CAR_Public/160205.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, February 5, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 26


                            Headlines


ABBOTT MOLECULAR: Recalls m2000sp Instruments
ABBOTT VASCULAR: Recalls Vascular Scaffold Systems
AFFINION GROUP: Dispositive Motions Due Feb. 29 in Conn. Suit
AFFINION GROUP: Conn. Court Tosses Claims in Webloyalty Suit
AFFINION GROUP: Appeal Ongoing in Webloyalty Suit

AFFINION GROUP: Settles Massachusetts Suit for Less Than $100,000
AIR CANADA: December Hearing Set for Halifax Crash Suit
AMTRAK: Engineer's Account of Train Derailment Scrutinized
AQUESYS INC: Recalls XEN 45 Glaucoma Treatment Systems
ARKANSAS: Faces Class Suit Over Planned Parenthood Medicaid Cut

AVID LIFE MEDIA: "Doe" Suit Moved from S.D.N.Y to MDL 2669
AVID LIFE MEDIA: "Campbell" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2669
AVID LIFE MEDIA: "Lisuzzo" Suit Goes from N.D. Ill. to MDL 2669
BANK OF AMERICA: "Hughes" Suit Moved to South Carolina
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Omaha Police Suit Transferred to S.D.N.Y.

BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Policemen's Annuity Suit Moved to S.D.N.Y.
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Rock Capital Markets Suit Goes to S.D.N.Y.
BAXTERS CANADA: Recalls Tomato Soup Products
BECKMAN COULTER: Recalls Coulter S-Cal Calibrator Kits
BECTON DICKINSON: Recalls Tube Products Due to False EDTA

BEDESSEE IMPORT: Recalls Malted Chocolate Drink Due to Milk
BENLAN INC: Recalls MED-RX Wound Management Kits
BERKS PACKING: Recalls Beef Products Due to Pork and Erythorbate
BIL-JIM CONSTRUCTION: "Wall" Suit Moved to New Jersey Dist. Court
BLUE BUFFALO: Promises $32MM to Settle False Advertising Suit

BMW: "Kelley" Suit Moved from C.D. California to New Jersey
BRP US: Recalls Evinrude(R) Outboards Engines Due to Injury Risk
CALIFORNIA: Four Counties Sued Over Cost of Jail Calls
CALIFORNIA: Judge Approves State Fire Fee Class Action Motion
CALKINS & BURKE: Recalls Crushed Pineapple Products

CAMPBELL-EWALD: Sup. Court Addresses Class Action Mootness Issue
CANADIAN FOOTBALL: Families of Ex-Players Join Concussions Suit
CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Court Rules on Securities Suit Limitations
CANADIAN TIRE: Recalls Seasonal Lights Due to Fire Hazard
CHEESE BOUTIQUE: Recalls Butternut Squash Ravioli Due to Tree Nut

CHRYSLER: Recalls Fiat 500 Models with Automatic Transmissions
COMBE INC: Faces Class Action Over Defective Hair Product
COOPER: Recalls 2015 Vehicles Due to Noncompliance
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Recalls Baked Green Pea Crisps Due to Milk
CUISINE KARO: Recalls Cheese Sandwich Wrap Products

CUSTOM ULTRASONICS: Recalls System 83+ Products
DAKO NORTH: Recalls Dako Seymour Small Flap Slide Label Kits
DEAN FOODS: Food Lion Fails to Obtain Class Certification
DENVER PARENT: Trial This Year in Delaware Class Suit
DING HO: Recalls Cuttlefish Balls Due to Egg

DIRECTV INC: DJ's Sports Bar Suit Moved to C.D. Cal.
DIRECTV INC: "Lippincott" Suit Goes from N.D. to MDL 2668
DISH NETWORK: Judge Approves $4.75-Mil. Settlement in FCRA Suit
DOLLAR GENERAL: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Marketing
DOWNER EDI: Class Action Over Waratah Train Project Set to Begin

DRAFTKINGS INC: "Huizar" Suit Moved to C.D. Cal.
DURACELL: Lawyers Get $5.7MM in Fees in Deceptive Ad Class Action
ELEKTA BUSINESS: Recalls Mosaiq Due to Incorrect Drug Dosage
EOS: Settles Lip Balm Class Action in California
EVERSPRING FARMS: Expands Salba brand Chia Seeds Recall

FAN DUEL: Faces Class Action Over Use of Athletes' Likeness
FIGI'S COMPANIES: Recalls Classic Marzipan Due to Almonds
FIRSTMERIT CORP: Law Firms Urge Shareholders to File Merger Suit
FLINT, MI: Faces Major Legal Challenges Over Tainted Water Crisis
FLINT, MI: Environmental Racism Issue Raised Amid Water Crisis

FLOWERS FOOD: Sued by Truck Drivers Over Employee Status
FLOWERS FOODS: Defending Misclassification Suit in North Carolina
FOREST RIVER: Recalls Motorhomes with Lippert Electric Steps
FOREST RIVER: Recalls Stealth 2016 Model Due to Asphyxiation Risk
GALLAGHER BASSETT: Sued Over Slow Settlement Payments

GARDEN OF LIFE: Recalls Raw Meal Organic Shake Due to Salmonella
GE MEDICAL: Recalls Phased Flex Coils Due to Thermal Injury Risk
GENERAL CHEMICAL: Fergus Falls Sues Aluminum Sulfate Sellers
GENERAL MOTORS: Settles FTC Claims Over Used-Car Inspections
GENERAL MOTORS: Lawyer Claims Hilliard Struck Deal with Automaker

GENERAL MOTORS: Hilliard Reflects on Lapses in Scheuer Case
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Multiple 2016 Vehicle Models
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Sierra 2016 Models Due to Crash Risk
GILEAD SCIENCES: Massachusetts AG to Probe Hep C Drug Costs
GLAVAL: Recalls Wheelchair Lifts Due to Injury Risk

GROUPE JEAN: Recalls Seasonal Lights Due to Shock Hazard
GW PHARMA: Adler Freeman Files Securities Class Suit
HALLIBURTON CO: Erica P John Fund Suit Sent to N.D. Tex.
HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Massage Therapist Files Class Action
HOME MAID: Recalls Meat and Poultry Ravioli and Pasta Products

HOME MAID: Recalls Beef Ravioli Products Due to Misbranding
HONDA: Recalls Multiple Motorcycle Models Due to Injury Risk
HOUSE OF FLAVORS: Recalls Cookie Butter Ice Cream Due to Nuts
HOUSTON AMERICAN: $7 Million Silverman Settlement Has Final OK
HUNGARY: U.S. Court Revives Holocaust Survivors' Suit

INDIANA: Mentally Ill Solitary Confinement Settlement Game Changer
INTERCLOUD SYSTEMS: N.J. Court Rejects Motion to Dismiss Suit
JACKSON COUNTY, FL: Settles Compass Lake Subdivision Class Action
JACOBY & MEYERS: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Class Action
JUBILANT DRAXIMAGE: Recalls Ruby-Fill Rubidium 82 Generators

KAM WAH: Recalls Walnut Powder Due to Peanut and Soy
KEHE FOOD DISTRIBUTORS: "Santana" Suit Sent to S.D. California
KENNER, LA: Pay Firefighters' Pension, State Supreme Court Says
LENOVO: Class Action Over Battery Life Dismissed
LIFE FITNESS: Judge Denies FLSA Class Certification Motion

LIME ENERGY: Insurer Paid $2.5MM Class Action Settlement
LUCY'S WEIGHT: Recalls Pink Bikini and Shorts Capsules
MAHINA MELE: Recalls Macadamia Nut Products Due to Salmonella
MASTER HERBS: Recalls Licorice Coughing Liquid Due to Morphine
MICHAEL KORS: $4.9MM Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court OK

NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Super Bowl Ticket Class Suit Dismissal Upheld
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Trilogy Suit Moved from S.D.N.Y to C.D. Cal.
NEBRASKA: "Shepard" Suit May Proceed in Forma Pauperis
NETSOL TECHNOLOGIES: Still Faces Securities Suit in California
NEW JERSEY: Gibson Wins Motions to Squash Bridgegate Subpoena

NEW YORK: Plaintiffs Lose Certification Bid in NYCHA Suit
NOBLE SPOON: Recalls Beef and Chicken Entree Products
NV ENERGY: Sides with SolarCity on Net-Metering Rules
ONE SOURCE: Set to Settle Former Clients' Class Suit for $1.6MM
OPKO HEALTH: Settlement Hearing Held in Bio-Reference Merger Case

PAYPAL: Settles Suit Over Accounts Suspension for $3.2-Mil.
PETTERS CO: Liquidation Plan Set Up for Ponzi Scheme Victims
PHILIPPE CHOW: Workers Sue Over Unlawful Wage Practices
PINNACLE FOODS: Recalls Chili Products Due to Misbranding
PRA GROUP: Virginia Court Declines to Certify Proposed Class

QC HOLDINGS: "Lee" Case Parties Expect to Complete Deal
QC HOLDINGS: Settles "Stemple" Suit for $1.5 Million
QC HOLDINGS: Calif. Judge Dismisses "Marquez" Class Suit
QUORN: Sued in California Over Mycoprotein
QUOTIENT TECHNOLOGY: Calif. Court Sustains Demurrer in Class Suit

RE/MAX HOLDINGS: Faces Class Action Over Stolen Rent
REASBECK CONSTRUCTION: "Bayless" Labor Suit Moved to W.D. Kansas
RITE-A-WAY SERVICES: Sued for Plumbing Technicians' Unpaid Wages
SASAC: "Brooke" Suit Moved from E.D. Va. to MDL 2047
SCOTTRADE INC: "Hine" Suit Moved from S.D. Cal. to E.D. Missouri

SLATER & GORDON: Shareholders Join Class Action
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM: "Collier" Suit Goes from E.D. Mo. to N.D. Ga.
SNAPP'S FERRY: Recalls Ground Beef Products Due to E. Coli
SOUTHCOAST FINANCIAL: Faces Class Suit over BNC Deal
SUNEDISON INC: Continues to Defend Against "Jones" Suit

SUNEDISON INC: Reviewing Class Suits over TerraForm Global IPO
SUNEDISON INC: Wagner Firm Files Securities Class Action
SYNGENTA SEEDS: "Dreibodt" Suit Moved from W.D. Tex. to Kansas
TERRAFORM GLOBAL: "Agrawal" Suit Goes to N.D. Cal.
TERRAFORM GLOBAL: "Badri" Suit Moved to Northern Dist. California

TERRAFORM GLOBAL: Iron Workers Pension Fund Moved to N.D. Cal.
TERRAFORM GLOBAL: "Fraser" Suit Moved to N.D. Cal.
TETRAPHASE PHARMA: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Suit
TOPHAT LOGISTICAL: Delivery Drivers File Class Action
TRUECAR INC: N.Y. Court Narrows Car Dealers' Suit

TRUECAR INC: Wants Calif. Securities Action Dismissed
TRUECAR INC: Calif. State Court Suit Dismissed
UNITED STATES: Newspaper Intervenes in Border Patrol Class Suit
UTZ QUALITY FOODS: "Cummings" Suit Goes to Mass. Dist. Court
VOLKSWAGEN AG: May Buy Back Non-Emission Compliant Diesel Cars

WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Pepperoni Pizza Products Due to Misbranding
ZIMBABWE: Judge Dismisses Suit Challenging Teachers Recall

* Class Action, Mass Tort Trial Lawyers Tops Earners
* EEOC May File Discrimination Suits for Group of Workers
* Self-Driving Technology May Impact Auto Injury litigation


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Marine Transport's Bid to Junk "Quinlan" OK'd
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Recommends Dismissal of 2 Cos. in "Shaw"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4th Cir. Affirms Ruling for Cos. in "Garnes"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Revises Scheduling Order in "Macqueen"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Attorney Awarded $18K for Estate Administration

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler Wins Summary Judgment in "Ahnert"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Police Officer's Whisteblower Suit Remanded
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sprinkmann Loses Summary Judgment in "Ahnert"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pabst's Summary Judgment Bid in "Ahnert" Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Velan Valve Wins Summary Judgment in "Bell"

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Grants Bids to Dismiss "Clark"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Ordered to Disclose Settlement Terms
ASBESTOS UPDATE: South African Asbestos Mines to be Rehabilitated
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Dumped at Borders Tourist Attraction
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Poisoned by Asbestos-Covered Husband

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crawley Down Man Dies Due to Asbestos Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Launches GBP100K Damages Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Court Awards Summary Judgment to 7 Cos.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Denies 2 Cos.'s Summary Judgment Bids
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Blames GE for Husband's Death

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Water Corp. Failed Workers Exposed to Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Japan Gov't Ordered to Pay for Damages
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Awards Summary Judgment to Crane Co.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Removal Underway at Maplewood Post Office Bldg.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: School Board Cancel Classes After Asbestos Find

ASBESTOS UPDATE: South Devon Residents Die Following Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Husband Unwittingly Caused Wife's Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reservoir Asbestos Could Have Been Detected
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Royal Navy Veteran Seeking Cancer Compensation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Adelaide Buildings Need Urgent Asbestos Removal

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Concerns Raised Over Block Redevelopment
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Fined Over Inspection of Shop
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fly-Tippers Dump Toxic Waste in Derby Garage
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure at Home Increasing, Study Says
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Increased Waste Leads to Illegal Dumping

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Retired Bricklayer Diagnosed with Mesothelioma
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Vets, Teachers Push Congress to Reject FACT Act
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Measure Sacks Kansas's Worker Certification
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Lawsuit in Kentucky Opens
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Canadian Federal Gov't Still Using Asbestos

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Substantial Relief Needed for Japan Victims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Has Until June to Perfect Appeals
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dismissal of Suit vs. JPMorgan Officers Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Had $648MM Litigation Reserve at Dec. 31


                            *********


ABBOTT MOLECULAR: Recalls m2000sp Instruments
---------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 14, 2015
Posting date: January 7, 2016
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-56550

Investigation at Abbott Molecular identified that an incorrect
type of tip adapter (type D) could have been installed on m2000sp
instrument during a service visit on or after august 14, 2015.
This is because two lots of Abbott Molecular PN 30084426 (lots
76258007 and 77228007) were shipped with type D tip adapters
rather than the required type B adapters.

Affected products:
A. m2000sp Instrument, G-series and E-series
Lot or serial number: 10378
                      10417
                      10472
                      10621
                      10762
                      4123-G SERIES
Model or catalog number: 9K14-01
                         9K14-02

Manufacturer: Abbott Molecular Inc.
              1300 E. Touhy Ave.
              Des Plaines
              60018
              Illinois
              UNITED STATES


ABBOTT VASCULAR: Recalls Vascular Scaffold Systems
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 7, 2015
Posting date: December 24, 2015
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-56464

Abbott Vascular has recently published the results of Absorb III,
a clinical trial that compared the safety and effectiveness of
Absorb BVS to the XIENCE, metallic drug eluting stent. Learnings
from an analysis of the Absorb III data and other published data
have identified an impact on clinical outcomes following changes
to procedural techniques. Implementation of these techniques is
expected to facilitate optimal clinical outcomes and reduce the
possibility of thrombosis. Abbott Vascular will be updating the
instructions for use (IFU) with this information.

Affected products:

A. ABSORB BIORESORBABLE VASCULAR SCAFFOLD SYSTEM (BVS)
Lot or serial number: All lots.
Model or catalog number: 1012462-12
                         1012462-18
                         1012462-23
                         1012462-28
                         1012463-12
                         1012463-18
                         1012463-23
                         1012463-28
                         1012464-12
                         1012464-18
                         1012464-23
                         1012464-28

Manufacturer: Abbott Vascular
              3200 Lakeside Drive
              Santa Clara
              95054-2807
              California
              UNITED STATES


AFFINION GROUP: Dispositive Motions Due Feb. 29 in Conn. Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Connecticut
court overseeing lawsuits over Trilegiant Corporation's sale of
its membership programs have set a February 29, 2016 deadline for
dispositive motions.

On June 17, 2010, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company and Trilegiant Corporation ("Trilegiant") in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The
complaint asserts various causes of action on behalf of a putative
nationwide class and a California-only subclass in connection with
the sale by Trilegiant of its membership programs, including
claims under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA"),
the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act ("CUTPA"), the
Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), the
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California Unfair
Competition Law, the California False Advertising Law, and for
unjust enrichment.

On September 29, 2010, the Company filed a motion to compel
arbitration of all of the claims asserted in this lawsuit. On
February 24, 2011, the court denied the Company's motion.

On March 28, 2011, the Company and Trilegiant filed a notice of
appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, appealing the district court's denial of their motion to
compel arbitration. On September 7, 2012, the Second Circuit
affirmed the decision of the district court denying arbitration.

While that issue was on appeal, the matter proceeded in the
district court. There was written discovery and depositions.
Previously, the court had set a briefing schedule on class
certification that called for the completion of class
certification briefing on May 18, 2012.

However, on March 28, 2012, the court suspended the briefing
schedule on the motion due to the filing of two other overlapping
class actions in the United States District Court for the District
of Connecticut. The first of those cases was filed on March 6,
2012, against the Company, Trilegiant, Chase Bank USA, N.A., Bank
of America, N.A., Capital One Financial Corp., Citigroup, Inc.,
Citibank, N.A., Apollo Global Management, LLC, 1-800-Flowers.Com,
Inc., United Online, Inc., Memory Lane, Inc., Classmates Int'l,
Inc., FTD Group, Inc., Days Inn Worldwide, Inc., Wyndham Worldwide
Corp., People Finderspro, Inc., Beckett Media LLC, Buy.com, Inc.,
Rakuten USA, Inc., IAC/InteractiveCorp., and Shoebuy.com, Inc.

The second of those cases was filed on March 25, 2012, against the
same defendants as well as Adaptive Marketing, LLC, Vertrue, Inc.,
Webloyalty.com, Inc., and Wells Fargo & Co. These two cases assert
similar claims as the claims asserted in the earlier-filed lawsuit
in connection with the sale by Trilegiant of its membership
programs.

On April 26, 2012, the court consolidated these three cases. The
court also set an initial status conference for May 17, 2012. At
that status conference, the court ordered that Plaintiffs file a
consolidated amended complaint to combine the claims in the three
previously separate lawsuits. The court also struck the class
certification briefing schedule that had been set previously.

On September 7, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint asserting substantially the same legal claims. The
consolidated amended complaint added Priceline, Orbitz, Chase
Paymentech, Hotwire, and TigerDirect as Defendants and added three
new Plaintiffs; it also dropped Webloyalty and Rakuten as
Defendants.

On December 7, 2012, all Defendants filed motions seeking to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint and to strike certain
portions of the complaint. Plaintiff's response brief was filed on
February 7, 2013, and Defendants' reply briefs were filed on April
5, 2013.

On September 25, 2013, the court held oral argument on the motions
to dismiss. On March 28, 2014, the court ruled on the motions to
dismiss, granting them in part and denying them in part. The court
dismissed the Plaintiffs' RICO claims and claims under the
California Automatic Renewal Statute as to all defendants. The
court also dismissed certain named Plaintiffs as their claims were
barred either by the statute of limitations and/or a prior
settlement agreement. Certain Defendants were also dismissed from
the case. The court also struck certain allegations from the
consolidated amended complaint, including certain of Plaintiffs'
class action allegations under CUTPA.

As to the Company and Trilegiant, the court denied the motion to
dismiss certain Plaintiffs' claims under ECPA and for unjust
enrichment, as well as certain other claims of Plaintiffs under
CUTPA.

Also, on December 5, 2012, the Plaintiffs' law firms in these
consolidated cases filed an additional action in the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut. That case is
identical in all respects to this case except that it was filed by
a new Plaintiff (the named Plaintiff from the class action
complaint previously filed against the Company, Trilegiant, 1-800-
Flowers.com, and Chase Bank USA, N.A., in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York on November
10, 2010).

On January 23, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to consolidate that
case into the existing set of consolidated cases.  On June 13,
2013, the court entered an order staying the date for all
Defendants to respond to the Complaint until 21 days after the
court ruled on the motion to consolidate. On March 28, 2014, the
court entered an order granting the motion to consolidate.

On May 12, 2014, remaining Defendants in the consolidated cases
filed answers in which they denied the material allegations of the
consolidated amended complaint.  On April 28, 2014, Plaintiffs
filed a motion seeking interlocutory appellate review of portions
of the court's order of March 28, 2014.  Briefing on the motion
was completed on June 5, 2014.

On March 26, 2015, the court denied Plaintiff's motion for
interlocutory appeal.  On May 29, 2015, the court issued a
scheduling order indicating that discovery was to commence
immediately and be completed by December 31, 2015.  On May 29,
2015, the court also set deadlines for dispositive motions, which
are due February 29, 2016.

If no dispositive motions are filed, a joint trial memorandum
would be due by April 1, 2016, and jury selection would take place
on May 3, 2016.  If dispositive motions are filed, the joint trial
memorandum would be due by October 3, 2016, and jury selection
would take place on November 1, 2016.

On June 16, 2015, the court set a schedule for class
certification, with plaintiffs' motion for class certification due
on September 15, 2015, and with briefing to be completed by
November 30, 2015. Plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification on September 15, 2015, and Defendants' opposition
brief was due on November 16, 2015.


AFFINION GROUP: Conn. Court Tosses Claims in Webloyalty Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a Connecticut
court has entered a judgment dismissing all of the plaintiff's
claims in a class action lawsuit against Webloyalty et al., with
prejudice and without further leave to amend.

On August 27, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Webloyalty, one of its former clients and one of the credit card
associations in the United States District Court for the District
of Connecticut alleging, among other things, violations of the
Electronic Fund Transfer Act, Electronic Communications Privacy
Act, unjust enrichment, civil theft, negligent misrepresentation,
fraud and Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act violation (the
"Connecticut Action"). This lawsuit relates to Webloyalty's
alleged conduct occurring on and after October 1, 2008.

On November 1, 2010, the defendants moved to dismiss the initial
complaint, which plaintiff then amended on November 19, 2010. On
December 23, 2010, Webloyalty filed a second motion to dismiss
this lawsuit.

On May 15, 2014, the court heard oral argument on plaintiff's
motion to strike the Company's request for judicial notice of the
plaintiff's membership enrollment documents filed in support of
the Company's second motion to dismiss. On July 17, 2014, the
court denied plaintiff's motion to strike.  The court, at the same
time, dismissed those claims grounded in fraud, but reserved until
further proceedings the determination as to whether all of
plaintiff's claims are grounded in fraud and whether those claims
not grounded in fraud are dismissible.  The court permitted the
plaintiff until August 15, 2014 to amend his complaint and allowed
the parties the opportunity to conduct limited discovery, to be
completed by September 26, 2014, concerning the issues addressed
in its dismissal order. All other discovery is currently stayed in
the case.

The July 17, 2014 order indicated that the court will set a
further motion to dismiss briefing schedule following the
conclusion of this limited discovery. The plaintiff amended his
complaint as scheduled, and the parties conducted limited
discovery as ordered. After this limited discovery, the parties
proposed a motion to dismiss briefing schedule calling for the
defendants to file their opening briefs on January 9, 2015.  The
plaintiff filed his opposition brief on March 24, 2015, and on
April 24, 2015, the defendants filed their reply briefs in
response to that opposition. On October 15, 2015, the court
entered a judgment dismissing all of the plaintiff's claims with
prejudice and without further leave to amend.


AFFINION GROUP: Appeal Ongoing in Webloyalty Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that an appeal is
underway before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in
a class action lawsuit related to Webloyalty's business practices.

On June 7, 2012, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California against
Webloyalty that was factually similar to the Connecticut Action.
The action claims that Webloyalty engaged in unlawful business
practices in violation of California Business and Professional
Code Sec. 17200, et seq. and in violation of the Connecticut
Unfair Trade Practices Act. Both claims are based on allegations
that in connection with enrollment and billing of the plaintiff,
Webloyalty charged plaintiff's credit or debit card using
information obtained through a data pass process and without
obtaining directly from plaintiff his full account number, name,
address, and contact information, as purportedly required under
Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act.

On September 25, 2012, Webloyalty filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint in its entirety and the court scheduled a hearing on the
motion for January 14, 2013. Webloyalty also sought judicial
notice of the enrollment page and related enrollment and account
documents. Plaintiff filed his opposition on December 12, 2012,
and Webloyalty filed its reply submission on January 7, 2013.

Thereafter, on January 10, 2013, the court cancelled the
previously scheduled January 14, 2013 hearing and indicated that
it would rule based on the parties' written submissions without
the need for a hearing. On August 28, 2013, the court sua sponte
dismissed plaintiff's complaint without prejudice with leave to
amend by September 30, 2013. The plaintiff filed his amended
complaint on September 30, 2013, adding purported claims under the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act and for unjust enrichment,
money had and received, conversion, civil theft, and invasion of
privacy.

On December 2, 2013, the Company moved to dismiss plaintiff's
amended complaint. Plaintiff responded to the motion on January
27, 2014. On February 6, 2014, the court indicated that it would
review the submissions and issue a decision on plaintiff's motion
without oral argument. On September 29, 2014, the court dismissed
the plaintiff's claims on substantive grounds and/or statute of
limitations grounds. The court has allowed the plaintiff 28 days
to file a motion demonstrating why a further amendment of the
complaint would not be futile.

On October 27, 2014, the plaintiff filed a motion for leave to
amend the complaint and attached a proposed amended complaint. The
Company responded to the motion on November 10, 2014. On June 22,
2015, the court entered a final order and judgment denying
plaintiff's motion to amend, dismissing all federal claims with
prejudice, and dismissing all state claims without prejudice.

On July 10, 2015, plaintiff filed a notice appealing the dismissal
decision and denial of his request to further amend his complaint
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The
plaintiff's opening appeal brief was due on October 19, 2015, and
the Company's responsive brief was due on November 19, 2015.


AFFINION GROUP: Settles Massachusetts Suit for Less Than $100,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company has
agreed to settle a Massachusetts lawsuit on an individual, non-
class basis for a payment of less than $0.1 million.

On February 7, 2014, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company and one of its clients in the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts alleging, among other things,
violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, unjust enrichment, money had and
received, conversion, misrepresentation, violation of the
Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act and equitable relief.
Claims are based on allegations that plaintiff was enrolled and
billed for a package program without plaintiff's proper consent
and knowledge.

On April 4, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss. A hearing
on that motion was held on July 24, 2014.  On March 11, 2015, the
magistrate judge to whom the motion was referred by the district
court judge issued a report and recommendation granting in part
and denying in part the motion to dismiss.  The magistrate judge
granted the motion to dismiss on the fraud claim, which was
dismissed as time-barred, but denied the remainder of the motion.

On March 25, 2015, the Company filed objections to the magistrate
judge's report and recommendation.  Briefing on the objections
concluded on April 9, 2015.

On June 4, 2015, the court accepted and adopted the report and
recommendation of the magistrate judge over the Company's
objections.  The Company filed its answer to the complaint on July
2, 2015.  A scheduling conference was held with the court on
August 11, 2015. The court entered an order providing that fact
discovery is to be completed by March 31, 2016.

On October 2, 2015, plaintiff's counsel filed a motion to withdraw
as counsel. On October 20, 2015, the court granted the motion of
plaintiff's counsel to withdraw as counsel.

On October 21, 2015, plaintiff and the Company agreed to settle
plaintiff's claims on an individual, non-class basis for a payment
of less than $0.1 million. In connection with such settlement,
plaintiff released the Company and its affiliates from all claims
that plaintiff had against such parties related to such lawsuit.


AIR CANADA: December Hearing Set for Halifax Crash Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that a hearing for a class-action
lawsuit against Air Canada for a flight that crashed at the
Halifax Stanfield International Airport in March of 2015 has been
scheduled for December.

The two law firms representing the passengers, Wagners out of
Halifax and Camp, Fiorante, Matthews and Mogerman, out of
Vancouver, met before Justice Denise Boudreau to schedule the
proceedings.

Air Canada flight 624 landed short of the runway on March 29,
2015, due to poor visibility and stormy weather. Twenty-three
people were injured as a result of the crash.

Passengers on the flight received $5,000 from Air Canada.

Both firms have extensive histories of class-action lawsuits
involving plane crashes. Wagners was involved in the successful
representation of the families of the seven crew members who died
in the MK Airlines Ltd. cargo plane crash near Halifax's airport
in 2004.

CFM prosecuted a class action for the passengers on the Air France
flight that overran the runway at Toronto's Pearson International
Airport roughly 10 years ago.


AMTRAK: Engineer's Account of Train Derailment Scrutinized
----------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for Law.com, reports that just one hour
after the National Transportation Safety Board released 2,000
pages of documents on the May 12 derailment of Amtrak Train 188 in
Philadelphia, lawyers for passengers in the case picked apart
statements given by the train's engineer about his memory of the
accident.

Thomas R. Kline and Robert Mongeluzzi, heads of the respective
firms representing passengers in 29 of the 111 lawsuits filed
against Amtrak, specifically called out engineer Brandon Bostian
for what they claimed were discrepancies in separate accounts he
gave to the NTSB about the night of the accident.

At a news conference on Feb. 1, Mr. Mongeluzzi zeroed in on
Mr. Bostian's statements in two interviews with NTSB officials;
one conducted in May, shortly after the derailment, and another in
November.

In the May interview, Mr. Bostian said his memory was blank after
passing train platforms in North Philadelphia after leaving 30th
Street Station -- the next thing he remembered was coming to in
the cab of the train after the accident.  In the November
interview, he recalled that he "may have" accelerated to 80 mph
coming up to the curve where the train derailed in the Port
Richmond section of the city -- although he said he wasn't sure
whether that was on the night of the accident -- stating, "I
remember feeling as though I was going too fast around the curve."

Mr. Mongeluzzi said, "His change of testimony in this case is
extraordinary."  Mr. Kline added that there were "glaring
inconsistencies" with Mr. Bostian's accounts.

Mr. Bostian's attorney, Robert Goggin III, and Amtrak's attorney,
Yuri Brunetti, did not immediately return calls seeking comment.

Train 188's derailment left more than 200 people injured and eight
dead.  At the time of the accident, the train had been traveling
around a curve at more than 100 mph -- twice the speed limit for
that section of rail.  Amtrak has admitted fault in the accident.

Mr. Kline said Mr. Bostian illustrated in his November statement
to the NTSB that he maintained situational awareness: he knew
where he was, recalled details such as passing a stopped SEPTA
train that had been hit with a rock, accelerating and then
applying pressure to the brakes to try to slow down the train
around the curve.

"He went into that curve knowing what he was doing," Mr. Kline
said.

Mr. Mongeluzzi added Mr. Bostian refused to speak to police after
the accident and asked for his lawyer.  "That is something
hallmark of someone who has their wits about them," he said.

In his November interview with the NTSB, Mr. Bostian described the
moment the train went off the rails.

"I remember holding onto the controls tightly and feeling like,
OK, well this is it, I'm going over," Mr. Bostian recalled.  "And
so I tried to brace myself.  The only visual memory I have from
that sequence of events is I remember seeing objects fly in front
of me."

He continued, "The next memory I have is, like I said before I
think, of coming to after the event was over in the cab."

Mr. Kline said the litigation is still in its infancy; the release
of documents by the NTSB was one of the first steps. Additionally,
he said the key to figuring out what happened that night, and in
deciphering Mr. Bostian's "evolving memory," lies in putting the
engineer on the witness stand and questioning him under oath.

"We have a long way to go, but what we've learned is very
informative and very telling," Mr. Kline said.

The last major development affecting the cases against Amtrak was
the increase of the maximum combined compensation for injured
Train 188 passengers from $200 million to $295 million.

In December, Congress agreed to raise the damages cap, which the
passengers' attorneys had feared would not be enough to adequately
compensate the injured parties. Even with $95 million increase,
Mr. Mongeluzzi said the combined damages would likely surpass the
new cap.

Mr. Kline had said while Amtrak may argue the passengers' injury
claims may not be worth $295 million altogether, potential
punitive damages against the rail carrier will also be drawn from
that figure.


AQUESYS INC: Recalls XEN 45 Glaucoma Treatment Systems
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 14, 2015
Posting date: January 7, 2016
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-56556

Surgeons may encounter a higher than expected force to actuate
slider mechanism on some XEN injectors when they are in the
process of implanting the XEN 45 gel stent which may lead to
ocular trauma especially when surgeon forces slider mechanism
forward.

Affected products:
A. XEN 45 Glaucoma Treatment System
Lot or serial number: 60815
                      60869
Model or catalog number: 5507-001

Manufacturer: Aquesys Inc.
              26970 Aliso Viejo Parkway, Suite 200
              Aliso Viejo
              92656
              California
              UNITED STATES


ARKANSAS: Faces Class Suit Over Planned Parenthood Medicaid Cut
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Mason Pieklo, writing for RH Reality Check, reports that a
federal judge granted class action status to a lawsuit challenging
Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson's (R) attempts to cut Planned
Parenthood health-care centers from the state's Medicaid program.

The decision means the three women who originally filed suit to
block the defunding attempts can represent the thousands of
Arkansans insured by Medicaid and use Planned Parenthood health-
care centers for accessing family planning services.

Hutchinson in August directed the Arkansas Department of Human
Services to terminate its Medicaid provider contract with Planned
Parenthood within 30 days. "It is apparent that after the recent
revelations on the actions of Planned Parenthood, that this
organization does not represent the values of the people of our
state and Arkansas is better served by terminating any and all
existing contracts with them," Hutchinson said in a statement
announcing the decision.

Hutchinson was referring to a series of heavily edited attack
videos released by an anti-choice front group called the Center
for Medical Progress (CMP). CMP's videos purported to show Planned
Parenthood engaged in the illegal trafficking of fetal tissue. CMP
officials have worked closely with Republican lawmakers to defund
the health-care organization.

Planned Parenthood has two health centers in Arkansas, one in
Little Rock and the other in Fayetteville. The health centers
provide about 4,400 patients with reproductive health services,
and a significant portion of these patients receive care through
Medicaid, according to Planned Parenthood.

Reproductive rights advocates sued in September, arguing the
decision to terminate the Medicaid provider contract violated
federal law. A federal court agreed and issued a preliminary
injunction blocking the Hutchinson administration from
discontinuing Medicaid funds for the three original plaintiffs.

The lawsuit will now continue as a class action, though U.S.
District Judge Kristine Baker has not yet applied the injunction
to the entire class. Once that happens, it will prevent the state
from ending Medicaid coverage of Planned Parenthood services to
Medicaid patients in the state.

Attorneys for the state of Arkansas had argued that each Medicaid
recipient should be required to bring their own individual
lawsuits to challenge any denial of Medicaid benefits.

Attorney General Leslie Rutledge issued a statement following the
decision stating she "strongly disagrees with today's decision."
She added, "It's unfortunate that women who need access to ethical
and responsible health care providers are being used by Planned
Parenthood in litigation designed to protect Planned Parenthood's
bottom line."

Baker is also presiding over a challenge to a new Arkansas law
that limits the manner in which abortion-inducing medications can
be administered. That law was set to take effect January 1, but
Planned Parenthood sued in December, arguing the measure unduly
burdened abortion rights. Baker agreed and granted a temporary
restraining order in December that blocks enforcement of the law
until March 14 at the earliest.


AVID LIFE MEDIA: "Doe" Suit Moved from S.D.N.Y to MDL 2669
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Doe v. Avid Life Media, Inc. et
al., Case No. 1:15-cv-07017, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis).
The Eastern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-01943-
JAR to the proceeding.

Avid Life Media is a social entertainment company that operates
online social networking and dating communities for women and men
worldwide. The company was founded in 2007 and is based in
Toronto, Canada.

The Doe case is being consolidated with MDL 2669 in re: Ashley
Madison Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. The MDL was
created by order of the United States Judicial Panel on
multidistrict litigation on December 9, 2015. These actions share
factual questions arising from a data security breach that
allegedly occurred on or about July 15, 2015, involving
AshleyMadison.com, a dating website designed to facilitate
intimate relationships for individuals who are either married or
in a committed relationship. Avid owns and operates the website.
In Its December 9, 2015 Order, The MDL Panel found that these
actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization
in the Eastern District of Missouri will serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon.
John A. Ross, United States District Judge. The lead case is 4:15-
Md-02669-JAR.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Phillip C. Kim, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM P.A.
          275 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 686 1060
          Facsimile: (212) 202 3827
          E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com


AVID LIFE MEDIA: "Campbell" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2669
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Lee E. Campbell v. Avid Life Media
Inc. et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-09475, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis).
The Eastern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-01944-
JAR to the proceeding.

Avid Life Media is a social entertainment company that operates
online social networking and dating communities for women and men
worldwide. The company was founded in 2007 and is based in
Toronto, Canada.

The Campbell case is being consolidated with MDL 2669 in re:
Ashley Madison Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. The MDL
was created by order of the United States Judicial Panel on
multidistrict litigation on December 9, 2015. These actions share
factual questions arising from a data security breach that
allegedly occurred on or about July 15, 2015, involving
AshleyMadison.com, a dating website designed to facilitate
intimate relationships for individuals who are either married or
in a committed relationship. Avid owns and operates the website.
In Its December 9, 2015 Order, The MDL Panel found that these
actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization
in the Eastern District of Missouri will serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon.
John A. Ross, United States District Judge. The lead case is 4:15-
Md-02669-JAR.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Henry Bates III, Esq.
          CARNEY AND WILLIAMS
          11311 Arcade Drive, Suite 200
          Little Rock, AR 72212
          Telephone: (501) 312 8500
          Facsimile: (501) 312 8505
          E-mail: hbates@cauleybowman.com


AVID LIFE MEDIA: "Lisuzzo" Suit Goes from N.D. Ill. to MDL 2669
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Lisuzzo v. Avid Life Media, Inc.
et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-11305, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis).
The Eastern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-01945-
JAR to the proceeding.

Avid Life Media is a social entertainment company that operates
online social networking and dating communities for women and men
worldwide. The company was founded in 2007 and is based in
Toronto, Canada.

The Lisuzzo case is being consolidated with MDL 2669 in re: Ashley
Madison Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. The MDL was
created by order of the United States Judicial Panel on
multidistrict litigation on December 9, 2015. These actions share
factual questions arising from a data security breach that
allegedly occurred on or about July 15, 2015, involving
AshleyMadison.com, a dating website designed to facilitate
intimate relationships for individuals who are either married or
in a committed relationship. Avid owns and operates the website.
In Its December 9, 2015 Order, The MDL Panel found that these
actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization
in the Eastern District of Missouri will serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon.
John A. Ross, United States District Judge. The lead case is 4:15-
Md-02669-JAR.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas A. Zimmerman Jr., Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          77 West Washington Street, Suite 1220
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 440 0020
          Facsimile: (312) 440 4180
          E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com

               - and -

          Scott Theodore Ferrill, Esq.
          115 55th Street, Suite 400
          Clarendon Hills, IL 60514
          Telephone: (630) 908 7680
          Facsimile: (630) 908 7165
          E-mail: chicagolaw@gmail.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christine Elizabeth Skoczylas, Esq.
          BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
          One North Wacker Drive, Suite 4400
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 214 5613
          E-mail: christine.skoczylas@btlaw.com


BANK OF AMERICA: "Hughes" Suit Moved to South Carolina
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Hughes v. Bank of America National
Association, Case No. 2015-CP-42-04748, was removed from the
Spartanburg County Court of Common Pleas, to the U.S. District
Court for the District of South Carolina (Spartanburg).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 7:15-cv-05083-MGL to
the proceeding.

