0508
      Email: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com


U.S. MEDICAL MGT: "Chudzik" Suit Claims Back Pay
------------------------------------------------
Monika Chudzik, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. U.S. Medical Management, LLC and VPA, P.C.
d/b/a Visiting Physicians Association, Case No. 15-cv-1288 (E.D.
Wis., October 29, 2015) seeks relief for unpaid minimum wages,
liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or
injunctive relief under Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and
Wisconsin Wage Laws, under Fed. R. CIV. P.23.

Plaintiff drives visiting physicians to patient locations and
providing medical assistance to visiting physicians while at
patient locations. VPA failed to pay Chudzik compensation for all
hours worked, including overtime premium pay compensation for
hours worked over 40 in a given workweek, the Complaint says.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
      Summer H. Murshid, Esq.
      Timothy P. Maynard, Esq.
      HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
      222 East Erie Street, Suite 210
      P.O. Box 442
      Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442
      Tel: (414) 271-8650
      Fax: (414) 271-8442
      Email: ljohnson@hq-law.com
             smurshid@hq-law.com
             tmaynard@hq-law.com


UBER: Wants Drivers to Sign Agreement Not to Join Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Barclay Bishop, writing for WAGT26, reports that Uber wants its
drivers to sign an agreement barring them from participating in
class action lawsuits against the ride-sharing company.

The new 21-page legal agreement was issued two days after a judge
expanded a California class action suit against Uber.

It pushes the ride-hailing company to define drivers as employees
making drivers eligible for reimbursement for expenses accrued
while driving.

Uber says the new agreement will only apply to drivers who began
driving after December 11th.


UBER: City of Seattle Allows Drivers to Form Union
--------------------------------------------------
Heather Somerville and Mike Rosenberg, writing for Reuters, report
that Seattle on Dec. 14 became the first U.S. city to pass a law
giving drivers for Uber and Lyft the right to unionize, a new
challenge to the ride companies' success as they confront mounting
dissatisfaction over how drivers are treated.

The law approved unanimously by the Seattle City Council
recognizes the right of drivers for on-demand ride companies known
as Transportation Network Companies, as well as taxi and for-hire
drivers, to collectively negotiate on pay and working conditions.

Uber and Lyft both opposed the measure and argue that federal law
precludes such local legislation.  The law marks a new approach to
addressing the heated debate over whether Uber and Lyft drivers
ought to have some or all the legal rights of employees, which
would substantially increase companies' costs.

Despite facing regulatory battles in Seattle, both companies have
growth in popularity there, with thousands of drivers using the
app.

"Unfortunately, the ordinance passed threatens the privacy of
drivers, imposes substantial costs on passengers and the city, and
conflicts with longstanding federal law," said Chelsea Wilson,
Lyft public policy communications manager.

Uber said about half its drivers work fewer than 10 hours a week,
and there is such a high turnover of drivers that designating them
as employees or allowing them to unionize doesn't make sense.

Uber is widely expected to sue, although Lyft said it did not have
plans to sue.

Seattle Councilman Mike O'Brien, who proposed the measure,
predicted Uber would sue and said the city had the resources to
defend the ordinance.

"We now have a $60 billion organization making a lot of money
while some drivers are making less than $3 per hour," he said.

At least 1,000 drivers have already organized as part of the App-
Based Drivers Association.

The Seattle law does not rule on whether drivers are employees or
contractors but extends to drivers rights usually reserved for
employees.

"It's a reaction to the employment issue without solving that
bigger problem," said Richard Reibstein, a labor lawyer who runs
the independent contractor practice at Pepper Hamilton.  "Until
such time as their status is resolved in each state, those who are
unhappy will seek political action to advance their causes."

Hundreds of union supporters and drivers packed the city council
chambers on Dec. 14

"It's pretty much making minimum wage" after deducting costs, said
Sean Janaba, 34, of Seattle, who has been driving for Uber for
three years.  "Things are getting worse."

The per-mile fare for Uber and Lyft rides in Seattle is $1.35, a
little more than half what it was a couple years ago. In other
cities, Uber has regularly cut fares to attract passengers.

At least nine states have issued rulings that drivers are
independent contractors, but in two separate cases in California,
drivers were deemed employees and got unemployment benefits.

Other drivers have sued Uber for misclassifying them as
contractors.  Uber is facing a class-action suit in California
that could include tens of thousands of drivers.

Uber and other opponents to the Seattle ordinance argue that
federal law prohibits independent contractors from collective
bargaining, since the law only covers employees.

But farm workers and home health care workers, who are also not
addressed by the federal law, have been allowed to unionize under
state law, which could give Seattle a defense for its action.

To have a city pass such a law, however, "is extremely uncommon,"
Mr. Reibstein said.  Some question whether cities have that legal
authority.

There are also federal anti-trust statutes that could be triggered
if driver unions are perceived as fixing prices and eroding free
market competition.


UNITED SERVICES: Little Rock Attorney Challenges Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mark Friedman, writing for Arkansas Business, reports that Little
Rock attorney Robert Trammell is scheduled to appear in Polk
County Circuit Court to challenge a class-action settlement that
he said is unfair to class members and favors the law firms
representing them: Keil & Goodson of Texarkana and Taylor Law
Partners of Fayetteville.

The terms of the settlement call for the plaintiffs' firms to
receive up to $1.85 million in attorneys' fees and expenses while
the defendant, United Services Automobile Association, will have
to set aside $3.4 million to pay potential claims, Trammell said
in his Nov. 16 filing.

But the proposed settlement, he said, seems designed to make it
difficult for USAA members to file claims -- possibly because any
money not paid to class members will go back to the insurance
company.

Mr. Trammell appears to be the first attorney to object to a
class-action settlement this year in cases involving the Keil &
Goodson firm, which collected millions of dollars in attorneys'
fees in class-action suits until the U.S. Supreme Court stepped in
March 2013.

The high court voided a key element of Keil & Goodson's strategy
that involved trapping defendants in front of friendly and slow-
moving elected judges in state courts, forcing huge settlements in
cases whose legal merits were never considered.  Keil & Goodson
and two Texas firms it worked with, Nix Patterson & Roach and
Crowley Norman LLP, extracted more than $420 million in attorneys'
fees from 23 settlements between 2005 and 2012, nearly all of them
in Miller County.

Since the high court unanimously found the strategy to be illegal,
Keil & Goodson and other class-action attorneys have taken a
different approach to keeping their class-action settlements out
of the hands of federal judges: strike a deal with the defendants
to settle the case in state court, where judges may be less
stringent in assuring that the victims are compensated as fairly
as the attorneys.

That's what happened in the USAA case.  The lawsuit, which never
made it to the point of being certified as a class action by a
judge, was dismissed from U.S. District Court in Fort Smith on
June 22.  The next day, a nearly identical complaint was filed in
Polk County Circuit Court along with a stipulation of a class-
action settlement.

Having a case filed in state court for the purposes of settlement
is "a pretty standard way to try to rip off the class," Ted Frank,
the director of the Center for Class Action Fairness in
Washington, told Arkansas Business, which asked him to review
documents in the USAA case.

"I guess they were worried that . . . a judge in federal court
would have given it scrutiny, and they wanted to get away from
that. Because there's no reason to refile it in state court unless
they were trying to avoid federal review."

Arkansas Business has found two other cases where the Keil &
Goodson firm participated in settling class-action lawsuits this
year and shared a total of $1.86 million in attorneys' fees and
expenses.  Those cases had been in federal court but were refiled
in state court for prompt settlement.

Neither Matt Keil nor John Goodson, a member of the University of
Arkansas Board of Trustees and husband of Arkansas Supreme Court
Justice Courtney Goodson, returned messages seeking interviews
about the settlements.

W.H. Taylor of the Taylor firm also didn't return messages seeking
comment.

USAA's attorney, Lyn Pruitt of Little Rock, referred calls to the
insurance company.

USAA agreed to settle the case while admitting no wrongdoing
because "class-action litigation is inherently unpredictable and
can be extremely expensive and disruptive of USAA's day-to-day
operations," USAA spokesman Roger Wildermuth said in a statement
to Arkansas Business.  "So sometimes it is better for USAA's
membership as a whole to settle class actions so we can remain
focused on serving our members."

Adams v. USAA

The events in the case pending in Polk County Circuit Court date
back to April 2009, when a tornado damaged the Mena home of Mark
and Katherine Adams.

The Adamses submitted a claim to USAA, and the USAA adjuster
determined the covered loss for two structures totaled nearly
$51,000.  USAA, however, subtracted nearly $8,000 from the
adjuster's replacement cost estimate for depreciation.

Arkansas law allows an insurance company to depreciate physical
assets, such as materials used to repair or replace the damaged
property, when determining the actual cash value of a claim,
according to the Adamses' lawsuit.

"However, an insurer may not depreciate labor costs associated
with such repair or replacement," according to the lawsuit filed
on Dec. 5, 2013, in Polk County Circuit Court by Keil & Goodson,
five attorneys from Taylor's firm, Jason Roselius of Oklahoma and
Richard Norman of the Crowley Norman firm.

Mark and Katherine Adams, through the attorneys, accused USAA of
breaching its duty to indemnify the couple by depreciating the
labor costs associated with repairs to the properties.

The attorneys said they believe that "hundreds if not thousands"
of Arkansas policyholders had been damaged by USAA's actions and
asked that the case be certified as a class action.

"Plaintiffs and their counsel will fairly and adequately protect
the interests of the members of the Class," the lawsuit said.
"Plaintiffs have retained counsel who are competent and
experienced in class action litigation, including insurance-
related cases.  Plaintiffs and their counsel will prosecute this
action vigorously."

Settlement Talks

Ms. Pruitt, USAA's attorney, quickly moved the lawsuit to federal
court.

That option was available under the Class Action Fairness Act of
2005, which allows a lawsuit involving a class of plaintiffs from
multiple states to be moved out of a state court and into federal
court by motion of the defendants.  Similarly, the defendants can
unilaterally move a class-action case into federal court if the
plaintiffs claim damages, including attorneys' fees, of more than
$5 million.

In enacting CAFA, Congress intended to give class-action
defendants relief from the kind of legal shenanigans that kept
cases in friendly state courts.

The USAA case made it to U.S. District Court in Fort Smith in
January 2014, the month after it was filed in circuit court.  Not
much happened until May 2014, when both sides asked to stay all
proceedings, including discovery, while they attempted to settle
the case.  Chief U.S. District Judge P. K. Holmes III granted the
motion.

In a status report filed in March 2015, attorneys for the
plaintiffs and the defendants told Holmes that they "have made
substantial progress toward resolving this action" but needed a
little more time to iron out the details.

Holmes denied the request for another stay and ordered the case to
move forward.  In June, attorneys for the Adamses filed, with
Pruitt's agreement, a motion to dismiss the case, agreeing that
each party would cover its own attorneys' fees. The door was left
open for the case to be refiled later.

Return to Mena

The day after the case was dismissed from federal court, it was
refiled in Polk County Circuit Court -- with the proposed
settlement agreement attached.

An expert on class-action law speculated that both sides were
concerned that their proposed settlement wouldn't be approved in
federal court.

"Because if they were confident that the federal judge would
approve the settlement, why are they going to state court?" said
Georgene Vairo, a professor at Loyola Law School at Los Angeles
and author of "The Complete CAFA: Analysis & Developments Under
the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005."

"There's a greater likelihood that the state court judge will
approve that settlement without upsetting the attorney-fee
provision or the overall amount that the defendants are going to
put in. . . . Otherwise, it makes no sense."

In the refiled lawsuit, though, the only plaintiffs' law firms
listed were Keil & Goodson and three attorneys from the Taylor
firm.  Missing were the other plaintiffs' attorneys who had been
part of the federal case, such as Matthew Mustokoff of Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP of Radnor, Pennsylvania.

"My co-counsels are handling the settlement of the case in state
court," Mr. Mustokoff told Arkansas Business.  "It's really all
the information I can give you."

He also wouldn't say if he would be paid any fees in the case.

"As a general policy, we don't comment on ongoing litigation,"
Mr. Mustokoff said.

Ms. Vairo said defendants may be willing to go along with class-
action settlements because they receive "peace.  You bind every
single class member so there will be no more litigation on this."

The proposed settlement received its preliminary approval by Polk
County District Judge Jerry Ryan on Aug. 26.

A final approval hearing in the action against USAA, which serves
millions of military members and their families, was set for
Dec. 16, and it seemed like the settlement was going to breeze
through.

After receiving the USAA claim forms in the middle of October,
Robert Trammell, the Little Rock attorney, filed an objection to
the settlement on Nov. 16 on behalf of four veterans who are USAA
policyholders.

Mr. Trammell said in the filing that the case seemed rushed and
"does no more than move forward an award of attorney's fees."  In
addition, the settlement doesn't require USAA to pay a fee for its
alleged wrongdoing.

Worse still, class members would only get a portion of what was
owed to them -- if they bothered to fill out the claim form.

"The settlement document is imbedded with provisions that make
participation a challenge, makes efficient participation
impossible, and incurs hasty costs that would be predictably
wasted if any person, or advocate, chose to come forward and seek
to challenge the settlement," Mr. Trammell wrote in his objection.

"It was futile from the beginning; the common thread upon the
settlement notice being read by veterans who possess a common
sense outlook backed by rigorous education, was: 'How stupid do
they think the veteran is.'"

In order to get a settlement, the class members would have to fill
out a "lengthy" form and sign it under the penalty of perjury,
even though USAA has the information on file and could simply send
the class members checks, Trammell said.

Mr. Trammell said he wants to open the matter to discovery,
including depositions, for transparency purposes and to determine
if the class action is being done for the benefit of the members.

"A jury trial is requested," he said.


VALEANT PHARMA: Faces "Fein" Securities Action in N.J.
------------------------------------------------------
Alan and Ariel Fein, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc.,
J. Michael Pearson, Howard B. Schiller and Robert L. Rosiello,
Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-07809-MAS-LHG (D.N.J., October 30,
2015), seeks compensatory damages arising from the violation of
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act.

Valeant allegedly failed to disclose material business
transactions resulting in the drop of share prices.

Alan and Ariel Fein purchased Valeant securities.

Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc. is incorporated in
British Columbia, Canada and trades publicly in the New York Stock
Exchange.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Albert G. Kroll, Esq.
      Seth Ptasiewicz, Esq.
      KROLL HEINEMAN CARTON, LLC
      Metro Corporate Campus One
      99 Wood Avenue South, Suite 307
      Iselin, NJ 08830
      Tel: (732) 491-2100
      Fax: (732) 491-2120

           - and -

      Benjamin Y. Kaufman, Esq.
      Kevin Cooper, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      270 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 545-4600
      Fax: (212) 545-4653
      E-mail: isquith@whafh.com


VAN HEUSEN: Settles Background Check Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Employment Screenig Resources, citing TopClassActions.com ,
reports that a class action lawsuit settlement of $716,400 was
reached with Van Heusen, Izod, G.H. Bass, and Calvin Klein over
allegations that the company obtained background check reports
without complying with the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act
(FCRA).

TopClassActions.com reports that that class action lawsuit filed
by plaintiff Luis Rodriguez claimed that Calvin Klein, Inc. and
PVH Corporation illegally denied him employment as a manager at a
Calvin Klein store based on an allegedly inaccurate background
check conducted on him.

The background check class action lawsuit stated that the
plaintiff was "not eligible for the job based upon the purported
existence of multiple felony and misdemeanor charges and
convictions" but that the supposed crimes did "not belong to or
relate to plaintiff," TopClassActions.com reports.

According to the class action lawsuit, the information in the
background check report was not disclosed to Mr. Rodriguez before
he was denied the position.  Mr. Rodriguez tried to dispute the
information and managed to get some of the background check
corrected but the position was already filled.

The class action lawsuit claims that not allowing Mr. Rodriquez a
chance to dispute the background check report violated the FCRA
which requires that a copy of a background check report obtained
about a job applicant is to be shared with that job applicant
before any adverse action is taken.

The class action lawsuit settlement is for applicants who applied
for a job at a Van Heusen, Izod, G.H. Bass, and Calvin Klein
retail store or warehouse between April 3, 2010 and May 11, 2015.
PVH Corp. does not admit to any wrongdoing but agreed to the
settlement to avoid the cost and risk of going to trial.

The class action lawsuit is Luis A. Rodriguez v. Calvin Klein,
Inc. and PVH Corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-02590- JSR in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of New York.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Barber" Suit Alleges Emission Test Cheating
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brad Barber, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Audi of
America LLC, Audi of America, Inc. and Porsche Cars North America,
Inc., Defendants, Case No. Case 8:15-cv-01942 (C.D. Cal., November
20, 2015), seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief in
the form of a recall or replacement of affected vehicles as well
as costs, restitution, damages, disgorgement and penalties and
other reliefs in violation of California Unfair Competition Law
(Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17200, et seq.), False Advertising Law
(Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17500, et. seq.), breach of Express
Warranty and breach of Contract.

The class action complaint arises out of an installed component in
the Turbocharged Direct Injection variants of the light passenger
vehicles made by Defendants called a defeat device that allegedly
turns on the emission controls during mandated testing but turns
it off during regular operations thus rendering it non-compliant
to emission standards set by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is a corporation organized and
existing under New Jersey law with headquarters in Hemdon,
Virginia. Their operations in the United States include research
and development, parts and vehicle processing, parts distribution,
sales, marketing and service offices, financial service centers
and manufacturing.

Audi of America, LLC is a subsidiary of Audi AG that sells Audi
Vehicles in the United States and is based in Hemdon, Virginia.

Porsche Cars North America, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Porsche AG that sells Porsche vehicles in the United States and is
based in Atlanta, Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Julie R. Trotter, Esq.
      Matthew R. Orr, Esq.
      Scott R. Hatch, Esq.
      CALL & JENSEN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
      610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 700
      Newport Beach, CA 92660
      Tel: (949) 717-3000
      Fax: (949) 717-3100
      Email: jtrotter@calljensen.com
             morr@calljensen.com
             shatch@calljensen.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Recall to Commence in January 2016 in Australia
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Dowling, writing for CarsGuide, reports that the Volkswagen
diesel scandal has taken yet another turn in Australia.

A bitter dispute between the car giant and lawyers representing
13,000 customers in a class action has emerged before Federal
Court action has even started.

Volkswagen insists the 3.0-litre V6 diesel engines that power a
range of VW, Audi and Porsche SUVs are not affected in Australia,
even though they have been recalled or withdrawn from sale in the
US.

Law firm Maurice Blackburn announced it was adding the 3.0-litre
V6 diesel to the Australian class action lawsuit.

A senior Volkswagen Australia spokesman told News Corp Australia:
"We've had clear directions from our German technical department
that absolutely no 3.0-litre V6 diesel engines in Australia are
caught up in this."

The spokesman added: "We cop it on the chin for the mistakes we've
made and we won't back away from our responsibilities.  But it's
wrong for them to go out without checking the facts on the 3.0-
litre V6 diesel."

But Maurice Blackburn is not backing down from its decision to add
the 3.0-litre V6 diesel engines to its class action on 97,000
four-cylinder diesel cars sold in Australia from 2009 to 2016.

"Volkswagen has made denials that have subsequently proven to be
untrue every step of the way in this global scandal," said class
actions principal Jason Geisker.

"They denied the initial tests that uncovered this global scandal,
they denied their 3.0-litre vehicles were affected in the USA
before later admitting to regulators that they actually did have
defeat devices."

In the wake of these admissions, US authorities have begun testing
the 3.0-litre V6 diesel engine shared by Volkswagen, Audi and
Porsche.

"Early tests are showing some vehicles emitting up to nine times
the acceptable levels of NOx fumes," said Mr. Geisker.

"Their denials have been worthless to date, they deserve to be
held to account for what they've done."

A confidential bulletin sent from Volkswagen to its network of
Australian dealers said in part: "Advice from Volkswagen AG and
official measurement data of the German Authority
Kraftfahrtbundesamt (KBA), have confirmed that V6 TDI engines are
not affected by the emissions software issue, as they meet the
applicable (European) EU and UN/ECE regulations and therefore
comply with Australian Design Rules."

A statement from Volkswagen Australia said: "The V6 TDI has a
temperature conditioning mode on start-up, designed to bring the
engine up to peak efficiency more quickly and therefore reduce
emissions.  This occurs regardless of whether the vehicle is on
the road or being tested (in laboratory conditions).

"The temperature conditioning mode does not constitute a defeat
device and this has been confirmed by the German Ministry of
Transport and the German Federal Motor Transport Authority."

Australian owners of Audi, Porsche and Volkswagen vehicles can
call 1800 504 076 to find out if their car is affected by the
diesel recall that so far includes 97,000 vehicles on Australian
roads.  The recall work is due to commence in January 2016 at no
cost to owners.