Bank of America operates as full service bank. The Bank accepts
deposits, makes loans, and provides other financial and investment
services for the public. The bank serves individual and
institutional customers throughout the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bradley D Hewett, Esq.
          D. Michael Kelly, Esq.
          Jamie Nicole Smith, Esq.
          MIKE KELLY LAW GROUP
          PO Box 8113
          Columbia, SC 29202
          Telephone: (803) 461 2154
          E-mail: bhewett@mklawgroup.com
                  mkelly@mklawgroup.com
                  jsmith@mklawgroup.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Robert A Muckenfuss, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS
          201 N Tryon Street, Suite 3000
          Charlotte, NC 28202
          Telephone: (704) 343 2000
          Facsimile: (704) 343 2300
          E-mail: rmuckenfuss@mcguirewoods.com

               - and -

          Robert G. Houck, Esq.
          David J. Yeres, Esq.
          John D. Friel, Esq.
          CLIFFORD CHANCE US, LLP
          31 West 52nd Street
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 878 3224
          Facsimile: (212) 878 8375
          E-mail: robert.houck@cliffordchance.com
                  david.yeres@cliffordchance.com
                  john.friel@cliffordchance.com

               - and -

          Jay B. Kasner, Esq.
          Paul Madison Eckles, Esq.
          Shepard Goldfein, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          Four Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 735 3000
          Facsimile: (212) 735 2000
          E-mail: jkasner@skadden.com
                  pmeckles@skadden.com
                  sgoldfei@skadden.com

               - and -

          Robert Y. Sperling, Esq.
          Elizabeth P Papez, Esq.
          Joseph Laurence Motto, Esq.
          Susannah P. Torpey, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          35 West Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 558 5600
          Facsimile: (312) 558 5700
          E-mail: rsperling@winston.com
                  epapez@winston.com
                  jmotto@winston.com
                  storpey@winston.com

               - and -

          Penny Shane, Esq.
          Stephen Ehrenberg, Esq.
          SULLIVAN AND CROMWELL, LLP
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 558 4837
          Facsimile: (212) 558 3360
          E-mail: shanep@sullcrom.com
                  ehrenbergs@sullcrom.com

               - and -

          Kenneth Ian Schacter, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP
          101 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10178
          Telephone: (212) 309 6815
          Facsimile: (212) 309 6001
          E-mail: kenneth.schacter@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Atto Brad Scott Karp, Esq.
          Kenneth Anthony Gallo, Esq.
          Richard A. Rosen, Esq.
          Susanna Michele Buergel, Esq.
          PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 373 2384
          Facsimile: (212) 373 2384
          E-mail: bkarp@paulweiss.com
                  kgallo@paulweiss.com
                  rrosen@paulweiss.com
                  sbuergel@paulweiss.com

               - and -

          Pamela Addison Miller, Esq.
          Edward Nathaniel Moss, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP
          7 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 326 2088
          Facsimile: (212) 326 2061
          E-mail: pmiller@omm.com
                  emoss@omm.com

               - and -

          Stephen Jay Senderowitz, Esq.
          John Richard Kastl, Esq.
          Rachel Marie Cannon, Esq.
          Sandra Denise Hauser, Esq.
          DENTONS US LLP
          233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 5900
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 876 8000
          E-mail: stephen.senderowitz@dentons.com
                  john.kastl@dentons.com
                  rachel.cannon@dentons.com
                  sandra.hauser@dentons.com


BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Omaha Police Suit Transferred to S.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled City of Omaha Police and Fire
Retirement System et al. v. Bank of Nova Scotia, New York Agency
et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-08890, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley
Square). The Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-
cv-10116-PGG to the proceeding.

This class action lawsuit is brought to recover the damages that
Plaintiffs suffered as a result of Defendants' illegal market
manipulation, front-running, and violations of antitrust law.

The Bank of Nova Scotia provides financial services in North
America, Latin America, the Caribbean and Central America, and
parts of Asia. The company serves 23 million customers through a
range of advice, products and services, including personal and
commercial banking, wealth management and private banking,
corporate and investment banking and capital markets. The bank is
headquartered in Halifax, Canada.
Lead case: 1:15-md-02673-PGG

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher M. Burke, Esq.
          Walter W. Noss, Esq.
          Thomas Boardman, Esq.
          SCOTT & SCOTT, LLP
          707 Broadway, Suite 1000
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 233 4565
          Facsimile: (619) 233 0508
          E-mail: cburke@scott-scott.com
                  wnoss@scott-scott.com
                  tboardman@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          George A. Zelcs, Esq.
          KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
          205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 1950
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 641 9750
          Facsimile: (312) 641 9751
          E-mail: gzelcs@koreintillery.com


BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Policemen's Annuity Suit Moved to S.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Policemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund
of Chicago v. Bank of Nova Scotia, New York Agency et al., Case
No. 1:15-cv-09173, was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square). The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-10118-PGG to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, this action is brought to recover the
damages that Plaintiff suffered as a result of Defendants' illegal
market manipulation, front-running, and violations of antitrust
law.

The Bank of Nova Scotia provides financial services in North
America, Latin America, the Caribbean and Central America, and
parts of Asia. The company serves 23 million customers through a
range of advice, products and services, including personal and
commercial banking, wealth management and private banking,
corporate and investment banking and capital markets. The bank is
headquartered in Halifax, Canada.  The Lead case is 1:15-md-02673-
PGG

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas Boardman, Esq.
          SCOTT & SCOTT, LLP
          707 Broadway, Suite 1000
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 233 4565
          Facsimile: (619) 233 0508
          E-mail: tboardman@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          George A. Zelcs, Esq.
          KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
          205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 1950
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 641 9750
          Facsimile: (312) 641 9751
          E-mail: gzelcs@koreintillery.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Penny Shane, Esq.
          Stephen Ehrenberg, Esq.
          SULLIVAN AND CROMWELL, LLP(NYC)
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 558 4837
          Facsimile: (212) 558 3360
          E-mail: shanep@sullcrom.com
                  ehrenbergs@sullcrom.com

               - and -

          Robert Y. Sperling, Esq.
          Susannah P. Torpey, Esq.
          Elizabeth P Papez, Esq.
          Joseph Laurence Motto, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP (IL)
          35 West Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 558 5600
          Facsimile: (312) 558 5700
          E-mail: rsperling@winston.com
                  storpey@winston.com
                  epapez@winston.com
                  jmotto@winston.com

               - and -

          Stephen Jay Senderowitz, Esq.
          John Richard Kastl, Esq.
          Rachel Marie Cannon, Esq.
          DENTONS US LLP
          233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 5900
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 876 8000
          E-mail: stephen.senderowitz@dentons.com
                  john.kastl@dentons.com
                  rachel.cannon@dentons.com


BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Rock Capital Markets Suit Goes to S.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Rock Capital Markets, LLC v. Bank
of Nova Scotia, New York Agency et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-08859,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (Foley Square). The Southern District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-10117-PGG to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly violated the
Commodity Exchange Act and Sherman Act.

The Bank of Nova Scotia provides financial services in North
America, Latin America, the Caribbean and Central America, and
parts of Asia. The company serves 23 million customers through a
range of advice, products and services, including personal and
commercial banking, wealth management and private banking,
corporate and investment banking and capital markets. The bank is
headquartered in Halifax, Canada.  The Lead case is 1:15-md-02673-
PGG

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony F. Fata, Esq.
          CAFFERTY FAUCHER LLP
          30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 3200
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 782 4880
          Facsimile: (312) 782 4485
          E-mail: afata@caffertyclobes.com

               - and -

          Daniel O. Herrera, Esq.
          CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
          150 South Wacker Drive, Suite 3000
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 782 4880
          E-mail: dherrera@caffertyclobes.com

               - and -

          Jennifer Winter Sprengel, Esq.
          CAFFERTY FAUCHER LLP
          30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 3200
          Chicago, IL 60602

The Defendants are represented by:

          Robert G. Houck, Esq.
          David J. Yeres, Esq.
          John D. Friel, Esq.
          CLIFFORD CHANCE US, LLP
          31 West 52nd Street
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 878 3224
          Facsimile: (212) 878 8375
          E-mail: robert.houck@cliffordchance.com
                  david.yeres@cliffordchance.com
                  john.friel@cliffordchance.com

               - and -

          Jay B. Kasner, Esq.
          Paul Madison Eckles, Esq.
          Shepard Goldfein, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          Four Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 735 3000
          Facsimile: (212) 735 2000
          E-mail: jkasner@skadden.com
                  pmeckles@skadden.com
                  sgoldfei@skadden.com

               - and -

          Robert Y. Sperling, Esq.
          Elizabeth P Papez, Esq.
          Joseph Laurence Motto, Esq.
          Susannah P. Torpey, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          35 West Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 558 5600
          Facsimile: (312) 558 5700
          E-mail: rsperling@winston.com
                  epapez@winston.com
                  jmotto@winston.com
                  storpey@winston.com

               - and -

          Penny Shane, Esq.
          Stephen Ehrenberg, Esq.
          SULLIVAN AND CROMWELL, LLP
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 558 4837
          Facsimile: (212) 558 3360
          E-mail: shanep@sullcrom.com
                  ehrenbergs@sullcrom.com

               - and -

          Kenneth Ian Schacter, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP
          101 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10178
          Telephone: (212) 309 6815
          Facsimile: (212) 309 6001
          E-mail: kenneth.schacter@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Atto Brad Scott Karp, Esq.
          Kenneth Anthony Gallo, Esq.
          Richard A. Rosen, Esq.
          Susanna Michele Buergel, Esq.
          PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 373 2384
          Facsimile: (212) 373 2384
          E-mail: bkarp@paulweiss.com
                  kgallo@paulweiss.com
                  rrosen@paulweiss.com
                  sbuergel@paulweiss.com

               - and -

          Pamela Addison Miller, Esq.
          Edward Nathaniel Moss, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP
          7 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 326 2088
          Facsimile: (212) 326 2061
          E-mail: pmiller@omm.com
                  emoss@omm.com


BAXTERS CANADA: Recalls Tomato Soup Products
--------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 14, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Notification
Subcategory: Chemical
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Baxters Canada Inc.
Distribution: National
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10197

  Brand     Common       Size    Code(s) on             UPC
  name      name         ----    product                ---
  -----     ------               ----------
  Aylmer    Tomato Soup  284 ml  BB/MA 2017 AL 29       0 61202 -
                                 EST 142 8 7 7 15 119   02120 0
                                 (only time stamps
                                 from 13:58 up to and
                                 including 16:05)


BECKMAN COULTER: Recalls Coulter S-Cal Calibrator Kits
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 14, 2015
Posting date: January 18, 2016
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-56676

Beckman Coulter has received an increased number of customer
complaints observed after S-CAL calibration on the UniCel DxH 800
and DxH 600 Coulter Cellular Analysis Systems, and the COULTER LH
750 and LH 780 Hematology Systems. Customers have reported a
variety of issues during calibration, including: an increase in
H&H check messages, low MCH recover in XB, and low MCHC recovery
in XB. These issues are not observed with all analyzers.

Affected products:
A. COULTER S-CAL CALIBRATOR KITS
Lot or serial number: 113160280 to 113160390
                      4770-4781
Model or catalog number: 179310
                         624519
                         628026

Manufacturer: Beckman Coulter Inc.
              250 S. Kraemer Blvd.
              92821
              UNITED STATES


BECTON DICKINSON: Recalls Tube Products Due to False EDTA
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 4, 2015
Posting date: December 24, 2015
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-56466

The product has the potential to contain the incorrect
(ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid) EDTA additive volume. Various
amounts of EDTA additive in the tubes may lead to platelet
clumping and clotting of the blood sample. Platelet clumping
causes false reduction of platelet counts, the possible
consequences of false reduction of platelet counts are erroneous
results and specimen rejection. In the event that the clinician
acts upon the erroneous results, this could lead to unnecessary
platelet transfusion, hematologic work up including bone marrow
biopsy, steroid therapy, splenectomy etc.

Affected products:
A. TUBE SPC EDTA PLH 13X75 3.0 PLBL TAN SP
Lot or serial number: 5064684
Model or catalog number: 367855

Manufacturer: Becton Dickinson and Company
              1 Becton Drive
              Franklin Lakes
              07417
              New Jersey
              UNITED STATES


BEDESSEE IMPORT: Recalls Malted Chocolate Drink Due to Milk
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 8, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Bedessee Import Ltd.
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10220

  Brand     Common     Size    Code(s) on     UPC
  name      name       ----    product        ---
  -----     ------             ----------
  Ovaltine  Malted     400 g   All codes     7 612100 054345
            Chocolate          where milk
            Drink Mix          is not
                               declared on
                               the label.


BENLAN INC: Recalls MED-RX Wound Management Kits
------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 10, 2015
Posting date: January 7, 2016
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-56540

A single damaged case of product returned from the sterilizer,
unsterilized, and was inadvertently placed into distribution

Affected products
A. MED-RX WOUND MANAGEMENT KIT
Lot or serial number: 118395
Model or catalog number: 85-4411

Manufacturer: Benlan Inc.
              2760 Brighton Road
              Oakville
              L6H 5T4
              CANADA


BERKS PACKING: Recalls Beef Products Due to Pork and Erythorbate
----------------------------------------------------------------
Berks Packing Co., a Reading, Pa. establishment, is recalling
approximately 1,320 pounds of beef products that may be
misbranded, and may contain pork and erythorbate, an additive, the
U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS) announced.

The beef knockwurst links were produced on Nov. 12, 2015. The
following products are subject to recall:

  --- 1-lb. (plastic shrink wrapped) packages containing links of
      "BERKS Heat & Serve Knockwurst."

The packages have a sell by date of March 11, 2016 printed on the
package.

The products subject to recall bear establishment number "EST.
8782" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items were shipped
to retail locations in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, New
York, West Virginia, Virginia, and Delaware.

The problem was discovered by company personnel who learned of the
incorrect labels being applied to the product and notified FSIS
inspectors.

There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to
consumption of these products. FSIS has received no additional
reports of injury or illness from consumption of these products.
Anyone concerned about an injury or illness should contact a
healthcare provider.

Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to
consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to
the place of purchase.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.


BIL-JIM CONSTRUCTION: "Wall" Suit Moved to New Jersey Dist. Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Wall et al. v. Bil-Jim
Construction Co., Inc. et al., Case No. MID-L6671-15, was removed
from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, to the
U.S. District Court for the District New Jersey (Trenton). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-08982-PGS-TJB to
the proceeding.

Bil Jim Construction was founded and is based in Jackson, New
Jersey. The Company's line of business includes highway and street
construction.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paul A. Digiorgio, Esq.
          KEEFE BARTELS, LLC
          170 Monmouth St.
          Red Bank, NJ 07701
          Telephone: (732) 224 9400
          Facsimile: (732) 224 9494

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christopher S. Porrino, Esq.
          LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP
          6 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 597 2500
          Facsimile: (973) 597 2400
          E-mail: cporrino@lowenstein.com

               - and -

          Peter Matthew Slocum
          LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP
          65 Livingston Avenue
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 422 6708
          Facsimile: (973) 422 6709
          E-mail: pslocum@lowenstein.com

               - and -

          Ronald L. Tobia, Esq.
          Jill Tobia Sorger, Esq.
          Michael A. De Marco, Esq.
          TOBIA & SORGER ESQS., LLC
          500 Supor Boulevard
          Harrison, NJ 07029
          Telephone:(973) 932 1577
          E-mail: jsorger@tobiasorger.com
                  jsorger@tobiasorger.com
                  mdemarco@tobiasorger.com


BLUE BUFFALO: Promises $32MM to Settle False Advertising Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Weinstein and Tiffany Woo, writing for The National Law
Review, report that pet-food maker Blue Buffalo will pay $32
million to settle 13 consumer class action suits, the company has
announced.

The 13 class actions -- which pet owners originally filed in
California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana,
Massachusetts, Missouri, New York, Ohio, and South Carolina
federal courts -- were consolidated in the Eastern District of
Missouri in October 2014.  The consolidated action centers on Blue
Buffalo's "True Blue Promise" labels, which allegedly appeared on
all Blue Buffalo products.  Blue Buffalo's True Blue Promise was
that its brand of pet food contains "Only the Finest Natural
Ingredients," with real meat first ingredients, "NO Chicken or
Poultry By-Product Meals," "NO Corn, Wheat or Soy," and "NO
Artificial Preservatives, Colors or Flavors."

These True Blue Promise claims were allegedly restated on the
front and back labels of every Blue Buffalo product and in other
Blue Buffalo promotional materials. The class action plaintiffs
also asserted that they paid a higher price for Blue Buffalo's
products because of the True Blue Promise.

But according to the class action plaintiffs, independent tests
showed that some Blue Buffalo products did, in fact, contain
chicken and poultry by-products.  In addition, the tests indicated
the presence of rice and corn in some products, including products
from Blue Buffalo's "Wilderness" and "Freedom" product lines,
which were advertised as being grain-free.

Blue Buffalo denied any wrongdoing in entering into the
settlement, stating that it agreed to the settlement to eliminate
the uncertainties, burden and expense of further litigation. Under
the terms of the deal, Blue Buffalo will pay the $32 million into
a settlement fund.  From this fund, Blue Buffalo will pay its
class member customers an amount of money based on the number of
Blue Buffalo products they purchased during the class period, and
subject to certain conditions.  Attorneys' fees and costs will
also be paid from the settlement fund.  The court has given the
settlement agreement preliminary approval, and will hold a
fairness hearing on May 19, 2016.  At that time, the court will
decide whether to give the settlement final approval.

This case serves as a cautionary reminder of the potential
liabilities of false advertising class actions. Nestle Purina, a
competing pet food maker, commented that this $32 million
settlement is the largest pet food class action settlement ever.
In May 2014, Nestle Purina filed a false advertising lawsuit
against Blue Buffalo on the basis of similar claims.  That
separate false advertising case against Blue Buffalo is ongoing
before the same judge who presided over the consolidated consumer
class actions, Judge Rodney W. Sippel.


BMW: "Kelley" Suit Moved from C.D. California to New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Gurdip Kelley v. BMW of North
America, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-09721, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark). The
Central District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-00403 to
the proceeding.

BMW of North America engages in the marketing and sale of BMW
brand motor vehicles, including motorcycles, the MINI brand, and
the Rolls-Royce brand of motor cars in the United States and
internationally. It manufactures sports activity vehicles;
provides creative consulting services; and offers leasing, retail,
and commercial financing and banking products. The company was
founded in 1975 and is headquartered in Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey
with a technology office in Silicon Valley, California; and a
manufacturing facility in Spartanburg, South Carolina. It also has
studios in Los Angeles, California; Munich, Germany; Singapore;
and Shanghai, China.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Farfhid Shawn Azizollahi, Esq.
          Gary S Brotman, Esq.
          Poya Ghasri, Esq.
          MARQUEE LAW GROUP, APC
          9100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 445
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 275 1844
          Facsimile: (310) 275 1801

               - and -

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          Citigroup Center
          153 E. 53rd Street
          New York, NY 10022-4675
          Telephone: (212) 446 4900

The Defendant is represented by:

          Eric Y Kizirian, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD AND SMITH LLP
          633 West 5th Street Suite 4000
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 250 1800
          Facsimile: (213) 250 7900


BRP US: Recalls Evinrude(R) Outboards Engines Due to Injury Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 7, 2015
Posting date: December 7, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Outdoor Living
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-56136

This recall involves Evinrude(R) E-TEC(R) G2 74 degrees  V6 (3.4
L) Outboards Engines with 200 to 300 horsepower (HP).

The following Evinrude(R) E-TEC(R) G2 74 degrees V6 (3.4 L)
outboard engines model numbers are affected:

  200 H.O.   225HP     225 H.O.   250HP    250 H.O.   300 HP
  --------   -----     --------   -----    --------   ------
  E200LHO    E225X     E225LHO    E250X    E250LHO    E300LU
  E200LH     E225XC    E225LH     E250XC   E250LH     E300XU
  E200XH     E225XH    E250Z      E250XH   E300ZU
  E200XHC    E225XCH   E250ZC     E250XCH  E300ZCU
  A200XHC    A250XC    A300XCU
             A300ZCU

The following serial numbers are affected: 5420001 through
5448220.

The two T45 pipe plugs on the outboard's stern and swivel assembly
were not sufficiently tightened and can loosen, potentially
creating the loss of hydraulic steering fluid. In some
circumstances, this situation may result in a loss of steering
control and possibly cause serious injuries or even death.

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

Three hundred and thirty three Evinrude(R) E-TEC(R) G2 74ø V6 (3.4
L) Outboards were sold in Canada.

The recalled products were sold from October 2014 to November
2015.

Manufactured in the United States.

Manufacturer: BRP US Inc.
              10100 Science Drive,
              Sturtevant
              Wisconsin
              UNITED STATES

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled outboards and
call an authorized Evinrude/Johnson dealer to make an appointment
to have their outboard serviced. The dealer will tighten the two
T45 pipe plugs and complete a steering system leak test. The
service will be performed at no charge to the consumer.

Consumers can visit www.evinrude.com or call 1-844- 345-4277 if
they have questions, need assistance, want to report any
difficulty in obtaining repairs or to find the nearest authorized
Evinrude/Johnson dealer.

Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits
recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given
away in Canada.

Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health
or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any
other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer
Product Incident Report Form.

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


CALIFORNIA: Four Counties Sued Over Cost of Jail Calls
------------------------------------------------------
Brett Kelman, writing for The Desert Sun, reports that a class
action lawsuit was filed against Riverside, Los Angeles, San
Bernardino and Orange counties over jail call "kickbacks".

On a quiet on Jan. 28 in the Norco suburbs, a cell phone rumbles
to life on a dining room table in the humble home of Lou and Dana
Kaelin.  The voice on the line is that of their son, Todd.

"Hey Toddy!" shouts Dana, jubilant, as she answers.

This call, like hundreds of others, comes from the Banning jail,
where Todd Kaelin is serving a 9-year sentence for drug
convictions.  He phones his parents two to three times a week, and
the calls are his best link to the outside world.  When prison
life is at its bleakest, a voice on the phone gives him hope.

But the calls cost money too, and the Kaelins insist the price is
far too high.  Each year, they spends hundreds of dollars to stay
in touch with their son.  The Kaelins claim that phone companies
have gouged them with high rates and frivolous fees for years, and
the county government does not care because it gets a cut of the
jail calls' profits.

"They do it because they can get away with it, and it's a good way
to make money," said Lou Kaelin, 71, a retired phone company
technician.  "That's the only purpose for it.  These people are
making money off of us."

The Kaelins are plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit that
challenges the cost of jail calls in four Southern California
counties -- Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange and Los Angeles --
and will soon add a fifth, Ventura.  In each of these counties,
plaintiffs claim that phone companies are paying local governments
to turn a blind eye to unjustifiable call prices in county jails.
Counties control the jail call contracts, and they could slash the
cost of calls if they were willing to forego millions in revenue.
Instead, the cost stays high, and the brunt of that expense falls
to the friends and family of inmates, like Lou and Dana Kaelin.

"It doesn't smell right," said attorney Scott Rapkin, who
represents the Kaelins in the lawsuit.  "These counties are
literally making millions of dollars off of predominately African
American and Latino families, who are low income, and many people
with disabilities.  We can expect that from a corporation, but for
a county to allow it to go on -- especially in light of
overwhelming evidence that staying in contact with loved ones is
critical to recidivism rates -- makes this really unconscionable."

The class-action lawsuit was filed in federal court at a time when
momentum is swinging towards jail call reform.  California and
several other states have lowered call costs in their prisons by
barring prisons from accepting payments from phone companies.  The
Federal Communications Commission has ordered county jails to cap
rates and reduce fees by June.

But the lawsuit seeks to go farther. If successful, millions will
be refunded to families who have emptied their wallets to pay for
jail calls, and phone companies will no longer be allowed to pay
counties to get exclusive contracts.  Companies call these
payments "commissions," but critics refer to them by a different
name -- "kickbacks."

"It's graft," Lou Kaelin said.  "Any time a private enterprise
pays a government to work for them, its bribery.  That's the
definition of bribery."

Regardless of what you call it, it's the status quo in Riverside
County.

For years, Riverside County's jail calls were handled by Global
Tel*Link, or GTL, the nation's largest prison phone company.  GTL
charged about 10 cents per minute for a majority of jailhouse
calls, but made most of its money in "connection charges," which
lumped a $2 fee on the front of every call.

In return for this exclusive contract, GTL paid the county at
least $2 million a year. The deal stood from 2008 until last July,
when another company offered to pay even more.

Securus, the nation's second-largest prison phone company, upended
GTL by offering to pay $2.5 million per year for an exclusive
contract of its own.  County leaders approved the deal, claiming
it would provide inmate phone services at the "lowest possible
cost." In reality, the Securus contract raised the per-minute cost
of inmate calls, and introduced a slew of fees. Jail calls
remained far more expensive than everyday, non-jail phone calls.

Riverside County's contracts with GTL and Securus are "egregious,
but normal" in the prison phone industry, which is worth
"billions," said Carrie Wilkinson, an expert at the Human Rights
Defense Center, an inmate advocacy nonprofit that is not involved
with the class-action lawsuit.

The companies and the counties always make money, Ms. Wilkinson
said, but everything else is negotiable.

"When these contracts are negotiated, nobody speaks for the
prisoners or their families, seeking to get them the best service
at the lowest price," Ms. Wilkinson said.  "The only people who
are negotiating were the ones who stand to make money."

Despite the debate over the cost of jailhouse calls, no answers
came from Securus or the Riverside County officials who are
responsible for the jail phone system.

The Riverside County Sheriff's Department, which runs the jails
and spends the millions paid by Securus, refused to be interviewed
for this story, insisting it would be "inappropriate" to comment
on the jailhouse calls because of the class-action lawsuit.  The
department wouldn't discuss the basics of the phone system,
despite the fact that it is in use at public facilities every day.

A similar silence came from the county's Board of Supervisors,
which approved the Securus contract with no debate or discussion
in July.  All five members of the board either declined to be
interviewed or did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
Ray Smith, a county spokesman, said the county attorney told the
supervisors to stay mute on the topic because of the lawsuit.

Securus ignored multiple requests for comment.

Riverside County deposits the millions it collects from Securus
into the Inmate Welfare Fund, a special account set aside to
benefit jailhouse programs.  This money is primarily used for
programs that benefit inmates, like the jailhouse library or
addiction treatment, but can also be used for jail maintenance.

Mr. Rapkin, the attorney in the class action lawsuit, said his
clients support the inmate welfare programs, but do not believe
they should be funded by jail calls, shunting the cost onto
inmates' friends and families.

Everyone has a stake in inmate rehabilitation, so everyone should
help pay for it, Mr. Rapkin said.

"With a $1 dollar tax on every citizen, they could raise the same
amount of money instead of putting it all on the backs of these
families," Mr. Rapkin said.  "That's what makes this so crazy. It
would be just a buck or two."

The class-action lawsuit is built on a similar argument, which
makes it unique from other suits that have challenged jail call
prices in other states.  Mr. Rapkin and other attorneys claim that
many of the phone charges levied on inmate families are
technically a local tax, and that phone companies are simply a
middle man that collect money and pass it on to county
governments.  The California Constitution establishes a very broad
definition of taxes -- basically, any money collected for a
specific government function -- and requires all local taxes to be
approved by voters.  Jail call prices have never been approved by
Riverside County voters, so if the lawsuit can prove these fees
are a tax, the charges will be illegal.  This precedent would
likely impact all California counties, even if they were not part
of the suit.

In Riverside, most of Securus' profit comes from deposit fees,
which are collected through an automated online account system. If
you want to stay in contact with an inmate, you must create an
account and deposit money.  Funds are automatically withdrawn each
time you receive a call, and when the balance dwindles, another
deposit is necessary.

Most deposits are made online, and Securus applies a $7.95
"convenience" fee each time an online deposit is made.

The company describes the fee as "up to $7.95," but during tests
by The Desert Sun, the fee was always the maximum amount, no
matter how much money was deposited. (At one point, Securus
attempted to charge a reporter $7.95 to deposit a single cent.)

That fee might seem high, but if you don't have an Internet
connection, it is even higher.

Securus charges up to $9.95 to deposit money by phone, $10.99 to
deposit a MoneyGram and $11.95 to deposit by Western Union.  The
only way to avoid fees is to mail a check.

The fees don't end there either.

If a friend or family member wants to receive jailhouse calls on a
cellphone, instead of a landline, there is an additional fee of
$3.99 per month.  If relatives accept any out-of-state calls,
Securus tacks on an additional 5 percent fee, plus another $3.49
per month. If an inmate leaves you a voicemail, that's another
$1.95.

Finally, a 4 percent "location validation fee" is added to all
jailhouse calls.  Securus tracks the location of anyone who
receives an inmate call, then bills the recipient to offset the
cost of tracking.

All of these fees are added to the cost of the actual phone calls.
Pre-paid local calls cost 14 cents per minute. Interstate calls
are 20 cents per minute.  International calls range from 25 cents
to 54 cents per minute.

Soon, however, that could all change.  The FCC order that takes
effect this summer will cap the price of nearly most jailhouse
calls at 16 cents per minute. Deposit fees will be limited at $3
for online service and $6 for phone service.  All other fees will
be forbidden.

Phone companies are expected to challenge the FCC order in court,
but if the order stands, Securus will be forced to re-write its
prices in local jails.

It is unclear what will happen to the money the company has
promised to Riverside County.  Based on its current contract,
Securus has guaranteed the county at least $12.5 million over the
next five years, but now that money could be jeopardized.

"My guess is that they don't have a plan," said Mr. Rapkin, the
Kaelins' attorney. "None of these counties do.  They never
expected this was going to happen."


CALIFORNIA: Judge Approves State Fire Fee Class Action Motion
-------------------------------------------------------------
Idyllwild Town Crier reports that on Jan. 22, Judge Shelleyanne
W.L. Chang of the Sacramento Superior Court granted the Howard
Jarvis Taxpayers' Association's motion to notice a class of
litigants pursuing the overturn of the state's SRA Fire Fee.

"We now have the judge's approval of the Class Notice's contents
and the ways it will be publicized," HJTA wrote in an email on
Jan. 22.  "This is an important step in the class action because,
once notice is given and the time has passed for people to opt
out, everyone who has not opted out will be a plaintiff in our
lawsuit and therefore entitled to a refund if we win.

The official notification process has begun, HJTA added.

In August, the judge issued an order granting HJTA's motion to
establish a class-action suit.  Now HJTA can begin to notify
property owners of their possible benefit if the litigation is
successful.

The court certified the class as"[o]wners of property with
habitable structures thereon, whose property has been designated
part of the State Responsibility Area, who have paid the fire-
prevention fee imposed by disputed ABX1-29, and who completed and
timely submitted to [respondent] Cal Fire a Petition for
Redetermination disputing the validity of the fee."


CALKINS & BURKE: Recalls Crushed Pineapple Products
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 14, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Notification
Subcategory: Chemical
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Calkins & Burke Ltd.
Distribution: Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10216

  Brand       Common      Size    Code(s) on     UPC
  name        name        ----    product        ---
  -----       ------              ----------
  Best Value  Crushed     540 ml  CRU VT 141111  7 71212 88498 5
              Pineapple           BB/MA : 2017
              in                  NO 11
              Pineapple
              Juice


CAMPBELL-EWALD: Sup. Court Addresses Class Action Mootness Issue
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas E.L. Dewey, writing for Law.com, reports that on Jan. 20,
2016, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in Campbell-
Ewald Co. v. Gomez.  The court effectively denied the defendant-
petitioner, and other corporations seeking to avoid class action
lawsuits, the ability to moot an entire class action case by
making a settlement offer that satisfies the named plaintiff's
claim.

An opposite result would have significantly affected individuals'
ability to gather and form a class action.  Such a result would
have provided defendants with the ability to approach the named
plaintiff with a total settlement -- potentially before the named
plaintiff may have had the opportunity to move for class
certification -- and moot the entire action in one fell swoop,
even if the plaintiff did not accept the offer.  This is striking
when the relatively small-scale facts of Campbell are considered:
in Campbell, the court had to consider whether an offer to settle
for the maximum statutory amount of $1,500 per unwanted text
message (of which there was only one such text message sent to
Gomez), plus court costs, meant that no "case" or "controversy"
existed to satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of Article III
of the Constitution.

However, the result also comes with an unnerving suggestion for
defendants that in certain such circumstances, and despite
complete offers to settle, litigation may be unavoidable.  As
stated in the amicus brief from The Chamber of Commerce of the
United States of America and Business Roundtable:

Defendants often make full settlement offers because they believe
that fully compensating the plaintiff will resolve the litigation.
But if the plaintiff purports to represent a class, and the
putative class claims continue to exist despite a full settlement
with the putative representative, defendants have little incentive
to make such offers, even if they would serve everyone's interest.

Settlement Offer and Decision

The U.S. Navy contracted with an advertising and marketing
communications company to send text messages as part of a
recruitment campaign.  The concept was that the text message would
be sent to individuals who had opted in to receive the messages
and who were between the ages of 18 and 24 years old.  Over
100,000 cellular numbers received the Navy's message.  In part,
the text read "Destined for something big? Do it in the Navy."

One of these messages was sent to the named plaintiff in this
case, Jose Gomez.  Mr. Gomez alleged that he had not agreed to
receive this message and that he was clearly out of the desired
age bracket -- Mr. Gomez was nearly 40 years old when he received
the message.  Mr. Gomez filed a class action complaint, alleging
that the company had violated the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act (TCPA), which prohibits such blanket text messages being sent
to cellular telephones without the recipient's consent.  Mr. Gomez
sought treble statutory damages (permitted if the defendant
willfully or knowingly violated the TCPA), attorney fees, costs
and an injunction against the company.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68, the company
proposed to settle Gomez's individual claim by filing an offer of
judgment in an amount that would have settled Mr. Gomez's personal
treble-damages claim ($1,503 per message).  Mr. Gomez chose not to
accept the offer and allowed the offer to lapse after the
prescribed 14-day period, per the time limit stated in Federal
Rule 68. Federal Rule 68(a) states that:

At least 14 days before the date set for trial, a party defending
against a claim may serve on an opposing party an offer to allow
judgment on specified terms, with the costs then accrued.  If,
within 14 days after being served, the opposing party serves
written notice accepting the offer, either party may then file the
offer and notice of acceptance, plus proof of service.  The clerk
must then enter judgment.

The company then moved to dismiss the case.  It argued, inter
alia, that the offer had mooted Gomez's individual claim because
it provided him with complete relief.  Therefore, no Article III
case or controversy remained.  The company also argued that
because Gomez's individual claim became moot before Gomez had
moved for class certification, the putative class claims were
mooted as well.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the court,
which held that Mr. Gomez's claim was not mooted by the settlement
offer.  Rather, the court held that the unaccepted offer had no
force -- the company's settlement offer remaining "only a
proposal, binding neither Campbell nor Mr. Gomez . . . In short,
with no settlement offer still operative, the parties remained
adverse; both retained the same stake in the litigation they had
at the outset."4

In doing so, the court adopted the analysis within Justice Elena
Kagan's dissent in Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk,5 (with
whom Justice Ginsburg, Justice Stephen Breyer and Justice Sonia
Sotomayor joined):

When a plaintiff rejects such an offer -- however good the terms
-- her interest in the lawsuit remains just what it was before.
And so too does the court's ability to grant her relief.  An
unaccepted settlement offer--like any unaccepted contract offer--
is a legal nullity, with no operative effect.  As every first-year
law student learns, the recipient's rejection of an offer "leaves
the matter as if no offer had ever been made" . . . Nothing in
Rule 68 alters that basic principle.

The court also observed that Federal Rule 68 itself does not
support a finding that an unaccepted settlement offer, that would
otherwise have satisfied the named plaintiff's individual claims,
should moot the plaintiff's complaint.  For instance, the rule
provides that offers are "considered withdrawn" if not accepted
within 14 days and includes "[t]he sole built-in sanction" that
the offeree must pay the costs incurred after the offer was made
if the ultimate judgment is not more favorable than the unaccepted
offer.6

The extent to which the company's settlement offer signaled a
potentially significant strategic tool against class actions is
demonstrated within Justice Ginsburg's decision.  To this end,
Ginsburg stated that the company's true aim was "to avoid a
potential adverse decision, one that could expose it to damages a
thousand-fold larger than the bid Gomez declined to accept."7

However, the decision of the court has potentially left the door
ajar for future defendants looking to frustrate potential class
action claims by proposing to settle the named plaintiff's claim
in its entirety.  This is because the court did not go as far as
to decide the hypothetical of "whether the result would be
different if a defendant deposits the full amount of the
plaintiff's individual claim in an account payable to the
plaintiff, and the court then enters judgment for the plaintiff in
that amount."  Instead, the court held that this question should
be reserved for a case in which that scenario is in issue -- and
no doubt a class-action defendant will come knocking at this
hypothetical's door soon.  Indeed, The chief justice's dissent
welcomed this caveat, stating that "[t]he good news is that this
case is limited to its facts."

The Dissents

Chief Justice John Roberts authored a dissent, with which Justice
Antonin Scalia and Justice Samuel Alito joined.

The dissent would have held that no case or controversy existed
for the purpose of Article III when a defendant agrees to fully
redress the injury that the plaintiff complained of.  The dissent
argued that a finding that Gomez's claim was not moot would give
plaintiffs the power to decide whether federal litigation is
necessary -- a power that should properly be in the hands of the
federal court.  The dissent explicitly highlighted that it is "an
important constitutional principle" that "[t]he agreement of the
plaintiff is not required to moot a case."

To this end, Chief Justice Roberts opined that the focus should
not be on the contractual nature of an offer to settle but,
instead, the focus should be on the "essential purpose" of Article
III, which is to ensure "that the federal courts expound the law
only in the last resort, and as a necessity."

Justice Ginsburg addressed this portion of the chief justice's
dissent, stating--to the contrary--that to allow the company to
avoid a potentially adverse decision by making such an offer would
in fact place the defendant, not the plaintiff or the federal
court, "in the driver's seat."  Justice Ginsburg argued that it
was Campbell that was strategically attempting to avoid an adverse
decision, and the associated damages, by making a full settlement
offer to Gomez for a relatively modest amount.

Justice Alito submitted a separate dissent underlining the risk to
plaintiffs of defendants who make such offers but who fail to
follow through -- leaving the plaintiff "forever emptyhanded."
He also observed that, in such a scenario, placing the burden on
the plaintiff to move to reopen the dismissed case was an
unattractive remedy.  Rather, Justice Alito suggested two
potential procedures that would serve to avoid a plaintiff being
left high and dry: The defendant could just pay over the money;
or, alternatively, the defendant could deposit the money in the
district court or with another trusted intermediary to be released
when the court dismisses the case as moot.  Thus, Justice Alito
reiterated that the door for defendants to moot a plaintiff's
claim with an offer to settle is open for the simple reason that
Justice Ginsburg's decision "does not prevent a defendant who
actually pays complete relief--either directly to the plaintiff or
to a trusted intermediary--from seeking dismissal on mootness
grounds."

This hurdle is not very high, and such a settlement proposition
with payment will surely threaten class-action lawsuits in the
future.


CANADIAN FOOTBALL: Families of Ex-Players Join Concussions Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gord Holder, writing for Ottawa Citizen, reports that families of
two former Ottawa Rough Riders and another retired Canadian
Football League player who is now a clinical psychologist have
joined a class-action lawsuit against the CFL and others over
concussions and brain trauma.

Gary Schreider was a Rough Riders linebacker, running back and
kicker from 1956-61 and 1963-64, sandwiched around 1962 stints
with the B.C. Lions and Hamilton Tiger-Cats, while Dennis Duncan
was an Ottawa running back in 1971 after three seasons with the
Montreal Alouettes.

Mike Webster, a lineman for the Lions in 1966 and the Alouettes in
1967-70, has also joined the class action that previously included
Korey Banks, Eric Allen, Alondra Johnson and the family of Rod
Woodward.

The lawsuit seeks $200 million in damages for all former CFL
players who have participated in practices and games since 1952.
It claims the CFL, its teams, former commissioner Mark Cohon,
brain-injury specialist Dr. Charles Tator and the Krembil
Neuroscience Centre of Toronto knew or should have known about the
long-term risk of brain injury resulting from concussive and sub-
concussive blows.

Those claims have not been tested or proven in court.

Schreider died in January 2011 at the age of 76, several years
after he was nudged into retirement as a master of Ontario
Superior Court. His son, Gary Schreider Jr., said the man who was
the first CFL Players' Association president had displayed
increasingly severe symptoms of brain-related problems starting in
his mid to late 50s.

The younger Schreider said he and his mother contacted Robyn
Wishart, a Vancouver lawyer representing the class-action
participants as well as former CFL receiver Arland Bruce in
another concussion-related lawsuit, after reading an Ottawa
Citizen story about Woodward in December.

"The motivation is getting the message out and to help (former)
players that are suffering through this, to get the message out
there because I think this was basically hidden from players for
the longest time," Schreider said. "So people are aware of this
when they play football and let them make their own decisions. I'm
not saying stop playing football. Just let people make their own
decisions based on what we know now."

Webster is not the Mike Webster who played with the Pittsburgh
Steelers and, after his death, was diagnosed with Chronic
Traumatic Encephalopathy. That led eventually to a class-action
lawsuit against the National Football League and a multi-million-
dollar settlement; the case was recently featured in the movie
Concussion.

"I don't really have anything to hide," former CFLer Mike Webster,
who sat between Duncan and Woodward in the locker room with the
1969 Alouettes, said.

Webster said he was diagnosed with a traumatic brain injury a year
ago after collapsing while at work at a military hospital on
Vancouver Island. He still practises, but under supervision by the
College of Psychologists of British Columbia.

"I don't care if I get a penny out of (the lawsuit)," Webster
added. "I would just like to do that for guys I played with and
against. . . . Luckily at present I'm not as severe as many of my
teammates. I've got Roddy Woodward in mind when I say that."

Woodward, who spent most of his CFL career as a defensive back and
punt returner for the Rough Riders, was recently admitted to
hospital. Wishart said the 71-year-old likely would never be
discharged and would eventually be transferred to a long-term care
facility.

The class-action proceeding is on hold pending a decision in
Bruce's lawsuit against the league, Cohon, Tator, Krembil
Neuroscience Centre and the CFL Alumni Association and its
president, Leo Ezerins.

The original judge in that case has withdrawn because of illness,
so the chief justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia will
hear a fourth day of arguments on Feb. 23. Bruce is seeking to
have his day in court, while a lawyer for Cohon and the league
argue the case should be heard by an arbitrator because CFL
players are represented by a union.

"There is no urgency for us," Schreider said of his family, "but I
do know there is plenty of urgency with other former players who
are suffering now."


CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Court Rules on Securities Suit Limitations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brian N. Radnoff, Esq. -- bradnoff@lerners.ca -- of Lerners,
reports that in Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Green,  2015
SCC 60 ("Green"), the Supreme Court of Canada ("SCC") ruled on the
limitation periods for securities class actions regarding
secondary market misrepresentation, an issue that had received
inconsistent treatment at the Ontario Court of Appeal.

In Green, a five judge panel of the Court of Appeal had reversed
its previous decision in Sharma v. Timminco, 2012 ONCA 107
("Timminco"), about how limitation periods for secondary market
class actions operate.  The majority of the SCC in Green overruled
the Court of Appeal's reconsideration of the issue, favoring the
previous approach in Timminco.

When a class proceeding is commenced, class members have the
limitation period for their cause of action suspended under the
Class Proceedings Act, 1992 ("Class Proceedings Act") while the
certification motion is pending.  This allows class members to
wait and see whether the class proceeding will be approved and
whether they would be better off opting out and pursuing an
individual action.  The issue on this appeal was at what point
limitation periods are suspended for secondary market claims under
Ontario's Securities Act, given that such claims require leave
under the Act before they can proceed.

The majority decision by the SCC in Green held that on both a
plain reading and a purposive reading of the legislation, the
limitation period was not suspended under the Class Proceedings
Act until leave for the secondary market claim was granted.  This
interpretation was determined by the majority to strike the right
balance between the two statutes and their respective purposes.

The implication is that leave to bring the secondary market claim
must be obtained within two years of the claim being discovered.
Merely commencing the action to obtain leave is not sufficient to
suspend the limitation period under the Class Proceedings Act.  As
a practical matter, this would require class counsel to move
relatively quickly to obtain leave, likely before a certification
motion could be brought, despite the fact there would normally be
significant overlap between the issues on the leave motion and
those on the certification motion.

The SCC dissent in Green, on the other hand, sided with the
Ontario Court of Appeal's reconsideration of the issue,
interpreting the Class Proceedings Act as suspending the
limitation period at the time the claim is commenced, before leave
is obtained.

The language of the Class Proceedings Act states that the
limitation period is suspended "on the commencement of the class
proceeding".  As is evident from the different views expressed by
the panels considering the legislation, the proper interpretation
was not obvious.  Both the majority and the dissent in the SCC
viewed their own interpretation as consistent with a plain reading
of the statutes as well as their respective purposes.  Given the
possible interpretations, it is interesting that the SCC
ultimately decided in favor of the Ontario Court of Appeal's
original interpretation in Timminco, in spite of criticism that
decision attracted.

Notably, before the SCC released its decision in Green, the
Ontario legislature made amendments so the limitations period
under the Securities Act that governed these claims would be
suspended when a notice of motion for leave is filed.  This
provides some relief to the representative plaintiffs and class
counsel in such actions.


CANADIAN TIRE: Recalls Seasonal Lights Due to Fire Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 11, 2015
Posting date: December 11, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Household Items, Tools and Electrical Products
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fire Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-56254

This recall involves indoor and outdoor plug in decorative light
strings manufactured by Taizhou Hongpeng Colour Lanterns Co., Ltd.
or Ningbo EGO International Co. Ltd. that have been widely
distributed throughout Canada in numerous retail chains under a
wide variety of brand names. The seasonal lights include Halloween
and Christmas lights.

These products can be identified by CSA file numbers 241989 and
263917 which can usually be found on the manufacturer's product
identification label, which is a tag affixed to the wire of the
light string. These CSA file numbers are not embossed on the plug
of the light string; the numbers found on the plug relate only to
that specific plug component and are not part of this recall.

The following products are currently known to be affected by this
recall. This list is not exhaustive and may expand as more
products and importers are identified. Additionally, other
importers of Taizhou Hongpeng Colour Lanterns Co., Ltd. or Ningbo
EGO International Co. Ltd. that have already recalled seasonal
lights from these manufacturers, or are expanding existing recalls
from these manufacturers, are found at the bottom of this notice.

The following products are currently known to be affected by this
recall:

  Brand Name            Importer              CSA File Number
  ----------            --------              ---------------
  Holiday Collection    Canadian Tire         241989
                        Corporation
  Deco Lite, Ghostly    CTG Brands Inc.       263917
  Ghouls
  Danson Decor          Danson Decor Inc.     241989
  No brand name         Dollarama             241989
  In Style              Home Hardware         241989
  Santa's Studio        Link Product          263917
                        Solutions Ltd.
  No brand name         Winnie Paper Inc.     263917

Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has determined
that these lights may pose overheating, fire and electric shock
hazards.

Health Canada has received 19 reports of consumer incidents
related to the use of seasonal lights manufactured by Taizhou
Hongpeng Colour Lanterns Co., Ltd. and Ningbo Ego International
Co. Ltd.  Of those 19 incidents, four reports of shock, including
two with secondary minor burns, have been recorded along with two
reports of minor burns only.

The number sold is unknown, but products were sold at various
dollar stores, discount stores, department stores, pharmacies,
drug stores, hardware stores, home improvement stores, garden
stores and other independent retailers.

The time period sold is unknown.

Manufactured in China.

Manufacturer: Taizhou Hongpeng Colour Lanterns Co., Ltd.
              Hengjie Industrial Park
              Zhejiang
              318056
              CHINA

Manufacturer: Ningbo Ego International Co. Ltd.
              3/F, No.168 East Road Songjiang, Yinzhou Area,
              Ningbo
              Zhejiang
              315100
              CHINA

Importer: Canadian Tire Corporation, Limited
          Toronto
          Ontario
          CANADA

Importer: CTG Brands Inc.
          Vaughan
          Ontario
          CANADA

Importer: Danson Decor Inc.
          St. Laurent
          Quebec
          CANADA

Importer: Dollarama L.P/S.E.C.
          Montreal
          Quebec
          CANADA

Importer: Home Hardware Stores Ltd.
          St. Jacobs
          Ontario
          CANADA

Importer: Link Product Solutions Limited
          Concord
          Ontario
          CANADA

Importer: Winnie Paper Inc.
          Montreal
          Quebec
          CANADA

Consumers should check all seasonal lights and their
manufacturer's product identification label for the CSA file
numbers 241989 and 263917. The Manufacturer's Product
Identification label is typically attached to one end of a string
of lights. If your lights have either of these CSA numbers you
should stop using these products immediately. Affected products
cannot be identified solely by product or brand names.

Consumers should return these specific products to the place where
they were purchased. If there is a recall notice for your specific
product noted below, then please follow the directions in that
notice.

Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits
recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given
away in Canada.

Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health
or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any
other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer
Product Incident Report Form.


CHEESE BOUTIQUE: Recalls Butternut Squash Ravioli Due to Tree Nut
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 11, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Tree Nut
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Cheese Boutique, Legacy Distributors Inc., Les
importations Papille, Salt Gourmet Foods Inc.
Distribution: Ontario, Possibly National, Quebec
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10181

Industry is recalling Bertagni brand Triangoli with Butternut
Squash and Sweet Butternut Squash Ravioli from the marketplace
because they may contain almonds and cashews which are not
declared on the label. People with an allergy to almonds or
cashews 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 almonds or cashews, 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 a recall in another country. 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 products
from the marketplace.

  Brand      Common      Size    Code(s) on    UPC
  name       name        ----    product       ---
  -----      ------              ----------
  Bertagni   Triangoli   250 g   Codes         8 006013 994147
             with                containing:
             Butternut           518B
             Squash              526A
                                 528B
                                 534D
  Bertagni   Sweet       250 g   Codes         8 001020 110139
             Butternut           containing:
             Squash              508C
             Ravioli

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/C3Ps5x


CHRYSLER: Recalls Fiat 500 Models with Automatic Transmissions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 4, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Service Campaign Mfr
System: Lights And Instruments
Units affected: 17516
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015578TC
ID number: 2015578
Manufacturer recall number: R48

Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) Canada is conducting a voluntary
Customer Satisfaction Notification Program involving certain
vehicles equipped with automatic transmissions. Fiat Chrysler
Automobiles (FCA) will update the Powertrain Control Module
software to improve activation timing of the backup lamps. This
updated software will turn the backup lamps on earlier, indicating
to other road users that the driver has selected reverse gear.
This action is not being conducted under the requirements of the
Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

  Make     Model    Model year(s) affected
  ----     -----    ----------------------
  FIAT     500      2012, 2013, 2014, 2015


COMBE INC: Faces Class Action Over Defective Hair Product
---------------------------------------------------------
Molly English-Bowers, writing for Madison Record, reports that a
large group of men and women from across the United States are
suing the manufacturers of a hair care product, alleging they have
suffered injuries and severe reactions when using the product.

More than 100 plaintiffs filed the lawsuit Jan. 8. in St. Clair
County Circuit Court against Combe Incorporated, Combe Products
Inc., Combe Manufacturing Inc. and Combe International Ltd.,
alleging strict liability, negligence, breach of warranty,
negligent representation and fraud.

The defendants develop, manufacture, test, promote, label and sell
the hair care products and hair dyes known as Just For Men, and
have done so since at least 1987.  According to the complaint, the
defendants failed to adequately warn against the negative effects
and risks associated with the product, even if the product was
used as directed.

The suit says the risks from prolonged and cumulative use include
burns, scarring, allergic reactions, anaphylactic shock and skin
depigmentation.

In omitting, concealing and inadequately providing safety
information regarding the product, the suit says, the defendants'
conduct is fraudulent, unfair and unlawful.

The plaintiffs seek a sum in excess of the jurisdictional
requirement of the court, court costs and other relief the court
may deem proper.  They are represented by attorneys John. J.
Driscoll and Philip Sholtz of The Driscoll Firm PC in St. Louis,
and Richard W. Schulte of Wright & Schulte LLC in Vandalia, Ohio.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 16-L-18


COOPER: Recalls 2015 Vehicles Due to Noncompliance
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 10, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Tire
Notification type: Compliance
Mfr System: Tires
Units affected: 53
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015592TC
ID number: 2015592

Certain tires may not comply with Canadian Motor Vehicle Tire
Safety Regulations. The tires may not meet the endurance test
requirements which are prescribed in the Regulations. This could
result in tire chunking and/or cracking, potentially resulting in
rapid air loss and tire failure. Correction: Dealers will replace
affected tires.

  Make       Model        Model year(s) affected
  ----       -----        ----------------------
  COOPER                  2015


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Recalls Baked Green Pea Crisps Due to Milk
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 9, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Costco Wholesale Canada Inc.
Distribution: New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec,
Newfoundland and Labrador
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10219

  Brand    Common          Size       Code(s) on  UPC
  name     name            ----       product     ---
  -----    ------                     ----------
  Calbee   Snapea Crisps-  36 x 21 g  16/APR/29   0 71146 03324 5
           Harvest Snaps-             HHMM 3S
           Low Salt -
           Green Pea
           Crisps-Baked


CUISINE KARO: Recalls Cheese Sandwich Wrap Products
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 9, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Notification
Subcategory: Microbiological - Other
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Cuisine Karo Inc.
Distribution: Ontario, Quebec
CFIA reference number: 10221

  Brand       Common         Size    Code(s) on    UPC
  name        name           ----    product       ---
  -----       ------                 ----------
  Karo        French Style   215 g   15 DE 2015    29172 05556
  Collection  Ham and
              Cheese
              Sandwich
              Wrap
  Karo        French Style   215 g    23 DE 2015   29172 05330
  Collection  Ham and
              Cheese
              Sandwich
              Wrap
  Karo        California     200 g    15 DE 2015   29172 05561
  Collection  Style Turkey
              and Cheese
              Sandwich
              Wrap
  Karo        California     200 g    24 DE 2015   29172 05337
  Collection  Style Turkey
              and Cheese
              Sandwich
              Wrap
  Karo        Delux cold     230 g    24 DE 2015   29172 05403
  fresh       submarine
  Menu        French style   200 g    01 DE 2015   29172 05970
              ham & cheese
              wrap


CUSTOM ULTRASONICS: Recalls System 83+ Products
-----------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 4, 2015
Posting date: December 22, 2015
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type I
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-56416

Custom Ultrasonics Inc. Failed to complete validations of the
Olympus Evis Exera II TJF Q180V Duodenocope processed in the
System 83 Plus and the System 83 Plus 9 washer disinfectors and
failed to complete validation of various high level disinfectants
used with the System 83 Plus 2 and System 83 Plus 9 Washer
Disinfectors.

Affected products:
A. SYSTEM 83+
Lot or serial number: More than 10 numbers, contact manufacturer.
Model or catalog number: SYSTEM 83 PLUS 2
                         SYSTEM 83 PLUS 9

Manufacturer: Custom Ultrasonics Inc.
              144 Railroad Drive
              Ivyland
              Pennsylvania
              UNITED STATES


DAKO NORTH: Recalls Dako Seymour Small Flap Slide Label Kits
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 14, 2015
Posting date: January 7, 2016
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-5654

Affected products:
A. Dako Seymour Small Flap Slide Label Kit
Lot or serial number: More than 10 numbers, contact manufacturer.
Model or catalog number: DL213
                         DL213

Manufacturer: Dako North America, Inc.
              6392 via Real
              Carpinteria
              93013
              California
              UNITED STATES


DEAN FOODS: Food Lion Fails to Obtain Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge J. Ronnie Greer in Greeneville, Tennessee, denied
the motion of plaintiffs for class certification in the case, Food
Lion, LLC, Fidel Breto, d/b/a Family Foods, On Behalf Of
Themselves And The Class Of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Dean Foods Company, Dairy Farmers Of America, Inc.,
and National Dairy Holdings, LP, Defendants, No. 2:07-CV-188 (E.D.
Tenn.).

Dean Foods Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a putative class
action antitrust complaint (the "retailer action") was filed
against Dean Foods and other milk processors on August 9, 2007 in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee. Plaintiffs allege generally that the Company, either
acting alone or in conjunction with others in the milk industry,
lessened competition in the Southeastern United States for the
sale of processed fluid Grade A milk to retail outlets and other
customers. Plaintiffs further allege that the defendants' conduct
artificially inflated wholesale prices paid by direct milk
purchasers.

In March 2012, the district court granted summary judgment in
favor of defendants, including the Company, as to all counts then
remaining. Plaintiffs appealed the district court's decision, and
in January 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment as to one of the
five original counts in the Tennessee retailer action.

Following the Sixth Circuit's denial of the Company's request to
reconsider the case en banc, the Company petitioned the Supreme
Court of the United States for review. On November 17, 2014, the
Supreme Court denied the Company's petition and the case returned
to the district court. There are now various motions and briefs
pending before the district court, including defendants' motion
for summary judgment on grounds previously raised but not yet
decided, and plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

The Court heard expert testimony on June 23-24, 2015, and heard
oral argument on September 17, 2015.

On June 29, 2009, another putative class action lawsuit was filed
in the Eastern District of Tennessee on behalf of indirect
purchasers of processed fluid Grade A milk (the "indirect
purchaser action"). This case was voluntarily dismissed, and the
same plaintiffs filed a nearly identical complaint on January 17,
2013. The allegations in this complaint are similar to those in
both the retailer action and the 2009 indirect purchaser action,
but involve only claims arising under Tennessee law. The Company
filed a motion to dismiss, and on September 11, 2014, the district
court granted in part and denied in part that motion, dismissing
the non-Tennessee plaintiffs' claims. The Company filed its answer
to the surviving claims on October 15, 2014. The parties have
jointly proposed that further proceedings (including any
discovery) in this case be deferred until after the district court
rules on the summary judgment and class certification issues in
the Tennessee retailer action.

"At this time, it is not possible for us to predict the ultimate
outcome of these matters. In addition to the pending legal
proceedings set forth above, we are party from time to time to
certain claims, litigations, audits and investigations. Potential
liabilities associated with these other matters are not expected
to have a material adverse impact on our financial position,
results of operations, or cash flows," the Company said.

A copy of the Court's Jan. 25, 2016 Memorandum Opinion and Order
is available at http://is.gd/SaMgWOfrom Leagle.com.

Fidel Breto, Plaintiff, represented by Gordon Ball, W. Gordon
Ball, Attorney at Law, Neil K Gilman, Hunton & Williams, R
Laurence Macon, Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, LLP, Richard L
Wyatt, Jr., Hunton & Williams, Ryan P Phair, Hunton & Williams,
Todd M Stenerson, Hunton & Williams, John S Martin, Hunton &
Williams, Karen K Gulde, Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, LLP &
Thomas S Scott, Jr., Scott & Cain.

Food Lion, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Michael L Converse,
Hunton & Williams, LLP, Neil K Gilman, Hunton & Williams, Richard
L Wyatt, Jr., Hunton & Williams, Ryan P Phair, Hunton & Williams,
Sofia Luina, Hunton & Williams, LLP, Wendell L Taylor, Hunton &
Williams, LLP, Doug M Garrou, Hunton & Williams, E Marie Diveley,
Hunton & Williams, Gordon Ball, W. Gordon Ball, Attorney at Law,
Hillary E Maki, Hunton & Williams, Jaffer M Abbasi, Hunton &
Williams, John S Martin, Hunton & Williams, Karen K Gulde, Akin,
Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, LLP & Michael D Meuti, Hunton &
Williams.

Dean Foods Company, Defendant, represented by Carolyn M. Hazard,
Dechert LLP, Paul T Denis, Dechert, LLP, Paul H Friedman, Dechert,
LLP, David J Stanoch, Dechert LLP, Mark S Dessauer, Hunter, Smith
& Davis, Paul D Frangie, Dechert, LLP & William C Bovender,
Hunter, Smith & Davis.

National Dairy Holdings, L.P., Defendant, represented by Jerry L
Beane, Andrews Kurth, LLP, Kay Lynn Brumbaugh, Andrews Kurth, LLP,
Steven E Kramer, Kramer, Rayson LLP, Thomas M Hale, Kramer, Rayson
LLP & Carolyn M. Hazard, Dechert LLP.

Dairy Farmers of America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Thomas J
Garland, Jr., Milligan & Coleman, Carl R Metz, Williams & Connolly
LLP, Carolyn M. Hazard, Dechert LLP, G P Gaby, Milligan & Coleman,
John E Schmidtlein, Williams & Connolly LLP, Kevin Hardy, Williams
& Connolly, Shelley J Webb, Williams & Connolly LLP, Simon A
Latcovich, Williams & Connolly LLP, Steven R Kuney, Williams &
Connolly LLP & W. Todd Miller, Baker & Miller PLLC.

Dairy Marketing Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by Thomas J
Garland, Jr., Milligan & Coleman, Carl R Metz, Williams & Connolly
LLP, Carolyn M. Hazard, Dechert LLP, G P Gaby, Milligan & Coleman,
John E Schmidtlein, Williams & Connolly LLP, Kevin Hardy, Williams
& Connolly, Shelley J Webb, Williams & Connolly LLP, Simon A
Latcovich, Williams & Connolly LLP, Steven R Kuney, Williams &
Connolly LLP & W. Todd Miller, Baker & Miller PLLC.

Southern Marketing Agency, Inc., Defendant, represented by Craig V
Gabbert, Jr., Harwell, Howard, Hyne, Gabbert & Manner, PC, Kari M
Rollins, Winston & Strawn, LLP, W Gordon Dobie, Winston & Strawn,
LLP, Carolyn M. Hazard, Dechert LLP & J David McDowell, Harwell,
Howard, Hyne, Gabbert & Manner, PC.

James Baird, Defendant, represented by Andrew T Wampler, Wilson
Worley Moore Gamble & Stout, PC, Robert L Arrington, Wilson Worley
Moore Gamble & Stout, PC & Carolyn M. Hazard, Dechert LLP.

Gary Hanman, Defendant, represented by Misty C Watt, Stinson
Morrison Hecker LLP, Richard W Pectol, Pectol & Miles, Brian R
Markley, Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP, Carolyn M. Hazard, Dechert
LLP, Daniel D Crabtree, Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP & David E
Everson, Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP.

Gerald Bos, Defendant, represented by Brandon J.B. Boulware, Rouse
Hendricks German May PC, Charles W German, Rouse Hendricks German
May PC, Bradley E Griffith, Herndon, Coleman, Brading & McKee,
Carolyn M. Hazard, Dechert LLP, Jeremy M Suhr, Rouse Hendricks
German May PC & Lawrence A Rouse, Rouse Hendricks German May PC.

Cletes Beshears, Objector, represented by Jerry L Beane, Andrews
Kurth, LLP.

Allen Meyer, Objector, represented by Jerry L Beane, Andrews
Kurth, LLP.

Tracy Noll, Objector, represented by Jerry L Beane, Andrews Kurth,
LLP.


DENVER PARENT: Trial This Year in Delaware Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Denver Parent Corporation and Venoco, Inc. said in their Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 12, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015, that trial is expected to occur in 2016 in a class action
lawsuit in Delaware.

In August  2011 Timothy  Marquez,  the then-Chairman and CEO  of
Venoco, submitted  a nonbinding  proposal  to the board  of
directors  of Venoco  to acquire  all of the shares  of Venoco  he
did not beneficially own for $12.50 per share  in cash (the
"Marquez Proposal"). As a result of that  proposal, five lawsuits
were filed in the Delaware  Court  of Chancery  in 2011 against
Venoco and each of its directors  by shareholders alleging that
Venoco  and its directors  had breached  their fiduciary duties to
the shareholders in connection with the Marquez  Proposal.

On January 16, 2012, Venoco entered into a Merger Agreement with
Mr. Marquez and certain of his affiliates pursuant to which
Venoco, Mr. Marquez and his affiliates would effect the going
private transaction. Following announcement of the Merger
Agreement, five additional suits were filed in Delaware and three
suits were filed in federal court in Colorado naming as defendants
Venoco and each of its directors.

In March 2013 the plaintiffs in Delaware filed a consolidated
amended class action complaint in which they requested that  the
court  determine among  other  things that  (i) the merger
consideration is inadequate and the Merger  Agreement was entered
into in breach  of the fiduciary duties  of the defendants and is
therefore unlawful and unenforceable and (ii) the merger  should
be rescinded  or in the alternative, the class should  be awarded
damages  to compensate them  for the loss as a resulting from of
the breach  of fiduciary duties  by the defendants. The Colorado
actions have been administratively closed pending resolution of
the Delaware case. Venoco has reviewed the allegations contained
in the amended complaint and believes they are without merit.
Trial is expected to occur in 2016.


DING HO: Recalls Cuttlefish Balls Due to Egg
--------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 11, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Egg
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Ding Ho Food Inc.
Distribution: Ontario
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10224


  Brand     Common       Size    Code(s) on    UPC
  name      name         ----    product       ---
  -----     ------               ----------
  Ding Ho   Cuttlefish   318 g   2015 DEC21    6 27590 04640 1
  Foods     Balls


DIRECTV INC: DJ's Sports Bar Suit Moved to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled D.J.'s Sports Bar, Inc. v. DirecTV
Holdings LLC et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-09050, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(Western Division - Los Angeles). The Central District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-09998-BRO-JEM to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Defendant allegedly violated and
continues to violate the Sherman Act. Plaintiff seeks to recover
damages and costs of suit sustained as a result of Defendants'
anticompetitive and unlawful conduct and to enjoin Defendants from
continuing such conduct.

DIRECTV operates as a subsidiary of DIRECTV, and is based in El
Segundo, California. The company provides direct-to-home digital
television services and multi-channel video programming
distribution (MVPD) services in the United States. It provides
access to various channels of digital-quality video entertainment
and CD-quality audio programming that are transmitted directly to
subscribers' homes or businesses via geosynchronous satellites.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amanda M Steiner, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS LLP
          601 California Street, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981 4800
          Facsimile: (415) 981 4846
          E-mail: as@girardgibbs.com


DIRECTV INC: "Lippincott" Suit Goes from N.D. to MDL 2668
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Robert Gary Lippincott, Jr. v.
DIRECTV, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-05096, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(Western Division - Los Angeles). The Central District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-09996-BRO-JEM to the proceeding.

DIRECTV operates as a subsidiary of DIRECTV, and is based in El
Segundo, California. The company provides direct-to-home digital
television services and multi-channel video programming
distribution (MVPD) services in the United States. It provides
access to various channels of digital-quality video entertainment
and CD-quality audio programming that are transmitted directly to
subscribers' homes or businesses via geosynchronous satellites.
The Lippincott case is being consolidated with MDL 2668 in re:
National Football League's "Sunday Ticket" Antitrust Litigation.
The MDL was created by order of the United States Judicial Panel
on multidistrict litigation on December 8, 2015.

These actions share complex factual questions arising out of
allegations that the NFL and DIRECTV have entered into
anticompetitive agreements granting DIRECTV the exclusive right to
broadcast certain NFL Sunday afternoon football games outside of a
viewer's local television market, in violation of federal and
state antitrust law. In Its December 9, 2015 Order, The MDL Panel
found that these actions involve common questions of fact, and
that centralization will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this
litigation. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Beverly Reid
O'Connell, United States District Judge. The lead case is 2:15-ml-
02668-BRO-JEM.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Caleb Marker, Esq.
          Bradley Christopher Buhrow, Esq.
          Brian C Gudmundson, Esq.
          Jason R Lee, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
          555 East Ocean Boulevard Suite 500
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (877) 500 8780
          Facsimile: (877) 500 8781
          E-mail: Caleb.Marker@zimmreed.com
                  brad.buhrow@zimmreed.com
                  brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com
                  jason.lee@zimmreed.com

               - and -

          Arthur M Murray, Esq.
          MURRAY LAW FIRM
          650 Poydras Street Suite 2150
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 525 8100
          Facsimile: (504) 584 5249
          E-mail: amurray@murray-lawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Melissa D Ingalls, Esq.
          Robyn Eileen Bladow, Esq.
          Tammy Ann Tsoumas, Esq.
          KIRKLAND AND ELLIS LLP
          333 South Hope Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 680 8400
          Facsimile: (213) 680 8500
          E-mail: melissa.ingalls@kirkland.com
                  robyn.bladow@kirkland.com
                  tammy.tsoumas@kirkland.com


DISH NETWORK: Judge Approves $4.75-Mil. Settlement in FCRA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reported that a New York federal judge has
granted final approval to a $4.75 million settlement in class
action lawsuit against a background check company for alleged
violations of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

U.S. District Judge Lorna G. Schofield agreed to the terms of the
class action lawsuit settlement "which ends allegations that the
background check company violated the FCRA by providing outdated
information to employers which resulted in a loss of employment."

The class action lawsuit claimed reports issued by the background
check company contained 20-year-old charges, citations, and
arrests. However, the FCRA does not allow background check reports
to contain certain information older than seven years ago.

The class action lawsuit claimed that the background check company
denied subjects of the background checks copies of their reports
upon their request in violation of the FCRA, a federal law that
regulates how background check firms use information.

The class action lawsuit is Ernst, et al. v. Dish Network LLC, et
al., Case No. 1:12-cv-08794, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York. More information about the class
action lawsuit settlement was not immediately available.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Marketing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Laura Wilcoxen, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that an
attorney for the plaintiffs in a lawsuit alleging that discount
retailer Dollar General engaged in deceptive marketing practices
says that the financial damages claimed in the suit primarily
affect low-income consumers.

In December, California resident David Sanchez filed a class
action lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California against Dolgencorp, doing business as Dollar General.

The suit states that the retail chain sells its own discounted
brand of motor oils, labeled "DG," alongside higher-priced
standard and premium oils while failing to give sufficient warning
to consumers that the DG oils are outdated and unsuitable for the
majority of gasoline-powered engines currently in use.

According to the suit, labels on some DG oils state that the
product is not intended for use in motor vehicles manufactured
after 1988, while labels on other DG oils state the product is
unsuitable for engines manufactured after 1930.  The suit seeks
damages in excess of $5 million.

Allan Kanner -- a.kanner@kanner-law.com -- of the New Orleans law
firm Kanner & Whiteley LLC is among attorneys for the plaintiffs.
He said that Dollar General's well-known position in the retail
market -- that of a discount store primarily serving lower-income
customers -- makes the allegations particularly noteworthy.

"You're exploiting the economically most vulnerable people in
society," Mr. Kanner said.  "Those are the people that are coming
in and buying this motor oil.  There aren't a lot of antique car
collectors doing business at Dollar General that I'm aware of."

Mr. Kanner said that some consumers who purchased and used the DG
oil had to have their engines completely rebuilt.

He said that there is considerable legal precedent showing that
the labeling on the back of the DG oil containers was not
sufficient warning to consumers of the product's limitations.

"You can't sell obsolete oil -- and that's what they're doing --
and they're relying on small print on the back to say that people
are on notice," Mr. Kanner said.

"I don't think that applies legally. Not when you consider the
product placement on the can. There's a lot of case law on that,
and we will cite all of the cases."


DOWNER EDI: Class Action Over Waratah Train Project Set to Begin
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Dancker, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
a class action brought by a shareholder in Downer EDI over the
company's troubled Waratah train project will begin despite the
discovery process in the case being frustrated by a cache of
company documents contained on a hard-drive infected by "ransom-
ware" going missing.

The class action has been brought in the Supreme Court of Victoria
by Downer EDI shareholder Camping Warehouse Australia, which
alleges the engineering firm mislead and deceived investors by not
revealing the issues at its Waratah train project in a timely
fashion.

Downer took a $585 million hit to its market capitalization on
June 1, 2010 when it wrote off $190 million associated with the
Waratah contract to build rolling stock for Sydney's rail network
due to cost overruns.

According to the class action claim, Downer EDI was aware it would
have to write down the value of the Waratah contract on or before
January 12, 2010.

The class action is being brought by serial class action litigant
Mark Elliott on behalf of investors and is open to all
shareholders who purchased shares ahead of Downer EDI's shock June
2010 announcement.

Downer EDI settled a separate class action brought by Slater &
Gordon and funded by Bentham IMF in 2014 for an amount understood
to be $38 million.

Lawyers for shareholders will present 10 volumes of discovered
internal documents and emails between Downer EDI executives to the
court to support its case.  A host of current and former
executives including current Downer EDI chief Grant Fenn, former
CEO Geoff Knox as well as former Downer EDI chairman Peter Jolly.

According to documents filed by Downer EDI's lawyer Paul Bannon of
Colin Biggers & Paisley, the discovery process was frustrated by a
huge number of internal Downer EDI documents being contained on a
hard drive that was infected with a virus.

"That hard drive has been subsequently corrupted by a crypto virus
which prevents access to the content of the hard drive. Documents
have been encrypted by an unknown third party who demands payment
for access to be restored," Mr. Bannon said in an affidavit filed
to the court in September.

"I cannot presently locate that hard drive to provide any further
information about the virus," Mr. Bannon added.   The hard drive
contained a cache of emails and other crucial internal documents.

In November, Downer EDI was ordered by the Supreme Court of
Victoria to allow lawyers for the investor to conduct full
discovery, including copies of the emails contained on the lost
and corrupted hard drive.

Further documents will be sought by the investors lawyers once the
trial begins, according to court documents.

The company denies misleading or deceiving any of its investors
and has been vigorously defending the matter.

In its defense, Downer says "at all relevant times it maintained
corporate governance procedures and policies to ensure adherence
to all applicable regulatory requirements and best practice."

Downer's June 1 announcement wiped $585 million from the company's
market capitalization, which according to the class action claim
reflects "the fact that information about those matters was price
sensitive".

The impairment came only weeks after the company hosed down
speculation members of the consortium that had won the contract,
including Downer, were mulling tipping more equity in to the
project.


DRAFTKINGS INC: "Huizar" Suit Moved to C.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Sergio Huizar v. DraftKings, Inc.
et al., Case No. BC602279, was removed from the Los Angeles County
Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Central of California (Western Division - Los Angeles). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-09956-BRO-RAO to
the proceeding.

DraftKings provides online daily and weekly fantasy sports
contests for cash prizes in major sports in the United States and
Canada. The company is based in Boston, Massachusetts. The
defendants offer leagues for fantasy football, baseball,
basketball, hockey, golf, college football, and college
basketball.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David C Leimbach, Esq.
          Kiley Lynn Grombacher, Esq.
          Marcus J Bradley, Esq.
          MARLIN AND SALTZMAN LLP
          29229 Canwood Street Suite 208
          Agoura Hills, CA 91301
          Telephone: (818) 991 8080
          Facsimile: (818) 991 8081
          E-mail: dleimbach@marlinsaltzman.com
                  kgrombacher@marlinsaltzman.com
                  mbradley@marlinsaltzman.com

               - and -

          Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
          18250 Ventura Boulevard
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Telephone: (818) 609 0807
          Facsimile: (818) 609 0892
          E-mail: sahagii@aol.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          James P Fogelman, Esq.
          GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          333 S Grand Avenue 47th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
          Telephone: (213) 229 7234
          Facsimile: (213) 229 7520
          E-mail: jfogelman@gibsondunn.com


DURACELL: Lawyers Get $5.7MM in Fees in Deceptive Ad Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Greene, writing for Law.com, reports that at first glance,
it looks like a total rip-off.  Class members in a settlement
involving deceptively marketed Duracell batteries collected just
$345,000, but their lawyers got a whopping $5.7 million in fees.

The Center for Class Action Fairness in December filed a cert
petition with the U.S. Supreme Court.  "This case is an object
lesson in how the class action mechanism can go wrong," wrote
Thomas Goldstein of Goldstein & Russell for the center, founded by
tort reformer Theodore Frank and part of the Competitive
Enterprise Institute.

Except that on closer inspection, the fee award isn't so
outrageous.  Given the nature of the suit, which involved millions
of customers who bought a low-cost item, there's a compelling
public policy argument in favor of the attorney fee payment.

"I speak as a member of the class.  I bought the batteries at
issue: Duracell Ultra Power or Ultra Advanced, size AA or AAA,
between June 2009 and July 2013.  My son's Game Boy Color video
game devoured them," Ms. Greene said.

"We were persuaded by claims on the packaging that they lasted up
to 30 percent longer than the regular "Copper Top" variety.  They
cost an extra 30 cents or so per battery, but hey, if it meant my
son wouldn't go ballistic during a car trip because his game
battery died, it was well worth it.

"Were we short-changed? I have no idea.  The plaintiffs lawyers
-- among them Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe; Wiggins Childs Pantazis
Fisher Goldfarb; and The Lowe Law Firm -- say the longer-lasting
claims were a lie, and constituted deceptive advertising."

Duracell vigorously disputes this. Represented by Jones Day and
Carlton Fields, it says that the batteries lived up to their
representation.

We'll never know for sure.  The suit settled in 2013.

The remedy: If you bought the batteries, you could get a $3 per
package refund, limit two per household, with no proof of purchase
required (because seriously, who saves a 5-year-old battery
receipt?).  All you had to do was fill out a form online. If you
kept your receipts, you could get up to $12 for four packages.

Duracell quit making the Ultra batteries, prompted in large part
by the litigation. And the company agreed to donate $6 million in
batteries to charity.

It's a fair remedy.  Class members incurred average damages of
$2.89 -- the price difference between Copper Tops and Ultras --
and on average purchased 1.4 packs during the class period.

The lawyers estimated that there were 7.26 million class members.
If they all submitted claims, the payout would be about $50
million.  By that measure, the attorney fees of $5.7 million were
11 percent of the total fund, well below the 25 percent benchmark.

But everyone knew there was no way that all class members would
file claims.

"I didn't.  Despite ads in Better Homes & Gardens, Ebony, National
Geographic, People, People en Espanol, TV Guide, USA Today, the
Orlando Sentinel, and the San Francisco Chronicle, and Internet
banner ads with 92 million impressions, the settlement wasn't on
my radar.  And even if it was -- we're talking $6. I'm busy," Ms.
Greene said.

"In fact, less than 1 percent of eligible class members submitted
claims. That's why attorney fees vastly exceeded the benefits paid
to class members."

Is this bad? The Center for Class Action Fairness says the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which approved the
Duracell settlement, used the wrong standard.  The real measure
when calculating attorney fees, it says, should be the actual, not
potential, class recovery.  Plaintiffs lawyers have more incentive
to get the biggest award for the class, and to make sure many
people file claims, the center said.

But that just won't work in cases where many people are owed small
amounts of money.  Plaintiffs lawyers would lose money bringing
those suits.  And so they wouldn't be pursued.

"As a class member, I care far less about collecting my $6 than
sending a message to companies that they can't make stuff up and
put it on their packaging," Ms. Greene said.


ELEKTA BUSINESS: Recalls Mosaiq Due to Incorrect Drug Dosage
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 9, 2015
Posting date: December 24, 2015
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-56452

Incorrect drug dosage due to "age limit" data item issue. When
there is no valid (unexpired) patient weight entered on the same
date or prior to a serum creatinine value being populated, a stale
creatinine clearance (CRCL) value is being used in area under
curve (AUC) dose calculations.

Affected products:
A. MOSAIQ
Lot or serial number: v2.0 and higher
Model or catalog number: MOSAIQ

Manufacturer: Elekta Business Area Software Systems IMPAC Medical
              Systems, Inc.
              100 Mathilda Place, 5th floor
              Sunnyvale
              94086
              California
              UNITED STATES


EOS: Settles Lip Balm Class Action in California
------------------------------------------------
AJC.com, citing Refinery29, reports that a class-action lawsuit
involving a consumer and EOS lip balm has been settled.

The suit, filed Jan. 12 in U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, said Rachael Cronin, represented by
criminal defense lawyer Mark Geragos, used the product and her
lips became dry, cracked and bled. She also said she had multiple
rashes as a result of the product.

The suit which was filed "on behalf of (Cronin) herself and the
putative class comprised of potentially hundreds of thousands of
similarly situated consumers," said Ms. Cronin dealt with the skin
reaction for 10 days.

The suit sought damages and corrective advertising by EOS.

Statements released by the New York-based company and the lawyer
representing the consumer show they are both pleased with the
outcome.

"We are pleased to announce that the class-action lawsuit brought
against EOS has been resolved.  Our products are safe and this
settlement confirms that," the brand said in a statement.  "Our
lip balms are hypoallergenic, dermatologist-tested, made with the
highest quality ingredients, meet or exceed all safety and quality
standards set by our industry, and are validated by rigorous
safety testing conducted by independent labs.  We love our
customers, and their enjoyment of our products is our top
priority.  We thank them for their continued support."

Mr. Geragos said he was pleased to "quickly and amicably resolve
the matter with EOS lip balm products."

He continued by saying, "EOS makes great products and the company
is doing the right thing by adding more information about their
lip balm products on packaging so that buyers can make informed
choices.  We will be applying to the courts to close this case."

The terms of the settlement have not been released.