WEN: More Than 200 Women Sue Over Hair Care Product
---------------------------------------------------
Emily James, writing for Dailymail.com, reports that hundreds of
women are coming forward after they claim a popular celebrity-
endorsed hair product is causing their hair to fall out in clumps
and leaving unsightly sores on their scalp, making them depressed
and not wanting to go out in public.

More than 200 people in 40 states have filed a class action
lawsuit against Wen, a cleansing conditioner developed by Los
Angeles-based hairstylist Chaz Dean, alleging that using the
formula has resulted in baldness, rashes, scalp irritation, hair
breakage, and hair discoloration.

Wen, which has featured Brooke Shields and Alyssa Milano in its
infomercials, describes its product as a sulfate-free alternative
to shampoo that works as a "shampoo, conditioner, deep
conditioner, detangler, and leave-in conditioner", but women who
have used the product say it has caused irreparable damage to
their hair.

On its website, the brand says it's different from any other hair
care product in that it "cleanses and conditions the hair
simultaneously".

"The cleansers include a perfect blend of special ingredients,
including natural botanicals and herbs, and do not contain sodium
laurel sulfate or harsh chemicals," says company's bio.

Over the past few years, a number of consumers have complained
about Wen's effects on their hair on online forums such as
Consumers Affairs and Amazon.

Things came to a head in November when a class action lawsuit was
filed against Wen and infomercial giant Guthy-Renker, which also
owns Proactiv, in California Federal Court.

In the court documents, a woman named Amy Friedman says she bought
the Wen Sweet Almond Mint basic kit in January of 2014 for $29.95
and two weeks later, her hair started falling out.

She stopped using the product soon after, but ended up losing 'one
quarter to one third' of her hair, and was forced to spend a great
deal of money on hair extensions to mask her baldness.

The legal firm representing the 200 plaintiffs says that as many
as "thousands or tens of thousands" of additional aggrieved
consumers could also sue the company for hair loss.

Hundreds of women who have used the product have voiced their
outrage about its alleged effects on social media and online
consumer platforms.

"I was a professional model with beautiful long natural hair,"
wrote one woman on Pissed Consumer.  "After using this product my
scalp and face broke out in boils and my hair fell out in chunks.
This shampoo destroyed my life."

Another woman posted a Facebook photo of her massive bald spot on
Wen's timeline, writing: "I can't leave the house.  I'm depressed.
Wen products are responsible for my hair loss."

The class action lawsuit alleges that "the WEN products at issue
contain a caustic ingredient that causes a chemical reaction and
damages hair and follicles," as well as "numerous harsh chemicals
and known human allergens."

However, the complaint does not specify the supposed ingredient
that purportedly causes hair loss.

Wen has been extremely successful since its launch, reportedly
raking in $100 million in its second year, and has a slew of
positive reviews on Amazon, earning it a top rating.

One person wrote: "It works really well for my long, thick, wavy,
dry and damaged hair.  I've had better results with this product
than any other.  It's balanced my hair and stopped it from
breaking off after it was over processed."

Chaz, who has styled celebrities such as Charlize Theron and
Alanis Morissette, boasts a huge fan following and has appeared on
reality TV shows such as Flipping Out and Celebrity Apprentice.
Wen's marketing agency Guthy-Renker said it a statement: "There is
no scientific evidence to support any claim that our hair care
products caused anyone to lose their hair.  There are many reasons
why individuals may lose their hair, all unrelated to Wen hair
products.

We intend to vigorously contest the allegations made against our
products.  And, we encourage any customer with any questions to
contact us."

Daily Mail Online has reached out to Guthy-Renker for further
comment.


YACHTING PROMOTIONS: "De Jesus" Action Seeks OT Pay
---------------------------------------------------
Joseph Luis De Jesus Jr. and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, vs. Yachting Promotions, Inc. and Robert Coreas,
Defendants., Case No. 1:15-cv-24308-JAL (S.D. Fla., November 20,
2015), seeks to recover overtime pay and damages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act 29 U.S.C.

Plaintiff has not been paid overtime and/or minimum wages for work
performed in excess of 40 hours weekly. De Jesus worked as a
forklift operator.

Yachting Promotions, Inc., is a corporation operating in Dade
County, Florida with Robert Coreas as corporate officer and/or
owner.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, Florida 33141
      Tel: (305) 865-6766
      Fax: (305) 865-7167
      Email: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


ZEEKREWARDS.COM: E-Wallet Agrees to Pay $3.5MM to Receivership
--------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Craver, writing for Winston-Salem Journal, reports that an
electronic financial group, known as an "e-wallet," has agreed to
pay another $3.5 million to the receivership of defunct
ZeekRewards.com.

The settlement motion, filed Dec. 14, involves Kenneth Bell,
receiver for ZeekRewards.com, and NxSystems Inc.  It includes a
confession of judgment for the full claim of $9.1 million.

In a confession of judgment, the debtor acknowledges the amount
due or possibly due to the creditor.

The $9.1 million in the NxSystems' account had been frozen by a
judge for about a year.  NxSystems previously returned $22.9
million to the receivership.

NxSystems informed Mr. Bell and the court that it has limited
financial resources and is not able to return the full amount.

Mr. Bell said the settlement is "fair, reasonable and adequate."
Mr. Bell said that while he "believes there is a significant
likelihood of success, the path to obtain judgments against these
defendants may not be quick or easy, and settlement of the claims
without the expense of further litigation is worthwhile."

"The early and voluntary collection of settlement funds will
benefit the victims by likely increasing the amount of money
available for distribution."

In August 2012, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
accused Rex Venture Group LLC, Zeekler, ZeekRewards.com and
Paul Burks, their principal owner, of raising $850 million through
unregistered securities.

The Lexington companies were shut down and their assets frozen.
The companies raised the money from at least 2.2 million
customers, including more than 230,000 in the U.S. and 47,000 in
North Carolina.  ZeekRewards receiver Kenneth Bell said he has
recovered more than $336 million to date.

In February, Mr. Bell gained U.S. District Court permission to
certify about 9,400 net winners as defendants in a class-action
lawsuit.  The list contained 15 individuals from Forsyth County,
105 from the Triad and Northwest North Carolina, and 390
statewide.

Mr. Bell has said he is in pre-trial negotiations with some net
winners while preparing for trial on the lawsuit.  Mr. Bell said
the potential recovery from the net winners could be as much as
$283 million.

"Litigation takes time, and collecting on the judgments we expect
to win against the net winners will also take time," Mr. Bell
said.

Mr. Bell has distributed $246 million from the ZeekRewards.com
estate since Sept. 30, 2014.  Mr. Bell said the average recipient
should get from 60 percent reimbursement to almost 70 percent.

Mr. Burks pleaded not guilty on federal charges of wire and mail
fraud conspiracy, wire and mail fraud, and tax fraud conspiracy.
He was indicted in October 2014.  His trial date has been set for
May 2016.


* NJ's High Court Justices Mull Insurance Class Action Standard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shayna Posses, writing for Law360, reports that New Jersey's
highest court agreed on Dec. 15 to consider whether lower courts
erred by stripping class allegations prior to discovery in suits
accusing automotive insurers of improperly refusing to cover the
diminished value of policyholders' vehicles.

The Dec. 15 decision will allow policyholders to reassert their
challenge to lower court decisions striking class action claims
despite the absence of any motions requesting such relief in suits
seeking diminished value damages as part of policyholders'
underinsured and uninsured motorist coverage.


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: JPL Construction May Have Exposed Workers
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason Henry, writing for San Gabriel Valley Tribune, reported that
asbestos abatement at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory may have
exposed at least four employees to the lung-cancer causing
chemical.

JPL shut down the third floor of Building 230 -- where some
members of the Cassini mission work -- on Nov. 18 after two out of
three air samples taken on the floor showed higher asbestos levels
than recommended by the Environmental Protection Agency, according
to spokeswoman Veronica McGregor.

"The floor was immediately closed," she said. "The four employees
who had offices on the floor were relocated and the area was
cleaned."

Ongoing construction at Building 230 required abatement of the
friable, powder-like asbestos sprayed above the ceiling for
fireproofing. Building 230 is one of eleven older buildings that
contain asbestos, according to a subcontractor notification form.

The reading that resulted in the floor's shut down was beyond the
barriers put up to protect the employees who continued to work
alongside the construction.

Current readings are below the EPA's re-occupancy levels, but the
floor remains closed, with limited access to non-construction
areas, "out of an abundance of caution," McGregor said.

Hundreds of employees work in Building 230, including the team
that communicates with the Cassini Spacecraft exploring Saturn and
its moons.

JPL stressed that air monitoring on the first and second floors of
the building have been "consistently" within the EPA's re-
occupancy level of 0.01 fibers per cubic centimeter.

Asbestos is most dangerous in a friable form as its easier to
inhale, according to Joseph Landolph Jr., an associate professor
of molecular microbiology, immunology and pathology at the
University of Southern California.

"That's when you've got a problem," Landolph said. "If it were me
and I was working there, I would not want to be in a work place
area where they're doing asbestos removal at the same time."

Despite that, Landolph said some companies don't have that option.

"In general, if you're not under time pressure, and contract
pressure like NASA JPL is, the best thing you can do is get
everybody out of there, shut the entire place down and do the
abatement," he said.

Landolph said exposure to asbestos can cause lung cancer, in the
form of mesothelioma, and asbestosis, a lung disease.

"The higher the concentration and the longer the time of exposure,
the greater the cancer risk," Landolph said. "It's usually a
linear function."

Asbestos fibers stay in a person's lungs, causing the lungs to
fill up with collagen and reducing a person's ability to suppress
tumors, he said.

California's Occupation Safety and Health division and the
Environmental Protection Agency set exposure limits for asbestos,
with employers required to provide medical surveillance for those
exposed above recommended levels, according to OSHA regulations.

CAL OSHA has not received any complaints about asbestos exposure
in Building 230, according to spokeswoman Julia Bernstein. It
recently closed a different complaint-based asbestos investigation
at JPL that began in May and ended on Nov. 19. OSHA did not issue
a citation in that case.

"Our inspector determined there was no asbestos exposure to
employees," she said. "The only place that he found some evidence
of asbestos was in a telecommunications closet that no employees
had entered for three months prior."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NYC Fibro Plaintiffs Oppose Bid to Quash
---------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that plaintiffs involved in New
York City's coordinated asbestos litigation docket have backed
their efforts to depose a defense consultant, saying that the
discovery sought is "material and necessary."