EVERSPRING FARMS: Expands Salba brand Chia Seeds Recall
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 9, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Microbiological - Salmonella
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Everspring Farms Ltd
Distribution: National
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10180

The food recall warning issued on November 16, 2015 has been
updated to include additional product information. This additional
information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation.

Everspring Farms Ltd. is voluntarily recalling Salba brand Chia
Seeds - Premium Ground from the marketplace due to possible
Salmonella contamination. Consumers should not consume the
recalled product 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.

Food contaminated with Salmonella may not look or smell spoiled
but can still make you sick. Young children, pregnant women, the
elderly and people with weakened immune systems may contract
serious and sometimes deadly infections. Healthy people may
experience short-term symptoms such as fever, headache, vomiting,
nausea, abdominal cramps and diarrhea. Long-term complications may
include severe arthritis.

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

This recall was triggered by CFIA test results. 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    Common        Size    Code(s) on       UPC
  name     name          ----    product          ---
  -----    ------                ----------
  Salba    Chia Seeds-   150 g   Lot #            8 57562 00128 6
           Premium               SSSBC150211-41
           Ground                BB/MA APR-2017

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/Y7fQv6


FAN DUEL: Faces Class Action Over Use of Athletes' Likeness
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Online Sports Guys reports that the cavalcade of lawsuits
against Daily Fantasy Sports continues with a potential Class
Action Suit filed in an Illinois Federal Court on Jan. 27.  And
this suit brings the potential of having the same effect the
Ed O'Bannon lawsuit did on the use of College Athletes likenesses
in video games.

Former Northern Illinois RB Akeem Daniels is spearheading the
lawsuit against Fan Duel and Draft Kings for using his and other
athletes names and likenesses to make profit.

The suit seeks $5 million for each complaint logged against the
companies.  Though at this moment nobody has joined the class
action yet.

According to a report in The Sporting News, up to 2,000 College
Athletes would be eligible to take part in the lawsuit as
plaintiffs. Daniels cites at least 13 of his own teammates as
potential plaintiffs.

From the Sporting News Article, a portion of the Lawsuits
verbiage:

"Defendant has utilized Plaintiff's name to generate revenues for
itself, and 'gaming' (i.e., gambling) profits for others.  Indeed,
Defendant has predicated their entire business models on the
notion that commercial value attends to the Plaintiff and Class
Members' names, assigning 'salaries' to each Class Member -- even
though the Class Members did not draw any salary of any type for
playing their collegiate sport."

The suit also apparently cites the risk borne by athletes that
someone who participates and potentially loses at the games due to
the athletes performance puts them in danger.  It also cites the
risk of potential "Point-Shaving" to help bring about the outcome
a bettor/client of the companies may want.

This might be an interesting case to follow because it essentially
copies most of the terms of the O'Bannon case regarding College
Athletes. And if you look at it from that perspective---Daniels
raises a legitimate point.  Technically speaking the kids names
and likenesses are being used.  And their performance is
profitable for other people.  Not them.

Stay tuned.  If this goes anywhere it may be a game changer.  At
least in the College World.  Though it could open some
professional doors too.


FIGI'S COMPANIES: Recalls Classic Marzipan Due to Almonds
---------------------------------------------------------
Figi's Companies, Inc. of Marshfield, WI is recalling 8 ounce
packages of "Classic Marzipan" because the ingredients are not
properly labeled and the product contains undeclared almonds.
People who have allergies to almonds run the risk of serious or
life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products.

The recalled "Classic Marzipan" was distributed nationwide through
mail orders and at one retail outlet.

The product comes in a kraft colored corrugated container with red
printed decorations including the Figi's Logo. It is labeled with
a white and red product label in the upper right hand corner that
identifies the item as 100-0034-200 "Classic Marzipan" and has a
code date in a smaller yellow box in the lower left hand corner of
that label. The code date will read either "5 190", "5 194", "5
253" or "5 328." The product itself is contained within a gold
foil covered paperboard tray with a clear acetate cover. The
package includes Figi's Special Gift Notice/Product Guarantee that
is preprinted on the reverse side with the Nutritional Facts Panel
for "Assorted Fruit Shaped Marzipan" and identified with the part
number 380-0034-515. The shipping container also contains a
promotional coupon for a discount on a future order.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the almond
containing product was not labeled with ingredients nor were the
presence of almonds highlighted. Subsequent investigation
indicates the problem was caused by a temporary breakdown in the
company's Bill of Material verification process.

Production of the product has been suspended until the company is
certain that the problem has been corrected.

Consumers who have purchased or received as gifts, 8 oz. packages
of Classic Marzipan are urged to return them to Figi's for a full
refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company Monday -
Saturday, 7AM - 5:30PM CST at 1-800-437-3817.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/kUt3mZ


FIRSTMERIT CORP: Law Firms Urge Shareholders to File Merger Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Betty Lin-Fisher, writing for Beacon Journal, reports that at
least five national law firms have filed notices seeking
FirstMerit Corp. shareholders for potential lawsuits to block the
proposed buyout to Huntington Bancshares.

But such lawsuits are commonplace and expected, said a University
of Akron law professor.

"It's the cost of doing a deal.  You're going to get sued," said
UA School of Law Professor Stefan Padfield, who primarily teaches
business law.  "When [companies] weigh the costs and benefits of
fighting that lawsuit, [they] figure in the costs of settlement
into deal costs."

In 2014, shareholders filed suits challenging 93 percent of
corporate mergers, up from 44 percent in 2007, according to
Cornerstone Research.  The average deal drew nearly five lawsuits
claiming the transaction shortchanged investors.  Recent studies,
however, have shown the number of lawsuits on the decline --
though still large in numbers.

There's usually a rush for law firms to quickly begin soliciting
potential plaintiffs after a merger is announced, said
Mr. Padfield.

"It's almost before anybody even looks at what is in the [merger]
documents, [they] file the suit first and ask questions later," he
said.

It usually depends upon the jurisdiction, but often a judge will
look for the firm representing the top dollar amount in the
largest number of shareholders to determine a lead counsel or law
firm for a potential class-action suit, he said.

Additionally, large institutional investors, which often have
large numbers of shares in companies, usually will use their own
law firms to file lawsuits blocking mergers, Mr. Padfield said.

Individual investors

For consumers, who often hold a small number of shares and aren't
familiar with lawsuits, they usually either don't do anything --
and would be included in any potential class-action suit unless
they opt out -- or they just pick a firm, he said.

"Unfortunately the reality is there's a lot of unsophisticated
investors.  It'll probably be the first one they see," Mr.
Padfield said.

The legal industry has hotly debated whether such lawsuits really
benefit shareholders, he said.

"Some people look at it as a way for lawyers to make money.  I see
value of the ability to bring the suits," said Mr. Padfield.
There are incentives for managers and boards of directors to
soften a deal and not look out for shareholders, he said.

"There's a need for outside check of the boardroom, but there
should be a better way of 'Let's just assume it's going to
happen,'" he said.

As of Jan. 28, five law firms from New York, Texas, Pennsylvania
and Delaware were soliciting FirstMerit shareholders and saying
they were "investigating" the buyout.

Terms of the deal

Two Dallas firms in one announcement touted that one of their
lawyers was a former U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
attorney.  Their news release said the consideration for the value
of the stock in the deal "is virtually no premium over the 52-week
high and significantly lower than at least one analyst's estimated
value of $22.86."

The deal calls for shareholders of FirstMerit to receive 1.72
shares of Huntington's common stock, and $5 in cash, for each
share of FirstMerit common stock.

The per share consideration is valued at $20.14 per share based on
the closing price of Huntington common stock on Jan. 25, the day
the deal was announced.

Calls to both firms, the Briscoe Law Firm and Powers Taylor LLC,
were not returned.

Mr. Padfield said he's hard pressed to think of many lawsuits that
have actually stopped a merger.

"I don't remember the last time a merger got derailed by these
fiduciary claims," he said.  "My gut reaction is it's rare.
Usually there's the back and forth -- both sides have an incentive
not to go to court.  The plaintiff's firm would hope not to invest
a lot of money, and management has an incentive not to spend a lot
on litigation and going to trial.  There's perverse incentives to
get it done on both sides."


FLINT, MI: Faces Major Legal Challenges Over Tainted Water Crisis
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Sanburn, writing for Time, reports that four lawsuits have
been filed against government officials.

Crisis-struck residents of Flint, Mich. are taking the
contamination of their city's water to the courts.

A federal suit announced on Jan. 27 alleging that officials are
still violating a federal law designed to protect the city's
drinking water is one of at least four separate attempts backed by
Flint citizens to get legal recourse for the ongoing crisis. Here,
what each major legal challenge focuses on:

1. The Safe Drinking Water Act

The federal suit filed by a group of pastors, a local Flint
activist, the ACLU, and the Natural Resources Defense Council,
accuses city and state officials of failing to comply with the
Safe Drinking Water Act, a federal law that requires municipal
water systems to treat and test water for contaminants like lead.
The suit asks for a "full replacement of all lead service lines in
the water system at no cost to customers."

2. Negligence

In November, four Flint families filed a federal lawsuit against
Gov. Rick Snyder, former Mayor Dayne Walling and former Emergency
Manager Darnell Earley, and argues that officials were negligent
in overseeing the switch from properly treated water from Lake
Huron via Detroit to the Flint River.  The lawsuit is seeking
monetary damages as well as lifetime medical monitoring for
children with health effects from the contaminated water.

3. Falling property values

A class-action suit seeking monetary damages was filed Jan. 15 in
state court claiming that the water crisis destroyed property
values throughout Flint.  The suit alleges that state officials
knew about elevated lead levels and should have made the
information public.

4. Water bills

An additional class-action suit was filed Jan. 19 in Genesee
County asking that residents not be required to pay any past or
future water bills.  It's also attempting to get Genesee Circuit
Judge Archie Hayman to halt any water shut-offs due to residents
not paying their water bills.

Water in Flint is still unsafe to drink after the city failed to
use corrosion control when it switched from Lake Huron water to
the Flint River for its supply in April 2014 in part to save
money.  State officials said on Jan. 27 that lead levels had
continued to decrease.  On Jan. 28, Gov. Snyder announced he was
extending the state of emergency for Genesee County.

"Extending this emergency will help us continue these efforts
while working on long-term solutions to help Flint recover from
this tragedy," Gov. Snyder said in a statement.


FLINT, MI: Environmental Racism Issue Raised Amid Water Crisis
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Martinez, writing for CNN, reports that the contamination
of drinking water in Flint, Michigan, has so outraged community
advocates that they now pose a powerful question: Was the city
neglected because it is mostly black and about 40% poor?

Several advocates say yes.  They charge that Flint residents are
victims of "environmental racism" -- that is, race and poverty
factored into how Flint wasn't adequately protected and how its
water became contaminated with lead, making the tap water
undrinkable.

"Would more have been done, and at a much faster pace, if nearly
40 percent of Flint residents were not living below the poverty
line? The answer is unequivocally yes," the NAACP said in a
statement.

Others go further.

"While it might not be intentional, there's this implicit bias
against older cities -- particularly older cities with poverty
(and) majority-minority communities," said Democratic U.S. Rep.
Dan Kildee, who represents the Flint area.

"It's hard for me to imagine the indifference that we've seen
exhibited if this had happened in a much more affluent community,"
he said.

For the record, Flint is 57% black, 37% white, 4% Latino and 4%
mixed race; more than 41% of its residents live below the poverty
level, according to the U.S. Census.

NAACP President and CEO Cornell Brooks drew a direct connection
between Flint's socioeconomic factors and the toxic drinking
water.

"Environmental Racism + Indifference = Lead in the Water & Blood,"
he tweeted.

Mr. Brooks is pressing for a definitive plan of attack.

"We're trying to take action that is specific, that's focused,
that's urgent and speaks to the people's needs," he said.
"Talking with a deadline that has dollar symbols represents
action, and that's what we're trying to do."

Governor takes hard questions

In an interview with CNN's Poppy Harlow, Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder
repeatedly said that he was taking responsibility for the crisis
even as she reminded him that his then-chief of staff sent an
email in July 2015 to a health department official warning of lead
in the Flint drinking water.  The email was released as part of a
freedom of information request.


"I'm frustrated by the water issue in Flint," David Muchmore
wrote.  "I really don't think people are getting the benefit of
the doubt.  Now they are concerned and rightfully so about the
lead level studies they are receiving."

In October 2014, General Motors stopped using Flint River water at
its engine plant because the company was seeing rust of vehicle
parts.

Gov. Snyder said that General Motors' concern "was not a lead
issue."

Ms. Harlow responded, "It was the same issue of the pipes being
corroded by the water, chemicals in the water, just like it is (in
Flint.) It's actually the same."

The governor said, "These are very technical issues.  But the lead
came to my attention in October, end of September, early October
of 2015.  We took immediate action, need to do more, did more."

He said Flint has seen a 45% reduction in crime, and he touted a
dental program for low-income children -- all moves his
administration pushed for.

"In terms of saying it happened because of the nature of the
community here? Absolutely not."

Gov. Snyder compared Flint's unemployment struggles and other
economic woes to what people in Detroit have endured in recent
years, and he said his administration is responsible for
improvements there.

Gov. Snyder was served with a subpoena by attorneys representing
Flint residents who have filed a class-action suit. They have
asked for the governor's emails and text messages going back to
January 2011.

Gov. Snyder has released some emails from 2014 and 2015.

"Will you release all of those back to 2011, from personal and
work accounts?" Ms. Harlow asked.

"I released the relevant emails, my emails, that address that
issue for the relevant time period," said Gov. Snyder, who has
released some emails from 2014 and 2015.

"We are complying with every investigation in terms of being
open," he added.  "We'll follow the appropriate legal process for
subpoenas and other legal matters."

"Again, we're complying with every investigation," Gov. Snyder
said. "We'll follow the appropriate legal process for subpoenas
and other legal matters. With respect to releasing my emails, I
did that.  This is an extraordinary case."

Whether Flint's water crisis happened because the city has poor
residents has been discussed in social media, particularly by
filmmaker and Flint native Michael Moore.

Mr. Moore said the governor should be arrested for his role in the
crisis.  A state plan to save $15 million on Flint's water bills
may now cost $1.5 billion in clean-up, Moore said in his online
petition for help from President Barack Obama.

"This is a racial killing. Flint MI is 60% black. When u knowingly
poison a black city, u r committing a version of genocide
#ArrestGovSnyder," Moore tweeted at one point.

"Just to be clear: all 102K residents of Flint have been exposed
to toxic water, all of Flint's kids have ingested lead, & 10 ppl
have died," Moore tweeted on another occasion.

The Black Lives Matter group said African-Americans, especially
those in rural and poor areas, have long been denied equal access
to clean drinking water.

"The crisis in Flint is not an isolated incident. State violence
in the form of contaminated water or no access to water at all is
pervasive in Black communities," the group said on its website.

On Jan. 25, state Attorney General Bill Schuette said he is
appointing an ex-prosecutor and Detroit's former FBI chief to join
the investigation into Flint's water crisis, creating a "conflict
wall" between the state's inquiry and the lawsuits targeting the
state.

The prior announced investigation will determine "whether any
Michigan laws were violated in the process that created a major
public health crisis for Flint residents."

"I would certainly not bathe a newborn child or a young infant in
this bad water, and if you can't drink the bad water, you
shouldn't pay for it," Mr. Schuette said.

Flint's state of emergency -- declared at municipal and state
levels -- began years ago when the city suffered a financial
emergency.  The state took over the city's budget and decided to
temporarily switch Flint's water source from Lake Huron to the
Flint River to save money until a new supply line to Lake Huron
was ready.

The river, however, was long-known as befouled.  Locals call it
the "General Motors sewer."

After the April 2014 switch, residents complained their water had
problems.  Virginia Tech researchers found the water was highly
corrosive.  A class-action lawsuit alleges the state Department of
Environmental Quality didn't treat the water for corrosion, in
accordance with federal law, and because so many service lines to
Flint are made of lead, the noxious element leached into the water
of the city's homes.

The city switched back to the Lake Huron water supply in October,
but the damage was already done to the lead pipes.  The state is
now handing out filters and bottled water with the National Guard.


FLOWERS FOOD: Sued by Truck Drivers Over Employee Status
--------------------------------------------------------
Erica Phillips, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
Flowers Foods Inc., the bakery that owns Wonder Bread, Nature's
Own and Tastykake brands, is being sued in more than a dozen
states by truck drivers who claim they were improperly classified
as independent contractors.

The lawsuits allege the company violated the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act by classifying drivers on its delivery routes as
contractors. The suits seek payment for overtime, employee
benefits and other compensation. One of the earliest suits,
brought in North Carolina in 2012, was granted class-action status
in March, after which 15 more were filed in other states. The most
recent suit was brought in Texas, bringing the total to 18.

If the company loses in court, Flowers would likely need to buy
back drivers' routes and trucks, said Tim Ramey, an analyst with
Pivotal Research Group. However, it could be years before the
cases are resolved, other analysts say. Any ruling against Flowers
would likely also affect its competitors, many of which also rely
on independent drivers, said Eric Katzman, an analyst with
Deutsche Bank.

"At some point in the distant future, it could be a financial risk
but for the moment it's just a headline risk," Mr. Katzman said.

The lawsuits come as independent drivers in various sectors have
successfully challenged their status in courts around the country.

In 2015, FedEx Corp. agreed to pay $228 million in a settlement
with thousands of its California drivers after the 9th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals ruled they had been misclassified as
independent contractors. Ride-hailing services Uber Technologies
Inc. and Lyft Inc. have face similar claims from drivers.

Several trucking companies operating at the ports of Los Angeles
and Long Beach -- including, most recently, three subsidiaries of
XPO Logistics Inc.  -- are engaged in similar litigation with
independent-operator drivers.

Last July, the Labor Department issued guidance suggesting
businesses examine the issue of mis-classification and consider
designating more of their independent contractors as employees.

In an email, Flowers said it doesn't believe the lawsuits have
legal merit, and that "the independent distribution model is a
win-win where distributors, their customers, and the company
benefit."

Flowers Foods, a $3.7 billion company, is the second largest
packaged bread producer in the U.S. after Grupo Bimbo S.A.B. de
C.V. The company distributes its products to grocery stores and
retailers such as Target Corp., Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Dollar
General Corp. Flowers has grown through acquisition, expanding its
operations into more than 35 states.  In 2015, Flowers bought the
Wonder Bread brand in the liquidation of Hostess Brands LLC.

Flowers has relied almost entirely on independent drivers since
the 1980s. The company sells its delivery routes -- often with a
company-financed note -- to drivers, who then have exclusive
rights to sell and distribute Flowers products within that
territory.

In their legal claims, drivers say their routes aren't independent
businesses because Flowers tells them what locations to service
and sets pricing and procedures directly with the retailers.

In court documents the company has said drivers are exempt from
the FLSA because they engage in interstate commerce. In its
statement, Flowers said their program "has been upheld as an
independent contractor model in the past when similar claims were
brought in various legal forums."


FLOWERS FOODS: Defending Misclassification Suit in North Carolina
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Flowers Foods, Inc. is defending against an FLSA class action
lawsuit in North Carolina, the Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 12, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015.

On September 12, 2012, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of North Carolina (Charlotte
Division) by Scott Rehberg, Willard Allen Riley and Mario
Ronchetti against the company and its subsidiary, Flowers Baking
Company of Jamestown, LLC.

"Plaintiffs are or were distributors of our Jamestown subsidiary
who contend they were misclassified as independent contractors.
The action sought class certification on behalf of a class
comprised of independent distributors of our Jamestown subsidiary
who are classified as independent contractors," the Company said.

In March 2013, the court conditionally certified the class action
for claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). On March
23, 2015, the court re-affirmed its FLSA certification decision
and also certified claims under state law.


FOREST RIVER: Recalls Motorhomes with Lippert Electric Steps
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 7, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Travel Trailer
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Structure
Units affected: 763
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015581TC
ID number: 2015581

On certain motorhomes equipped with Lippert Components Inc.
electric entry steps, an internal bolt on the steps that attaches
the fan gear assembly to the steps could fracture. This results in
the fan gear disengaging from the steps, which could cause the
steps to stop in an unexpected position and appear to be loose or
unstable. If the steps become unstable, it could cause a person to
fall, resulting in injury. Correction: Dealers will install a step
retainer bracket to reinforce the operating mechanism, and all
bolts of the mechanism will also be replaced.

  Make           Model       Model year(s) affected
  ----           -----       ----------------------
  FOREST RIVER               2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012


FOREST RIVER: Recalls Stealth 2016 Model Due to Asphyxiation Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 9, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Travel Trailer
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Accessories
Units affected: 2
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015589TC
ID number: 2015589

Certain travel trailers may have been manufactured with an
incorrect liquid propane (L.P.) detector and carbon monoxide
detector. The installed component only includes a liquid propane
detector, but not a carbon monoxide detector. If an enclosed
recreational vehicle is missing a carbon monoxide detector, it
would not alert the occupants to a possible elevated level of
carbon monoxide, which could result in asphyxiation or carbon
monoxide poisoning to the vehicle occupants. Correction: Dealers
will inspect and replace the correct combination L.P.
detector/carbon monoxide detector.

  Make            Model        Model year(s) affected
  ----            -----        ----------------------
  FOREST RIVER    STEALTH      2016, 2016


GALLAGHER BASSETT: Sued Over Slow Settlement Payments
-----------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that after
saying he waited too long to get money owed him from the
settlement of a personal injury lawsuit, a Cook County man is
seeking legal retribution, bringing a class action on behalf of
other potential plaintiffs like him against the company he has
blamed for the delay in paying him, as well as other companies he
said may have done the same thing to others.

Ward Kifarkis filed his class action complaint Jan. 27 against
Gallagher Bassett Services (GBS), of Itasca, a third-party claims
processor for companies settling personal injury lawsuits.
According to the complaint, GBS had represented Aldi as its claim
administrator in the settlement of a third-party liability lawsuit
Kifarkis had brought against the supermarket chain stemming from
an injury Kifarkis allegedly suffered in June 2014.

According to the lawsuit, in late October 2015, attorney Larry
Drury, acting as Kifarkis' counsel, sent GBS a copy of the
negotiated settlement agreement. He followed that with a demand
for payment on Oct. 30, including details about Drury's ability to
hold the full amount until final resolution of any health care
provider liens.

Under that option, Gallagher Bassett could issue the full check in
the name of Drury's practice. The attorney then would hold "the
full amount of any claimed rights to recovery of Medicare, the
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Illinois
Department of Healthcare and Family Services and/or any private
health insurance company's claimed rights to recovery."

Although Drury allegedly made repeated requests for the money, GBS
allegedly did not issue the check until Dec. 3.

While the law proscribes payments from such settlements to be made
with 30 days following confirmation of the settlement, Kifarkis
asserted GBS failed to issue payment within the required
timeframe.

The complaint particularly cited a purported Oct. 29 voice mail
from a GBS representative acknowledging acceptance of the release
and indicating the firm was waiting for feedback from Medicare.
However, resolution of Medicare's issue should not have upheld the
payment, according to statute, the complaint said.

Kifarkis' complaint asked the court to certify a class of
plaintiffs potentially including anyone else who, dating back to
2005, had to wait too long for a third-party payment linked to "a
personal injury, property damage, wrongful death or tort action"
from GBS. However, Kifarkis also said he believes GBS is not the
only such company allegedly taking too long to pay settlement
funds. So he is also asking the court to expand the list of
defendants to include a class of "all insurance companies and/or
their agents and representatives" who allegedly violated the same
state law, and expand the plaintiffs class to include anyone who,
since 2005, experienced a delay beyond the legally required
timeframe in receiving their settlement funds.

Kifarkis' complaint alleged four formal counts against GBS and
other potential defendants, including violation of the state law
regarding settlement payments, unjust enrichment, the call for an
injunction to keep GBS and other such firms from withholding
payments and a declaratory judgment. The complaint anticipated the
plaintiff and defendant classes could potentially "include
hundreds or thousands of persons and entities."

Kifarkis' complaint said he and any member of the plaintiff class
are entitled to damages and interest. It called for Drury to serve
as class counsel and for Gallagher Bassett's attorneys to
represent the defendant class. In addition to the injunctive
relief and declaratory judgment, Kifarkis, who would serve as
plaintiffs' putative class representative requested damages, legal
fees "and an incentive service award for the plaintiff class
representative."


GARDEN OF LIFE: Recalls Raw Meal Organic Shake Due to Salmonella
----------------------------------------------------------------
Garden of Life LLC is voluntarily withdrawing a limited quantity
of its Raw Meal Organic Shake & Meal Chocolate, Original, Vanilla
and Vanilla Chai because they have the potential to contain
Salmonella Virchow. Even though Garden of Life routinely performs
pathogen testing on every finished good lot to ensure safety and
no product has ever tested positive for the presence of
Salmonella, the company felt it was in the public's best interest
to take this voluntary action. Healthy persons infected with
Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody),
nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances,
infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into
the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as
arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and
arthritis. FDA is investigating illnesses.
Every lot tested negative for the presence of Salmonella prior to
release to the market. Raw Meal products are distributed
throughout the United States and sold at better health food stores
and natural grocers.

Consumers who believe they may have a Raw Meal product affected by
this recall, should look for the following lot codes prominently
stamped on the underside of the plastic container. The following
is the list of lots affected:

  PRODUCT NAME                           Lot Number    Exp Date
  ------------                           ----------    --------
  RAW Organic Meal 10 CNT Tray           47214800      9/12017
  RAW Organic Meal Chocolate Full Size   47198800      9/1/17
  RAW Organic Meal Full Size             47214600      9/1/17
  RAW Organic Meal Vanilla Chai          47215500      9/1/17
  Full Size
  RAW Organic Meal Vanilla Chai Full     47215501      9/1/17
  Size
  RAW Organic Meal Vanilla Full Size     47216100      9/1/17
  RAW Organic Meal Vanilla Full Size     47225500      9/1/17
  RAW Organic Meal Chocolate Full Size   47225900      9/1/17
  RAW Organic Meal Chocolate Full Size   47249200      9/1/17
  RAW Organic Meal Vanilla Chai 10 CNT   47183201      9/30/17
  Tray
  RAW Organic Meal Vanilla Full Size     47198601      9/30/17
  RAW Organic Meal Vanilla Chai Half     47206000      9/30/17
  Size
  RAW Organic Meal Vanilla Full Size     47225600      9/30/17
  RAW Organic Meal Half Size             47225800      9/30/17
  RAW Organic Meal Chocolate Half Size   47226200      9/30/17
  RAW Organic Meal Vanilla Half Size     47226400      9/30/17
  RAW Organic Meal Full Size             47236000      9/30/17
  RAW Organic Meal Vanilla 10 CNT Tray   47248000      9/30/17
  RAW Organic Meal Full Size             47248901      9/30/17
  RAW Organic Meal Vanilla Full Size     47253900      9/30/17
  RAW Organic Meal Vanilla Half Size     47257401      9/30/17
  RAW Organic Meal Chocolate Full Size   47226000      10/1/17
  RAW Organic Meal Vanilla Full Size     47216200      10/31/17
  RAW Organic Meal Vanilla Full Size     47225601      10/31/17
  RAW Organic Meal Chocolate Full Size   47226100      10/31/17
  RAW Organic Meal Chocolate Half Size   47226201      10/31/17
  RAW Organic Meal Vanilla Chai Full     47226300      10/31/17
  Size
  RAW Organic Meal Full Size             47246500      10/31/17
  RAW Organic Meal Vanilla Chai Full     47247600      10/31/17
  Size
  RAW Organic Meal Chocolate Half Size   47247800      10/31/17

"In an overabundance of caution we are taking this extreme measure
because we want to ensure that you never have to wonder about the
purity of any Raw Meal product," said Brian Ray, President of
Garden of Life.

Any Raw Meal product from a lot code not listed above is entirely
safe and not affected by this recall. All Garden of Life, LLC
products are manufactured in the United States at FDA and NSF
audited facilities, in accordance with current Good Manufacturing
Practices. No Garden of Life product has ever tested positive for
salmonella.

If, however, a consumer has purchased a product from any of the
lot codes listed above and wishes to return it, they should return
the unused portion of the product to the place of purchase for a
full refund. Questions may be directed to the company at 1-866-
465-0051, Monday-Friday between the hours of 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM
EST.


GE MEDICAL: Recalls Phased Flex Coils Due to Thermal Injury Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 10, 2015
Posting date: December 24, 2015
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-56468

Coil overheating can occur when the device is used in mode 2
setup. This could lead to a serious patient thermal injury. There
have been no injuries reported as a result of this issue.

Affected products
A. PHASED ARRAY FLEX COIL
Lot or serial number: 0000011-4-0019
                      0000011-4-0020
                      011-4-0128
                      11-4-0127
Model or catalog number: 5363393

Manufacturer: GE Medical Systems LLC
              3200 North Grandview Blvd
              Waukesha
              53188
              Wisconsin
              UNITED STATES


GENERAL CHEMICAL: Fergus Falls Sues Aluminum Sulfate Sellers
------------------------------------------------------------
Voice of Alexandria reports that Fergus Falls has joined
Minneapolis, Duluth, St. Cloud and other cities in a federal
class-action lawsuit against the sellers of aluminum sulfate.  The
chemical is used to treat wastewater and to purify drinking water.
The cities claim several companies conspired to fix the price of
the chemical.  In a separate case, a former executive of one of
the companies admitted to federal prosecutors that he tried to rig
bids and fix prices.  Investigators say the scheme continued for
at least 17 years.  The lawsuit requests a jury trial and
unspecified damages.


GENERAL MOTORS: Settles FTC Claims Over Used-Car Inspections
------------------------------------------------------------
Sue Reisinger, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that General
Motors Co. and two major dealerships on Jan. 28 agreed to settle
Federal Trade Commission complaints accusing them of touting their
used-car inspections while failing to disclose that some cars were
subject to open recalls to repair serious defects.

The separate complaints alleged deceptive acts or practices.  They
said the undisclosed defects included the GM ignition switch flaw
responsible for more than 100 deaths and many more serious
injuries.  All three companies neither admitted nor denied the
allegations.

"Safety is one of the biggest considerations for consumers
shopping for a car," said Jessica Rich, director of the FTC's
Bureau of Consumer Protection, in a statement.  "So companies
touting the comprehensiveness of their vehicle inspections need to
be straight with consumers about safety-related recalls, which can
raise major safety concerns."

GM did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Besides GM, the complaints and consent orders involved Oregon-
based Lithia Motors Inc., which has more than 100 used-car stores
in the West and Midwest; and Jim Koons Management, which has 15
dealerships in the mid-Atlantic region.  They are two of the
nation's largest used-car dealers, the FTC said.

The complaint against GM quotes its certified pre-owned vehicle
advertisements, which said, "We check it, so you don't have to,"
and which cited its 172-point inspection and reconditioning
program.

"And we do check it all," the ad continued.  "From the engine
block to the shocks, right down to the floor mats, no major system
is overlooked.  If it fails a single point, we completely
recondition it -- or it won't be certified."

Under terms of the consent deal, which is in effect for 20 years,
the companies are prohibited from misrepresenting material facts
about the safety of used cars they sell.  The order also prohibits
them "from claiming that their used vehicles are safe or have been
subject to a rigorous inspection unless they are free of
unrepaired safety recalls, or unless the companies clearly
disclose the existence of the recalls."

The order also requires the companies to notify recent customers
that the vehicles they purchased may have an open recall.

The FTC voted to accept the agreements, but the deals still must
be publicized in the Federal Register and be open to public
comment for 30 days.  After that, the commission can decide
whether to make the orders final or to modify them.


GENERAL MOTORS: Lawyer Claims Hilliard Struck Deal with Automaker
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that the plaintiffs lawyer who first discovered the GM ignition-
switch defect has lobbed a bomb against a lead counsel of the
multidistrict litigation, claiming that the attorney struck a deal
with GM to boost legal fees while reducing the automaker's
potential liability.

Lance Cooper, founding partner of The Cooper Firm in Marietta,
Georgia, who resigned from the executive committee of the General
Motors Co. ignition switch MDL last year, filed a motion on
Jan. 27 claiming that attorney Robert Hilliard arranged with GM to
put his cases up front for bellwether trials in exchange for
minimizing the automaker's potential exposure.

The motion comes after Hilliard, of Hilliard Munoz Gonzales in
Corpus Christi, Texas, voluntarily dismissed the first bellwether
case on Jan. 22 amid revelations during trial that his client,
Robert Scheuer, might have lied on the stand and to his lawyers
about his finances and the extent of his injuries following a 2014
crash in his Saturn Ion.

Five of the six bellwether cases, including Scheuer, are
Mr. Hilliard's remaining cases.

Cooper's motion, filed on behalf of clients in nine cases, asks
U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman to reconsider his approval of a
settlement fund for the Sept. 17 deal, in which Hilliard settled
1,380 of his cases as part of a $575 million agreement. Cooper did
not identify the source of the information included in his Jan. 27
motion.

Mr. Hilliard, whose response is due in court on Feb. 1,
immediately denied the allegations.  "This latest unsupportable
filing by Mr. Cooper satisfies me that he has comfortably settled
into his self-appointed role as official loose cannon to this
litigation.  His 'sky is falling' approach, supported only by his
over-use of adjectives, is both unprofessional and self-demeaning
and will be substantively dealt with in our response, due
Feb. 1."

Mr. Cooper, who resigned from the executive committee without
explanation, filed a separate motion on Jan. 25 seeking to
disqualify Hilliard and the other two co-lead attorneys in the
ignition switch MDL due to alleged mismanagement.  He wrote in his
new filing that "Mr. Hilliard apparently agreed to a high-low
arrangement in the bellwether cases so that GM could limit its
financial exposure in the event a jury were to return a
substantial verdict against GM."

Mr. Cooper continued: "There is likely only one reason why
Mr. Hilliard carved out the bellwether selections from his
corporate settlement with GM: he wanted to ensure that he would be
the lead counsel in five out of the six bellwether trials," he
wrote.  "The benefit of doing so is obvious: it allows
Mr. Hilliard to be compensated from settling many of his personal
injury cases while maximizing the billable hours that he and his
team would need in order to prepare for two (and due to GM's
selections, now five) bellwether trials."

Mr. Cooper is asking Judge Furman to investigate whether Hilliard
arranged a "quid pro quo" with GM as part of the settlement.

Judge Furman has ordered Mr. Hilliard and the other two co-leads,
Steve Berman, managing partner of Seattle's Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro, and Elizabeth Cabraser of San Francisco's Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, to respond to Mr. Cooper's motions by
Feb. 1.  Scheuer wasn't originally the first bellwether to go to
trial.

On Aug. 5, about a month before Mr. Hilliard's settlement with GM,
the three co-lead plaintiffs counsel filed a motion to move
Scheuer to the No. 1 spot.  Scheuer replaced the only bellwether
case not filed by Mr. Hilliard, a lawsuit brought by Nadia
Yingling, which now goes to trial on May 2.


GENERAL MOTORS: Hilliard Reflects on Lapses in Scheuer Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that days after the first General Motors Co. ignition-switch case
collapsed midtrial in New York, Robert Hilliard, the lead
plaintiff's attorney, reflected on what went wrong -- and what
lessons he learned.

The credibility of Hilliard's client, Robert Scheuer of Oklahoma,
came under attack after GM's lawyers obtained evidence of a
fabricated check and other materials that conflicted with his
trial testimony.  "It goes under the secret lies of people,"
Mr. Hilliard told The National Law Journal.  "You do --everything
you can to learn everything you can, and if they're determined not
to be forthright, sometimes you just can't discover it."

At trial, Mr. Scheuer blamed the 2014 crash of his Saturn Ion on
an ignition-switch defect, over which GM recalled 2.6 million cars
and trucks worldwide.  The case was the first bellwether trial
over GM's ignition switch.

The interview with Hilliard of Corpus Christi, Texas-based
Hilliard Munoz Gonzales, was edited for length and clarity.
The NLJ: In the past, you've slammed some GM actions as "all
saddle and no horse."  This description might be appropriate for
the Scheuer case.  Candidly, what happened?

Hilliard: We had vetted this plaintiff pretty thoroughly.  This
issue that came up at trial was one even GM had missed completely
until someone called their hotline in the middle of trial.

And the plaintiff had testified for many hours, honestly and
directly on cross-examination, about very embarrassing previous
medical conditions.

And so there was simply no indication that apparently he had sent
a text picture of a check that must have been doctored to a
realtor so he could prove to the realtor he had funds necessary to
buy the house.

NLJ: Although nobody accused plaintiffs lawyers of knowing about
the apparent fraud, U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman did raise
concerns about failures in discovery and vetting.  What could you
have done differently?

Hilliard: We had no reason on such a minor issue when turning over
all the rocks on big issues to believe we should chase down a
realtor whose name we didn't know and [who'd] never been
identified until he contacted GM and confirmed that part of the
story.

I didn't see any red flags.  I had a team of very experienced
lawyers who didn't see red flags.  I had a team in Oklahoma who
didn't see red flags.  They had people all over Oklahoma, all over
this little town, turning up everything they could, and they never
found this guy.

I wish the judge was right -- that with more discovery we would
have found it -- but there was simply no way.

NLJ: Furman also raised questions about whether this case was
representative of the hundreds of other lawsuits pending against
GM. Why did you consider this case a good bellwether?

Hilliard: There was no subjective testimony from anyone including
the plaintiff necessary to prove the engineering and mathematical
science.


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Multiple 2016 Vehicle Models
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 9, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: SUV
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Structure
Units affected: 88
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015591TC
ID number: 2015591
Manufacturer recall number: 21930

On certain vehicles, the third row left lower seat frame may have
welds that are not in the correct location. In the event of a
crash, the seat may not perform as intended, which could increase
the risk of occupant injury. Correction: Dealers will inspect and
replace the lower seat frame as necessary.

  Make         Model        Model year(s) affected
  ----         -----        ----------------------
  GMC          ACADIA       2016
  BUICK        ENCLAVE      2016
  CHEVROLET    TRAVERSE     2016


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Sierra 2016 Models Due to Crash Risk
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 9, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Light Truck & Van
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Airbag
Units affected: 6
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015590TC
ID number: 2015590
Manufacturer recall number: 15794

On certain vehicles, a mounting stud used to secure the airbag
sensing and diagnostic module (SDM) to the vehicle may have been
incorrectly positioned during the assembly process. This could
stress the SDM housing and cause it to fracture which could
potentially allow water to enter the SDM and cause it to
malfunction. If the SDM does not perform as intended, it could
increase the risk of occupant injury in the event of a crash.
Correction: Dealers will send the affected vehicles to a repair
facility which will relocate the mounting stud and replace the
SDM.

  Make     Model      Model year(s) affected
  ----     -----      ----------------------
  GMC      SIERRA     2016


GILEAD SCIENCES: Massachusetts AG to Probe Hep C Drug Costs
-----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Pollack, writing for The New York Times, reports that the
attorney general of Massachusetts said on Jan. 27 that she had
opened an inquiry into whether Gilead Sciences had violated state
consumer protection laws by charging too much for its hepatitis C
drugs.

The notification, which was contained in a letter to the company
from the attorney general, Maura Healey, is the latest challenge
to the practices of Gilead, which has become the largest and most
profitable biotechnology company by dominating the market for
drugs used to treat both H.I.V. and hepatitis C.

On Jan. 26, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, a nonprofit
organization that treats patients with H.I.V. and AIDS, filed a
lawsuit seeking to invalidate patents covering the new version of
Gilead's mainstay H.I.V. drug, tenofovir.  The lawsuit also says
that Gilead, to maximize product life span but to the detriment of
patients, delayed the introduction of the new, safer version of
tenofovir until the old version was about to lose patent
protection.

The hepatitis C drugs, Sovaldi and Harvoni, are widely considered
breakthroughs -- curing most patients in 12 weeks with few side
effects. B ut Sovaldi has a list price of $1,000 per daily pill,
or $84,000 for 12 weeks, and Harvoni costs $94,500.  Those prices,
and the great demand for the drugs, have strained the budgets of
state Medicaid programs and prison systems, forcing many of them
to restrict treatment to those most seriously ill.

In her letter to Gilead's chief executive, John C. Martin,
Ms. Healey said her office was examining whether Gilead's pricing
would be an "unfair trade practice," in violation of Massachusetts
law.

"Because Gilead's drugs offer a cure for a serious and life-
threatening infectious disease, pricing the treatment in a manner
that effectively allows H.C.V. to continue spreading through
vulnerable populations, as opposed to eradicating the disease
altogether, results in massive public harm," she wrote, referring
to the hepatitis C virus by its initials.

The letter does not go into detail on how Gilead's pricing might
violate the state law.  A lawsuit filed by the Southeastern
Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, which said Gilead's high
prices violated a California law against unfair competition, was
dismissed by a federal judge.

However, Ms. Healey's letter suggests her real intent was not to
sue Gilead but to persuade it to voluntarily lower its prices.

Gilead said on Jan. 27 that it had contacted the attorney general
to request a meeting to address questions and "ensure a mutual
understanding of the work we are doing to deliver a cure for
H.C.V. to as many patients as possible."

Gilead has argued that the prices are justified by the value
provided by the drugs, curing a disease that gradually destroys
the liver.  Use of Sovaldi or Harvoni can stave off more expensive
ailments, like liver cancer or the need for a liver transplant,
down the road.

The company has also argued that there are usually substantial
discounts offered from the list prices, though these are typically
kept secret.  Insurers and others have bargained for discounts by
pitting Gilead against its main competitor, AbbVie.  Such
bargaining should intensify with the expected regulatory approval
of a new hepatitis C pill from Merck.

One motivation for Ms. Healey's letter was a class-action lawsuit
filed against Massachusetts' Department of Correction asking for
more inmates to be treated for hepatitis C.  Ms. Healey's letter
said that treating everyone at the list price of Sovaldi would
"easily exceed our entire budget for prisoner health care."

In the H.I.V. area, Gilead has become the leading vendor based on
products that combine three or four drugs into a single pill taken
once a day.  The bedrock drug in all those combinations has been
tenofovir, which will lose patent protection in December 2017,
allowing lower-priced generics to be sold.

Gilead is moving to replace tenofovir in the combination pills
with a modified version called tenofovir alafenamide, usually
called TAF, which will have longer patent protection.  TAF is more
potent than tenofovir and it causes fewer side effects,
particularly kidney and bone damage. The Food and Drug
Administration approved the first drug containing TAF, called
Genvoya, in November.

In its lawsuit, filed in Federal District Court for Northern
California, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation says that TAF is an
obvious modification of tenofovir intended to stave off generic
competition and therefore does not deserve patent protection.

The lawsuit also claims that Gilead is not releasing TAF as a
stand-alone drug because its patents would be too easily
challenged by generic companies. By contrast, the original
tenofovir is sold as a single drug under the name Viread.  The
lack of a stand-alone TAF makes it impossible for doctors to use
that one drug in a combination with non-Gilead drugs, the suit
says.

The foundation, which has had a series of disputes with Gilead,
also says that the company did not start clinical trials on TAF
until 2011, despite presenting animal data 10 years earlier.

"They waited 10 years to actually release this, and coincidentally
it's one year before the patent on tenofovir expires,"
Michael Weinstein, president of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation,
said in an interview.  "You consider how many people have suffered
kidney damage and bone loss during that time."

A Gilead spokeswoman said that the company believed the patents on
TAF were valid.  She said the company had recently filed for
regulatory approval of a stand-alone version of TAF -- albeit as a
treatment for hepatitis B, not H.I.V.

"TAF is a novel compound," she said.  "We have been and continue
to work hard to develop improved H.I.V. therapies, without delay."


GLAVAL: Recalls Wheelchair Lifts Due to Injury Risk
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 7, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Bus
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Structure
Units affected: 10
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015582TC
ID number: 2015582

On certain busses equipped with a Ricon S-Series wheelchair lift,
the platform could potentially crack due to bent knuckle link arms
and/or defective bearing. Overtime, the platform could separate of
the rear portion of the pivot plate making the lift inoperable and
putting the lift operator at risk of injury. Correction: Owners
will need to make an appointment with the local Ricon Dealer to
have the lift inspected and repaired.

  Make       Model       Model year(s) affected
  ----       -----       ----------------------
  GLAVAL     UNIVERSAL   2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014
  GLAVAL     TITAN       2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014
  GLAVAL     ENTOURAGE   2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014


GROUPE JEAN: Recalls Seasonal Lights Due to Shock Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 11, 2015
Posting date: December 11, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Household Items, Tools and Electrical Products
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fire Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-56264

This recall involves various MAGI Decor brand seasonal lights.

  Product               Product No.     UPC
  -------               -----------     ---
  MAGI Decor white      590396          884118246440
  indoor string
  lights - 100
  miniature lights
  MAGI Decor            587674          884118164331
  multicolour lights-
  70 indoor/outdoor
  C-6 LED lights
  MAGI Decor white      587675          884118164324
  lights - 70
  indoor/outdoor
  C-6 LED lights
  MAGI Decor red        587676          884118164317
  lights - 70
  indoor/outdoor
  C-6 LED lights
  MAGI Decor blue       587677          884118164300
  lights - 70
  indoor/outdoor
  C-6 LED lights
  MAGI Decor red,       135751          884118246037
  green and white
  lights - 70
  indoor/outdoor
  C-6 LED lights
  MAGI Decor blue       135752          884118246044
  and white lights
  - 70 indoor/outdoor
  C-6 LED lights
  MAGI Decor white      135753          884118246051
  outdoor string
  lights - 100
  miniature lights
  MAGI Decor            135758          884118246105
  multicolour lights
  - 70 indoor/outdoor
  M-5 LED lights
  MAGI Decor pure       135759          884118246112
  white lights -
  70 indoor/outdoor
  M-5 LED lights

Consumers can locate CSA file number 263917 on the self-adhesive
tags affixed to the product's wire, as well as the product numbers
and UPC codes on the product's packaging.

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

Neither Health Canada nor Jean Coutu Group (PJC) Inc. has received
any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use
of these products.

Approximately 15,500 units were sold in Canada.

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

Manufactured in China.

Importer: Groupe Jean Coutu (PJC) Inc.
          Longueuil
          Quebec
          CANADA

Manufacturer: Ningbo Ego International Co. Ltd.
              3/F, No.168 East Road Songjiang, Yinzhou Area,
              Ningbo
              Zhejiang
              315100
              CHINA

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled seasonal
lights and return them to a Jean Coutu store to obtain a refund.

For more information, consumers may contact Jean Coutu Group (PJC)
Inc. by telephone at 450-646-9611 from Monday to Friday between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. EST, or by email.

Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits
recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given
away in Canada.

Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health
or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any
other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer
Product Incident Report Form.

This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on Product
Recalls website. You can visit this site for more information on
other international consumer product recalls.

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


GW PHARMA: Adler Freeman Files Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a class (the
"Class") consisting of all persons or entities who purchased GW
Pharmaceuticals plc ("GW Pharmaceuticals" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ:GWPH) American Depository Receipts ("ADRs") between
December 4, 2014 and January 8, 2016 (the "Class Period"),
inclusive.

Shareholders who incurred losses on shares purchased within the
class period are urged to contact the firm immediately at
classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774.

If you purchased the shares of GW Pharmaceuticals during the
period December 4, 2014 and January 8, 2016, inclusive, you may,
no later than March 21, 2016, request that the Court appoint you
lead plaintiff of the proposed class.

On January 10, 2016, the Sunday Times of London reported that GW
Pharmaceuticals had disclosed in its annual report for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2015, that the Company's internal
financial controls were not effective as of September 30, 2015,
and further disclosed that management had determined that it
lacked effective controls over its clinical trials.  Specifically,
that the annual report stated management lacked sufficient control
to: (1) evaluate the completeness and accuracy of the calculation
of clinical trial accruals due to the incorrect allocation of
expenditure to clinical studies; or (2) ensure completeness of
clinical trial accruals in connection with contractual progress
payment liabilities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
Patrick Donovan, Esq.
Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis
Email: gstone@whafh.com
       donovan@whafh.com
       classmember@whafh.com
Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774


HALLIBURTON CO: Erica P John Fund Suit Sent to N.D. Tex.
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Erica P John Fund Inc et al. v.
Halliburton Company et al., Case No. 2:16-mc-00013, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Wyoming, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas (Dallas). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-
mc-00009-M-BK to the proceeding.

Halliburton is an American multinational corporation, and one of
the world's largest oil field services companies, with operations
in more than 80 countries. It owns hundreds of subsidiaries,
affiliates, branches, brands, and divisions worldwide and employs
approximately 70,000 people. The company has dual headquarters
located in Houston and in Dubai.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Patrick R. Day, Esq.
          JoAnna S. DeWald, Esq.
          HOLLAND & HART
          2515 Warren Avenue, Suite 450
          P O Box 1347
          Cheyenne, WY 82003-1347
          Telephone: (307) 778 4200
          Facsimile: (307) 778 8175
          E-mail: pday@hollandhart.com
                  jsdewald@hollandhart.com

               - and -

          Simon A Latcovich, Esq.
          Terrance O'Donnell, Esq.
          WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
          725 12th Street N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 434 5000
          E-mail: slatcovich@wc.com
                  todonnell@wc.com


HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Massage Therapist Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Nathaniel J. Hiatt, writing for The Crimson, reports that
Kara Donohoe, a massage therapist for Harvard University Health
Services' Center for Wellness, filed a class action lawsuit
against Harvard on Jan. 25, alleging that the University has
misclassified her and other employees as independent contractors,
thereby denying them benefits.

The lawsuit aims to recover damages for wages and benefits --
among them paid vacation, paid holidays, sick days, and the
ability to take Harvard classes at a discounted price -- for the
purportedly misclassified workers, which include Ms. Donohoe and
"all other similarly situated," according to the lawsuit.

"I would hope that Harvard would give us benefits, and I would
hope that everyone else who is being misclassified at Harvard
would come forward," said Ms. Donohoe, a Harvard employee for more
than 11 years.  "It's sad to me that these people are working just
as hard as everyone else and not getting benefits."

Shannon E. Liss-Riordan '90, the attorney for the case and a
former Crimson editor, claims that the workers' services are
performed "in the employer's usual course of business," which
would qualify the workers as employees under Massachusetts state
law.

The Massachusetts law is three-pronged: a worker is considered a
contractor if he or she is not under direction of superiors, is
not part of the "usual course of business" of the employer, or has
an independent business separate from their work from the employer
in question.

"The burden is on defendants to prove all three prongs of the law
in order to prove that someone is an independent contractor,"
Ms. Liss-Riordan said.  "Harvard would have to prove all three
things."

For determining whether a worker is an employee or contractor,
"Massachusetts happens to have one of the strongest tests in the
country," Ms. Liss-Riordan said.  She added that the Massachusetts
test is more protective of employees than the federal equivalent.

The lawsuit could be costly to the University depending on how
many plaintiffs come forward in the lawsuit.  If Harvard violates
Massachusetts wage law, it must pay workers three times the amount
of wages that were denied to them, plus reimbursements.

Ms. Liss-Riordan, who has sued the University in the past and is
currently involved in a lawsuit against Uber, believes that there
are "likely many other employees around Harvard who have been
misclassified as contractors," although she did not know exactly
how many.

Employee status would also allow the plaintiffs to join a union,
something Ms. Donohoe said she would "love to" do but is currently
not allowed as a contractor.

Ms. Donohoe began researching the distinction between employees
and contractors this winter break, when she and her coworkers had
to take two weeks of mandatory unpaid vacation.

"I love what I do. I love my coworkers and we have a community
that really utilizes us," Ms. Donohoe said.  "I just wish
therapists could really get acknowledged for our hard work."

Lindsey Baker, spokesperson for Harvard University Health
Services, wrote in an email that the University "cannot comment on
personnel matters or pending litigation."


HOME MAID: Recalls Meat and Poultry Ravioli and Pasta Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
Home Maid Ravioli Company, Inc., a South San Francisco, Calif.
establishment, is recalling approximately 38,950 pounds of meat
and poultry ravioli and pasta products produced without the
benefit of federal inspection and due to misbranding and
undeclared allergens, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food
Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. Some of the
products contain whey, a known allergen, and pork, neither of
which are declared on the product labels.

The Home Maid brand ravioli and pasta items were produced on
various dates between Sept. 18, 2015, and Jan. 20, 2016. The
following products are subject to recall:

  --- 15-oz. cardboard boxed packages containing 54 pieces of
      "Ravioli."
  --- 12-oz. cardboard boxed packages of "Ravioli."
  --- 5-lb. bagged and boxed packages of "Ravioli with Sauce."
  --- 10-lb. bagged and boxed packages of "Ravioli with Sauce."
  --- 12-oz. cardboard boxed packages containing 24 pieces of
      "Deluxe Ravioli."
  --- 12-oz. cardboard boxed packages containing 24 pieces of
      "Jumbo Deluxe Ravioli."
  --- 12-oz. cardboard boxed packages containing 24 pieces of
      "Jumbo Ravioli."
  --- 12-oz. cardboard boxed packages containing 48 pieces of
      "Ravioli Seasoned w Sausage."
  --- 12-oz. cardboard boxed packages containing 24 pieces of
      "Ravioli Seasoned w Chicken."
  --- 12-oz. plastic containers of "Ravioli and Spaghetti Italian
      Style Sauce."
  --- 1-qt. plastic containers of "Italian Style Pasta Sauce."
  --- 1-gal. plastic containers of "Italian Style Pasta Sauce."
  --- 10-lb. bagged and boxed packages of "Cheese Tortellini in
      Sauce."
  --- 5-lb. bagged and boxed packages of "Cheese Ravioli in
      Sauce."
  --- 10-lb. bagged and boxed packages of "Cheese Ravioli in
      Sauce."
  --- 10-lb. bagged and boxed packages of "Chicken Ravioli with
      Sauce, Pesto."
  --- 10-lb. bagged and boxed packages of "Chicken Ravioli with
      Sauce, Marinara Sauce."
  --- 5-lb. bagged and boxed packages of "Spaghetti with Sauce."
      10-lb. bagged and boxed packages of "Spaghetti with Sauce."
  --- 5-lb. bagged and boxed packages of "Rigatoni with Sauce."
  --- 10-lb. bagged and boxed packages of "Rigatoni with Sauce."

These items were shipped to wholesale and retail locations in
California.

The firm operates under the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA); however, the products subject to recall contain meat and
poultry amounts that are amenable to FSIS. The problem was
discovered by FSIS during a review of products at a different
federal plant.

There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to
consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury or
illness should contact a healthcare provider.

Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to
consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to
the place of purchase.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at
www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls.


HOME MAID: Recalls Beef Ravioli Products Due to Misbranding
-----------------------------------------------------------
Home Maid Ravioli Company, Inc., a San Francisco, Calif.
establishment, is recalling approximately 34,200 pounds of beef
ravioli products due to misbranding and undeclared allergens, the
U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS) announced. The products contain whey, a known
allergen, and pork, neither of which are declared on the product
labels.  The products were also produced without the benefit of
federal inspection.

The Home Maid ravioli items were produced on various dates between
Sept. 20, 2015, and Jan. 15, 2016. The following products are
subject to recall:

  --- 15-oz. cardboard boxed packages containing 54 pieces of
      "Ravioli."
  --- 12-oz. cardboard boxed packages of "Ravioli."
  --- 5-lb. bagged and boxed packages of "Ravioli with Sauce."
  --- 10-lb. bagged and boxed packages of "Ravioli with Sauce."
  --- 12-oz. cardboard boxed packages containing 24 pieces of
      "Deluxe Ravioli."
  --- 12-oz. cardboard boxed packages containing 24 pieces of
      "Jumbo Deluxe Ravioli."
  --- 12-oz. cardboard boxed packages containing 24 pieces of
      "Jumbo Ravioli."
  --- 12-oz. cardboard boxed packages containing 48 pieces of
      "Ravioli Seasoned w Sausage."
  --- 12-oz. cardboard boxed packages containing 24 pieces of
      "Ravioli Seasoned w Chicken."
  --- 12-oz. plastic containers of "Ravioli and Spaghetti Italian
      Style Sauce."
  --- 1-qt. plastic containers of "Italian Style Pasta Sauce."
  --- 1-gal. plastic containers of "Italian Style Pasta Sauce."

These items were shipped to retail locations in California.

The firm operates under the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA); however the products subject to recall are amenable. The
problem was discovered by FSIS during a review of products at a
different federal plant.

There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to
consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury or
illness should contact a healthcare provider.

Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to
consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to
the place of purchase.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at
www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls


HONDA: Recalls Multiple Motorcycle Models Due to Injury Risk
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 4, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Motorcycle
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Powertrain
Units affected: 254
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015577TC
ID number: 2015577

On certain motorcycles, the driveshaft universal joint may not
have been properly assembled and/or may not have adequate
durability as the result of manufacturing errors. An incorrectly
assembled or prematurely worn universal joint bearing may generate
enough heat to decrease the strength of the bearing shell, which
may cause the yokes to separate or the universal joint to break.
If the joint breaks, it is possible it may interfere with the
swing arm and lock the rear wheel while riding. Either outcome
could result in loss of control and/or a crash, increasing the
risk of injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will
replace the original driveshaft with an updated drive shaft.

  Make      Model       Model year(s) affected
  ----      -----       ----------------------
  HONDA                 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013


HOUSE OF FLAVORS: Recalls Cookie Butter Ice Cream Due to Nuts
-------------------------------------------------------------
House of Flavors, Inc. is voluntarily recalling a small batch of 8
oz. cups of Purple Cow Limited Edition Cookie Butter Ice Cream,
sold at Meijer stores, that contain Purple Cow Butter Pecan Ice
Cream with a Purple Cow Butter Pecan lid. Consumers who may have a
severe allergy or sensitivity to nuts run the risk of potentially
life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume this product.

For consumers who are not allergic to nuts, there is no safety
issue with this product. The company is conducting an internal
audit to determine possible cause. To date, there has been one
complaint and no illnesses reported related to the recalled
product.

Only 8 oz. cups of Purple Cow Limited Edition Cookie Butter that
contain Purple Cow Butter Pecan Ice Cream with a Purple Cow Butter
Pecan lid sold at Meijer with UPC Code 13733 61945 and marked Best
By November 21, 2016 are affected by the recall. The product was
sold at Meijer stores in Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan,
Ohio and Wisconsin. No other Purple Cow products sold at Meijer
stores are involved in the recall.

House of Flavors and Meijer are taking precautionary steps,
including removing all potentially-impacted products from Meijer
shelves and the entire distribution system.

Consumers who have purchased the recalled products should return
them to the store where they were purchased for a full refund.
Anyone requiring more information should contact House of Flavors
consumer affairs at 1-800-930-7740, extension 2229, Monday through
Friday 7 a.m. until 5 p.m. (EST).

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


HOUSTON AMERICAN: $7 Million Silverman Settlement Has Final OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
Houston American Energy Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a Texas
court hs granted final approval of the settlement of the Silverman
shareholder class action suit, and as a result, the $7,000,000
litigation settlement payable and the related insurance claim
receivable were each reflected as settled on the Company's balance
sheet at September 30, 2015.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, the Company, through its
insurer, was required to escrow settlement funds in the amount of
$7,000,000. In May 2015, the Company's insurer deposited the
required funds into an escrow account to fund the settlement.

On July 29, 2015, the court rendered a final judgment approving
the settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice.


HUNGARY: U.S. Court Revives Holocaust Survivors' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Sam Hananel, writing for ABC News, reports that a federal appeals
court gave new life to a lawsuit by a group of Holocaust survivors
seeking damages from Hungary for its role in the deaths of more
than 500,000 Jews during World War II.

The ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit said a 1947 peace treaty between the Allied
powers and Hungary does not give Hungarian officials immunity from
the lawsuit. A federal judge had dismissed the case in 2014,
saying it would conflict with the treaty's terms.

The lawsuit filed by 14 survivors, including four living in the
United States, accuses the Hungarian government and its national
railway of collaborating with the Nazis to transport Jews to death
camps and seize their property.

The case now returns to the lower court, which still must consider
whether the case can move forward before the survivors exhaust
their legal options in Hungary.

In a similar lawsuit against Hungary filed in Chicago, a federal
appeals court there ruled in 2015 that survivors and heirs must
first pursue legal action in Hungarian courts.

Writing for the court in Washington, Judge Sri Srinivasan rejected
Hungary's arguments that the peace treaty offers the only means
for Holocaust victims to seek compensation for property taken
during the war.

Srinivasan also rejected the government's claims that the case
raised political questions that should not be resolved in the
courts.

"The wartime wrongs inflicted upon Hungarian Jews by the Hungarian
government are unspeakable and undeniable," Srinivasan said. He
said federal law allows the victims to pursue claims "involving
the taking of the plaintiffs' property in the commission of
genocide against Hungarian Jews."

The survivors filed the lawsuit in 2010 with the goal of pursuing
a class-action case against Hungary and its railway on behalf of
all Hungarian Holocaust survivors and family members of Holocaust
victims. The railroad played a key role in the genocide,
transporting more than 400,000 Hungarian Jews to the Auschwitz
death camp in Poland over a period of two months in 1944.

Twelve of the plaintiffs were sent to Auschwitz or other Nazi
concentration camps outside of Hungary and survived the ordeal.


INDIANA: Mentally Ill Solitary Confinement Settlement Game Changer
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Callahan, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
proposed settlement of a class-action lawsuit that targets
Indiana's treatment of seriously mentally ill inmates is a game-
changer, a plaintiffs' attorney said on Jan. 28, that ensures the
state will treat those inmates "the best we can in prison."

The agreement, which took three years to reach, bars solitary
confinement for most seriously mentally ill state inmates and
significantly improves their access to mental health care.

If a judge gives final approval to the agreement filed on Jan. 27
in federal court, it will end the American Civil Liberties Union
of Indiana's long-running suit that alleged solitary confinement
violates those inmates' constitutional rights. The other plaintiff
is the Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Commission, an
independent state agency.

The state Department of Correction has already made most of the
improvements detailed in the agreement, representing "a remarkable
change in mentality," ACLU of Indiana legal director Ken Falk
said.

"These are all prisoners who are going to be released and it's to
society's advantage to treat their mental illness the best we can
in prison," Mr. Falk said on Jan. 28 at a news conference.

The agreement shows that the DOC has created or upgraded mental
health treatment centers at four of Indiana's prisons and is now
providing "minimum adequate treatment" of seriously mentally ill
prisoners, including 10 hours per week of therapeutic programming
and individual treatment plans for each.  The four treatment
centers have a total of more than 500 beds.

But Mr. Falk said the DOC is still working to move seriously
mentally ill inmates out of solitary confinement, which they'll
track.

The DOC has determined that about 5,600 of its inmates are
seriously mentally ill, said Dawn Adams, executive director of the
commission.

Indiana's attorney general spokesman Bryan Corbin said the
settlement's "approval is contingent on the court finding the
proposed agreement is fair, reasonable and adequate" under federal
rules.

If the settlement is approved, Indiana will join several states,
including New York, Pennsylvania and Michigan, that in the past
decade have limited their use of solitary confinement for mentally
ill inmates, often in the face of lawsuits.

When the suit was filed in 2008, there were about 600 seriously
mentally ill inmates in solitary confinement in Indiana's prisons,
Mr. Falk said.  Typically punished for fights or other disruptive
acts, they were kept alone in a small cell with continuous
lighting for 23 hours a day, which sometimes caused those who were
mildly ill to develop "profound mental illness," he said.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt approved class-action
status for the suit in 2010.  After a 2011 bench trial, she found
in December 2012 that Indiana was indeed violating many mentally
ill inmates' constitutional rights and ordered the parties to seek
a final resolution.

Some of the mentally ill inmates had faced six or more months in
solitary, Adams said, but the DOC is shifting away from that and
those inmates are now receiving needed mental health care.
"We want people to leave these facilities being better and not
wanting to commit crime.

That's what's better overall for everyone," she said.


INTERCLOUD SYSTEMS: N.J. Court Rejects Motion to Dismiss Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Intercloud Systems, Inc. must defend itself against a securities
class action lawsuit after a New Jersey court denied the Company's
motion to dismiss, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

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

On November 3, 2014, the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey issued an order appointing Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead plaintiffs' counsel and Cohn Lifland
Pearlman Herrmann & Knopf LLP as liaison counsel for the pending
actions. The lead filed an amended complaint in January 2015
adding additional third-party defendants.

"We filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in late
January 2015 and the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
in early March 2015," the Company said.  "We filed a motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint on March 13, 2015. Our motion
to dismiss was denied by the Court on October 29, 2015."


JACKSON COUNTY, FL: Settles Compass Lake Subdivision Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Deborah Buckhalter, writing for Jackson County Floridan, reports
that a ceasefire appears to have taken hold after a years-long
battle over issues related to Compass Lake in the Hills and the
special assessment property owners there pay for certain services.

Jackson County has agreed to reorganize the taxing unit at Compass
Lake in the Hills as part of a settlement agreement reached in a
class-action lawsuit filed by James Cowart and Linda Dutch on
behalf of themselves and "all others similarly situated" in that
subdivision.

The agreement calls for the Municipal Services Taxing Unit to be
replaced by a different kind of assessment system, a Municipal
Services Benefit Unit.

The MSBU will carry an annual assessment much lower than that
which property owners in the subdivision have paid under the MSTU.
A cap of $50 has been set for the first year in the life of the
MSBU, which should begin in October, compared to the annual $135
assessment charged under the MSTU. There is cap of $75 for the
following four years, with adjustments possible beyond that total
after 2020-21 fiscal year.  This reduction will save owners
roughly $350 over the course of that five-year period, and
collectively they'll realize a little more than $2.2 million in
savings over the period.

The agreement also requires the county to limit the use of the
MSBU funds to the care of roads and facilities that benefit all
the property owners.  It will not, as the MSTU controversially did
at points in its existence, fund recreation or law enforcement
services.  Mr. Cowart and some others in the subdivision have
argued for years for changes in the way the monies are used as
well as for the termination of the county's contract with the
subdivision's Property Owners Association to have that entity
manage the budget generated by the MSTU.

As part of the settlement, that relationship will end.
The class action as filed asked the court to find that the
assessment was unlawful because the funds collected were used for
certain things that do not provide a benefit to land, which was
the purpose of the MSTU, and because it was not, the action
argued, fairly distributed for the benefit all the parcels within
the MSTU.

The complaint also asked the court to order the county to pay
restitution of all money paid for the special assessment since
June of 2011, four years prior to the day they filed the suit.
Law prohibits relief for activities prior to that term.

The compromise was reached after several settlement proposals were
argued.

All property owners who pay into the MSTU must be offered the
opportunity to opt in or opt out of the agreement.  They'll have
60 days in which to notify the appropriate parties if they choose
to object to the terms or request exclusion from the class.

If they opt in, they agreed not to pursue any claim against the
county regarding the matters covered in the settlement.

If they opt out, they retain their right to seek individual
relief, but may not use the settlement agreement to make their
case in an individual suit.

The county retains the right to withdraw from the settlement if
more than 318 of the property owners affected opt out and if the
governing body determines, because of that circumstance, that it
would be in the best interest of the county to regroup and seek
other resolution.

Any delinquent assessments imposed under the old MSTU will remain
due and payable to the county.

As part of the agreement, the county has agreed to pay the
plaintiffs' attorney's fees of $200,000, and, of that amount,
$5,000 each will be paid to Cowart and Dutch as a "service award
agreement" amount.

The county will also have to pay its own legal fees in the case.
That total is not yet available.

The settlement did not specify whether the county could use funds
from the assessment mechanism to pay any of the legal fees
involved.


JACOBY & MEYERS: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
a federal judge in Newark has denied a motion by Jacoby & Meyers
to dismiss a class action suit over its outsourcing of work to a
litigation support company partly owned by the firm's managing
partner.

The judge also denied the firm's motion for sanctions against the
plaintiff.

The firm's motion to dismiss former client Barbara Smalls' suit
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was dismissed without
prejudice because it constitutes a factual attack and is therefore
untimely, as the defendant has not yet filed an answer in the
case, U.S. District Judge Jose Linares of the District of New
Jersey ruled in Smalls v. Jacoby & Meyers.  The plaintiff should
be allowed some discovery on the issue of jurisdiction before the
motion to dismiss is re-filed, the judge said.

Jacoby & Meyers' sanctions motion was denied based on the motion
to dismiss being decided in favor of the plaintiff, Judge Linares
said.

Jurisdictional discovery will help the court sort out the question
of whether Ms. Smalls' bill of more than $2,500 from the
litigation services company was forgiven as a bookkeeping error,
as the defense maintains, or whether it was deleted in order to
tactically moot the class action suit, as the plaintiff claims,
Linares said.

Ms. Smalls, who retained Jacoby & Meyers for representation in a
personal injury suit, sued the firm in September 2015 over its use
of a company called Total Trial Services to handle certain tasks
related to the case.  That company is owned in part by Jacoby &
Meyers managing partner Andrew Finkelstein --
afinkelstein@jmlawyer.com

Ms. Smalls' suit claims work parceled out to TTS includes "the
type of services which are reasonably expected to be performed by
law firms as part of the services provided under a contingent
retainer agreement," according to the complaint.  She argues that
the arrangement is used to allow plaintiffs counsel to recover
more than the 33.3 percent contingency fee specified in her
retainer.

Jacoby & Meyers negotiated a $100,000 settlement with the
insurance carrier for the defendant in Ms. Smalls' auto accident
case, but she rejected the offer and the firm withdrew from the
case in April 2014.  Afterward, she received a bill for $2,527
from TTS for a focus group, exhibits and photographs.  Jacoby &
Meyers proceeded to obtain a lien against Brown for disbursements
and legal fees.

After Ms. Smalls sued Jacoby & Meyers, Mr. Finkelstein said in a
declaration that the plaintiff was billed by TTS in error and that
firm policy is to absorb the cost of TTS disbursements for
clients, such as Ms. Smalls, who had not signed an agreement
disclosing Finkelstein's interest in TTS.  As a result, Jacoby &
Meyers claims Ms. Smalls' suit is moot.

Ms. Smalls, for her part, argues that her claims are not moot,
citing U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit case law that
says defendants should not try to circumvent a class suit by
mooting the named plaintiff's individual claims.

Judge Linares said both arguments would need to be revisited in
future briefing in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's Jan. 20
ruling in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, which held that an
unaccepted settlement offer does not moot a complaint.  In that
case, the court expressly withheld judgment on whether other
circumstances extinguishing the amount claimed or owed may moot a
claim, according to Judge Linares.  He noted the court's finding
that, as long as the parties have "a concrete interest, however
small, in the outcome of the litigation, the case is not moot."

Joseph Santoli, a Ridgewood lawyer representing Ms. Smalls, said
he was pleased that the ruling would allow the plaintiff to look
at documents from other clients that were similarly harmed by the
billing practices at issue.  Mr. Santoli said he will seek to
disprove the defendant's argument that the bill from TTS was due
to a clerical error.

James Cecchi of Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello
in Roseland did not return a call seeking comment on the ruling.
Contact the reporter at ctoutant@alm.com


JUBILANT DRAXIMAGE: Recalls Ruby-Fill Rubidium 82 Generators
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 7, 2015
Type of communication: Drug Recall
Subcategory: Drugs
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-56244

This unit is recalled due to a Strontium breakthrough.

Depth of distribution: One hospital in Alberta

Affected products:
Ruby-Fill Rubidium 82 Generator
DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
Not Applicable
Dosage form: Generator
Strength: 1X100mCi
Lot or serial number: 1570924 Order #450081119

Recalling Firm: Jubilant DraxImage Inc.
                16751 Trans-Canada Highway
                Kirkland
                H9H 4J4
                Quebec
                CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder: Jubilant DraxImage Inc.
                                16751 Trans-Canada Highway
                                Kirkland
                                H9H 4J4
                                Quebec
                                CANADA


KAM WAH: Recalls Walnut Powder Due to Peanut and Soy
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 9, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Peanut, Allergen - Soy
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Kam Wah Resources Co. Ltd.
Distribution: Ontario
Extent of the product distribution: Retail

Kam Wah Resources Co. Ltd. is recalling Kaixin brand Walnut Powder
from the marketplace because it contains peanut and soy which are
not declared on the label. People with an allergy to peanut or soy
should not consume the recalled product 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 peanut or soy 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 Canadian Food Inspection Agency
(CFIA) test results. 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     Common   Size    Code(s) on        UPC
  name      name     ----    product           ---
  -----     ------           ----------
  Kaixin    Walnut   700 g    All lots where   6 923624 800686
            Powder    p       peanut and soy
                              are not
                              declared on the
                              label.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/ctW8xJ


KEHE FOOD DISTRIBUTORS: "Santana" Suit Sent to S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Santana v. Kehe Food Distributors,
Inc. et al., Case No. 37-02015-00038351-CU-OE-CTL, was removed
from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San
Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No 3:15-cv-02963-
LAB-DHB to the proceeding.

KEHE Distributors engages in the distribution of natural and
organic foods, specialty and gourmet foods, international and
multicultural products, fresh products, health products,
confections, snacks, and ingredients to retail outlets in North
America. The company provides marketing, merchandising, and
distribution services, and is based in Naperville, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J.D. Henderson, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF J.D. HENDERSON
          215 North Marengo Avenue, Suite 322
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 529 5891
          E-mail: jdlaw@charter.net

               - and -

          Thomas D Rutledge, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS D RUTLEDGE
          3555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 201
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 866 7224
          Facsimile: (619) 259 5455
          E-mail: rutledgelaw@cox.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          Steve Lou Hernandez, Esq.
          BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 300
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 284 3775
          Facsimile: (310) 284 3894
          stevelouesq@yahoo.com


KENNER, LA: Pay Firefighters' Pension, State Supreme Court Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a new decision by the Louisiana
Supreme Court will cost Kenner's government hundreds of thousands
of dollars, if not more. The court ordered the city to factor in
incentive pay, holiday pay and similar compensation when
calculating pension contributions for firefighters, The New
Orleans Advocate reported.

The decision upheld a ruling in 2015 by the 5th Circuit Court of
Appeal. That ruling reversed a 24th Judicial District Court
decision to dismiss the class-action lawsuit, filed in 2010 by a
group of firefighters who said they were owed more in pension
contributions than Kenner was paying them.

The seeds for the dispute were planted in 1999. That's when Kenner
merged its municipal firefighters' retirement system with the
statewide system.

Before then, Kenner based its pension contributions for its
firefighters on their basic salary plus supplemental payments the
state mandates for full-time employees. After the switch, Kenner
didn't modify the way it calculated the contributions.

The Supreme Court said forcing the city to consider educational,
seniority, holiday and acting pay presented "no genuine issues of
material fact," and it affirmed the appellate panel's ruling.
Justice Jefferson Hughes of Walker dissented in part, saying
neither educational nor seniority incentive pay should matter when
it comes to pension contributions.

The firefighters' attorney, Louis Robein, praised the high court's
ruling. He said it was "extremely meticulous in analyzing the
facts and very strong in its application of pension laws affecting
all public employees."

It is unclear exactly how much the decision will cost the city.
How much each of the 90 or so plaintiffs will get in adjusted
pension contributions depends on numerous variables, said Kenner's
attorney in the case, Alvin Bordelon. Robein said the $832,000
figure cited by the city earlier in the case was "a good
baseline."


LENOVO: Class Action Over Battery Life Dismissed
------------------------------------------------
Lauren K. Ohnesorge, writing for Triangle Business Journal,
reports that a class action lawsuit over Lenovo's battery life has
come to an end after nearly a year of motions.

The class action suit, filed in February, alleged that Lenovo,
which bases its PC business in Morrisville, misrepresented the
battery life of its Yoga 2 Pro laptop.

The lead plaintiff, Orlando Medeiros says in his complaint that
Lenovo's website assured customers that the battery would last up
to nine hours, but claims it "generally provided only four to
five, or at most, six hours of battery life on a full charge."

According to a statement put out by K&L Gates, the firm
representing Lenovo, Medeiros had lauded the laptop on social
media anyway.

"The named plaintiff had posted that with a few adjustments, he
could achieve more than 9 hours and that he 'loved' his laptop," a
statement from K&L Gates reads.

In the end, it didn't matter, according to the final decree of Leo
Sorokin, the judge in Massachusetts hearing the case.

As the judge points out in his ruling, Medeiros doesn't detail
whether he put Lenovo on notice regarding a warranty, "or that he
gave Lenovo any time at all to cure the alleged breach."

Judge Sorokin dismissed the case Jan. 27.


LIFE FITNESS: Judge Denies FLSA Class Certification Motion
----------------------------------------------------------
Mark Tabakman, Esq. -- mtabakman@foxrothschild.com -- of Fox
Rotschilds, reports that some months back, a federal judge has
just denied the motion to conditionally certify a proposed class
of personal trainers and instructors.  A FLSA class action was
filed against Life Time Fitness based on a theory that personal
trainers were compelled to work off-the-clock and were not paid.
The Judge found that their allegedly improper working conditions
varied too much from employee to employee to permit the
conditional certification of the class.  The case is entitled
Steger et al. v. LTF Club Operations Co. Inc. et al., and was
filed in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois.

U.S. District Judge Sharon J. Coleman concluded that assessing the
workers' claims would mandate "highly individualized" scrutiny and
defenses because the employees were paid pursuant to a complicated
commission system, thereby rendering a collective action
inefficient.  The Court noted that testimony from the workers
demonstrated that their working conditions varied, again requiring
individualized attention.

The Judge wrote that "the pressure that each [personal trainer]
felt to work off the clock depended on his or her location, his or
her job title and responsibilities, his or her department head at
the particular moment, his or her productivity, and his or her
personal decisions."  She asserted that "although two putative
plaintiffs might share one or two of these factors in common, a
highly individualized analysis would nonetheless be necessary to
determine the extent to which each employee worked off the clock
and whether that conduct was attributable to Life Time."

The proposed class would have stretched to more than one-hundred
locations across the country, going back to 2011.  The Judge did
find that the supervisors of the employees received commissions
based on department revenues and she did note that some of these
supervisors pressured their employees to report fewer hours so as
to minimize the "draws" taken from their particular division's
cash flow.  Countered against this was the undisputed fact that
the Employee Handbook required workers to report all hours worked.
Moreover, the testimony indicated that the five job titles sought
for inclusion in the proposed class did not have "substantially
identical" experiences.  Thus, the Court denied the motion.

The Takeaway

The employer's best defense (sometimes, indeed, the only defense)
is that a class is inappropriate because there is too much of a
need for individual scrutiny.  Consider what was at stake -- more
than one hundred locations, nationwide, and several hundred
employees.  The potential liability for the employer would have
been staggering, but now that possibility is (likely) gone
forever.

The employer still has some stuff to clean up here, as noted by
the Judge.  But now it has the time to do it.  Thanks to the magic
bullet defense!


LIME ENERGY: Insurer Paid $2.5MM Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
Lime Energy Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the entire $2.5
million payable pursuant to the settlement of a securities class
action lawsuit has been paid by the Company's insurance.

That case is, Jeffrey Satterfield, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. Lime Energy Co., John O'Rourke
and Jeffrey Mistarz, United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Case No. 1:12-cv-05704,

An Order of Preliminary Approval of a settlement was filed on
January 28, 2014. The parties agreed to settlement terms and an
Order of Final Approval and Final Judgment was entered by the
court on June 4, 2014. As part of the settlement, the Company
agreed to pay $2.5 million into a settlement fund, the entire
amount of which was paid by insurance.


LUCY'S WEIGHT: Recalls Pink Bikini and Shorts Capsules
------------------------------------------------------
Lucy's Weight Loss System of Arlington, TX, is voluntarily
recalling all lots of Pink Bikini and Shorts on the Beach Capsules
in all colors, 30 count (750MG per capsule) to the consumer level.
Pink Bikini and Shorts on the Beach may contain an undeclared
active pharmaceutical ingredient.

FDA analysis of Pink Bikini (white capsules, blue capsules and
gold capsules) and Shorts on the Beach (blue capsules and gold
capsules) found these products to be tainted with Sibutramine,
Phenolphthalein, and/or Diclofenac, and that this active
ingredients are not declared on the label of the product.