In the Nov. 24 brief filed in the New York Supreme Court for New
York County, the plaintiffs maintained that if the defendants
continue to rely upon "empirical evidence" cited by the defense
consultant in a published commentary, they hold the right to
depose that individual.

The defendants moved to quash and for a protective order in
relation to the plaintiff efforts to depose Marc Scarcella.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leeds School's Health, Safety Failings Exposed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yorkshire Evening Post reported that a catalogue of failings
including out-of-date asbestos surveys and an inadequate fire risk
assessment were found during a health and safety audit at a Leeds
school.

The independent audit of Benton Park School in Rawdon, which
caters for more than 1,300 children, found that the school's fire
risk assessment "would not be considered suitable and sufficient."

The audit, carried out in June and led by health and safety
consultant William Cunningham, revealed asbestos surveys at the
school were out of date and stated that health screening and
monitoring could be considered for site staff and potentially
design and technology staff "due to the nature of their work with
dusts and the amount of asbestos around the site." The report
adds: "Asbestos awareness training should be provided for all
staff that may work in areas where asbestos could be."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Cancer Leaves Baby Dreams in Tatters
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kirsty Wynn, writing for NZ Herald, reported that Deanna
Trevarthen was meant to welcome her first baby into the world this
year. Instead, just months after an unsuccessful round of
fertility treatment, she started feeling unwell.

A few days into a romantic Fiji getaway with partner Greg
Robertson earlier this year, Deanna became so sick she sought
medical help as soon as she returned to New Zealand.

The eventual diagnosis was pleural mesothelioma, or asbestos
cancer. Instead of creating life she was fighting to save her own.

At 44 Deanna, aka Dee, is one of the youngest people in New
Zealand to fight the cancer prevalent in older men who had worked
in electrical, building and demolition work.

The cancer, breathed into the lungs, had been lying dormant in the
Auckland woman's body until the Fiji holiday.

Two months of tests followed. Deanna was prodded and poked, told
it was bronchitis, pneumonia, perhaps dengue fever. She spent a
week in isolation at hospital. Then that word.

"The word cancer is something no one wants to hear and like many
people I never expected to," Deanna said.

"I just sat there on the bed alone and then curled up in a little
ball like a baby crying and crying. Asking, 'why me?'. It's not
fair."

Dreams of having a baby with partner Greg Robertson were in
tatters and what made the diagnosis worse was the doctor delivered
the bad news when Deanna was alone, with no support.

Greg, worried and not knowing what to expect, had to fight rush-
hour traffic to be by Deanna's side.

"My doctor turned up out of the blue. He didn't ask for my partner
to join me and just told me," Deanna said.

"When Greg arrived all I could say was it was cancer."

The pair received the bill for their last round of fertility
treatment -- a bill for the baby they now fear they will never
have.

They have cried together and through tears Deanna vowed she was
going to be the first to beat the incurable disease that has
claimed so many New Zealanders.

Between 1992 and 2013, 1366 New Zealanders added their names to
WorkSafe New Zealand's asbestos exposure register. Only 18 were
women under the age of 50. Most were exposed because they lived in
the same house, slept in the same bed or washed the clothes of an
asbestos worker. Doctors said a likely scenario for Deanna's
cancer was the loving hugs she would greet her father with when he
returned home after a day's work as an electrician. Breathing in
just one spore clinging to her dad's hair was enough. Another
possibility was time she spent with her dad as he worked on
building sites around Auckland.

Dr Richard Sullivan -- the specialist who is now treating her --
said Deanna was battling an extremely rare type of cancer. It was
unusual for a woman to have it and Deanna's young age made her
diagnosis "extremely unusual".

"There are about 2000 cases of lung cancer in New Zealand every
year and 50 to 60 of these are mesothelioma, so it is a rare form
of cancer.

"We are at the peak in the Western world at the moment so from now
on the rate should drop."

Most people to be diagnosed are men in their 70s who have worked
with asbestos in their job 30 to 40 years ago. That is how long it
takes from exposure to when it shows itself as cancer.

"If we look at Deanna's age we would think she was exposed around
the age of 10 and probably when she was working with her dad on
something or at work with her dad," he said.

Whatever the cause of Deanna's cancer her resolve is the same --
to beat it.

Since her diagnosis she has been referred to specialists in
asbestos cancer and has set up a Givealittle page to help pay for
treatments that could run into hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Friends and family have gathered around with support, cooked meals
and filled the freezer with food, support which Deanna and Greg
said has given them time and space to deal with the disease.

Deanna has had her first round of chemotherapy and has responded
well. She will need two more rounds before buying more time
through an unfunded $65,000 course of Avastin.

Deanna has applied to ACC for financial assistance but because she
was not working when she was exposed to asbestos she may not be
covered.

Greg said although Deanna's first priority is her own battle she
is also mindful that other unsuspecting New Zealanders have the
cancer lying dormant and wants to raise awareness.

Asbestos products were used in many New Zealand houses built
between 1940 and 1990 including in roofing, cladding, walls and
textured ceilings.

Undisturbed asbestos is considered relatively harmless but is
dangerous when material is repaired or removed.

After the Christchurch earthquakes there was increased concern for
people breathing in fibres and dust. Although fears were quashed
by some doctors who said exposure needed to be over a long period
of time, others believe one spore causes enough damage.

It is accepted that it can take up to 50 years for symptoms to
develop.

Deanna hopes to one day be able to lend others with asbestos
cancer her support.

"They'll go through the emotions I have. The turmoil. The
disbelief. Fear. If I can do something to change that then there
is nothing that is going to get in my way," she said.

For now she admits she has a heck of a hurdle to jump.

She is doing everything she can, from diet, yoga, positive thought
and research to prepare her body, mind and emotions for battle.

Talking about the future has been put aside for the moment and
Deanna and Greg talk about the now.

"This won't be an easy fight so I need all the strength I can get
to get that control back," Deanna said.

"After that, and I'm clear, that's when I will start talking about
the future."

They look forward to the day they have coined 'Dee-Day'. The day
doctors tell Deanna she is clear of cancer -- that she has beaten
mesothelioma.

"If others benefit from my journey, then it's win:win," she said.

"I wouldn't wish this on my worst enemy so if my discovery helps
someone else yet to be diagnosed with mesothelioma, well, that
thought makes me smile."

Deanna thanked everyone who was helping her with her battle,
including her specialist and staff at Auckland City Hospital who
had helped her so far. She said: "Everyone has been incredible.
Their positivity drives me and I can feel their love and support."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Project to Begin at Courthouse
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Zentz, writing for The Salinas Californian, reported that a
project to remove asbestos-containing materials from the East/West
Wing Building of the Monterey County Courthouse will begin on Dec.
19 and continue until February.

When work begins on the West Wing at 240 Church St., Salinas, the
pedestrian walkway leading to the crosswalk on Alisal Street will
be fenced off. In addition, two large pine trees along the
promenade between the building and the North Wing will be removed
on Dec. 19.

Windows will be wrapped from the interior to seal off the building
and the abatement/demolition will be done in sections. Interior
work will be done during regular business hours. If large business
systems need to be craned off, the work will be scheduled for
weekends.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Order Denying Summary Judgment Reversed
--------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that the Mississippi Supreme
Court has reversed an order that denied a motion for summary
judgment in an asbestos case, saying that the testimony of a
plaintiff's expert witness should have been excluded and, without
that evidence, the claims are unsupported.

In its Dec. 10 order, the high court said that the plaintiff
"lacks even a mere scintilla of evidence of exposure, and there is
a complete absence of probative facts supporting her claim."

Plaintiff Deborah Jackson filed the Federal Employers' Liability
Act (FELA) claims on behalf of her husband, Charles Jackson, who
she claimed developed lung.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Payment Call for Neighbors of Fibro Waste Plant
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Porter, writing for Southern Standard, reported that
homeowners near a new asbestos waste plant should get compensation
for the impact it will have on their lives, according to
councillors.

An application for a waste plant on Basildon's Burnt Mills
industrial estate, which will include the treatment of asbestos,
was approved by Essex County Council.

Angry residents, who live just yards from the site, are concerned
about the smell and smoke being produced by waste plants in the
area.

The latest facility will be built on land off Hovefields Court,
close to an existing waste processing plant in Courtauld Road.

During a Basildon Council meeting, Ukip councillor for Pitsea
North West, Gary Canham, will call for the county council to
compensate homes in Hovefields Avenue.

The road is on the opposite side of the A127 to the plants.

Danny Copeland, 73, who has lived in Hovefields Avenue for more
than 50 years, said: "Even if I wanted to move, I couldn't afford
to.

"We get the smoke coming in our direction from across the road all
the time and it is horrendous - it billows out 24 hours a day.

"It is having a huge impact on us, but of course if we could get
compensation it would be great."

The Hovefields Court site will treat up to 70,000 tonnes of
commercial, industrial and household waste per year, as well as
5,000 tonnes of asbestos waste.

Mr Canham's motion calls on Basildon Council to "exert pressure"
on the county council to review the "detrimental cumulative
impact" of the plants on Hovefields Avenue residents.

He also wanted a consultation to be carried out with residents on
their quality of life, and for work to be done to provide
alternative homes or compensation.

Linda Allport-Hodge, Ukip group leader, said: "If Basildon is
going to be lumbered with all these waste plants, we should be
getting something in return.

"We should be getting more from Essex County Council for services
in Basildon, as at the moment they are getting away with blue
murder."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Jury Awards Nearly $7MM in FELA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a California jury has
awarded nearly $7 million in a FELA cases against Union Pacific
Railroad, finding that the decedent's mesothelioma was caused by
exposure to asbestos at the defendant's facility.

The California Superior Court for Alameda County jury reached the
verdict on Nov. 18 after a six-week trial, which was presided over
by Judge Brad Seligman. Union Pacific Railroad Co. was the lone
remaining defendant in the case at the time of the verdict,
sources said.

The jury awarded $6.5 million for pain and suffering.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. High Ct. Says State Law Blocks Fibro Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Corso, writing for Law360, reported that the Illinois
Supreme Court has limited the ability of workers to bring decades-
old asbestos claims, saying in a recent ruling that a pair of
state laws bar recovery by employees who suffered asbestos-related
injuries more than 25 years ago.