Sibutramine is an appetite suppressant that was withdrawn from the
U.S. market in October 2010. Sibutramine is known to substantially
increase blood pressure and/or pulse rate in some patients and may
present a significant risk for patients with a history of coronary
artery disease, congestive heart failure, arrhythmias, or stroke.
Phenophthalein is an ingredient previously used in over-the-
counter laxatives, but because of concerns of carcinogenicity, it
is not currently approved for marketing in the U.S. Health risks
associated with phenolphthalein could include potentially serious
gastrointestinal disturbances, irregular heartbeat, and cancer
with long-term use. Diclofenac is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory
drug (NSAID). Use of diclofenac in patients already taking NSAIDS,
with allergies, with underlying illnesses or with recent cardiac
bypass surgery, could lead to gastrointestinal disturbances, fatal
heart attack or stroke. Out of an abundance of caution, Lucy's
Weight Loss System is recommending that Pink Bikini and Shorts on
the Beach, in all strengths and pill colors not be consumed, as
they may contain any of these undeclared active pharmaceutical
ingredients and/or an unknown active pharmaceutical ingredient.
Any of these undeclared ingredients would make this product an
unapproved new drug for which safety and efficacy have not been
established.

Lucy's Weight Loss System has not received any complaints to date.

The product is marketed as a weight loss dietary supplement and is
packaged in clear bottle in multiple color capsules. The affected
Pink Bikini and Shorts on the Beach lots include the following
expiration date 7/30/2017. These products were distributed
nationwide to consumers via PinkBikini.BigCartel.com and Waisted
With Lucy Retail store.

Lucy's Weight Loss System is notifying its customers by Press
Release and email. Consumers with questions regarding this recall
can contact Lucy's Weight Loss System by phone (682)-308-0199 or
email PBFITME@gmail.com on Monday thru Friday 10:00am to 5:30pm
CST. Consumers that have recalled Pink Bikini and Shorts on the
Beach should stop using and discard.

Consumers should contact their physician or healthcare provider if
they have experienced any problems that may be related to taking
or using this drug product.

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event
Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax.

Complete and submit the report Online: FDA's MedWatch Adverse
Event Reporting program
Regular Mail or Fax: Download form
www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm
or call 1-800-332-1088 to request a reporting form, then complete
and return to the address on the pre-addressed form, or submit by
fax to 1-800-FDA-0178

This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration.


MAHINA MELE: Recalls Macadamia Nut Products Due to Salmonella
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mahina Mele Farms, LLC is recalling the following products after
FDA testing found Salmonella in macadamia nuts. Salmonella is an
organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in
young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened
immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often
experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting
and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with
Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream
and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections
(i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis.

The following products are involved in the recall. They were
distributed to retail stores in Alaska, California, Hawaii,
Maryland, and Virginia from Oct 21-Nov 25, 2015 and involve three
lot numbers 026, 027, 029.

  PRODUCT                       UPC            LOT #         SIZE
  -------                       ---            -----         ----
  Izzie Macs! Macadamia Nuts    689076792677   026,027,029   6oz
  (salted) plastic bag
  Izzie Macs! Macadamia Nuts    689076793575   026,027,029   6oz
  (unsalted) plastic bag
  Izzie Macs! Macadamia Nuts    689076792776   026,027,029   16oz
  (unsalted) plastic bag
  Izzie Macs! Macadamia Nuts    689076792974   026,027,029   16oz
  (salted) plastic bag
  Bulk Macadamia nuts -         026,027,029               5lb bag
  (salted and unsalted; wholes and pieces)
  Baby Bruddah's Mac Nut Buttah 753182242019   026,027,029   12oz
                                                          plastic
                                                              tub
  Baby Bruddah's Chocolate Mac  73518224204    026,027,029   12oz
  Nut Buttah                                              plastic
                                                              tub

To date, no illnesses have been reported in connection with these
products. In the interest of public health and safety, we are
recalling all products processed from this batch of macadamia
nuts.
Customers who have purchased the above products should not consume
them and should return them to the store where they were purchased
for a full refund or replacement. Mahina Mele Farms, LLC will
reimburse the wholesaler for any returned product.

These products were shipped between Oct. 21 and Nov 25, 2015 and
are from LOTS 026, 027, 029.

If you have any questions, call Jason or Kollette Stith at 808 328
8987, Monday-Friday, 8-4 HST

This recall is being made with the knowledge of the Food and Drug
Administration.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/qOaw5h


MASTER HERBS: Recalls Licorice Coughing Liquid Due to Morphine
--------------------------------------------------------------
Master Herbs, Inc. is voluntarily recalling ALL LOTS of Licorice
Coughing Liquid, cough syrup in 100 ml bottles to the consumer
level. This product has been found to contain morphine, which is
an opioid, and it is not declared on the label. Opioid is an
ingredient of Compound Camphor. Compound Camphor is declared on
the label of the product, but not its ingredients.

Consumers using this product may not be aware they are ingesting
morphine. The unware ingestion of morphine can lead to life-
threatening respiratory depression and death. Because the morphine
contained in this product is not identified on the label there is
a risk that patients who are hypersensitive to morphine could
suffer severe allergic reactions. In addition young children with
a respiratory illness are vulnerable to respiratory depression
from opioids and should not be exposed to morphine in any event.
To this date Master Herbs, Inc. is not aware of adverse events
associated with use of the product.

The product is used for the temporary relief of cough due to cold,
minor throat and bronchial irritations. The product can also be
identified by the Chinese Product Name:Licorice Coughing Liquid
The product was distributed to Chinese grocery stores in various
cities in California, New Jersey, Hawaii, Illinois, Ohio and
Nevada.

Master Herbs, Inc. is notifying its distributors and customers by
phone or fax and is arranging for return of all recalled products.
Consumers that have product which is being recalled should stop
using the product and return it to place of purchase. Retailer and
wholesalers should stop distributing the product, quarantine any
remaining inventory and make arrangements to return the product.

Consumers with questions regarding this recall can contact Master
Herbs, Inc. by phone at 626-319-9915 Monday through Friday from
10:00am - 5:00pm PST or anytime via email at 999herbs@gmail.com.
Consumers should contact their physician or healthcare provider if
they believe they have experienced any adverse events related with
use of this product.

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event
Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax.

Complete and submit the report Online:
www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm
Regular Mail or Fax: Download form
www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1-800-332-1088 to
request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address
on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178.
This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/zAo3go


MICHAEL KORS: $4.9MM Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
Celia Ampel, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that a
federal judge is set to give final approval to a nearly $4.9
million class-action settlement against Michael Kors Inc. for
allegedly using misleading pricing in its outlet stores.

Tags in the outlet stores listed prices as discounts from
"original prices" or manufacturer's suggested retail prices that
were never used, according to the lawsuit filed in the Southern
District of New York.

Class counsel Jeff Ostrow -- ostrow@kolawyers.com -- of Kopelowitz
Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg in Fort Lauderdale said he thinks the
settlement will be a catalyst for change across the retail
industry.

"We've got seven or eight cases that are similar out there against
other retailers that have outlets, and this is the first
settlement of its kind," he said.  "I believe it's going to change
the entire industry, where all of these retailers are ultimately
going to go with a fair pricing scheme."

Mr. Ostrow's firm is involved in similar cases against Columbia,
DSW, Guess, Kenneth Cole, Levi's and Nordstrom.  Mr. Ostrow worked
with his colleague Scott Edelsberg on the Michael Kors case.

U.S. District Judge William H. Pauley III indicated at a hearing
on Jan. 29 that he planned to issue final approval in the next
week or so.  Class counsel asked for one-quarter of the $4.875
million settlement for attorney fees and costs.

Michael Kors agreed as part of the settlement to change its
pricing practices in outlet stores.  Price tags will no longer
refer to an "original price" or "MSRP."  In-store signs will
describe how pricing is determined for items sold in the outlets.


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Super Bowl Ticket Class Suit Dismissal Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that weeks
ahead of Super Bowl 50, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit ruled that a federal court was correct to dismiss a class
action lawsuit filed against the National Football League for
allegedly violating the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act in selling
Super Bowl tickets.

A three-judge panel of the Third Circuit, in its Jan. 14 opinion,
affirmed the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey's
2015 ruling, concluding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue
in federal court.

"Many of us have felt the disappointment of wanting to attend a
concert or athletic event only to discover that the event has sold
out.  When an artist or sports team is especially popular, the gap
between the supply of tickets and the demand for those tickets can
be enormous.  Some people will be able to attend such an event;
others will not," Judge Julio Fuentes wrote for the panel.

"The Super Bowl is perhaps the ultimate example of an event where
demand for tickets exceeds supply."

According to plaintiffs Josh Finkelman and Ben Hoch-Parker's
complaint, filed in the federal court January 2014, every year the
NFL prints "tens of thousands of Super Bowl tickets, yet it only
allocates a meager one percent of these tickets for release to the
general public through a lottery system, forcing all other fans
into a secondary market for the tickets where they must pay
substantially more than the ticket's face value to attend one of
the most popular and iconic sporting events of the year."

The plaintiffs argued the profits from these secondary market
sales are returned to the NFL and its franchisees in lucrative
contracts with secondary ticket buyers who must purchase large
blocks of tickets to regular season games of a franchise team to
secure a small allotment of Super Bowl tickets.

They argued the secondary market buyer then enhances their
profitability by packaging their tickets into expensive deals
requiring the interested fan to purchase extras, such as multi-
night minimum stay hotel rooms, pre-game parties and limousine
services.

The practice of withholding all but one percent of its tickets to
the general public constitutes a violation of the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act, Messrs. Finkelman and Hoch-Parker argued.

But the Third Circuit said the case came down to whether the
plaintiffs had standing to bring the case in federal court -- not
a ticket law that is "rarely litigated."

"Our inquiry is more basic.  Just as the realities of supply and
demand mean that not everyone who wants to attend a popular event
will be able to do so, federal courts, too, are not open to
everyone who might want to litigate in them," Judge Fuentes
explained in the 39-page ruling.  "Our courts are courts of
limited subject matter jurisdiction, empowered by Article III of
the Constitution to hear only 'cases' and 'controversies.'

"Over time, those words have come to signify certain minimum
requirements that are necessary to establish constitutional
standing.  These requirements are unyielding.  Plaintiffs who are
able to establish them will be able to sue in federal courts;
others will not."

Neither Mr. Finkelman nor Mr. Hoch-Parker have constitutional
standing to sue in federal court, the Third Circuit concluded.

"Were we to decide otherwise, anyone who purchased a Super Bowl
ticket on the resale market would have standing to sue in federal
court based on nothing more than conjectural assertions of
causation and injury.   Article III requires more," Judge Fuentes
wrote.

On Dec. 30, 2013, Mr. Finkelman purchased two tickets to Super
Bowl XLVIII for $2,000 per ticket, which was "far in excess" of
the face value of the tickets, according to the lawsuit.

Mr. Hoch-Parker considered purchasing Super Bowl tickets, but
ultimately decided not to because of the cost.

Bruce H. Nagel of Nagel Rice LLP, which represented the
plaintiffs, said in filing the litigation that fans are "getting
squeezed" by the NFL's ticket sales policy.


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Trilogy Suit Moved from S.D.N.Y to C.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Trilogy Holding, LLC et al. v.
National Football League, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-08188, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California (Western Division - Los Angeles). The Central
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-10000-BRO-JEM to
the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly allow the NFL
to unlawfully monopolize the market for live video presentation of
professional football games in violation of Sherman Act. The
Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief putting an end to this
anticompetitive scheme and damages.

National Football League owns and operates a football league in
the United States and internationally. The company offers news,
videos, teams, players, scores, schedules, stats, and standings;
and online services, such as game rewind, field pass, game pass,
and tools and widgets. The league is based in .New York, New York.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel B Rehns, Esq.
          Jeffrey Benjamin Dubner, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLER AND TOLL PLLC
          88 Pine Street 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 838 7797
          Facsimile: (212) 838 7745
          E-mail: drehns@cohenmilstein.com
                  jdubner@cohenmilstein.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Eric S Hochstadt, Esq.
          James W Quinn, Esq.
          Yehudah L Buchweitz, Esq.
          WEIL GOTSHAL AND MANGES LLP
          767 Fifth Avenue 25th Floor
          New York, NY 10153
          Telephone: (212) 310 8000
          Facsimile: (212) 310 8007
          E-mail: eric.hochstadt@weil.com
                  james.quinn@weil.com
                  yehudah.buchweitz@weil.com


NEBRASKA: "Shepard" Suit May Proceed in Forma Pauperis
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Shepard v. State of Nebraska et
al., was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District
of Nebraska (4 Lincoln). The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 4:15-cv-03165-JFB-PRSE to the proceeding.

The defendants are Ty Lynne Bauers, Shannon Black, Sherri Dawson,
Dept of Health & Human Services, Jane and John Does, Lincoln
Regional Center, Mental Health Board of Douglas Co., Courtney
Miller, Norfolk Regional Center, Stephen O'Neill, Doug Peterson,
Sanat Roy and State of Nebraska

On Feb. 1, 2016, the Hon. Joseph F. Bataillon granted Plaintiff's
Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. "The Complaint
shall be filed without payment of fees. Plaintiff is advised that
the next step in his case will be for the court to conduct an
initial review of his claims to determine whether summary
dismissal is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(e)(2). The
court will conduct this initial review in its normal course of
business.


NETSOL TECHNOLOGIES: Still Faces Securities Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Netsol Technologies, Inc. continues to defend a securities class
action lawsuit in California, the Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 12, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015.

On July 25, 2014, purported class action lawsuits were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
against the Company and three of its current or former officers
and/or directors, which have been consolidated under the caption
Rand-Heart of New York, Inc. v. NetSol Technologies, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:14-cv-05787 PA (SHx). Plaintiffs subsequently filed a
consolidated complaint, which asserted claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 premised on
allegedly false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
next generation product, NFS Ascent, and whether it was truly
available on a global basis when stated.

After several successful motions by the Company, the Court granted
the plaintiff a final opportunity to amend the complaint on a
narrowed basis. The amended complaint was filed which contained a
much narrowed class period from October 2013 to November 8, 2013,
eliminated all but one of the individual defendants from the suit,
and limited the scope of the alleged claims. The Company has filed
an answer to this final amended complaint.

The Company continues to believe the amended allegations are
meritless and intends to vigorously defend all claims asserted.
The Company has engaged counsel and has liability insurance. Given
the early stage of the litigation, however, at this time the
Company is unable to form a professional judgment that an
unfavorable outcome is either probable or remote, and it is not
possible to assess whether or not the outcome of these proceedings
will or will not have a material adverse effect on the Company.

                           *     *     *

The case caption has been changed to In re Netsol Technologies,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:14-CV-5787 PA (PJWX)(C.D.
Cal.).  On November 30, 2015, District Judge Patrick J. Walsh gave
his stamp of approval on a Stipulation Regarding Protective Order
for Confidential and Proprietary Information.  A copy of that
Stipulation is available at http://is.gd/96yhrafrom Leagle.com.

Attorneys for Defendants Netsol Technologies, Inc., and Najeeb
Ghauri:

     Sean T. Prosser, Esq.
     Rick C. Liu, Esq.
     PERKINS COIE LLP
     11988 El Camino Real, Suite 350
     San Diego, CA  92130-2594
     E-mail: SProsser@perkinscoie.com
             RLiu@perkinscoie.com

Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Rand-Heart of New York, Inc.,
Plaintiff Mike Clementi, and the Putative Class:

     Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
     GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON
     440 Park Avenue South, 5th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Telephone: (212) 983-1300
     Facsimile: (212) 983-0383
     E-mail: tjmckenna@gme-law.com

Liaison Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Rand-Heart of New York, Inc.,
Plaintiff Mike Clementi, and the Putative Class:

     Patrice L. Bishop, Esq.
     STULL, STULL & BRODY
     9430 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 400
     Beverly Hills, CA 90212
     Tel: (212) 687-7230
     Fax: (212) 490-2022
     E-mail: pbishop@ssbla.com


NEW JERSEY: Gibson Wins Motions to Squash Bridgegate Subpoena
-------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for The American Lawyer, reports that
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher won motions in December to quash a
subpoena of interview notes and metadata originating from its
investigation of New Jersey's Bridgegate scandal, but came in for
some scathing criticism from the judge on the case.

Gibson Dunn's motion to quash the subpoena by Bridgegate
defendants William Baroni and Bridget Kelly -- which sought the
firm's interview notes, transcripts and recordings from its
internal investigation of the case -- was granted because there
was no evidence that additional materials responsive to the
request exist.  The firm's motion to quash the defendants'
subpoena of metadata related to the investigation was also
granted, based on a finding that the information is available from
other sources.

But U.S. District Judge Susan Wigenton in Newark criticized the
firm's departure from typical procedures for internal
investigations in contemporaneously summarizing 75 interviews
conducted as part of its investigation.  The firm said that each
interview was summarized electronically by an attorney while the
interview was underway, then edited into a final version, to
ensure that no interview notes would be preserved, she said.  The
unorthodox procedure was adopted in the wake of a legislative
investigation of Bridgegate and strong media interest.

The judge said that she shares the defendants' frustration over
Gibson Dunn's failure to take notes of its interviews in the high-
profile case, work that cost taxpayers nearly $10 million. In
2014, following allegations that some staffers in his
administration had engineered a massive, four-day traffic jam near
the George Washington Bridge in a political payback scheme, New
Jersey Gov. Chris Christie hired Gibson Dunn to conduct an
internal investigation into what had become known as the
Bridgegate scandal.

"Although GDC did not delete or shred documents, the process of
overwriting their interview notes and drafts of the summaries had
the same effect.  This was a clever tactic, but when public
investigations are involved, straightforward lawyering is superior
to calculated strategy," Judge Wigenton wrote.  "The taxpayers of
the state of New Jersey paid GDC millions of dollars to conduct a
transparent and thorough investigation.  What they got instead was
opacity and gamesmanship.  They deserve better."

But despite the court's "distaste for GDC's tactics," the judge
found no basis to doubt its representations that other materials
responsive to the defendants' request do not exist.

In a statement, Michael Baldassare, representing former Port
Authority executive director Baroni, said of the ruling, "Every
taxpayer in New Jersey should read pages 6-7 of the court's
opinion.  We cannot say it any better."  Those pages contain the
judge's criticism of Gibson Dunn's investigation procedures.

Gibson Dunn partner Randy Mastro -- rmastro@gibsondunn.com -- who
led the investigation, did not return a call requesting comment.


NEW YORK: Plaintiffs Lose Certification Bid in NYCHA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Christine Simmons, writing for Law.com, reports that a group of
plaintiffs suing the New York City Housing Authority for
discrimination lost their bid for class certification after a
federal judge found their attorney was inexperienced in handling
class actions.

Southern District Judge Shira Scheindlin said she had "serious
doubts" that plaintiffs counsel Lee Sam Nuwesra, a Manhattan solo,
could adequately represent the plaintiffs' interests, noting that
some of his court papers were compiled by his 16-year-old
daughter.

"Quite aside from counsel's lack of class action experience, his
performance in the present case has been so lacking as to raise
doubts about his ability to diligently pursue the interests of the
class," Judge Scheindlin said in Wynn v. NYCHA, 14-cv-2818.

Mr. Nuwesra defended himself in court papers, saying he has had a
law practice in New York City since 1993, and major parts of his
practice involve labor, employment and civil rights litigation.

Mr. Nuwesra claimed he was "pretty qualified" and included a list
of his past employment and civil rights cases, marking some as
"collective/class actions."  He said his "young
assistant/daughter" compiled the list.

Mr. Nuwesra is representing a group of plaintiffs suing their
employer, the New York City Housing Authority, under city and
federal civil rights laws, alleging they have been systemically
underpaid due to their race or ethnicity.  The group also sued
Local 237 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, alleging
it engaged or encouraged discriminatory conduct.

The five named plaintiffs are black or Hispanic members of Local
237, who have worked as plasterer helpers for NYCHA.  They claim
their pay grade is not commensurate with the work they perform.

The agency's actions, they say, resulted from racial
discrimination against mostly black and Hispanic caretakers in
their work category.  In November, Mr. Nuwesra moved to certify
the case as a class action on behalf of all black and Hispanic
union members who worked at NYCHA in the plaintiffs' category of
work.

But Judge Scheindlin found the plaintiffs failed to meet a number
of requirements for certification, including failing to commit to
a class definition to determine who is in the class.

The very fact that plaintiffs described the class in at least four
different ways makes the class unascertainable, she said.

"It would be particularly inappropriate for the court to craft the
specific class definition in the first instance where, as here,
the plaintiffs have failed to do so themselves."

Further, Judge Scheindlin said, plaintiffs have not met their
burden of proving the claims of the class members are typical of
the class as a whole.

Turning to adequacy of counsel, the judge said the issue is
particularly important in the class action context where the class
is bound by the result of the litigation.

"I have serious doubts that plaintiffs' counsel can adequately
represent the interests of the proposed class," she said, noting
that both defendants also challenge counsel's adequacy.

Addressing Mr. Nuwesra's list of prior cases, Judge Scheindlin
said it was compiled "apparently without any oversight from
counsel," as it double counted a case and the Wynn case was listed
as class-action experience.

Perhaps most revealing, she said, is that while some cases may
have been filed as class actions, all were settled or were
dismissed before reaching the class certification stage.  As far
as she could tell, this was the first motion for class
certification that Mr. Nuwesra has filed.

Local 237's lawyer, Robert McGovern, of counsel at Archer,
Byington, Glennon & Levine, said the case now proceeds on the
claims of the five named plaintiffs but not as a class.  He said
he thinks the ruling was properly decided.

NYCHA's attorney, Roger Briton -- BritonR@jacksonlewis.com -- a
principal at Jackson Lewis, declined to comment.


NOBLE SPOON: Recalls Beef and Chicken Entree Products
-----------------------------------------------------
The Noble Spoon, a Santa Rosa, Calif. establishment, is recalling
approximately 289 pounds of beef and chicken entree products that
were produced without the benefit of federal inspection and do not
have a federal mark of inspection, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The fresh beef and chicken items were produced on Jan. 27 and Jan.
28, 2016. The following products are subject to recall:

  --- 12-oz. sealed plastic trays containing "THE NOBLE SPOON,
      Chicken Carbonara."
  --- 12.5-oz. sealed plastic trays containing "THE NOBLE SPOON,
      Chicken Picatta."
  --- 12.5-oz. sealed plastic trays containing "THE NOBLE SPOON,
      Meatloaf & Potatoes with bacon and cheddar cheese."
  --- 13-oz. sealed plastic trays containing "THE NOBLE SPOON,
      Spaghetti & Meatballs."
  --- 13-oz. sealed plastic trays containing "THE NOBLE SPOON,
      John Ash Signature Dish, Campanelle Pasta Bolognese."
  --- 13-oz. sealed plastic trays containing "THE NOBLE SPOON,
      John Ash Signature Dish, Mexican Pot Roast."
  --- 14.5-oz. sealed plastic trays containing "THE NOBLE SPOON,
      Chicken Enchiladas."
  --- 15-oz. sealed plastic trays containing "THE NOBLE SPOON,
      Chicken Burrito."

The products subject to recall did not undergo federal inspection
and do not bear an establishment number or USDA mark of
inspection. The products subject to recall have the Sell-by dates
of "02 03" or "02 04" printed on the back of the packaging. The
items were shipped to retail locations in Marin and Sonoma
counties in California.

The problem was discovered by FSIS while conducting surveillance
activities at retail establishments.

There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to
consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about a reaction
should contact a healthcare provider.

Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to
consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to
the place of purchase.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at
www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls.


NV ENERGY: Sides with SolarCity on Net-Metering Rules
-----------------------------------------------------
Jason Graul, writing for Business Finance News, reports that in a
turn of events, NV Energy sides with SolarCity on net-metering
rules.

SolarCity's fate has taken yet another turn.  NV Energy which was
earlier accused of being the only beneficiary of new net-metering
rules, has announced in a press release on January 25, that it
would propose allowing the old rate structure for existing
customers.  NV Energy president and CEO Paul Caudill said: "This
grandfathering proposal is being offered in recognition of NV
Energy's desire to treat all customers, including those who had
previously made a decision to install rooftop solar, fairly."

Nevada's Public Utilities Commission's (PUC) decision to amend its
policies for the solar industry flared controversy.  The PUC
passed an order in December 2015, to increase service charges for
solar panel users, for the use of the power grid, and to reduce
the payments they receive for the export of power to the grid.

The decision was criticized by solar companies, which accused NV
Energy of being the only beneficiary of the policy.  SolarCity,
the largest renewable energy company in the US, along with SunRun,
decided to cease sales and installment operations in the state
which led to more than 600 job losses in the state.

SolarCity argued that the decision is unjust; and even implied
that Governor Sandoval had firstly, encouraged people to go solar
and then charged them for doing so.  However, Lyndon Rive- CEO of
SolarCity remained optimistic that once the Commission understands
the real impact, they would revert back their decision.

Stoppage of operations and the resultant job cuts at solar
companies, triggered concerns within the department. Governor
Sandoval, referred to these events as "Bullying the regulators",
that fueled a war of words between the CEO and the Governor.
Afterwards, Patricia Farley -- a Republican Senator for the state
and lead author of the bill said she was "concerned" over the
reaction from SolarCity, in a phone interview to Bloomberg.  The
lead author expressed her belief over the PUC as she said that "I
have to assume that the PUC would do the right thing".  However,
she hinted that that the people who had relied on old rates should
be offered a "remedy".

Things did not cool down even then as people of Nevada gathered
around the PUC's headquarters in Las Vegas to protest the decision
while regulators convened for the first time to discuss the impact
of higher fees.  This was followed by a class-action lawsuit
against NV Energy by two solar customers who contend that it
committed "consumer fraud" with them and others.  Now finally
there appears to be sunlight at the end of the tunnel as Nevada's
PUC has approved the state's Consumer Protection Bureau's request
to reconsider its earlier decision.

NV Energy has stated that it would submit a proposal on
February 1, to the Commission to recommend that existing solar
customers should be allowed to remain under the old net-metering
rules over a transition period of 20 years.  The proposal by NV
Energy has boosted investors' confidence in SolarCity stock, as it
has increased by around 13% since then.


ONE SOURCE: Set to Settle Former Clients' Class Suit for $1.6MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Miller, writing for LA Times, reports that a talent listing
service would have to pay about $1.6 million -- including cash and
services -- to resolve a case affecting thousands of former
clients under a class-action settlement preliminarily approved by
a federal judge in Los Angeles.

The company, One Source Talent of Troy, Mich., charges people a
monthly fee of $40 to access a database of audition and employment
opportunities in the entertainment industry. One of its customers,
Briana Keen, 24, of Running Springs filed a civil suit against it
in 2014, contending the company used an improper contract that
violated the Krekorian Talent Scam Prevention Act.

One Source did not admit wrongdoing in the settlement agreement
tentatively approved by U.S. District Court judge James V. Selna.

Anthony Toma, the owner of One Source, said it made sense to
settle the case because of the expense associated with defending a
class action. "Our settlement is not an admission of liability but
simply a business decision," he said.

Under the terms approved in a preliminary decision by Selna, about
8,100 people who used One Source from April 14, 2010, to May 31,
2015, would get three months of free use of One Source, a service
valued at $974,640.

Class members who submit a claim form will also be entitled to a
share of $611,000, after deductions for legal fees and costs. That
could come out to about $130 per person, according to court
records. Additionally, about 120 other One Source clients who
wanted to cancel their accounts but were denied a refund will get
$500 each.

"I'm glad that I was able to help the people who used this
company," said attorney Jeffrey Wilens, who represents Keen. "It
is discouraging that it is so tough to get a settlement in these
kinds of cases and I was glad to get one here."

One Source was the subject of a Times story in December that
examined alleged abuses by talent listing services and explored
their role in the Hollywood economy. These companies, and others
in the business of working with talent, have come under increased
scrutiny from state legislators, who've passed at least five laws
since 2000 to prevent mistreatment.

The settlement is scheduled for final approval in June.

The Krekorian Act went into effect in 2010. It regulates talent
representatives and companies that work with actors, models and
musicians. The Los Angeles city attorney's office has prosecuted
six cases under the law.

The legislation was spearheaded by Los Angeles City Councilman
Paul Krekorian when he was a state assemblyman. The law makes it
illegal for listing services to charge clients for auditions and
requires that they make clear -- in written contracts that include
boldface type -- that they are not talent agencies, among other
provisions.

Krekorian said in a statement to The Times that he hoped Keen's
case would inspire other people who have been allegedly wronged to
"seek civil redress."

"This case is important because it highlights that private
individuals, on their own, can go after agents and companies that
scam the public, whether or not there is also a criminal
prosecution happening," he said.

In addition to providing information about auditions, listing
services typically offer to promote their clients on a Web page
with a photograph, resume and reel. They often require an initial
payment of up to $600 and monthly fees that range from $20 to $40.

The website for One Source, which until recently had an office in
West L.A., proclaims "no more what ifs" and promises "we make
dreams come true."

But Keen's lawsuit alleges that One Source used a contract that
did not have a Krekorian Act-complaint cancellation policy and did
not follow rules stipulating how a listing service must make clear
in a contract that it is not a talent agency.

Toma said his company denied wrongdoing. This fall, One Source's
West L.A. office closed and later reopened as Nine9 the UnAgency.
Toma said that One Source had rebranded as Nine9.

The renamed company is "geared at educating the consumer," Toma
said. "We provide service to the estimated 99% of aspiring actors,
models and other entertainment industry professionals who are
unable to secure a contract with an agency."


OPKO HEALTH: Settlement Hearing Held in Bio-Reference Merger Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
OPKO Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a hearing was
scheduled for January 5, 2016, to consider approval of the
settlement reached in the case, In re Bio-Reference Laboratories,
Inc. Shareholder Litigation.

Following the announcement of entry into an agreement and plan of
merger with Bio-Reference, four putative class action complaints
challenging the merger were filed in the Superior Court of New
Jersey in Bergen County (the "Court"). After the complaints were
filed, on July 24, 2015, the parties executed a stipulated consent
order that the actions would be consolidated for all purposes,
including trial, in the Chancery Division under Docket No. C-207-
15, bearing the caption In re Bio-Reference Laboratories, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation. The complaints name Bio-Reference, OPKO, a
wholly-owned merger subsidiary of OPKO ("Merger Sub") and members
of the Bio-Reference board as defendants. The complaints generally
allege, among other things, that members of the Bio-Reference
board breached their fiduciary duties to Bio-Reference's
shareholders by agreeing to sell Bio-Reference for an inadequate
price and agreeing to inappropriate deal protection provisions in
the merger agreement that may preclude Bio-Reference from
soliciting any potential acquirers and limit the ability of the
Bio-Reference board to act with respect to investigating and
pursuing superior proposals and alternatives. The complaints also
allege that Bio-Reference, OPKO and Merger Sub have aided and
abetted the Bio-Reference board members' breaches of their
fiduciary duties. The complaints sought injunctive relief
enjoining Bio-Reference and OPKO from consummating the merger at
the agreed upon price unless and/or until the defendants cured
their breaches of fiduciary duty (or, in the event the merger is
consummated, rescinding the merger or awarding rescissory
damages). The complaints also sought to recover costs and
disbursement from the defendants, including attorneys' fees and
experts' fees.

In August, the parties executed a memorandum of understanding
reflecting terms of a settlement, which was replaced in September
2015 by a stipulation and agreement of compromise, settlement and
release resolving all matters between them. On September 25, 2015,
the Court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement
and setting a scheduling for the Court's final review of the
settlement and notice to the class. A settlement hearing was
scheduled for January 5, 2016.


PAYPAL: Settles Suit Over Accounts Suspension for $3.2-Mil.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mary-Ann Russon, writing for International Business Times, reports
that there's nothing more upsetting than buying or selling items
online, having fraud occur and then having to argue with PayPal
because the online payments processing service won't take your
side, leading to funds being held, holds being placed on your
account or even having your account suspended.

Although it's not an issue that happens to everybody, many users
have long reported stories like this about PayPal on online forums
and social media, and finally, it seems that things might be about
to change. If you live in the US and had this happen to you,
whether you are a former or current PayPal user, you might
potentially be in line for a very small amount of damages.

A five-year-long class action lawsuit between Zepeda vs PayPal,
which accused PayPal and its former partner eBay of improperly
handling disputed transactions on PayPal accounts and also
improperly placing holds and reserves on funds on accounts for up
to or exceeding 180 days, or suspending or closing accounts
against users' wishes, is now coming to an end as PayPal has
finally agreed to settle.

The plaintiffs, who used PayPal as sellers, claim that the online
payments processing service did not inform them about what
activity had occurred in order to cause PayPal to take the action
of freezing the account, and that PayPal had further failed to
allow the affected users to remedy the situation in order to avoid
any holds being placed on their accounts in future.

PayPal paying up to avoid going to trial

To be clear, PayPal has not admitted that it did anything wrong,
but the payments service has agreed to pay out a proposed $3.2m
(GBP2.25m) settlement anyway as it wishes to "avoid the expense
and uncertainty of trial".

At the moment, the final approval hearing date has not yet been
set by the court, so the final settlement amount could still
change, but former and current PayPal members residing in the US
who had an active PayPal account between 19 April 2006 and 5
November 2015 and had a hold or reserve placed on their account,
or had their account was closed or suspended by PayPal during this
period, are now invited to submit a claim.

In addition, PayPal has had to agree that it will revise its User
Agreement terms and will disclose how it deals with fraud and
risk. The firm has also agreed to change how it deal with requests
for information, and it will have to disclose to users why holds,
reserves or limitations have been put on PayPal accounts, as long
as the disclosure does not jeopardise PayPal's security
requirements.

Funnily enough, in October 2012, PayPal tried to ban members from
submitting class action lawsuits against it if they signed its
updated User Agreement, however it seems that this must not have
stood up in court, since PayPal users who had an account up until
5 November 2015 are included in the class action.

And while this class action lawsuit isn't applicable to the UK, by
PayPal having to change how it deals with its users, this could
filter down to how PayPal works in the UK and other countries too.

How to claim damages from PayPal's class action settlement

If you qualify to be a claims class member, then you are entitled
to submit either a basic or alternate claim. A basic claim means
that you will be entitled to a payment that is calculated by
looking at the dollar amount on the longest reserve or hold that
was placed on your account, which means you can expect to receive
between $3-$440.

On the other hand, an alternate claim means that you are seeking
payment for your actual damages caused by PayPal's mishandling of
your account, and in this case, you could claim up to $2,000.

There is currently no deadline set for submitting claims, but if
you believe you are affected by this issue or know someone who is,
you should aim to submit your claim now.


PETTERS CO: Liquidation Plan Set Up for Ponzi Scheme Victims
------------------------------------------------------------
Celia Ampel, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that Miami
attorneys from Meland Russin & Budwick helped craft a more than
$160 million liquidation plan to repay victims of one of the
largest Ponzi schemes in history.

Michael Budwick, Sol Genet and Peter Russin represent the trustee
for two South Florida-based hedge funds that were major lenders to
Petters Co. Inc., whose owner Tom Petters diverted the funds as
part of a $3.65 billion fraud.

Palm Beach Finance Partners LP and Palm Beach Finance II LP
suffered about $651 million in cash basis losses, the second-
largest amount a lender lost in the scheme, according to a
disclosure statement filed with the Jan. 15 bankruptcy liquidation
plan in Minnesota.  The funds lent about $8.6 billion and were
paid about $8 billion.

The two hedge funds filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in
the Southern District of Florida in 2009 after Petters' fraud was
uncovered.  Kapila Mukamal consultant Barry Mukamal in Miami was
designated as trustee.

The proposed liquidation plan will substantively consolidate
several debtors so they can pay victims from a single asset pool
to avoid the risks and costs of further litigation while providing
"fair, equitable and reasonable treatment to all creditors,"
according to the disclosure statement.

The debtors have $161.5 million in cash from avoidance actions and
asset sales, including about $133 million in the Petters Group
Worldwide estate and $26,000 in the Petters Co. Inc. estate. The
debtors are still pursuing legal claims that are likely to
increase the pool, the statement said.

"The Chapter 11 liquidating plan proposed by Barry Mukamal along
with the other major creditors in the PCI bankruptcy, as well as
the PCI Chapter 11 trustee, is a watershed event in the Petters
bankruptcy case," Mr. Budwick said in an email.  "The parties met
in mediation in early September and then continued to hammer out a
consensual plan which will pave the way for a substantial recovery
for the victims of the Petters Ponzi scheme, the third-largest
fraud in United States history."

Mr. Mukamal is now pursuing a conspiracy claim bankruptcy court
against GE Capital Corp. "for its joinder and complicity in this
massive fraud," Mr. Budwick said.  That case is before U.S.
Bankruptcy Judge Paul Hyman in West Palm Beach.

Mr. Petters is serving a 50-year sentence at federal prison in
Leavenworth, Kansas, for orchestrating the scheme.  He was found
guilty in 2009 of wire fraud, mail fraud, conspiracy to commit
mail and wire fraud, conspiracy to commit money laundering and
money laundering, according to the Justice Department.


PHILIPPE CHOW: Workers Sue Over Unlawful Wage Practices
-------------------------------------------------------
Lia Eustachewich, writing for New York Post, reports that workers
at Philippe Chow's three restaurants in New York were stiffed on
tips and forced to perform "completely menial and humiliating
tasks" like killing rodents and cleaning up "walls sprayed with
blood from butchering animal carcasses," a new Manhattan federal
lawsuit charges.

Eighteen servers, bus people, runners, bartenders and barbacks
filed the class-action suit on Jan. 27, seeking to end "unlawful
wage practices for once and for all and change the culture of
mistreatment directed towards service employees" at the eateries.

"It is totally unacceptable for Philippe to hold itself out as a
high-end restaurant catering to affluent New Yorkers but meanwhile
its largely immigrant workers are treated like complete second-
class citizens," said the plaintiffs' lawyer, David Gottlieb.

The employees also say they hung out of windows to clean the panes
and had to clean skylights.

Abraham Merchant, CEO of Merchant Hospitality, which took
ownership of the restaurants in 2013, said the company is
reviewing the complaint and characterized the plaintiffs as
"disgruntled."


PINNACLE FOODS: Recalls Chili Products Due to Misbranding
---------------------------------------------------------
Pinnacle Foods, Inc., a Fort Madison, Iowa establishment, is
recalling approximately 549,539 pounds of chili products due to
misbranding, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The products contain
Monosodium Glutamate (MSG), which is not declared on the product
label.

The Armour Chili items were produced on various dates in Sept.
2015, and Nov. 2015. The following products are subject to recall:

14-oz. cans of "Armour Chili No Beans" with Best By Dates:
Best By SEP-08-18
Best By SEP-10-18
Best By SEP-13-18
Best By SEP-20-18
Best By SEP-21-18
Best By SEP-27-18
Best By SEP-28-18
Best By NOV-10-18
Best By NOV-11-18
Best By NOV-22-18
Best By NOV-23-18
Best By NOV-24-18

The products subject to recall bear establishment number "EST.
2AD" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items were shipped
to retail locations nationwide.

The problem was discovered by the firm. The firm received new
product labels in Sept. 2015; these new labels no longer listed
MSG. However, the firm continued to use their old seasoning on
products, which does contain MSG. Upon discovery of the
discrepancy, all affected product within the firm's control was
placed on hold.

There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to
consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury or
illness should contact a healthcare provider.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/SpzY95


PRA GROUP: Virginia Court Declines to Certify Proposed Class
------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Bauer, writing for Inside Arm, reports that a Federal Judge in
Virginia denied a motion to certify a class action case against an
arm of publicly traded debt buyer PRA Group (PRAA). The lawsuit,
Dykes v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC (PRA) (2016 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 10308, Case number: 1:15cv110) was originally filed exactly
one year earlier, on January 28, 2015.

Plaintiff claimed that PRA violated the FDCPA by sending her three
(3) debt collection notices in Spanish rather than English.
Plaintiff never indicated she preferred to receive correspondence
in Spanish and she does not speak or understand Spanish. The
Plaintiff sought class certification for a class defined as
follows:

All consumers with Virginia addresses, who: (a) within one year of
January 28, 2015 (b) were sent a debt collection letter in Spanish
by Defendant PRA in a form materially identical or substantially
similar to the letter attached to Plaintiff's Complaint as Exhibit
A; and (c) the letter was not returned by the postal service as
undelivered.

Discovery revealed that PRA began corresponding with Plaintiff in
Spanish after receiving a response in Spanish from a phone call to
a number which a LexisNexis skip-tracing search indicated was
connected with Plaintiff. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff alleged that PRA
soon realized that this number was not connected with Plaintiff
and struck it from its register, but continued to correspond with
Plaintiff in Spanish. Each of the three Spanish letters sent to
Plaintiff contains language which, when translated, notifies the
reader that "[t]his letter comes from a collection agency and its
intention is to collect a debt. Any information that is obtained
will be used for that purpose."

There were no allegations by the Plaintiff that the substance of
the Spanish collection letters contained false statements or
information; but simply that they were just written in Spanish, a
language Plaintiff could not read.

The Memorandum Opinion from the Honorable James C. Cacheris
reviews the standards for class action certification. First, the
Judge discussed the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure governing
class actions (Rule 23):

A party seeking class certification must affirmatively demonstrate
his compliance with the Rule -- that is, he must be prepared to
prove that there are in fact sufficiently numerous parties, common
questions of law or fact, etc. In order to be certified, "a
proposed class must satisfy Rule 23(a) and one of the three sub-
parts of Rule 23(b).

The relevant rule reads:

   (a)  Prerequisites. One or more members of a class may sue or
be sued as representative parties on behalf of all members only
if:

      (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable;

      (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class;

      (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are
typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and

      (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately
protect the interests of the class.

   (b) Types of Class Actions. A class action may be maintained if
Rule 23(a) is satisfied and if:

   (1) prosecuting separate actions by or against individual class
members would create a risk of:

       (A) inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to
individual class members that would establish incompatible
standards of conduct for the party opposing the class; or

       (B) adjudications with respect to individual class members
that, as a practical matter, would be dispositive of the interests
of the other members not parties to the individual adjudications
or would substantially impair or impede their ability to protect
their interests;

   (2) the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on
grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final
injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is
appropriate respecting the class as a whole; or

   (3) the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to
class members predominate over any questions affecting only
individual members, and that a class action is superior to other
available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the
controversy. The matters pertinent to these findings include:

      (A) the class members' interests in individually controlling
the prosecution or defense of separate actions;

      (B) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the
controversy already begun by or against class members;

      (C) the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the
litigation of the claims in the particular forum; and

      (D) the likely difficulties in managing a class action.

Plaintiff argued that each of the four requirements of Rule 23(a)
and both the predominance and superiority requirements of Rule
23(b)(3) have been met for the proposed class.

PRA challenged the validity of the Plaintiff's proposed class
definition which hinges on the putative class members' Spanish
literacy." PRA also challenged the validity of what it believes
would be the properly defined class as failing to satisfy
ascertainability, commonality, typicality, and numerosity.

The Court agreed with the PRA that the class described by
Plaintiff in her memorandum in support is both incorrectly defined
and lacking commonality. The Court also found that even were the
class properly defined, it would be fatally deficient with respect
to ascertainability and numerosity.

The Judge wrote:

Any proper definition of the class would have to be limited to
individuals who received the Spanish-language dunning letters
without first indicating that they primarily speak Spanish or that
they would like to receive correspondence in Spanish. Because it
is facially apparent that Plaintiff's proposed class contains many
individuals who did not suffer harm at the hands of the Defendant,
the Court declines to certify her proposed class.


QC HOLDINGS: "Lee" Case Parties Expect to Complete Deal
-------------------------------------------------------
QC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the parties in the
Lee class action lawsuit in Canada expected to complete a
settlement by the end of 2015.

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

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


QC HOLDINGS: Settles "Stemple" Suit for $1.5 Million
----------------------------------------------------
QC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the parties in the
"Stemple" class action lawsuit in California have reached a
tentative settlement for $1.5 million.

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

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

In October 2015, the parties reached a tentative settlement for
$1.5 million. As of October 16, 2015, there is no signed
memorandum of understanding reflecting the settlement, however.
Though the case was limited to California residents, the parties
have agreed to settle the case on a nationwide basis. Settlement
of the case is dependent upon court approval. Assuming there are
no major obstacles to settlement, it is possible the parties will
finalize the settlement and begin notifying potential claimants by
early 2016. The Company recorded an accrual of $1.5 million during
third quarter 2015 associated with the tentative settlement of
this legal matter as the loss is probable and can be reasonably
estimated.


QC HOLDINGS: Calif. Judge Dismisses "Marquez" Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
QC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that on April 20, 2015,
the Company was sued in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California in a putative class action lawsuit
filed by Mike Marquez. Mr. Marquez alleges that the Company was
violating California law when it allegedly failed to notify
California residents that it was recording phone calls it made to
cell phones. The Company has reached a tentative settlement of
this matter for an immaterial amount. The Company was to finalize
the settlement by the end of 2015.

In a Dec. 15 order, available at http://is.gd/Baw94Qfrom
Leagle.com, District Judge Christina A. Snyder held that pursuant
to the Stipulation of the parties to dismiss this case with
prejudice pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
41(a)(1)(A)(ii), the entire case is dismissed with prejudice as to
the named Plaintiffs, and without prejudice as to the putative
class.  Each party shall bear its own costs and expenses.

The case is, MIKE MARQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. QC FINANCIAL SERVICES,
INC., and QC HOLDINGS, INC., and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendant,
Case No. 2:15-cv-02884-CAS-PJW (C.D. Cal.).

Mike Marquez is represented by Todd M Friedman, Esq., Adrian
Robert Bacon, Esq., and Suren N Weerasuriya, Esq., at the Law
Offices of Todd Friedman PC; Joshua B Swigart, Esq., at Hyde and
Swigart; and Matthew M Loker, Esq., Jason A Ibey, Esq., and Seyed
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq., at Kazerouni Law Group, APC.

QC Financial Services, Inc., and QC Holdings, Inc., are
represented by Andrew John Demko, Esq., Gregory S Korman, Esq.,
and Stuart M Richter, Esq., at Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP.


QUORN: Sued in California Over Mycoprotein
------------------------------------------
Abby Haglage, writing for The Daily Beast, reports that in the
eyes of some vegetarians, Quorn's meat-free "chicken" nuggets are
as good as McDonald's.

Sold everywhere from Whole Foods to Target, the company's products
are a veritable success in the states. But while the flavor is
appealing, the alleged main ingredient behind the "protein" has
some cringing and others incensed: mold.

A false advertising class action lawsuit, filed in California, is
the newest development in a battle food health experts have been
waging for decades. Like the lawsuit, it centers on the main
ingredient in Quorn's meatless selections, a product called
mycoprotein.

Mycoprotein originates from a fungus in the U.K. A patented
product, it's not only the main ingredient in Quorn's foods --
it's their entire business model. The company has survived
multiple lawsuits in the past decade over its origin but this one,
which attacks its advertising, is decidedly different.

While food health experts go to bat for the lawsuit, spokesmen
from Quorn insist that the lawsuits have no merit. Will the $830
million company beat the mold crusaders once again?

Kimberly Birbower, the plaintiff in the class action suit, argues
that mycoprotein is not a "mushroom-based protein" as the company
asserts, but a "fermented mold" -- something customers deserve to
know. "Had Quorn disclosed the truth -- that its products are
actually made of mold--Plaintiff and consumers would not have
purchased Quorn's products," the complaint reads.

Birbower, who first began buying the company's products in 2015,
says Quorn's claim that mycoprotein is "the same or substantially
similar to a mushroom, truffle, or morel" is nonsense. "Quorn's
representations [is] clearly designed to deceive consumers," she
says.

Birbower's lawsuit is a new approach to tackling Quorn's alleged
mold-driven product, which others have done through lawsuits
attempting to prove that it's unsafe.

The history of mycoprotein dates back to the 1960s, when it was
created by a U.K. scientist who feared a protein shortage was
imminent. Derived from a fungus called Fusarium venenatum, it was
eventually grown in large fermentation tanks.

The product was approved for human consumption in 1985 and named
for Quorn, a village in Leicester. After enjoying success in
Ireland and the U.K., it was released in the United States in
2002. Not long after, health experts began expressing concerns --
many of them based on the fact its health effects were largely
unknown.

In America, it was approved by the Federal Drug Administration
with what's called a GRAS notification -- something that more or
less qualifies it as safe for "general food use." Less than a year
later, Michael Jacobson, the executive director of the Center for
Science in the Public Interest, filed a petition asking the FDA to
reconsider the terms of this.

Jacobson argued that Quorn should have to clarify the origin of
mycoprotein on the package -- changing it from "mushroom in
origin" to "fungus." His concern was fueled by reports that people
had responded negatively to the fungus, which the FDA had not
reviewed.

Specifically, he pointed to a study from 1977 in which 10 percent
of the 200 subjects who consumed Quorn became ill with "nausea,
vomiting, and stomach ache." When the FDA denied his petition,
Jacobson created a website for consumers to report adverse
reactions. Today, it houses more than 2,000 examples.

One is that of Kathy Cardinale, a 43-year-old advertising
executive, who says that she became "violently ill" after eating
Quorn's chicken patties. "I felt like the soles of my feet were
going to come out of my mouth, I was vomiting so hard," she said.
"Once I began to research Quorn online I realized I wasn't alone
. . . It was unbelievable to me that the company knew this was
going on and wasn't warning consumers."

While most reactions seem to involve nausea and vomiting, a few
reports allege that the consumption of mycoprotein in Quorn's
products turned fatal. Last March, the parents of an 11-year-old
boy sued Quorn claiming that an allergy to the fungus, which they
weren't aware the product contained, led to their son's death.

Quorn, for its part, has vigorously denied the accusations, saying
that the intolerance rates of mycoprotein are far below that of
wheat and soy. In the case of the 11-year-old boy, they point to
the final coroner's report, which found that he succumbed to an
asthma attack.

In a lengthy statement to The Daily Beast, Quorn "vehemently"
denied the claims made in the California lawsuit. "We take great
care to meticulously list the ingredients in each of our meat
alternative products. This is why our packaging contains some of
the most descriptive language of any food product on the market
today," a spokesperson wrote.

Quorn said that the company is not only "fully compliant" with FDA
regulations, but that it "exceeds the agency's standards" by
offering additional information. After successful delivery of 3
billion meals in 16 countries, the company says it's standing
behind its "nutritious, great-tasting foods that are safe to eat
and sustainable to our environment."

"We regret that Ms. Birbrower claims to have been unhappy with her
purchase. But we will continue to stand behind our products, and
intend to strongly defend the company against these misguided
assertions," the spokesman said in closing.

Despite the denial that their products are dangerous, the company
added a warning label in 2015 cautioning consumers about "rare
adverse reactions." The note describes mycoprotein as "a member of
the fungi/mold family" -- the exact language Birbower takes issue
with. Beyond inaccurate, she claims this information is
"intentionally buried" on the box so that it "would not be read by
ordinary consumers."

Jacobson and the rest of his team at CSPI stand by their original
theory that mycoprotein is unsafe. In an article from 2002, the
center quoted a Cornell University mycologist who painted an
interesting picture of Quorn's claim that mycoprotein is "mushroom
based," saying: "Mushrooms are as distantly related to Quorn's
fungus as humans are to jellyfish."


QUOTIENT TECHNOLOGY: Calif. Court Sustains Demurrer in Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Quotient Technology Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a California
court has sustained defendants' demurrer in a consolidated
stockholder class action lawsuit, with leave to amend.

"On March 11, 2015, a putative stockholder class action lawsuit
was filed against us, the members of our board of directors,
certain of our executive officers and the underwriters of our
initial public offering ("IPO"): Nguyen v. Coupons.com
Incorporated, Case No. CGC-15-544654 (California Superior Court,
San Francisco County)," the Company said. "The complaint asserts
claims under the Securities Act and seeks unspecified damages and
other relief on behalf of a putative class of persons and entities
who purchased stock pursuant or traceable to the registration
statement and prospectus for our IPO."

Plaintiff Nguyen requested and obtained a dismissal without
prejudice of his San Francisco action and filed another complaint
with substantially the same allegations in the Santa Clara County
Superior Court, Nguyen v. Coupons.com Incorporated, Case No. 1-15-
CV-278777 (California Superior Court, Santa Clara County) (Mar.
30, 2015). Three other complaints with substantially the same
allegations have also been filed: O'Donnell v. Coupons.com
Incorporated, Case No. 1-15-CV-278399 (California Superior Court,
Santa Clara County) (Mar. 20, 2015); So v. Coupons.com
Incorporated, Case No. 1-15-CV-278774 (California Superior Court,
Santa Clara County) (Mar. 30, 2015); and Silverberg v. Coupons.com
Incorporated, Case No. 1-15-CV-278891 (California Superior Court,
Santa Clara County) (Apr. 2, 2015).

On May 7, 2015, the Santa Clara court consolidated the Nguyen, So
and Silverberg actions with the O'Donnell action.  On July 23,
2015, defendants filed a demurrer to the consolidated complaint.
The Court held a hearing on the Company's demurrer, along with a
case management conference, on November 6, 2015 (moved from
October 30).  The Court sustained defendants' demurrer with leave
to amend.

"We intend to defend this litigation vigorously. Based on
information currently available, we believe that the potential for
liability for the above claims is remote," the Company said.


RE/MAX HOLDINGS: Faces Class Action Over Stolen Rent
----------------------------------------------------
Jeannie O'Sullivan, writing for Law360, reports that Re/Max
Holdings Inc. and one of its New Jersey franchises were hit with a
putative class action alleging a property manager employed by the
franchise stole tenants' rent payments and security deposits, in
violation of fraud and security deposit laws.

In a Jan. 19 complaint filed in Burlington County Superior Court,
plaintiffs Eric and Elizabeth Rideman say Re/Max and Windstar
Associates LLC of Moorestown failed to prevent Randal Maher -- who
faced criminal charges over the same allegations -- from
converting the rent and security deposits.


REASBECK CONSTRUCTION: "Bayless" Labor Suit Moved to W.D. Kansas
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Bayless v. Reasbeck Construction,
Inc., Case No. 15JO-CC00284, was removed from the Johnson County
Circuit Court of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri (Kansas City). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-01027-ODS to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Defendant allegedly failed to
properly pay all compensation -- including straight time and
overtime compensation in violation of the Missouri Minimum Wage
Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff also asserts
claims under Missouri common law.

Reasbeck Construction was founded in 2000 and is based in
Warrensburg, Missouri. The Company's line of business includes the
construction of nonresidential buildings.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raymond Dake, Esq.
          Athena M. Dickson, Esq.
          Eric W Smith, Esq.
          Rik N. Siro, Esq.
          SIRO SMITH DICKSON, PC
          1621 Baltimore Avenue
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 471 4881
          Facsimile: (816) 471 4883
          E-mail: rdake@sirosmithdickson.com
                  adickson@sirosmithdickson.com
                  esmith@sirosmithdickson.com
                  rsiro@sirosmithdickson.com

               - and -

          Michael A Hodgson
          EMPLOYEE & LABOR LAW GROUP OF KANSAS CITY LLC
          3699 SW Pryor Road
          Lee's Summit, MO 64082
          Telephone: (913) 890 3529
          Facsimile: (816) 945 2120
          E-mail: mike@elgkc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael L. Blumenthal, Esq.
          Camille L Roe, Esq.
          SEYFERTH BLUMENTHAL & HARRIS LLC
          4801 Main Street, Suite 310
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 756 0700
          Facsimile: (816) 756 3700
          E-mail: mike@sbhlaw.com
                  camille@sbhlaw.com


RITE-A-WAY SERVICES: Sued for Plumbing Technicians' Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
On January 20, 2016, the San Francisco employment law attorneys at
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filed a class action lawsuit
against Rite-A-Way Services, Inc. alleging that the company failed
to lawfully compensate their Plumbing Technicians for all their
time spent working. The class action lawsuit against Rite-A-Way
Services, Inc. is currently pending in the Sonoma County Superior
Court, Case No SCV258287.

The class action Complaint filed against the plumbing service
company by the San Francisco labor law attorneys at Blumenthal,
Nordrehaug & Bhowmik alleges that Rite-A-Way Services failed to
have a policy or practice which provided a full off-duty, thirty
minute uninterrupted meal break to the Plaintiff and Plumbing
Technicians. The lawsuit claims that the company's alleged failure
to provide the legally required meal and rest breaks is evidenced
by the company's business records which contain no record of these
breaks. As a result, the Complaint asserts Plumbing Technicians
working for Rite-A-Way Services allegedly forfeited meal and rest
breaks without additional compensation.

Furthermore, the Complaint alleges the the Plumbing Technicians
performed the manual task of installing and repairing plumbing
equipment for Rite-A-Way Services and were allegedly paid on a
piece-rate basis. The Complaint alleges that the Plumbing
Technicians were not paid minimum and overtime wages to which they
were entitled to because of Defendant's alleged failure to record
all time worked. Specifically, the Complaint claims that the
Plumbing Technicians should have been paid minimum and overtime
wages for their non-production time.

The Plaintiff is represented by:
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug, & Bhowmik
Telephone Number: (866) 771-7099


SASAC: "Brooke" Suit Moved from E.D. Va. to MDL 2047
----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Brooke, et al. v. State Owned
Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State
Council, Case No. 2:15-cv-00506, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (New
Orleans). The Eastern Louisiana District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:15-cv-06632-EEF-JCW to the proceeding.

The class action lawsuit was brought by the Plaintiffs who are
owners and residents of real property containing problematic
Chinese manufactured drywall that was designed, manufactured,
imported, distributed, delivered, supplied, marketed, inspected,
installed, or sold by the Defendants.

SASAC supervises the State-owned assets of enterprises engaged in
drywall production, including Taishan. SASAC oversees 150 large
central state-owned assets and enterprises, including CNBM Group.
SASAC owns 100% of CNBM Group. CNBM Group. Taishan is a foreign
corporation doing business in several States, including but not
limited to, Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Iowa,
Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, New
Jersey, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and
Wisconsin. TTP is a foreign corporation doing business in several
States, including but not limited to, Alabama, Arizona,
California, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri,
Mississippi, North Carolina, New Jersey, Ohio, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

The Brooke case is being consolidated with MDL 2047 in re:
Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Products Liability Litigation. The
Court modified Pretrial Order No. 1 through Pretrial Order No. 1A
to reflect that the stay in effect shall not impede counsel's
obligation to timely enter their appearance on behalf of their
client(s) upon effectuation of service on their client. The
purpose of the stay on motion practice was to allow counsel to
focus on organization and coordination. The case has now reached
the stage where an organizational structure is in place and the
MDL Court has coordinated with the state courts. Presiding Judge
in the MDL is Hon. Eldon E. Fallon, United States District Judge.
The lead case is 2:09-md-02047-EEF-JCW.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard James Serpe, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD J. SERPE, P.C.
          Crown Center, Suite 310
          580 East Main Street
          Norfolk, VA 23510-2322
          Telephone: (757) 233 0009
          Facsimile: (757) 233 0455
          E-mail: rserpe@serpefirm.com


SCOTTRADE INC: "Hine" Suit Moved from S.D. Cal. to E.D. Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Hine v. Scottrade, Inc., Case No.
3:15-cv-02213, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California, to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis). The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-01954-CEJ to the proceeding.

Scottrade provides investment products, online trading services,
and market research tools for investors and traders. The company
was founded in 2000 and is based in St. Louis, Missouri.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          E. Elliot Adler, Esq.
          402 W. Broadway, Suite 860
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 531 8700
          Facsimile: (619) 342 9600
          E-mail: elliotadler@gmail.com

               - and -

          Geoff Spreter, Esq.
          SPRETER LAW FIRM, APC
          402 W Broadway, Suite 860
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 865 7986
          E-mail: geoff@spreterlaw.com

               - and -

          James Jason Hill, Esq.
          COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
          605 C Street, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 595 3001
          Facsimile: (619) 595 3000
          E-mail: jhill@ckslaw.com

               - and -

          Timothy Gordon Blood, Esq.
          Paula R. Brown, Esq.
          BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON LLP
          701 B Street, Suite 1700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 338 1100
          Facsimile: (619) 338 1101
          E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com
                  pbrown@bholaw.com

               - and -

          Timothy D Cohelan, Esq.
          COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
          605 C Street, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 595 3001
          Facsimile: (619) 595 3000
          E-mail: tcohelan@ck-lawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Brandi Lynne Burke, Esq.
          Christopher M. Hohn, Esq.
          David M. Mangian, Esq.
          Helen Byungsun Kim, Esq.
          Thomas E. Douglass, Esq.
          THOMPSON COBURN, LLP
          One US Bank Plaza
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 552 6598
          Facsimile: (314) 552 7598
          E-mail: bburke@thompsoncoburn.com
                  chohn@thompsoncoburn.com
                  dmangian@thompsoncoburn.com
                  hkim@thompsoncoburn.com
                  tdouglass@thompsoncoburn.com


SLATER & GORDON: Shareholders Join Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Herald Sun reports that hundreds of aggrieved Slater & Gordon
shareholders have signed up to a class action organized by rival
law firm Maurice Blackburn.

The action, which now has more than 1750 shareholders, was
launched to investigate what Maurice Blackburn says were serious
governance issues that caused a "corporate catastrophe" at the
world's first publicly listed law firm.

The details have emerged in another horror week for Slater &
Gordon, with its share price plunging 14 per cent on Jan. 27 to
63c after it delayed the -- announcement of its cashflow figures.

Slater & Gordon also confirmed last night it was considering
closing two offices in the UK, with 51 jobs at risk.

Maurice Blackburn pledged to pursue compensation for shareholders
who were affected when Slater & Gordon's market value plummeted
$1.8 billion in 2015.

Maurice Blackburn's national head of class actions, Andrew Watson,
told the Herald Sun the class action included "some high net worth
individuals" and strong interest from institutional investors.

"We're lucky in Australia we've got these actions in the
enforcement mix to complement the work of ASIC and the ACCC,"
Mr. Watson said.

"Without these actions, aggrieved retail and institutional
investors wouldn't be able to hold large organizations to account.

"These class actions are a really strong example of how a market-
based mechanism can work to retain the integrity of our
sharemarket by enforcing higher standards of corporate
governance."

Slater & Gordon told the Australian Securities Exchange that it
would not provide an update on its cashflow until February 29,
despite saying it would be announced in January.

"The company continues to work with its auditors and advisers to
finalise its half-year result, including statutory gross operating
cashflow," a statement said.

Slater & Gordon spokeswoman Angela Bell confirmed the company was
weighing up whether to renew leases at its UK offices in Derby and
Failsworth, Manchester.

"All staff working at those offices have been made aware that
there is the possibility of redundancy," she said.  "However,
there may be other opportunities within Slater & Gordon if a
decision is made not to renew the leases."


SMITHKLINE BEECHAM: "Collier" Suit Goes from E.D. Mo. to N.D. Ga.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Collier et al. v. SmithKline
Beecham Corporation, Case No. 4:15-cv-01844, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
(Rome). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:16-cv-00017-
HLM to the proceeding.

As of July 26, 1989, Smithkline Beckman Corporation, Inc. was
acquired by SmithKline Beecham Limited. Smithkline Beckman
Corporation manufactures and markets pharmaceutical products
including fine perfumes, liniments, tonics, hair oil, cough
medicine, home remedies, poison ivy lotion, iron tablets, and
lozenges, cold remedies, and peptic ulcer medication products.


SNAPP'S FERRY: Recalls Ground Beef Products Due to E. Coli
----------------------------------------------------------
Snapp's Ferry Packing Company, an Afton, Tenn. establishment, is
recalling approximately 410 pounds of beef product that may be
contaminated with E. coli O157:H7, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The ground beef item was produced on Nov. 20, 2015. The following
product is subject to recall:

5-lb. packages of "Ground Beef," with a packaging date of Nov. 20,
2015.

The product subject to recall bears establishment number "Est.
9085" inside the USDA mark of inspection. The item was distributed
to restaurants in the Knoxville, Tenn. area. None of this product
was sold at retail.

The problem was discovered on Jan. 19, 2016, when a positive
result for E. coli O157:H7 from FSIS testing was traced back to
the establishment as a result of an ongoing illness investigation
in Tennessee. FSIS is continuing to work with our public health
partners at the Tennessee Department of Health and Knox County
Health Department on this investigation and will provide updated
information as it becomes available.

E. coli O157:H7 is a potentially deadly bacterium that can cause
dehydration, bloody diarrhea and abdominal cramps 2-8 days (3-4
days, on average) after exposure the organism. While most people
recover within a week, some develop a type of kidney failure
called hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS). This condition can occur
among persons of any age but is most common in children under 5-
years old and older adults. It is marked by easy bruising, pallor,
and decreased urine output. Persons who experience these symptoms
should seek emergency medical care immediately.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.

FSIS advises all consumers to safely prepare their raw meat
products, including fresh and frozen, and only consume ground beef
that has been cooked to a temperature of 160ø F. The only way to
confirm ground and boneless beef products are cooked to a
temperature high enough to kill harmful bacteria is to use a food
thermometer that measures internal temperature.


SOUTHCOAST FINANCIAL: Faces Class Suit over BNC Deal
----------------------------------------------------
Southcoast Financial Corporation is defending a class action
lawsuit over the Company's planned merger with BNC Bancorp,
Southcoast said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2015.

On August 14, 2015, the Company entered into a definitive
agreement with BNC Bancorp ("BNC") the holding company for Bank of
North Carolina, pursuant to which BNC will acquire all of the
common stock of the Company in a stock transaction valued at
approximately $95.5 million, based on the closing price of BNC
common stock on August 13, 2015.  The transaction, which is
subject to regulatory approval, the approval of the shareholders
of the Company, and other customary conditions, is expected to
close in the first quarter of 2016.

On October 12, 2015, a purported shareholder of the Company filed
a class action lawsuit in the Court of Common Pleas for the Ninth
Judicial District, State of South Carolina, County of Charleston,
captioned Matthew Sciabucuchi v. Southcoast Financial Corporation,
Case No. 2015-CP10-5500. On October 26, 2015, the suit was removed
to the United States District Court for the District of South
Carolina and assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-04352-DCN.

The Complaint names as defendants the Company, the current members
of the Company's board of directors and BNC. The Complaint is
brought on behalf of a putative class of shareholders of the
Company's common stock and seeks an order that it is properly
maintainable as a class action. The Complaint alleges that the
director defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to
maximize shareholder value in connection with the proposed merger
of the Company and BNC and also alleges that BNC aided and abetted
those breaches of fiduciary duty. The Complaint further alleges
that the director defendants breached their fiduciary duties to
the Company's shareholders by improperly securing for themselves
certain benefits not shared equally by the Company's shareholders
and by approving certain terms and conditions in the merger
agreement that may be adverse to potential alternate acquirors of
the Company.

The Complaint seeks injunctive relief to prevent the completion of
the merger or rescission of the merger and recissory damages, an
accounting to determine damages sustained by the putative class,
and costs including plaintiffs' attorneys' and experts' fees.

The Company believes that the claims asserted in the Complaint are
without merit.


SUNEDISON INC: Continues to Defend Against "Jones" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
SunEdison, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company
continues to defend against the case, Jerry Jones v. SunEdison,
Inc., et al.

On December 26, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri by
plaintiff, Jerry Jones, purportedly on behalf of all participants
in and beneficiaries of SunEdison's 401(k) Savings Plan (the
"Plan") between September 4, 2007 and December 26, 2008,
inclusive. The complaint asserted claims against SunEdison and
certain of its directors, employees and/or other unnamed
fiduciaries of the Plan. The complaint alleges that the defendants
breached certain fiduciary duties owed under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, generally asserting that the
defendants failed to make full disclosure to the Plan's
participants of the risks of investing in SunEdison's stock and
that the company's stock should not have been made available as an
investment alternative in the Plan. The complaint also alleges
that SunEdison failed to disclose certain material facts regarding
SunEdison's operations and performance, which had the effect of
artificially inflating SunEdison's stock price.

On June 1, 2009, an amended class action complaint was filed by
Mr. Jones and another purported participant of the Plan, Manuel
Acosta, which raises substantially the same claims and is based on
substantially the same allegations as the original complaint.
However, the amended complaint changes the period of time covered
by the action, purporting to be brought on behalf of beneficiaries
of and/or participants in the Plan from June 13, 2008 through the
present, inclusive. The amended complaint seeks unspecified
monetary damages, including losses the participants and
beneficiaries of the Plan allegedly experienced due to their
investment through the Plan in SunEdison's stock, equitable relief
and an award of attorney's fees. No class has been certified and
discovery has not begun.

The company and the named directors and employees filed a motion
to dismiss the complaint, which was fully briefed by the parties
as of October 9, 2009. The parties each subsequently filed notices
of supplemental authority and corresponding responses.

On March 17, 2010, the court denied the motion to dismiss. The
SunEdison defendants filed a motion for reconsideration or, in the
alternative, certification for interlocutory appeal, which was
fully briefed by the parties as of June 16, 2010. The parties each
subsequently filed notices of supplemental authority and
corresponding responses.

On October 18, 2010, the court granted the SunEdison defendants'
motion for reconsideration, vacated its order denying the
SunEdison defendants' motion to dismiss, and stated that it will
revisit the issues raised in the motion to dismiss after the
parties supplement their arguments relating thereto. Both parties
filed briefs supplementing their arguments on November 1, 2010.

On June 28, 2011, plaintiff Jerry Jones filed a notice of
voluntary withdrawal from the action. On June 29, 2011, the court
entered an order withdrawing Jones as one of the plaintiffs in
this action.

The parties each have continued to file additional notices of
supplemental authority and responses thereto. On September 27,
2012, the SunEdison defendants moved for oral argument on their
pending motion to dismiss; plaintiff Manuel Acosta joined in the
SunEdison defendants' motion for oral argument on October 9, 2012.

On March 24, 2014, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss but the plaintiffs filed, and the court in April 2014
granted, a motion to stay entry of final judgment pending a
Supreme Court decision in a case that could have implications in
this matter. That Supreme Court case was decided in June 2014, and
the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration with the
district court, based on that Supreme Court decision.

"We believe that we continue to have good reason for a dismissal
and intend to vigorously defend this motion," the Company said.

SunEdison believes the class action is without merit, and will
assert a vigorous defense.


SUNEDISON INC: Reviewing Class Suits over TerraForm Global IPO
--------------------------------------------------------------
SunEdison, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company is
still in the preliminary stages of reviewing the allegations made
in the class actions regarding the TerraForm Global IPO.

On October 23, 2015 and October 30, 2015, separate purported class
action lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Mateo (the "Superior Court")
against SunEdison, TerraForm Global, certain officers and
directors of TerraForm Global and SunEdison and each of the
underwriters of TerraForm Global's August 5, 2015 initial public
offering (the "class action").

Additionally, on October 29, 2015 and November 5, 2015, separate
purported class action lawsuits were filed in in the U.S. District
Court for Northern District of California (the "District Court"
and, together with the Superior Court, the "Court") against the
same defendants. The class action plaintiffs in each of the
lawsuits assert claims under Section 11, 12(a)(2) and Section 15
of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The class action
complaints in each of the lawsuits allege, among other things,
that the defendants made false and materially misleading
statements and failed to disclose material information in the
Registration Statement for TerraForm Global's August 5, 2015
initial public offering regarding SunEdison and its recent
operating results and business strategy.

Among other relief, the class action complaints seek class
certification, unspecified compensatory damages, rescission,
attorneys' fees, costs and such other relief as the Court should
deem just and proper.

SunEdison and TerraForm Global intend to defend the class action
lawsuits vigorously. SunEdison is still in the preliminary stages
of reviewing the allegations made in the complaints and, as a
result, is unable to provide any assurances as to the ultimate
outcome of such lawsuits or that an adverse resolution of these
lawsuits would not have a material adverse effect on SunEdison's
consolidated financial position and results of operations.


SUNEDISON INC: Wagner Firm Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
The Wagner Firm on Jan. 28 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Easter
District of Missouri on behalf of a class (the "Class") of
purchasers of SunEdison, Inc. ("SunEdison" or the "Company")
(NYSE: SUNE) securities between February 19, 2014 and January 6,
2016, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the
Court no later than February 1, 2016 to serve as lead plaintiff.
Please contact Avi Wagner at 310-491-7949, or at
avi@thewagnerfirm.com to discuss this matter.

Between August 6, 2015, and January 7, 2016, SunEdison shares
experienced significant drops due to issues relating to the
Company's debt obligations, liquidity, and the Company's
relationship with its yieldcos.

The complaint charges SunEdison and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of federal securities laws.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that, throughout the Class
Period, defendants failed to disclose: (1) that the Company was
facing liquidity issues after engaging in various costly
acquisitions; (2) that the Company had unsustainable levels of
debt; (3) that the Company's yieldcos were overpaying SunEdison
for projects; (4) that the Company's yieldco business model was
unsustainable; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the
Company's statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this
time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and
remain an absent member of the Class.  If you wish to learn more
about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this
announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Avi Wagner, Esquire, of The Wagner Firm,
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067,
at 310-491-7949, or by e-mail to avi@thewagnerfirm.com


SYNGENTA SEEDS: "Dreibodt" Suit Moved from W.D. Tex. to Kansas
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled David Dreibodt, et al. v. Syngenta
Seeds, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-00011, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (Kansas City). The
Kansas District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-02065-JWL-
JPO to the proceeding.

Syngenta produces crop protection products and seeds. The company
produces herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides, and seeds for
field crops, vegetables, and flowers. The company is based in
Basil, Switzerland.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          J. Michael Moore, Esq.
          THE MOORE LAW FIRM
          4900 North 10th Street, Ste. E-2
          McAllen, TX 78504
          Telephone: (956) 631 0745
          Facsimile: (888) 266 0971

The Defendants are represented by:

          Mark R. Trachtenberg, Esq.
          HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
          1221 McKinney Street, Suite 2100
          Houston, TX 77010-2007
          Telephone: (713) 547 2000
          Facsimile: (713) 547 2600

               - and -

          Stephen E. Walraven, Esq.
          LANGLEY & BANACK, INC.
          Trinity Plaza II
          745 East Mulberry, Ninth Floor
          San Antonio, TX 78212-3166
          Telephone: (210) 736 6600
          Facsimile: (210) 735 6889

               - and -

          Thomas G. Haskins Jr., Esq.
          BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
          2100 McKinney Avenue, Suite 1250
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 258 4111
          Facsimile: (214) 258 4199


TERRAFORM GLOBAL: "Agrawal" Suit Goes to N.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Agrawal v. TerraForm Global, Inc.
et al., Case No. CIV 536468, was transferred from the San Mateo
County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-06322-WHO to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff brought this class action
lawsuit against the Defendants who issued allegedly issued false
and misleading offering materials of common stocks.

TerraForm Global owns and operates contracted power generation
assets. The Company offers wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, and
hybrid energy solutions. The company is based in Bethesda,
Maryland.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
          Brian Edward Cochran, Esq.
          David Conrad Walton, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          Post Montgomery Center
          One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 288 4545
          Facsimile: (415) 288 4534
          E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com
                  bcochran@rgrdlaw.com
                  davew@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Frank James Johnson, Esq.
          JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
          600 West Broadway, Suite 1540
          San Diego, CA 92101
           (619) 230-0063
          Fax: (619) 255-1856
          E-mail: frankj@johnsonandweaver.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Sara B. Brody, Esq.
          Jaime Allyson Bartlett, Esq.
          Norman J. Blears, Esq.
          Sarah Alison Hemmendinger, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          555 Califonia Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 772 1200
          Facsimile: (415) 772 7400
          E-mail: sbrody@sidley.com
                  jbartlett@sidley.com
                  nblears@sidley.com
                  shemmendinger@sidley.com


TERRAFORM GLOBAL: "Badri" Suit Moved to Northern Dist. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Anton Badri v. Terraform Global,
Inc. et al., Case No. CIV 536536, was removed from the San Mateo
Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
California Northern District (San Jose). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-06323-BLF to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff brought this class action
lawsuit against the Defendants who issued allegedly issued false
and misleading offering materials including review of U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filings, as well as regulatory
filings and reports, securities analysts' reports and advisories.

TerraForm Global owns and operates contracted power generation
assets. The Company offers wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, and
hybrid energy solutions. The company is based in Bethesda,
Maryland.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Albert Y. Chang, Esq.
          Francis A. Bottini Jr., Esq.
          Yury A. Kolesnikov, Esq.
          Bottini and Bottini, Inc.
          7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 914 2001
          Facsimile: (858) 914 2002
          E-mail: achang@bottinilaw.com
                  fbottini@bottinilaw.com
                  sammirati@bottinilaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Sara B. Brody, Esq.
          Jaime Allyson Bartlett, Esq.
          Norman J. Blears, Esq.
          Sarah Alison Hemmendinger, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          555 Califonia Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 772 1200
          Facsimile: (415) 772 7400
          E-mail: sbrody@sidley.com
                  jbartlett@sidley.com
                  nblears@sidley.com
                  shemmendinger@sidley.com


TERRAFORM GLOBAL: Iron Workers Pension Fund Moved to N.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Iron Workers Mid-South Pension
Fund v. Terraform Global, Inc. et al., Case No. CIV536468, was
removed from the San Mateo County Superior Court, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-
06328-WHO to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff brought this class action
lawsuit against the Defendants who allegedly issued false and
misleading offering materials including review of U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission filings, as well as regulatory filings and
reports, securities analysts' reports and advisories.

TerraForm Global owns and operates contracted power generation
assets. The Company offers wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, and
hybrid energy solutions. The company is based in Bethesda,
Maryland.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
          George Carlos Aguilar, Esq.
          Jay Nabil Razzouk, Esq.
          ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101-3350
          Telephone: (619) 525 3990
          Facsimile: (619) 525 3991
          E-mail: notice@robbinsarroyo.com
                  GAguilar@robbinsarroyo.com
                  jrazzouk@robbinsarroyo.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Sara B. Brody, Esq.
          Jaime Allyson Bartlett, Esq.
          Norman J. Blears, Esq.
          Sarah Alison Hemmendinger, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          555 Califonia Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 772 1200
          Facsimile: (415) 772 7400
          E-mail: sbrody@sidley.com
                  jbartlett@sidley.com
                  nblears@sidley.com
                  shemmendinger@sidley.com


TERRAFORM GLOBAL: "Fraser" Suit Moved to N.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Fraser v. Wuebbels et al., Case
No. CIV535963, was removed from the Superior Court County of San
Mateo, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (San Francisco). The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 3:15-cv-06326-WHO to the proceeding.

The Defendant allegedly issued false and misleading offering
materials including review and analysis of U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission filings, press releases and media reports, and
publicly available information.

Brian Wuebbles is the President and CEO of TerraForm Global Inc.
TerraForm Global owns and operates contracted power generation
assets. The Company offers wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, and
hybrid energy solutions. The company is based in Bethesda,
Maryland.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ex Kano S. Sams II, Esq.
          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Lesley F Portnoy, Esq.
          Robert Vincent Prongay, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201 9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201 9160
          E-mail: esams@glancylaw.com
                  info@glancylaw.com
                  lportnoy@glancylaw.com
                  rprongay@glancylaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Sara B. Brody, Esq.
          Jaime Allyson Bartlett, Esq.
          Norman J. Blears, Esq.
          Sarah Alison Hemmendinger, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          555 Califonia Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 772 1200
          Facsimile: (415) 772 7400
          E-mail: sbrody@sidley.com
                  jbartlett@sidley.com
                  nblears@sidley.com
                  shemmendinger@sidley.com

               - and -

          Stephen D. Hibbard, Esq.
          SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
          4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 3800
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 616 1100
          Facsimile: (415) 616 1199
          E-mail: shibbard@shearman.com


TETRAPHASE PHARMA: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals Inc.
("Tetraphase" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:TTPH) in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased
Tetraphase securities between March 5, 2015 and September 8, 2015,
inclusive (the "Class Period").  This class action seeks to
recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the
federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act").

The Complaint alleges that the Company and certain insiders issued
materially false and misleading statements to investors.  In
particular, the Complaint alleges that the Company made positive
statements about the efficacy and potential for its drug
Eravacycline to achieve approval by the FDA, despite knowledge
that a pivotal portion of its IGNITE2 phase 3 clinical trial for
Eravacycline would fail to achieve its primary endpoint of
statistical non-inferiority compared to the antibiotic
Levofloxacin.