Four of the six high court judges that sat in on the dispute ruled
that James Folta and his widow, Ellen, were prohibited from
bringing negligence and other common law claims against Folta's
former employer, Ferro Engineering. James Folta worked for Ferro
between 1966 and 1970 but wasn't diagnosed with mesothelioma until
2011, a disease he says resulted from inhaling asbestos as a
quality control specialist with the company.

In spite of the recent diagnosis, the majority ruled that the
Illinois Workers' Compensation Act and Workers' Occupational
Diseases Act prohibits workers from bringing suit over work-
related injuries that resulted from activities undertaken more
than 25 years ago, while also blocking even those who can prove
actual injury from recovering under any other statute or common
law provision.

"The fact that Folta was not at fault for failing to file a claim
sooner due to the nature of the disease is not a consideration
that is relevant to a statute of repose," the majority wrote in
the November opinion, filed to the court's website.

The ruling is in line with a trial court's decision to dismiss the
case but reverses a June 2014 appellate court opinion that revived
the suit, with that court reasoning that, since the Foltas
couldn't recover under the WCA and WODA, the two laws didn't apply
and Folta could precede with his suit under common law provisions.

That is expressly against the wish of the legislature in writing
the two laws, however, because lawmakers wanted to limit
litigation against employers by banning the common law claims that
workers sued under in the past, the state Supreme Court ruled.

"We are cognizant of the harsh result in this case," the majority
said in an opinion penned by Justice Mary Jane Theiss.
"Nevertheless, ultimately, whether a different balance should be
struck under the acts given the nature of the injury and the
current medical knowledge about asbestos exposure is a question
more appropriately addressed to the legislature."

Justices Charles Freeman and Thomas Kilbride dissented, arguing
that the laws were more correctly interpreted as authorizing
claims to move forward so long as "the injury was not compensable
under the act." Folta's claims were clearly not compensable under
the acts due to the statute of repose, they said, so the suit
should be allowed to proceed under other theories.

The dissenting justices said that the majority failed to take into
consideration the intention of the legislature to provide injured
employees with a right to recover and, instead of viewing the
statute as a whole, mistakenly interpreted it piece by piece.

"In construing a statute, courts presume that the General Assembly
did not intend absurdity, inconvenience or injustice," according
to the dissent, authored by Justice Freeman. "In my view, the
majority's interpretation cannot be the law."

Justice Robert Thomas did not participate in the ruling.

Attorneys from both parties couldn't be reached for immediate
comment.

The Foltas are represented by J. Timothy Eaton and Jonathan B.
Amarilio of Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP,  Nicholas J.
Vogelzang of Connelly & Vogelzang LLC, and Donald P. Blydenburgh
and Jerome H. Block of Levy Phillips & Konigsberg LLP.

Ferro Engineering is represented by Joshua G. Vincent, Craig T.
Liljestrand, Kimberly A. Jansen, Paul M. Markese Jr. and Abigail
M. Higgins of Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.

The suit is Folta v. Ferro Engineering, case number 118070, in the
Illinois Supreme Court.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Missoula Food Bank Site Has Fibro in Soil
----------------------------------------------------------
Winnie Dortch, writing for NBC Montana, reported that the Missoula
Food Bank aims to move to its new location at the corner of Catlin
and Wyoming Street in January 2017, but first the asbestos-
contaminated soil at the site has to be cleaned up.

Food bank executive director Aaron Brock says they chose the site
because it was the most cost efficient.

"We knew when we bought it it was a bit surface-soil contaminated,
not that big of a deal, but something we knew had to be cleaned,"
said Brock.

Exposure to asbestos can cause lung cancer. There are legal
requirements that prohibit anyone from reusing contaminated soil.

The site was previously a car lot and  mechanic shop. Brock says
the soil is filled with motor oil and antifreeze.

An environmental assessment was conducted on the property before
it was purchased.

A $100,000 grant from the Environmental Protection Agency will be
used to redevelop the contaminated area. The cleanup operation
will begin in December.

Program services coordinator Jessy Lee says the move will allow
the food bank to better serve more people.

"Hopefully folks can get in and out much quicker and don't have to
wait.  Sometimes the wait at the end of the month is about two
hours," said Lee.

Food bank employees say they are working with donors to get more
funding for the new location.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Halts School Board Renewal Strategy
----------------------------------------------------------
Richard Leitner, writing for Hamilton Mountain News, reported that
the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board's entire high school
revitalization strategy is being put on hold until trustees get a
better handle on the asbestos that stalled plans to build new
science labs at Sherwood over the summer.

Board chair Todd White pushed for the moratorium on all upgrades
other than those already underway after staff estimated renovating
Sherwood will cost at least $36 million -- including up to $5
million for asbestos removal.

Rebuilding the east Mountain school, opened in 1967, is meanwhile
pegged at $41 million, with up to $7 million of the bill for
demolition and asbestos removal.

An outside consultant has been hired to do a more detailed
assessment, including on where it's not possible to do renovations
while the school is occupied, for a report to be presented to
trustees in January.

"We said we want to do this to all of our schools, but we didn't
actually look at the schools and the feasibility studies to
actually figure out the real costs."

The board has already spent $2.8 million on Sherwood upgrades,
including ones contracted or underway to build a new washroom by
the gyms and replace all doors, windows and the Gym C floor.

The moratorium on new high-school renovation projects also applies
to a separate strategy to upgrade playing fields.

White said the pause is necessary because Sherwood and Ancaster
High were the first of eight older high schools identified for
major improvements following last term's decision to close seven
others and build two new ones.

He said the board has $27 million for the work -- money earmarked
for the new Henderson on the south Mountain before the province
agreed to fund it -- but can also draw on $20 million in annual
renewal grants it gets for all 108 schools.

Other high schools in the upgrade queue include MacNab, Westmount,
Orchard Park, Glendale, Churchill and Westdale.

"We said we want to do this to all of our schools, but we didn't
actually look at the schools and the feasibility studies to
actually figure out the real costs," White told members of the
finance and facilities committee.

"I don't think it's any secret -- it's been quite apparent for the
past couple of years -- that Sherwood is in the worst condition of
those eight, but I wouldn't say that the other ones are
necessarily that far off."

A staff report outlines four options at Sherwood: renovate in
stages or all at once at cost of at least $36 million, or rebuild
on the building's existing footprint or neighbouring playing
fields for $41 million if the province provides funding.

The estimates are apart from any costs for moving students off
site or into portables on the school's property during the work.

Central Mountain trustee Dawn Danko said she's "not keen" on
rebuilding Sherwood or doing all renovations at once, suggesting
another option is to just upgrade the science labs and temporarily
move students to Hill Park, closed since June 2014.

"We do the work that we promised to do in each of the schools. I
don't believe that we need to do everything," she said. "I think
we do need to look at being realistic."

Trustee Kathy Archer, who represents Sherwood, said she wants to
see the more detailed assessment in January before making any
decisions.

"I think it's best to wait and see what is in that report and then
we can go from there and ask more questions and get the answers,"
she said.

According to figures previously provided to Hamilton Community
News, the board has spent $4.9 million upgrading Ancaster High.

Aside from new science labs, the work included major roof repairs,
two new barrier-free washrooms, retrofitting four classrooms and
renovations to existing washrooms and the library/learning
commons.

Asked why the board didn't encounter similar asbestos problems
there, senior facilities officer David Anderson said staff and an
outside consultant found Sherwood's abatement challenges more
complex.

"Every building is a little bit different," he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Calls for Licensing of Fibro Removal Cos.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Janet Brown, writing for CKNW.com, reported that the BC government
is being called on to implement mandatory licensing of all
asbestos removal companies.

The BC Insulators Union says B.C. is one of only a few
jurisdictions with no licensing when it comes to asbestos removal.

Spokesperson Lee Loftus says the province should licence
contractors who work in asbestos abatement, especially those doing
demolition or renovation of older buildings.

"We want to make sure those that are doing it are properly
governed by the rules that are in place for worker safety but we
also want to make sure the neighbourhoods are protected from the
dust and hazards that are being released by the type of this
activity."

Asbestos causes 60% of workplace deaths.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Claims Fibro Exposure Caused Mesothelioma
--------------------------------------------------------------
Louisiana Record reported that a former U.S. Navy serviceman says
he contracted mesothelioma from exposure to asbestos during his
eight years of service.

William C. Bell filed a lawsuit Dec. 1 in Civil District Court for
the Parish of Orleans against Foster Wheeler Energy Corp., York
International Corp., Cooper Industries, et al alleging liability
for personal injury.

According to the complaint, Bell was exposed to asbestos between
1960 and 1968 as he served aboard the USS Noble, the USS Grapple,
the USS Bainbridge, the USS Samuel N. Moore and other vessels.
Diagnosed Sept. 3 with mesothelioma, an aggressive form of lung
cancer traced to asbestos, Bell says the defendants are liable for
illnesses he contracted from inhalation of the product's dust.
Bell seeks an unspecified amount of damages plus interest and
court costs. He is represented by attorney Jonathan B. Clement,
Perry J. Roussel Jr., Lauren R. Clement and Benjamin P. Dinehart
of the Mandeville firm of Roussel & Clement.

Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans Case number 2:15-
cv-06394


ASBESTOS UPDATE: City Hall Closed Due to Fibro Contamination
------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Paul, writing for Albany Democrat-Herald, reported that the
Lebanon City Hall was closed -- and, depending on what air quality
specialists found, may be closed further -- due to potential
asbestos contamination in parts of the building, according to City
Manager Gary Marks.

All 18 employees were sent home or were working remotely, he said.

Marks said the city has been working on ventilation system issues
for about a year.

"We had a contractor in last night removing asbestos, and when our
staff came to work this morning, we found dust and some
particulates on desks," he said.

Marks wasn't sure if the dust was actually asbestos, but he didn't
want to take any chances with employee health. "We believe the
asbestos was contained, but the dust raised too many questions,"
he said.

Air quality specialists were expected on-site by late afternoon.
The results of their tests may not be known, Marks said.

In 2013, the Lebanon City Council began looking for other
buildings in the community that could be refurbished into a new
City Hall.

Engineering studies completed in 1994 and 2012 showed the current
building "would perform poorly during a seismic event and the
potential for collapse failure is significant." The studies also
indicated making structural improvements to the current building
would "likely exceed the cost of constructing a new contemporary
building on an existing site."

City Hall is actually a composite of three buildings of varying
sizes and at one time housed both the fire and police departments.

The city has also worked to alleviate mold issues in the building,
council members have been told at previous meetings.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: DNR Fibro Report Has Errors, School Dist. Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Smith, writing for The Gazette, reported that the Cedar
Rapids school district said an Iowa Department of Natural
Resources report that alleges violations of asbestos removal
requirements earlier this year at Washington High School contains
errors and incomplete information.

The DNR "litigation report," which came to light, asks the state's
Environmental Protection Commission to refer the alleged
violations on to the Iowa Attorney General for possible litigation
against the school district, as owner of the high school, and
against the district's asbestos removal contractor, Abatement
Specialties of Cedar Rapids.

The district and contractor face fines if the litigation proceeds
and they lose.

In a statement, Marcia Hughes, the school district's community
relations supervisor, said the district reviewed the DNR report
with the district's project architect/engineer and legal counsel
and found fault in it.

First, the district said there were no students or staff members
in parts of the school where the DNR alleges that uncontained
asbestos was found,
More stories from Rick Smith

C.R. considers tax break to keep 50 jobs from Marion CEDAR RAPIDS
- Terex is looking for a new home for its 50 ...

Linn supervisors look to the video era CEDAR RAPIDS - Come 2016,
the Linn County Board of Superv ...

A champion of the poor and homeless shifts gears CEDAR RAPIDS -
Homelessness, hunger and poverty don't alw ...

In the litigation report, the DNR stated that its review of
employee records indicates that 119 workers from at least eight
construction businesses were on site at Washington High School
from June 8 though July 15, through the DNR said it was "unknown
how many school employees, students and general public were in the
school during that same time period."

In its response to the DNR report, the district also said it
immediately took appropriate measures when it was made aware of
uncontained asbestos.

In addition, the district said it "proactively" closed Washington
High School for a few days in July after "one air sample" in a
construction zone was "slightly higher" than permitted.

Finally, the district said it has cooperated with the DNR and
followed its directives at all times related to the asbestos
issue.

In the DNR litigation report, the district and its contractor are
accused of failing to remove all regulated asbestos containing
material before demolition; failing to keep all regulated asbestos
containing material adequately wet; and failing to seal all
regulated asbestos containing material in leak-tight containers.

The state commission has been scheduled to vote on the DNR
litigation request on Dec. 15, but the matter has been put off
until January to give the DNR a chance to talk about the report
with the contractor. The DNR has talked to the district, the DNR
has said.

Kelli Book, an attorney for the DNR, said she expected the school
district and the contractor to make a presentation to the state
commission in January before the commission decides whether to
pursue litigation.

Book said the Attorney General can seek a penalty of $10,000 a day
per violation, but she said the Attorney General typically seeks
to reach a settlement before a matter heads into court.

Abatement Specialists had no comment on the matter.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Andrea Electronics Continues to Defend RI Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Electronics Corporation continues to defend itself against
an asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit pending in a Rhode
Island court, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2015.

In December 2010, Audrey Edwards, Executrix of the Estate of Leon
Leroy Edwards, filed a law suit in the Superior Court of
Providence County, Rhode Island, against 3M Company and over 90
other defendants, including the Company, alleging that the Company
processed, manufactured, designed, tested, packaged, distributed,
marketed or sold asbestos containing products that contributed to
the death of Leon Leroy Edwards.  The Company received service of
process in April 2011.  The Company has retained legal counsel and
has filed a response to the complaint.  The Company believes the
lawsuit is without merit and intends to file a Motion for Summary
Judgment to that affect.  Accordingly, the Company does not
believe the lawsuit will have a material adverse effect on the
Company's financial position or results of operations.

Andrea Electronics Corporation is engaged in designing, developing
and manufacturing microphone technologies and products for
improving speech-based applications software and communications
that require clear voice signals.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Had $17.8MM Reserve at September 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rockwell Automation, Inc., had reserve of $17.8 million for
product liability claims, including asbestos costs, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2015.

The Company states: "One of our principal self-insurance programs
covers product liability where we self-insure up to a specified
dollar amount. Claims exceeding this amount up to specified limits
are covered by insurance policies issued by commercial insurers.
We estimate the reserve for product liability claims using our
claims experience for the periods being valued.  Adjustments to
the product liability reserves may be required to reflect emerging
claims experience and other factors such as inflationary trends or
the outcome of claims.  The reserve for product liability claims,
including asbestos costs, was $17.8 million, net of $10.4 million
of related receivables, and $14.8 million, net of $7.5 million of
related receivables, as of September 30, 2015 and 2014,
respectively.

"Various lawsuits, claims and proceedings have been or may be
instituted or asserted against us relating to the conduct of our
business.  We have been named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging
personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos that was used
in certain components of our products many years ago.

"We accrue for costs related to the legal obligation associated
with the retirement of a tangible long-lived asset that results
from the acquisition, construction, development or the normal
operation of the long-lived asset.  The obligation to perform the
asset retirement activity is not conditional even though the
timing or method may be conditional.  Identified conditional asset
retirement obligations include asbestos abatement and remediation
of soil contamination beneath current and previously divested
facilities.  We estimate conditional asset retirement obligations
using site-specific knowledge and historical industry expertise. A
significant change in the costs or timing could have a significant
effect on our estimates.  We recorded these liabilities in the
Consolidated Balance Sheet, which totaled $0.4 million and $0.3
million in other current liabilities at September 30, 2015 and
2014, respectively, and $19.8 million and $21.9 million in other
liabilities at September 30, 2015 and 2014, respectively.

"In conjunction with the sale of our Dodge mechanical and Reliance
Electric motors and motor repair services businesses, we agreed to
indemnify Baldor Electric Company for costs and damages related to
certain legacy legal, environmental and asbestos matters of these
businesses arising before January 31, 2007, for which the maximum
exposure is capped at the amount received for the sale.  We
estimate the potential future payments we could incur under these
indemnifications may approximate $6.6 million, of which $1.0
million and $0.8 million has been accrued in other current
liabilities at September 30, 2015 and 2014, respectively, and $5.6
million and $7.0 million has been accrued in other liabilities at
September 30, 2015 and 2014, respectively.  A significant change
in the costs or timing could have a significant effect on our
estimates."

Rockwell Automation, Inc., is a provider of industrial automation
power, control and information solutions that help manufacturers
achieve a competitive advantage for their businesses. The Company
operates in two segments: Architecture & Software and controls
Products & Solutions.  In the United States, Canada and certain
other countries, the Company sells primarily through the
independent distributors in conjunction with its direct sales
force. In the remaining countries, the Company sells through a
combination of its direct sales force.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Continues to Defend PI Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rockwell Automation, Inc., continues to defend itself against
various lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure
to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2015.

The Company states: "Various other lawsuits, claims and
proceedings have been or may be instituted or asserted against us
relating to the conduct of our business, including those
pertaining to product liability, environmental, safety and health,
intellectual property, employment and contract matters.  Although
the outcome of litigation cannot be predicted with certainty and
some lawsuits, claims or proceedings may be disposed of
unfavorably to us, we believe the disposition of matters that are
pending or have been asserted will not have a material effect on
our business, financial condition or results of operations.

"We (including our subsidiaries) have been named as a defendant in
lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos that was used in certain components of our products many
years ago.  Currently there are a few thousand claimants in
lawsuits that name us as defendants, together with hundreds of
other companies.  In some cases, the claims involve products from
divested businesses, and we are indemnified for most of the costs.
However, we have agreed to defend and indemnify asbestos claims
associated with products manufactured or sold by our former Dodge
mechanical and Reliance Electric motors and motor repair services
businesses prior to their divestiture by us, which occurred on
January 31, 2007.  We are also responsible for half of the costs
and liabilities associated with asbestos cases against our former
Rockwell International Corporation's divested measurement and flow
control business.  But in all cases, for those claimants who do
show that they worked with our products or products of divested
businesses for which we are responsible, we nevertheless believe
we have meritorious defenses, in substantial part due to the
integrity of the products, the encapsulated nature of any
asbestos-containing components, and the lack of any
impairing medical condition on the part of many claimants.  We
defend those cases vigorously. Historically, we have been
dismissed from the vast majority of these claims with no payment
to claimants.

"We have maintained insurance coverage that we believe covers
indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insured
retentions, for claims arising from our former Allen-Bradley
subsidiary.  Following litigation against Nationwide Indemnity
Company (Nationwide) and Kemper Insurance (Kemper), the insurance
carriers that provided liability insurance coverage to Allen-
Bradley, we entered into separate agreements on April 1, 2008 with
both insurance carriers to further resolve responsibility for
ongoing and future coverage of Allen-Bradley asbestos claims.  In
exchange for a lump sum payment, Kemper bought out its remaining
liability and has been released from further insurance obligations
to Allen-Bradley.  Nationwide entered into a cost share agreement
with us to pay the substantial majority of future defense and
indemnity costs for Allen-Bradley asbestos claims.  We believe
that this arrangement with Nationwide will continue to provide
coverage for Allen-Bradley asbestos claims throughout the
remaining life of the asbestos liability.

"The uncertainties of asbestos claim litigation make it difficult
to predict accurately the ultimate outcome of asbestos claims.
That uncertainty is increased by the possibility of adverse
rulings or new legislation affecting asbestos claim litigation or
the settlement process.  Subject to these uncertainties and based
on our experience defending asbestos claims, we do not believe
these lawsuits will have a material effect on our financial
condition or results of operations.

"We have, from time to time, divested certain of our businesses.
In connection with these divestitures, certain lawsuits, claims
and proceedings may be instituted or asserted against us related
to the period that we owned the businesses, either because we
agreed to retain certain liabilities related to these periods or
because such liabilities fall upon us by operation of law.  In
some instances the divested business has assumed the liabilities;
however, it is possible that we might be responsible to satisfy
those liabilities if the divested business is unable to do so.

"In connection with the spin-offs of our former automotive
business, semiconductor systems business and Rockwell Collins
avionics and communications business, the spun-off companies have
agreed to indemnify us for substantially all contingent
liabilities related to the respective businesses, including
environmental and intellectual property matters.

"In conjunction with the sale of our Dodge mechanical and Reliance
Electric motors and motor repair services businesses, we agreed to
indemnify Baldor Electric Company for costs and damages related to
certain legal, legacy environmental and asbestos matters of these
businesses arising before January 31, 2007, for which the maximum
exposure would be capped at the amount received for the sale."