On September 8, 2015, the Company announced that the pivotal
portion of its IGNITE2 phase 3 clinical trial of Eravacycline did
not achieve its primary endpoint. Following this news, shares of
the Company fell from a close of $44.78 on September 8, 2015, to a
close of $8.36 per share on September 10, 2015 -- a loss of more
than 80% in market value.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than March 28, 2016.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
E-mail:  tjmckenna@gme-law.com
Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
E-mail:  gegleston@gme-law.com
Gainey McKenna & Egleston
Telephone:  (212) 983-1300


TOPHAT LOGISTICAL: Delivery Drivers File Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
group of delivery drivers for a business specializing in the home
delivery of appliances, furniture and other products on behalf of
a number of retailers, have brought a class action lawsuit against
the shipping company, alleging the company has improperly
classified its drivers as independent contractors, shorting them
earnings in the process.

On Jan. 26, plaintiffs Cedric Morris, Paxton Williams and Donovan
Jameson filed suit in Cook County Circuit Court against TopHat
Logistical Solutions LLC, alleging violations of the Illinois Wage
Payment and Collection Act and unjust enrichment.  The complaint
said TopHat is based in suburban Bloomingdale; the company's
website indicated it is based in Lake Geneva, Wis.

The plaintiffs, represented by attorneys with the firms of Siegel
& Dolan, of Chicago, and Lichten & Liss-Riordan, of Boston, said
they are also seeking damages on behalf of a class of other
plaintiffs which they estimated could number in the thousands.

According to the complaint, Morris, of Maywood, worked for TopHat
as a driver from 2010-2015; Williams, of Bellwood, from 2011-2015;
and Jameson, from 2013-2014.  The complaint alleged the drivers
were all classified as independent contractors, by TopHat, which,
according to its website, delivers various large products for such
retailers as Sears, hhGregg, Grand Appliance and TV, Sleepy's and
MattressFirm, among others.

However, while the plaintiffs said they and other drivers were
classified as independent contractors, subject to an agreement
they signed with TopHat, they said the way TopHat managed their
drivers should instead qualify them as employees, under the law.

"The behavioral and financial control manifested over the drivers
by TopHat, both under the terms of their contracts and in fact,
demonstrates that they are TopHat's employees," the complaint
stated.

The complaint said TopHat required drivers to report to TopHat's
facility between 6:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. "six to seven days a
week" to receive their route assignments and deliveries list; to
wear uniforms; to make deliveries in a manner and in a time
mandated by TopHat; submit to background checks and drug tests; to
receive authorization from TopHat for any "helper" the drivers
might bring along; to operate their vehicles under TopHat's
Department of Transportation number; and to check in with TopHat
after each delivery or carry GPS devices, among other
stipulations.

The drivers said they routinely worked 12-14 hours a day, but
TopHat would deduct "certain expenses directly from plaintiffs'
checks, including deductions for insurances . . . equipment, truck
rentals and uniforms," as well as costs of "damage" from
"unsatisfactory" deliveries, and additional penalties for
"lateness" or "uncompleted deliveries."

Yet, the complaint said, TopHat requires drivers to pay for their
own fuel, vehicle maintenance costs and "payments to helpers."

The complaint said, by "mischaracterizing" its drivers as
independent contractors, TopHat "evades employment related
obligations, such as social security contributions, workers'
compensation coverage and state disability and unemployment
compensation."

"TopHat illegally shifts these costs . . . to plaintiffs," the
complaint alleged.

The drivers asked the court to certify a class of other
plaintiffs, including anyone who "contracted to provide delivery
services . . . to TopHat" in Illinois.

The complaint asked the court to order TopHat to pay unspecified
damages, including restitution for all deductions from drivers'
paychecks; unpaid wages, with interest; statutory damages; and
attorneys' fees.


TRUECAR INC: N.Y. Court Narrows Car Dealers' Suit
-------------------------------------------------
District Judge P. Kevin Castel of the Southern District of New
York granted, in part, and denied, in part, TrueCar, Inc.'s motion
to dismiss the First Amended Complaint in the case is, DEPENDABLE
SALES & SERVICE, INC., Plaintiffs, v. TRUECAR, INC., Defendant,
No. 15-cv-1742(PKC)(S.D.N.Y.).

"TrueCar's motion to dismiss is granted as to the "bait-and-
switch," "financing," "transparency" and "rebate" advertisements.
It is denied as to the "no haggle" and "factory invoice"
advertisements," Judge Castel said.

TrueCar, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that on March 9, 2015,
the Company was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed in the
U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York (the "NY
Lanham Act Litigation"). The complaint in the NY Lanham Act
Litigation, purportedly filed on behalf of numerous automotive
dealers who are not participating on the TrueCar platform, alleges
that the Company has violated the Lanham Act as well as various
state laws prohibiting unfair competition and deceptive acts or
practices related to the Company's advertising and promotional
activities. The complaint seeks injunctive relief in addition to
over $250 million in damages as a result of the alleged diversion
of customers from the plaintiffs' dealerships to TrueCar Certified
Dealers.

The Plaintiffs in the Dependable Sales case are 162 auto
dealerships located throughout the United States.

On April 7, 2015, the Company filed an answer to the complaint.
Thereafter, the plaintiffs amended their complaint, and on July
13, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.

The Company believes that the amended complaint is without merit,
and it intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.

A copy of the Court's January 6, 2016 Memorandum and order is
available at http://is.gd/KED82Nfrom Leagle.com.

Dependable Sales and Service, Inc., Plaintiff, is represented by:

     Leonard Anthony Bellavia, Esq.
     Steven H Blatt, Esq.
     BELLAVIA GENTILE & ASSOCIATES, LLP
     200 Old Country Road, Suite 400
     Mineola, NY 11590
     Tel: 516-873-3000

          - and -

     Robert E. Chudakoff, Esq.
     Thomas Williams, Esq.
     Victoria Langton, Esq.
     ULMER & BERNE LLP
     Skylight Office Tower
     1660 West 2nd Street, Suite 1100
     Cleveland, Ohio  44113-1448
     Tel: (216) 583-7126
     E-mail: rchudakoff@ulmer.com
             vlangton@ulmer.com

Other plaintiffs include, but are not limited to, Drew Ford,
Beaver Motors Inc., Key Chrysler Jeep & Dodge, Inc., Westbury Jeep
Chrysler Dodge, Inc., Rafferty Subaru, Inc., Valley Motors, Inc.,
Catanese Volkswagen, Inc., Arnold Chevrolet, LCC, Bellavia Buick,
Inc., World Auto Group, Inc., Paul Miller, Inc., Paul Miller
Performance, L.L.C., Paul Miller GT, Inc., Paul Miller
Sportscar,Inc., G.S. Autoplex, LLC, L&S Motors Inc., Westchester
Autoplex, Inc., D.L. New Rochelle Auto Sales, LLC, N.R.
Automotive, Inc., Haldeman Ford of Kutztown, Inc., Genesee Valley
Motors, Inc., Genesse Valley Ford LLC, Tustin Buick GMC, Inc., Sam
Boswell Motors, Inc., Cascade Auto Group, Salerno Duane, Inc.,
Park Ford Of Mahopac Inc., Cobb Auto Sales, Inc., Hoffman Ford,
Inc., Hoffman of Hartford, Inc., Hoffman Motors of New London
Inc., Hoffman of Simsbury, Hoffman of Simsbury, Hoffman of
Simsbury, Hoffman of West Simsbury, Inc., Hoffman Ford, Inc.,
C.S.I. Motors, Inc., Fitz Motors, Inc., Biener Auto Group, Inc.,
Brentlinger Enterprises,

Truecar, Inc., Defendant, is represented by:

     Benjamin Maxwell Arrow, Esq.
     Harold Paul Weinberger, Esq.
     Norman Christopher Simon, Esq.
     KRAMER, LEVIN, NAFTALIS & FRANKEL, LLP
     1177 Avenue of the Americas
     New York, NY 10036
     Tel: 212-715-9100
     Fax: 212-715-8000
     E-mail: barrow@kramerlevin.com
             hweinberger@kramerlevin.com
             nsimon@kramerlevin.com


TRUECAR INC: Wants Calif. Securities Action Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------
TrueCar, Inc. is seeking dismissal of a securities class action
lawsuit in California, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

On May 27, 2015, a purported securities class action complaint was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California (the "Federal Securities Litigation") by Satyabrata
Mahapatra naming the Company and two other individuals not
affiliated with the Company as defendants. On June 15, 2015, the
plaintiff filed a Notice of Errata and Correction purporting to
name Scott Painter and Michael Guthrie as individual defendants in
lieu of the two individual defendants named in the complaint.

On October 5, 2015, the plaintiffs amended their complaint. As
amended, the complaint in the Federal Securities Litigation seeks
an award of unspecified damages, interest and attorneys' fees
based on allegations that the defendants made false and/or
misleading statements, and failed to disclose material adverse
facts about the Company's business, operations, prospects and
performance. Specifically, the amended complaint alleges that
during the putative class period, the defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the
Company's business practices violated unfair competition and
deceptive trade practice laws (i.e., the issues raised in the NY
Lanham Act Litigation); (ii) the Company acts as a dealer and
broker in car sales transactions without proper licensing, in
violation of various states' laws that govern car sales (i.e., the
issues raised in the CNCDA Litigation); and (iii) as a result of
the above, the Company's registration statements, prospectuses,
quarterly and annual reports, financial statements, SEC filings,
press releases, and other statements and documents were materially
false and misleading at times relevant to the amended complaint
and putative class period. The amended complaint asserts a
putative class period stemming from May 16, 2014 to July 23, 2015.

On October 19, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. The Company believes that the complaint is
without merit and it intends to vigorously defend itself in this
matter. Based on the preliminary nature of the proceedings in this
case, the outcome of this legal proceeding, including the
anticipated legal defense costs, remains uncertain; accordingly,
the Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome or reasonably
estimate the probability of or the range of loss, if any, for this
action. As a result, no loss accrual has been recorded in the
Company's consolidated financial statements related to this
matter. If this matter is not resolved in the Company's favor,
losses arising from the results of litigation or settlements, as
well as ongoing defense costs, could have a material adverse
effect on the Company's business, financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows.


TRUECAR INC: Calif. State Court Suit Dismissed
----------------------------------------------
TrueCar, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that plaintiffs in a
securities class action lawsuit in California state court have
voluntarily dismissed their case.

On August 11, 2015, the Company, certain of its executives and
directors, and the underwriters of the Company's initial public
offering and secondary offering were named as defendants in a
putative class action lawsuit filed in California Superior Court
under the federal securities laws (the "California State Court
Securities Litigation").  The complaint filed by Ning Shen and
William Fitzpatrick, alleged that the Company's registration
statements in connection with the offerings contained false or
misleading statements of material facts, and failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
prospects, and performance.

On September 2, 2015, following the Company's removal of the
action from California state court to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, the plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed this lawsuit "without prejudice," which means that the
California State Court Securities Litigation is currently
resolved, but that it could be re-filed at a later date. Because
this case is currently resolved, no loss accrual has been recorded
in the Company's consolidated financial statements related to this
matter. If the California State Court Securities Litigation is re-
filed at a later date, or if additional similar litigation, such
as the Federal Securities Litigation, is filed against the
Company, and if such litigation is not resolved in the Company's
favor, losses arising from the results of litigation or
settlements, as well as ongoing defense costs, could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows.


UNITED STATES: Newspaper Intervenes in Border Patrol Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rob O'Dell, writing for Arizona Central, reports that the Arizona
Republic has intervened to unseal records in a class-action suit
that alleges inadequate and inhumane conditions in the Border
Patrol's migrant detention facilities in southern Arizona.

The motion asked U.S. District Court Judge David Bury to unseal a
preliminary injunction by the plaintiffs in the case that details
what they contend is the inadequate, unsafe and unhealthy
conditions migrants face in southern Arizona detention centers run
by Customs and Border Protection. The federal government filed a
motion to seal the injunction and all the exhibits, which include
pictures and videos.

In mid-January, Bury approved the class-action status of a lawsuit
filed by several civil- and immigration-rights groups, including
the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, on behalf of two
unnamed women who were detained and Norlan Flores, who has been
detained twice.

For years, migrants caught by the Border Patrol in southern
Arizona have complained about dirty and overcrowded cells, being
deprived of adequate food and water, and not receiving adequate
medical care. They have a name for these frigid detention rooms:
Las hieleras, Spanish for the freezers.

The motion said that "the public has an undeniable interest in
monitoring a civil case concerning the allegedly inhumane
conditions experience by civil border detainees lodged in
government facilities" and that the government "provides no
compelling reason why they should be allowed to continue to
litigate this action in secret, immune from public scrutiny."

The government argued to seal the records because "release of the
photographs and videos would violate the privacy rights of
depicted detainees." It argued release of the documents could
impact privacy rights of Border Patrol agents and also would
"allow unsavory individuals to escape from, gain access to or
otherwise manipulate Border Patrol facilities."

The Republic's attorney, said the government's actions has allowed
basic court records to be hidden from public view for months in a
case of acute public interest.

"There are serious allegations of inhumane conditions at Border
Patrol facilities," said Nicole Carroll,

The Republic's Vice President of News and Editor. "This issue is a
public concern and should not be litigated in secret. The public
has a right to know what is happening in those facilities and in
that courtroom."


UTZ QUALITY FOODS: "Cummings" Suit Goes to Mass. Dist. Court
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Cummings v. UTZ Quality Foods,
Inc. et al., Case No. 15-06595, was removed from the Middlesex
Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts (Boston). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:15-cv-14242-WGY to the proceeding.

UTZ Quality Foods manufactures and supplies snack foods. The
Company provides potato chips, pretzels, snacks and assortments,
gift boxes and tins, and chocolate products. The company is based
in Hanover, Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kristen M. Hurley, Esq.
          Philip J. Gordon, Esq.
          GORDON LAW GROUP
          585 Boylston Street
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 536 1800
          Facsimile: (617) 536 1802
          E-mail: khurley@gordonllp.com
                  pgordon@gordonllp.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Richard J. Reibstein, Esq.
          Jaclyn M. Essinger, Esq.
          PEPPER HAMILTON LLP
          620 Eighth Avenue, 37th Floor
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 808 2722
          E-mail: essingej@pepperlaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN AG: May Buy Back Non-Emission Compliant Diesel Cars
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Ewing, writing for The New York Times, reports that
Volkswagen may buy back some diesel cars in the United States if
it cannot make them compliant with air quality rules fast enough,
a lawyer for the company says.

The statement, made during a court hearing by Robert Giuffra, a
lawyer defending Volkswagen against class-action suits by owners
of tainted diesel vehicles, was the clearest indication yet that
the company, which is based in Wolfsburg, Germany, may not have
the technology to bring emissions for some of the cars into line
with regulations without hurting performance and fuel economy.

Mr. Giuffra spoke during a hearing in United States District Court
in San Francisco, although his remarks did not attract wide
attention at the time.  Volkswagen officials have indicated that
the company might buy back some cars in the United States.
Mr. Giuffra's comments suggested that option has become more
likely.

Volkswagen could probably find a solution eventually, Mr. Giuffra
said.  He added, "The question though is one of timing.

"And for some of the vehicles it may well be that the timing is
too far into the future," he said, according to a transcript of
the hearing.  "So we might have to do a buyback or some sort of a
solution like that for some subset of the vehicles, but that
hasn't been determined yet."

Volkswagen faces hundreds of lawsuits from diesel owners and
independent dealers who say they are stuck with cars that have
fallen in value after the company admitted rigging them to cheat
on emissions tests.  The number of affected vehicles was put at
575,000 during the San Francisco hearing.

From September, when the Environmental Protection Agency first
accused Volkswagen of emissions cheating, to the end of December,
prices for VW diesels have dropped nearly 16 percent, according to
data compiled by Kelley Blue Book. Some owners report steeper
declines.

Volkswagen has not found a way to reduce emissions that satisfies
federal and California regulators.  In any case, the company would
still face legal claims from owners if the cars' performance
suffered and the vehicles lost resale value as a result.  It may
be simpler just to buy cars back, or offer owners generous trade-
ins on new Volkswagen vehicles.

"We have no comment other than to say that Volkswagen continues to
work cooperatively with E.P.A. and CARB to resolve these issues as
quickly as possible with approved remedies for the affected
vehicles," the company said, referring to California's Air
Resources Board.

In Europe, where most of the 11 million vehicles are, Volkswagen
is planning to update the engine software and in some cases add a
part intended to reduce emissions by improving air flow into the
engine.

But that solution will not work in the United States because of
stricter limits on nitrogen oxide, a pollutant linked to lung
ailments and smog.  It is particularly difficult for Volkswagen to
fix older vehicles equipped with less effective emissions
equipment than was installed on newer cars.

About 320,000 of the Volkswagen diesel cars sold in the United
States are equipped with the first generation of the motor, known
as the EA 189, that is at the heart of the scandal.  Those motors,
which began appearing in the United States in the 2009 model year,
have a device known as a nitrogen oxide trap that is considered
less effective.  Those cars are probably the most likely
candidates for buybacks.

Larger diesel vehicles such as the Touareg sport utility vehicle
and Audi Q7, as well as Passat sedans since 2012, have a system
that uses the chemical urea to neutralize nitrogen oxide.  That
kind of emission control is considered more effective and has
little or no effect on fuel economy.

The nitrogen oxide traps, by contrast, hurt fuel mileage and
acceleration when the traps are fully deployed.  That may be the
reason Volkswagen programmed the cars to reduce emissions controls
except when engine software detected that the car was undergoing
tests.

The Golf, Jetta and Beetle did not get the urea chemical systems
until 2015.

Volkswagen faces many class-action lawsuits from owners and some
used-car dealers.  The hearing in San Francisco on Jan. 21 was so
crowded that lawyers spilled out of the courtroom into the
corridor.

After the session, Judge Charles R. Breyer of United States
District Court appointed a steering committee of 21 lawyers
representing VW owners and dealers to try to negotiate a
settlement with the company.  The negotiations will be overseen by
Robert S. Mueller III, a former director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, who was appointed settlement master in the case.
Elizabeth J. Cabraser, a veteran San Francisco lawyer who
specializes in consumer fraud cases, will be lead lawyer for the
plaintiffs.

Judge Breyer said during the hearing that the civil cases were not
a "whodunit" focused on who at Volkswagen was responsible for the
cheating.

"It is more of a case of how do we fix what was done," he said.
"If it can't be fixed, then what is fair and just compensation for
the people who have been damaged by this matter?"

Mr. Giuffra of the law firm Sullivan & Cromwell said that the
solution "needs to be a sustainable fix, and a fix that actually
works, because we don't want to do something that we think is a
fix and doesn't turn out to be a fix."


WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Pepperoni Pizza Products Due to Misbranding
----------------------------------------------------------------
Whole Foods/North Atlantic Kitchens, an Everett, Mass.
establishment, is recalling approximately 73,898 pounds of
pepperoni pizza products due to misbranding, the U.S. Department
of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)
announced. The product is labeled as containing uncured beef
pepperoni. However, the pizzas contain uncured pork pepperoni,
which is not declared on the product label. Some individuals have
a sensitivity or intolerance to pork.

The fresh pizza items were produced Jan. 5, 2015, through Jan. 22,
2016. The following products are subject to recall:

  --- 10-oz. vacuum-sealed packages of "WHOLE FOODS MARKETS,
      PIZZA, PEPPERONI, 8".
  --- 19-oz. vacuum-sealed packages of "WHOLE FOODS MARKETS,
      PIZZA, PEPPERONI, 12".

The products subject to recall bear establishment number "EST.
20234" inside the USDA mark of inspection and Sell-by dates of
Jan. 12, 2015 through Jan. 30, 2016 printed on the packaging.
These items were shipped for wholesale and retail sale in
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New
York, and Rhode Island.

The problem was discovered by FSIS during a label review at the
establishment and occurred as a result of a change in ingredient
suppliers.

There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to
consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury or
illness should contact a healthcare provider.

Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to
consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to
the place of purchase.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.


ZIMBABWE: Judge Dismisses Suit Challenging Teachers Recall
----------------------------------------------------------
Jonga Kandemiiri, writing for Voice of America, reports that
Labour Court judge Justice Godfrey Musariri dismissed a case in
which the Progressive Teachers' Union of Zimbabwe (PTUZ) was
challenging a move by the government to recall teachers currently
on leave.

Sources said Justice Musariri noted that the case was not fit for
a group action, meaning to say that PTUZ availed itself instead of
individual teachers affected by the move.

The judge also said the matter did not qualify to be heard as an
urgent case.

This coincided with the announcement by Labour Minister Priscah
Mupfumira that no teachers should go on leave until the government
finds money to pay relief staff.

PTUZ general secretary Raymond Majongwe said even though they are
disappointed with the outcome, their lawyer will file fresh papers
containing the names of the affected teachers.

"This is a set-back but what we want to make known is that as
workers we are ready to take them head-on," said Majongwe.


* Class Action, Mass Tort Trial Lawyers Tops Earners
----------------------------------------------------
According to Manhattan Institute's James Copland, lawsuits play a
major role in the American economy: the direct costs of tort
litigation alone are roughly one-tenth the entire health care
sector, and that figure excludes various settlements and classes
of litigation, as well as forgone research and investment and
wasteful practices encouraged by litigation risk, including
defensive medicine.  "Trial Lawyers, Inc." behaves like the
biggest of businesses, as it generates cash from traditional
profit centers (asbestos, tobacco, and insurance), explores
potential growth markets (lead paint, mold, and regulated
industries), and develops new products (such as suits against the
fast-food industry).

The U.S. litigation industry's top earners are those who represent
large numbers of plaintiffs, either through class-action lawsuits
or mass-tort product-liability suits.  Trial lawyers have become
more sophisticated in their strategies: rather than paying
individuals to serve as plaintiffs, class-action lawyers now make
perfectly legal contributions to politicians who control
litigation for public-employee pension funds; rather than chasing
ambulances to find clients, mass-tort lawyers have developed
sophisticated marketing strategies that take advantage of the
Internet and social-media platforms to attract the people whose
claims constitute their books of business.

In some respects, things have improved since the Manhattan
Institute launched its first Trial Lawyers, Inc. report in 2003:
in addition to prosecutors stopping some of the worst frauds, the
U.S. Supreme Court and other judicial decision makers have
modified some rules for the better; state legislatures have
continued to modify laws to deter litigation abuse; and Congress
passed the landmark Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, which
prevented class-action lawyers from shopping large national cases
to the most favorable state courts.

A complete copy of the publication is available at:

           http://www.insideronline.org/reader.php?id=5oGk


* EEOC May File Discrimination Suits for Group of Workers
---------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission may file a single
suit to gain recovery for a group of workers who have been
subjected to discriminatory employment practices, rather than file
multiple individual suits, a federal judge has ruled.

U.S. District Judge Mark R. Hornak of the Western District of
Pennsylvania's ruling in EEOC v. FedEx Ground Package System
allows the EEOC to continue its lawsuit against FedEx, in which
the commission represents 17 deaf individuals who claimed FedEx
didn't make adequate accommodations for them in their jobs as
package handlers.

The decision was in response to FedEx's motion to dismiss the
case.  FedEx claimed the EEOC could not represent a class of
plaintiffs because each claim was too individualized and fact-
specific.  FedEx argued that under the Americans with Disabilities
Act, the EEOC had to file a series of one-off lawsuits for each of
the plaintiffs.

However, Judge Hornak wrote in his opinion that the EEOC has
authority to bring such suits under the ADA for the purpose of
eliminating systematic employment discrimination.

"The EEOC has broad power to 'prevent any person from engaging in
any unlawful employment practice,'" Judge Hornak said.
"Specifically, the EEOC is authorized to bring civil actions
against discriminating employers."

The purpose of EEOC litigation is twofold, Judge Hornak said.
"First, and most obviously, the EEOC can bring a suit on behalf of
particular individuals, lending its institutional and societal
heft to an effort to remedy discrete events of employment
discrimination.  EEOC litigation also serves an entirely separate
and distinct purpose: the vindication of rights protected by
federal anti-discrimination laws.  That purpose exists wholly
apart from securing relief for individual victims; indeed the
injury that the EEOC was designed to remedy is the violation
itself and not only the actual harm imposed on an employee or
applicant for employment."

The point of the EEOC, Judge Hornak said, was to litigate for
public interest, not just for individual plaintiffs.

FedEx relied on the 2009 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit case of Hohider v. UPS in arguing that varied claims under
the ADA can't be litigated on a consolidated basis because of the
fact-specific inquiry needed in each -- individual case.

However, Judge Hornak said Hohider didn't apply to the case at
hand because it dealt with private class actions.  Additionally,
Judge Hornak said the plaintiffs in Hohider had little in common.

"There was no unifying disability, or even a unifying job,
position, or decisional process that brought them together.  Thus,
a court would have to determine whether each individual 'with or
without reasonable accommodation, [could] perform the essential
functions of the employment position that such individual holds or
desires,'" Judge Hornak said.

He added the claims in the EEOC's case against FedEx are more
narrow than the ones in Hohider.

"Here, the claimants and potential beneficiaries of relief
facially share a common disability -- being deaf or hard-of-
hearing," Judge Hornak said.  "And the claimants are employed in
or applicants for a common position: package handler. Further, the
minimum qualifications for becoming a package handler (being 18
years old and passing a criminal background check), are commonly
applicable, easily identifiable, and provable if true, even with
respect to the as-yet-unknown aggrieved individuals."

The first step in determining whether the claims can go forward,
according to Judge Hornak, is whether the individual plaintiffs
are "qualified" under the ADA -- a factor upon which both parties
agreed was necessary.  However, there was a difference in opinion
when it came to FedEx's argument that a pattern or practice of
discrimination had to be shown in order to move forward.  The EEOC
argued that discriminatory practices by themselves are not legal
claims, but part of an evidentiary framework.


* Self-Driving Technology May Impact Auto Injury litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for Law.com, reports that research into
cars that drive themselves appears to be heading into the fast
lane, carrying with it the promise of fewer deaths and injuries
from car accidents.

That could also mean fewer cases for attorneys who handle
automotive injury litigation, but opinions differ on how much of a
threat driverless cars pose to lawyers' livelihoods.

The volume of road accidents is widely predicted to decline as
self-driving technology is adopted, although just when and how
much is less clear.  An October 2015 white paper from consultant
KPMG on autonomous cars' effect on the auto insurance industry
predicted that the number of accidents per vehicle would decline
80 percent by 2040.

Automated systems in self-driving cars will reduce vulnerability
to human error, the cause of most crashes, said Stephen Wu, an
attorney representing technology companies in the autonomous
vehicle industry.

"There will be a diminishment in the amount of work that's being
done for auto accidents.  If I were in that field right now, I
would be looking for alternatives.  I feel a prudent practitioner
in that field should be looking at related practice areas," said
Mr. Wu, of Silicon Valley Law Group in San Jose, California.
"There are going to be people who are right now making a living
representing people who are injured in auto accidents because of
negligence of drivers on the road or products that fail or
liability arising from failure of a government entity to make a
road safe -- I believe that work will decrease over time."

Still, while suits focusing on driver error will likely decline as
more and more self-driving cars take to the roads, the new
technology is not foolproof and accidents won't be completely
eliminated, according to Mr. Wu.  And when a self-driving car is
involved in a crash, passengers will need lawyers who can unravel
the reason its complex systems failed, and potentially bring
claims related to the vehicles' sensors, software and data inputs,
Mr. Wu said.

"You may see a shift from one group of plaintiffs' lawyers to
another group of plaintiffs' lawyers.  Nevertheless, you will see
the aggregate number of cases reduced," Mr. Wu said.

Still, auto accident lawyers who expand their knowledge of
technological issues will benefit, he said.

The magnitude of the decline in injuries from auto crashes as
autonomous cars are introduced is hard to predict, said
Hilary Rowen, an insurance regulatory lawyer at Sedgwick in San
Francisco who studies insurance issues related to self-driving
cars.

The year 2020 is often mentioned as the date when self-driving
technology will be ready for market, but Ms. Rowen said she's
skeptical and thinks that date will be pushed back.  Cars are
already being sold with more and more semi-autonomous features,
such as lane departure warnings and automated parallel parking,
and Ms. Rowen said she thinks the auto industry will "tiptoe up to
(self-driving technology) gradually" rather than immediately jump
to completely self-driving cars.

And whenever autonomous cars do become available, they will share
the roads with human-operated vehicles for the foreseeable future,
given that the average age of vehicles on American roads is 11
years, according to Ms. Rowen, who is the American Bar
Association's tort trial and insurance practice section observer
to the Uniform Law Commission Study Committee on Self-Driving
Cars.

Ms. Rowen is "skeptical that the most optimistic projections [for
accident reduction] will materialize in anything less than a 40-
year projection," but she nonetheless expects "a significant
reduction in bodily injury frequency and severity and in property
frequency."

That said, body damage to self-driving cars will be especially
costly to repair, she said.

When self-driving cars do take to the roads in large numbers,
Ms. Rowen said she foresees a short-term bump in suits over "novel
litigation and causation issues."

Since some cars will offer the choice of driver control or
autonomous control, there will likely be disputes over whether a
crash was caused by human error or technology, she said. And there
also may be coverage disputes revolving around whether a case
involves a products liability claim or a garden-variety private
passenger vehicle accident, Ms. Rowen said.  That period will
taper off as new and novel fact patterns work their way through
courts of appeal, she said.

Ms. Rowen said she anticipates a second phase starting when
insurance companies and lawyers begin to discern common accident
patterns with autonomous cars.

Demand for legal services from crash victims will decrease "in the
longer term," and that business "may not go to the same people"
who represent such clients today, according to Ms. Rowen.  To
avoid being left out, practitioners should "gear up their
expertise" and become local experts on issues such as, for
example, "how you'd handle black box data," she said.

Autonomous cars are developing along three separate paths,
according to Ms. Rowen -- traditional cars with increasingly
sophisticated driver assistance features; cars that have operator
controls but can also be fully autonomous; and fully-autonomous
vehicles with no steering wheels, accelerators or brake pedals.
The third type of vehicle will be used in a narrow range of
settings such as surface streets in cities and suburbs, she said.
In addition, she noted, vehicle ownership patterns are expected to
change, as jitney-like services allow some households to go from
owning multiple cars to owning just one.

The leader in developing self-driving technology is Google,
according to a report from IHS Inc., a provider of business
information and analysis, which estimates the company has invested
nearly $60 million so far in the arena.  Google researchers have
expertise not available to traditional auto companies because they
can leverage the company's other areas of investment, such as
robotics, drones, artificial intelligence and machine learning,
according a November 2015 IHS report.

Lawyers who represent injured parties and insurance companies in
auto accident litigation don't seem worried about the changes
self-driving cars are expected to bring.

Mario Delano of Campbell, Foley, Delano & Adams in Asbury Park,
who represents defendants in auto injury litigation, said he's
skeptical of the notion that self-driving cars will lead to a
decline in cases, noting that he thinks many drivers will be
reluctant to choose an autonomous vehicle.  "I think there's going
to be a significant section of the population that's not going to
want to lose control over driving their own cars,"
Mr. Delano said.

Mr. Delano said auto accident lawyers who are in mid-career will
likely be able to reach retirement before having their practices
disrupted by self-driving cars.  However, younger attorneys who
handle auto injury cases would be wise to expand their horizons
through continuing legal education courses in areas such as
products liability, said Mr. Delano, a member of DRI's insurance
law committee.

John Sakson, who is co-managing director and chair of the personal
injury and workers' compensation group at Stark & Stark in
Lawrenceville, said he doubts work will dry up for attorneys
representing auto accident victims.

Calling a reduction in crashes "a laudable goal," Mr. Sakson said
he'd "like to have that problem of, 'Where are we going to find
our work?' but it's not going to happen."

Mr. Sakson said his firm is not preparing for an end to auto
injury litigation, noting that factors such as bad weather,
motorists who drive with worn tires and truck drivers who put in
long hours at the wheel without a break will continue to cause
accidents.

"When I started in this business, 37 years ago, people were saying
the personal injury business is going to be dead. Tragically,
while we all hope for a society where no one is injured
needlessly, that's a utopian goal.  I believe vehicles are still
going to collide with vehicles, people are going to operate under
conditions that are less than ideal and things are going to
happen," Mr. Sakson said.

                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Marine Transport's Bid to Junk "Quinlan" OK'd
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marine Transport Lines, Inc., moves to dismiss plaintiffs William
E. Bartel, David C. Peebles and Julie Quinlan's complaint based on
the expiration of the statute of limitations.  The Plaintiffs
oppose the motion arguing that they are entitled to equitable
tolling of the statute of limitations.  The Plaintiff does not
dispute that if equitable tolling does not apply, the action would
be time-barred.

The Plaintiffs seek equitable tolling of the statute of
limitations on the basis that Marine misled the Maritime Asbestos
Clinic into believing that Marine had waived its personal
jurisdictional objections.  The Plaintiffs also seek tolling
because the federal courts delayed deciding the jurisdictional
issue for nearly two decades.

Judge Peter H. Moulton of the Supreme Court, New York County,
granted the motion to dismiss.  Judge Moulton held that his
decision is about whether the plaintiffs are entitled to an
equitable toll of the statute of limitations under the
circumstances, where Quinlan's complaint was dismissed based on
the lack of jurisdiction.  The problem with the plaintiffs'
arguments is that they ignore the prior actions and inactions of
their counsel, Judge Moulton further held.

The case is IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to
WILLIAM E. BARTEL, AND DAVID C. PEEBLES administrators of the
Estate of EUGENE QUINLAN, deceased, and JULIE QUINLAN,
individually, Plaintiffs, v. MARINE TRANSPORT LINES, INC.,
WATERMAN STEAMSHIP CORP. & JOHN CRANE INC., Defendants. Docket No.
190360/2014, Seq. 003, 2015 NY Slip Op 32371(U).

A full-text copy of the Decision dated December 10, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/e3oJFUfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Recommends Dismissal of 2 Cos. in "Shaw"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Sherry R. Fallon of the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware recommended that the court
dismiss Defendants Bay Valley Pulp and Paper Co. and Bird Escher
Wyss, Inc., from the case captioned RALPH ELLIOTT SHAW and JOAN
SANDERSON SHAW Plaintiffs, v. ANDRITZ INC., et al., Defendants,
C.A. No. 1:15-cv-00725-SLR-SRF (D. Del.) without prejudice.

The court entered an order to show cause, on or before December
15, 2015, why this court should not recommend that Bay Valley and
Bird Escher be dismissed from the action.  Plaintiffs Ralph
Elliott Shaw and Joan Sanderson Shaw have not responded to the
order to show cause.

A full-text copy of the Report and Recommendation dated December
21, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/XUImmkfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs are represented by Michael L. Sensor, Esq. -- Lundy Law
of Delaware, LLC & Charles E. Soechting, Jr., Esq.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4th Cir. Affirms Ruling for Cos. in "Garnes"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs-Appellants estate of Otis Garnes and his eight
surviving children appeal the district court's grant of summary
judgment for defendants MCIC Inc., General Electric Corporation,
Wallace and Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust, SB Decking Inc., and
Wayne Manufacturing Company.

The district court held that the appellants failed to provide
evidence of exposure to any products manufactured or installed by
MCIC, Wallace and Gale, SB Decking, or GE sufficient to meet the
"frequency, regularity, and proximity" test for substantial-factor
causation in Maryland negligence cases alleging asbestos exposure.
Because the appellants could not meet that test, their claims
failed as a matter of law, the district court held.

The district court further held that the plaintiffs failed to
raise a genuine dispute as to whether Wayne is subject to personal
jurisdiction.  The court found that Wayne, a Virginia corporation,
did not have sufficient "minimum contacts" with Maryland to permit
an exercise of personal jurisdiction consistent with the due
process requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirms
the district court's judgment.

The case is LISA COVINGTON, as Personal Representative of the
Estate of Otis Garnes, Deceased; MARQUISE GARNES; JOYCE GARNES;
MARVIN GARNES; ARNETTA HUDSON; DELORSE ALCINDOR; LINDA EDWARDS,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, and OTIS GARNES, Plaintiff, v. MCIC, INC.,
Its Remaining Director Trustees, Robert I. McCormick, Elizabeth
McCormick and Patricia Schunk; GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY; WALLACE &
GALE ASBESTOS SETTLEMENT TRUST, Successor to the Wallace & Gale
Company; SB DECKING, INC.; WAYNE MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
Defendants-Appellees, and OWENS-ILLINOIS GLASS CO., f/k/a Owens-
Illinois, Incorporated; DURABLA MANUFACTURING COMPANY; UNIVERSAL
REFRACTORIES COMPANY; SELBY, BATTERSBY & COMPANY; A.W. CHESTERTON
COMPANY; CBS CORPORATION, f/k/a Westinghouse and B. F. Sturtevant;
PREMIER REFRACTORIES, f/k/a J.H. France Refractories Company; THE
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO.; RHI REFRACTORIES AMERICA, f/k/a RHI
AG; METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE CO.; H.B. FULLER COMPANY, f/k/a
Amchem Products, Inc., f/k/a Benjamin Foster; INTERNATIONAL PAPER
CORPORATION, f/k/a Champion International Corporation, f/k/a U.S.
Plywood Corp. & Champion Papers, Inc.; COOPER INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Individually and as Successors in Interest to Crouse Hinds Co;
UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION; FERRO ENGINEERING, Division of Oglebay
Norton Co.; FOSECO, INC.; GARLOCK SEALING TECHNOLOGIES LLC; SQUARE
D COMPANY, Individually and as Successor in Interest to Electric
Controller and Manufacturing Co; GREEN, TWEED & CO., Individually
and as Successor in Interest to Palmetto Inc.; E.L. STEBBING &
CO., INC.; HAMPSHIRE INDUSTRIES, INC., f/k/a John H. Hampshire
Company; CERTAINTEED CORPORATION, Individually and as Successor to
Bestwall Gypsum Co.; KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC.; BAYER
CROPSCIENCE, INC., Individually and as Successor In Interest to
Benjamin Foster Co., Amchem Products, Inc. H.B. Fuller Co.,
Aventis Cropscience USA, Inc., Rhone-Poulenc AG Company, Inc.,
Rhone-Poulenc, Inc. and Rhodia, Inc.; PFIZER CORPORATION; GENERAL
REFRACTORIES COMPANY; KOPPERS COMPANY, INC.; HONEYWELL
INTERNATIONAL, INC., f/k/a Allied Signal, Inc., Successor to
Bendix Corporation; DITCH BOWERS & TAYLOR, INC.; TPC CORP.,
Individually and as Successor in Interest to Wareheim Air Brakes;
WAREHEIM AIR BRAKES, INC.; WESTINGHOUSE AIR BRAKE TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; PNEUMO-ABEX CORPORATION, Successor in Interest to
Abex Corporation; GL&V DORR-OLIVER INCORPORATED, Individually
and/or as Successors in Interest to Keeler Boiler Works and Dorr-
Oliver Boiler Co.; AMERICAN STANDARD, INC., Individually and as
Succesor in Interest to Kewanee Boiler Manufacturing Co.,
Westinghouse Air Brake Company and Union Switch & Signal; CRANE
CO., Individually and as Successor-in-Interest to Chapman Valve
Co., Deming Pumps, Cochrane Corp., Cochrane, Inc., Crane Pumps and
Pacific Steel Boiler Co; GEORGIA PACIFIC CORPORATION; UNIROYAL,
INC.; AMCHEM PRODUCTS, INC.; ANCHOR PACKING COMPANY; ALLITE
GASKETS; FLEXITALLIC GASKET CO., INC.; MELRATH GASKET, INC.;
PARAMOUNT PACKING & RUBBER CO.; PHELPS PACKING & RUBBER CO.;
WORTHINGTON PUMP, INC., f/k/a Dresser Pump Division; WAYNE
MANUFACTURING CORPORATION; DANA CORPORATION; BABCOCK & WILCOX
COMPANY; CROKER, INCORPORATED; NATIONAL GYPSUM COMPANY; QUIGLEY
COMPANY, INC., a Subsidiary of Pfizer, Inc.; WARREN PUMPS, INC.;
ALFA LAVAL, INC., Individually and as Successor-in-Interest to
Sharples, Inc., Alfa Laval Separation, Inc. and DeLaval Separator
Co.; ALLIS CHALMERS; DRESSER-RAND CO., f/k/a Terry Turbines,
Individually and as Parent