Rockwell Automation, Inc., is a provider of industrial automation
power, control and information solutions that help manufacturers
achieve a competitive advantage for their businesses.  The Company
operates in two segments: Architecture & Software and controls
Products & Solutions.  In the United States, Canada and certain
other countries, the Company sells primarily through the
independent distributors in conjunction with its direct sales
force.  In the remaining countries, the Company sells through a
combination of its direct sales force.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor Had 5,600 Maremont Claims at Sept. 27
--------------------------------------------------------------
Meritor, Inc., reported that its subsidiary, Maremont Corporation,
had 5,600 pending asbestos-related claims, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended September 27, 2015.

Maremont Corporation, a subsidiary of Meritor, manufactured
friction products containing asbestos from 1953 through 1977, when
it sold its friction product business.  Arvin Industries, Inc., a
predecessor of the company, acquired Maremont in 1986. Maremont
and many other companies are defendants in suits brought by
individuals claiming personal injuries as a result of exposure to
asbestos-containing products.

Maremont had approximately 5,600 and 5,700 pending asbestos-
related claims at September 30, 2015 and 2014, respectively.
Although Maremont has been named in these cases, very few cases
allege actual injury and, in the cases where actual injury has
been alleged, very few claimants have established that a Maremont
product caused their injuries.  Plaintiffs' lawyers often sue
dozens or even hundreds of defendants in individual lawsuits,
seeking damages against all named defendants irrespective of the
disease or injury and irrespective of any causal connection with a
particular product.  For these reasons, the total number of claims
filed is not necessarily the most meaningful factor in determining
Maremont's asbestos-related liability.

Meritor, Inc., is a global supplier of a range of integrated
systems and components to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs)
and the aftermarket for the commercial vehicle, transportation and
industrial sectors.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor Unit Has $41-Mil. Fibro Recoveries
-----------------------------------------------------------
Meritor, Inc., disclosed that its subsidiary, Maremont
Corporation, had $41 million asbestos-related recoveries,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
September 27, 2015.

Maremont Corporation engaged Bates White LLC, a consulting firm
with extensive experience estimating costs associated with
asbestos litigation, to assist with determining the estimated cost
of resolving pending and future asbestos-related claims that have
been, and could reasonably be expected to be, filed against
Maremont.  Bates White advised Maremont that it would be possible
to determine an estimate of a reasonable forecast of the probable
settlement and defense costs of resolving pending and future
asbestos-related claims, based on historical data and certain
assumptions with respect to events that occur in the future.

Bates White provided a reasonable and probable estimate that
consisted of a range of equally likely possibilities of Maremont's
obligation for asbestos personal injury claims over the next ten
years of $71 million to $100 million.  After consultation with
Bates White, Maremont recognized a liability for pending and
future claims over the next ten years of $71 million and $73
million as of September 30, 2015 and 2014, respectively.  The
ultimate cost of resolving pending and future claims is estimated
based on the history of claims and expenses for plaintiffs
represented by law firms in jurisdictions with an established
history with Maremont.  Maremont recognized $2 million of income
and a $10 million charge in the fourth quarter of fiscal years
2015 and 2014, respectively, associated with its annual valuation
of asbestos-related liabilities.  Maremont has recognized
incremental insurance receivables associated with recoveries
expected for asbestos-related liabilities as the estimate of
asbestos-related liabilities for pending and future claims
changes.  However, Maremont currently expects to exhaust the
limits of its settled insurance coverage prior to the end of the
ten-year forecasted liability period.  Maremont believes it has
additional insurance coverage, however, certain carriers have
disputed coverage under policies they issued.

The following assumptions were made by Maremont after consultation
with Bates White and are included in their study:

    * Pending and future claims were estimated for a ten-year
period ending in fiscal year 2025;

    * Maremont believes that the litigation environment could
change significantly beyond ten years and that the reliability of
estimates of future probable expenditures in connection with
asbestos-related personal injury claims declines for each year
further in the future.  As a result, estimating a probable
liability beyond ten years is difficult and uncertain;

    * On a per claim basis, defense and processing costs for
pending and future claims will be at the level consistent with
Maremont's prior experience;

    * Potential payments made to claimants from other sources,
including other defendants and 524(g) trusts, favorably impact
Maremont's estimated liability in the future; and

   * The ultimate indemnity cost of resolving nonmalignant claims
with plaintiff's law firms in jurisdictions without an established
history with Maremont cannot be reasonably estimated.

Maremont has insurance that reimburses a substantial portion of
the costs incurred defending against asbestos-related claims
including indemnity paid on those claims.  The insurance
receivable related to asbestos-related liabilities is $41 million
and $49 million as of September 30, 2015 and 2014, respectively.
The receivable is for coverage provided by one insurance carrier
based on a coverage-in-place agreement.  Maremont currently
expects to exhaust the remaining limits provided by this coverage
sometime in the next ten years.  Maremont maintained insurance
coverage with other insurance carriers that management believes
covers indemnity and defense costs.  Maremont has incurred
liabilities allocable to these policies, but has not yet billed
these insurance carriers, and no receivable has been recorded for
these policies, as those carriers dispute coverage.  During fiscal
year 2013, Maremont reinitiated a lawsuit against these carriers,
seeking a declaration of its rights to insurance for asbestos
claims and to facilitate an orderly and timely collection of
insurance proceeds.  However, there can be no assurance that the
lawsuit will ultimately result in insurance coverage of defense
and indemnity costs for Maremont.

The amounts recorded for the asbestos-related reserves and
recoveries from insurance companies are based upon assumptions and
estimates derived from currently known facts.  All such estimates
of liabilities and recoveries for asbestos-related claims are
subject to considerable uncertainty because such liabilities and
recoveries are influenced by variables that are difficult to
predict.  The future litigation environment for Maremont could
change significantly from its past experience, due, for example,
to changes in the mix of claims filed against Maremont in terms of
plaintiffs' law firm, jurisdiction and disease; legislative or
regulatory developments; Maremont's approach to defending claims;
or payments to plaintiffs from other defendants.  Estimated
recoveries are influenced by coverage issues among insurers, and
the continuing solvency of various insurance companies.  If the
assumptions with respect to the estimation period, the nature of
pending and future claims, the cost to resolve claims and the
amount of available insurance prove to be incorrect, the actual
amount of liability for Maremont's asbestos-related claims, and
the effect on the company, could differ materially from current
estimates and, therefore, could have a material impact on our
financial position and results of operations.

Meritor, Inc., is a global supplier of a range of integrated
systems and components to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs)
and the aftermarket for the commercial vehicle, transportation and
industrial sectors.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Haynes Int'l Continues to Defend PI Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Haynes International, Inc., continues to defend asbestos-related
personal injury suits, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended September 30, 2015.

The Company is currently, and has in the past been, subject to
claims involving personal injuries allegedly relating to its
products and processes.  For example, the Company is presently
involved in two actions involving welding rod-related injuries,
which were filed in California state court against numerous
manufacturers, including the Company, in May 2006 and February
2007, respectively, alleging that the welding-related products of
the defendant manufacturers harmed the users of such products
through the inhalation of welding fumes containing manganese.  The
Company (together with a number of other manufacturer defendants)
is also involved in three actions alleging that asbestos in its
facilities harmed the plaintiffs.  The Company believes that it
has defenses to these allegations and that, if the Company were to
be found liable, the cases would not have a material effect on its
financial position, results of operations or liquidity.

Haynes International, Inc., develops and manufactures nickel- and
cobalt-based alloys, high-temperature alloys and corrosion-
resistant alloys. The Company is based in Kokomo, Ind.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mallinckrodt plc Had 12,750 PI Cases at Sept. 25
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt plc had 12,750 pending asbestos-related cases,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
September 25, 2015.

Starting with lawsuits brought in July 1976, the Company is also
named as a defendant in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged
exposure to asbestos-containing materials.  A majority of the
cases involve product liability claims based principally on
allegations of past distribution of products containing asbestos.
A limited number of the cases allege premises liability based on
claims that individuals were exposed to asbestos while on the
Company's property.  Each case typically names dozens of corporate
defendants in addition to the Company.  The complaints generally
seek monetary damages for personal injury or bodily injury
resulting from alleged exposure to products containing asbestos.
The Company's involvement in asbestos cases has been limited
because it did not mine or produce asbestos.  Furthermore, in the
Company's experience, a large percentage of these claims have
never been substantiated and have been dismissed by the courts.
The Company has not suffered an adverse verdict in a trial court
proceeding related to asbestos claims and intends to continue to
defend these lawsuits.  When appropriate, the Company settles
claims; however, amounts paid to settle and defend all asbestos
claims have been immaterial.  As of September 25, 2015, there were
approximately 12,750 asbestos-related cases pending against the
Company.

The Company estimates pending asbestos claims, claims that were
incurred but not reported and related insurance recoveries, which
are recorded on a gross basis in the consolidated balance sheets.
The Company's estimate of its liability for pending and future
claims is based on claims experience over the past five years and
covers claims either currently filed or expected to be filed over
the next seven years.  The Company believes that it has adequate
amounts recorded related to these matters.  While it is not
possible at this time to determine with certainty the ultimate
outcome of these asbestos-related proceedings, the Company
believes, given the information currently available, that the
ultimate resolution of all known and anticipated future claims,
after taking into account amounts already accrued, along with
recoveries from insurance, will not have a material adverse effect
on its financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Mallinckrodt plc and its subsidiaries is a global company that
develops, manufactures, markets and distributes both branded and
specialty generic pharmaceuticals, active pharmaceutical
ingredients and diagnostic imaging agents.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scotts Miracle Continues to Defend Fibro Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company continues to defend itself against
numerous asbestos-related cases, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2015

The Company has been named as a defendant in a number of cases
alleging injuries that the lawsuits claim resulted from exposure
to asbestos-containing products, apparently based on the Company's
historic use of vermiculite in certain of its products.  In many
of these cases, the complaints are not specific about the
plaintiffs' contacts with the Company or its products.  The cases
vary, but complaints in these cases generally seek unspecified
monetary damages (actual, compensatory, consequential and
punitive) from multiple defendants.  The Company believes that the
claims against it are without merit and is vigorously defending
against them.  It is not currently possible to reasonably estimate
a probable loss, if any, associated with these cases and,
accordingly, no reserves have been recorded in the Company's
Consolidated Financial Statements.  The Company is reviewing
agreements and policies that may provide insurance coverage or
indemnity as to these claims and is pursuing coverage under some
of these agreements and policies, although there can be no
assurance of the results of these efforts.  There can be no
assurance that these cases, whether as a result of adverse
outcomes or as a result of significant defense costs, will not
have a material effect on the Company's financial condition,
results of operations or cash flows.

Headquartered in Marysville, Ohio, The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company
is engaged in the manufacturing, marketing and sale of branded
products for consumer lawn and garden care.  The Company's primary
customers include home centers, mass merchandisers, warehouse
clubs, large hardware chains, independent hardware stores,
nurseries, garden centers and food and drug stores.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cabot Corp. Has 38,000 AO Respiratory Claimants
----------------------------------------------------------------
There were 38,000 claimants in pending cases asserting claims
against Cabot Corporation's American Optical Corporation in
connection with respiratory products, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2015.

The Company states: "We have exposure in connection with a safety
respiratory products business that a subsidiary acquired from
American Optical Corporation ("AO") in an April 1990 asset
purchase transaction.  The subsidiary manufactured respirators
under the AO brand and disposed of that business in July 1995.  In
connection with its acquisition of the business, the subsidiary
agreed, in certain circumstances, to assume a portion of AO's
liabilities, including costs of legal fees together with amounts
paid in settlements and judgments, allocable to AO respiratory
products used prior to the 1990 purchase by the Cabot subsidiary.
In exchange for the subsidiary's assumption of certain of AO's
respirator liabilities, AO agreed to provide to the subsidiary the
benefits of: (i) AO's insurance coverage for the period prior to
the 1990 acquisition and (ii) a former owner's indemnity of AO
holding it harmless from any liability allocable to AO respiratory
products used prior to May 1982.

"Generally, these respirator liabilities involve claims for
personal injury, including asbestosis, silicosis and coal worker's
pneumoconiosis, allegedly resulting from the use of respirators
that are alleged to have been negligently designed and/or labeled.
Neither Cabot, nor its past or present subsidiaries, at any time
manufactured asbestos or asbestos-containing products.  At no time
did this respiratory product line represent a significant portion
of the respirator market.

"The subsidiary transferred the business to Aearo Corporation
("Aearo") in July 1995.  Cabot agreed to have the subsidiary
retain certain liabilities associated with exposure to asbestos
and silica while using respirators prior to the 1995 transaction
so long as Aearo paid, and continues to pay, Cabot an annual fee
of $400,000.  Aearo can discontinue payment of the fee at any
time, in which case it will assume the responsibility for and
indemnify Cabot against those liabilities which Cabot's subsidiary
had agreed to retain.  We anticipate that we will continue to
receive payment of the $400,000 fee from Aearo and thereby retain
these liabilities for the foreseeable future.  We have no
liability in connection with any products manufactured by Aearo
after 1995.

"In addition to Cabot's subsidiary, other parties are responsible
for significant portions of the costs of respirator liabilities,
leaving Cabot's subsidiary with a portion of the liability in only
some of the pending cases.  These parties include Aearo, AO, AO's
insurers, another former owner and its insurers, and a third-party
manufacturer of respirators formerly sold under the AO brand and
its insurers (collectively, with Cabot's subsidiary, the "Payor
Group").

"As of September 30, 2015 and 2014, there were approximately
38,000 and 41,000 claimants, respectively, in pending cases
asserting claims against AO in connection with respiratory
products.  Cabot has contributed to the Payor Group's defense and
settlement costs with respect to a percentage of pending claims
depending on several factors, including the period of alleged
product use.  In order to quantify our estimated share of
liability for pending and future respirator liability claims, we
have engaged, through counsel, the assistance of Hamilton,
Rabinovitz & Alschuler, Inc. ("HR&A"), a leading consulting firm
in the field of tort liability valuation.  The methodology used by
HR&A addresses the complexities surrounding our potential
liability by making assumptions about future claimants with
respect to periods of asbestos, silica and coal mine dust exposure
and respirator use.  Using those and other assumptions, HR&A
estimates the number of future asbestos, silica and coal mine dust
claims that will be filed and the related costs that would be
incurred in resolving both currently pending and future claims.
On this basis, HR&A then estimates the value of the share of these
liabilities that reflect our period of direct manufacture and our
contractual obligations.  Based on the HR&A estimates, we have
recorded an $11 million reserve for our estimated share of
liability for pending and future respirator claims.  We made
payments related to our respirator liability of $2 million in each
of fiscal 2015, 2014 and 2013."

Cabot Corporation is a global specialty chemicals and performance
materials company.  The Company's principal products are rubber
and specialty grade carbon blacks, fumed metal oxides, inkjet
colorants, aerogels and cesium formate drilling fluids.  Cabot and
its affiliates have manufacturing facilities and operations in the
United States and approximately 20 other countries.  The Company
operates in four business segments: Reinforcement Materials;
Performance Materials; Advanced Technologies; and Purification
Solutions.  It is organized into three geographic regions: The
Americas; Europe, Middle East and Africa, and Asia Pacific.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Esterline Still Subject to Potential Liabilities
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Esterline Technologies Corporation remains subject to potential
liabilities relating to certain products its manufactured
containing asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended .

The Company states: "We had insurance coverage for asbestos
exposures in products prior to November 1, 2003.  Commencing
November 1, 2003, insurance coverage for asbestos claims has been
unavailable.  Our policy coverage for exposures prior to
November 1, 2003, declines ratably, by formula, as the number of
years increases since coverage expired.  Accordingly, we continue
to have partial insurance coverage for exposure to asbestos
contained in our products prior to November 1, 2003.  To date,
asbestos claims have not been material to our consolidated results
of operations or financial position.

"As a result of the termination of the NASA Space Shuttle program,
manufacturing of rocket engine insulation material containing
asbestos ceased in July 2010.  In December 2011, we dismantled our
facility used to manufacture the asbestos-based insulation for the
Space Shuttle program.  We have an agreement for indemnification
for certain losses we may incur as a result of asbestos claims
relating to a product we previously manufactured, but we cannot
assure that this indemnification agreement will fully protect us
from losses arising from asbestos claims.

"To the extent we are not insured or indemnified for losses from
asbestos claims relating to our products, asbestos claims could
adversely affect our operating results and our financial
condition."

Esterline Technologies Corporation is a manufacturing company
serving aerospace and defense customers.  The Company designs,
manufactures and markets engineered products and systems.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Partially Dismisses "Rhoton"
---------------------------------------------------
James Rhoton and Sarah Rhoton filed an action against 3M Company
and Arizant Healthcare Inc. seeking damages under several theories
for alleged injuries sustained when Mr. Rhoton developed a MRSA
infection after surgery in which a Bair Hugger Forced Air Warming
device manufactured by defendants was used. Defendants filed a
joint motion to dismiss the complaint.

Judge William M. Acker, Jr., of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division, granted
the Defendants' motion as to Counts Four and Five and said counts
will be dismissed with prejudice.  The Defendants' motion is
denied as to all other counts.

The case is JAMES RHOTON, et al, Plaintiffs, v. 3M Company, et
al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-1306-WMA (N.D. Ala.).

A full-text copy of the Memorandum Opinion dated December 3, 2015
is available at http://is.gd/uMMHFrfrom Leagle.com.

James Rhoton, Plaintiff, is represented by Christopher T Hellums,
Esq. -- ChrisH@pittmandutton.com -- PITTMAN DUTTON & HELLUMS PC
& Jonathan S Mann, Esq. -- JonM@pittmandutton.com -- PITTMAN
DUTTON & HELLUMS.

Sarah Rhoton, Plaintiff, is represented by Christopher T Hellums,
PITTMAN DUTTON & HELLUMS PC & Jonathan S Mann, PITTMAN DUTTON &
HELLUMS.

3M Company, Defendant, is represented by Jerry W Blackwell, Esq. -
- blackwell@blackwellburke.com -- BLACKWELL BURKE PA, T Michael
Brown, Esq. -- mbrown@babc.com  -- BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS
LLP & Jessica K Givens, Esq. -- jgivens@babc.com  -- BRADLEY ARANT
BOULT CUMMINGS LLP.

Arizant Healthcare, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Jerry W
Blackwell, BLACKWELL BURKE PA, T Michael Brown, BRADLEY ARANT
BOULT CUMMINGS LLP & Jessica K Givens, BRADLEY ARANT BOULT
CUMMINGS LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in "Feaster"
---------------------------------------------------------------
In an action, Samuel R. Feaster alleges he contracted mesothelioma
while employed at New York Shipbuilding and Drydock Company in
Camden, New Jersey, and Sun Ship Yard in Chester, Pennsylvania.
Presently, before the Court are three separate Motions for Summary
Judgment filed by Defendants Owens-Illinois Inc., Brand
Insulations Inc., and Durametallic Corp.

Magistrate Judge Karen M. Williams of the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey, granted the Defendants'
Motions for Summary Judgment.

Owens-Illinois, Brand, and Durametallic, according to Magistrate
Williams, are entitled to summary judgment because the Plaintiff
has failed to adduce any evidence demonstrating that the
Defendants manufactured, supplied or distributed the asbestos-
containing product which the Plaintiff was exposed to on a
frequent and regular basis.

The case is SAMUEL R. FEASTER, Plaintiff, v. A.W. CHESTERTON
COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Civil No. 14-3417 (KMW)(D.N.J.).

A full-text copy of the Opinion dated December 3, 2015, which is
available at http://is.gd/gSDWFcfrom Leagle.com

SAMUEL R. FEASTER, Plaintiff, represented by Michael B. Leh, Esq.
-- mleh@lockslaw.com -- LOCKS LAW FIRM.

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant, represented by Christopher J.
Keale, Esq. -- christopher.keale@sedgwicklaw.com -- SEDGWICK
LLP, David Schuyler Blow, Esq. -- david.blow@sedgwicklaw.com --
SEDGWICK LLP, Joanne Hawkins, Speziali, Esq. -- GREENWALD &
HAWKINS P.C. & Michael A. Tanenbaum, Esq. --
michael.tanenbaum@sedgwicklaw.com -- SEDGWICK LLP.

GOULDS PUMP INC, Defendant, represented by Steven Frederik Satz,
Esq. -- ssatz@hoaglandlongo.com -- HOAGLAND LONGO MORAN DUNST &
DOUKAS.

METROPOLITAN LIFE, Defendant, represented by Richard V. Jones,
Esq. -- LAW OFFICES OF ROGER V. JONES, LLP & Roger V. Jones, --
LAW OFFICES OF ROGER V. JONES, LLP.



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Marion
Alcestis A. Castillon, Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala,
Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2015. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *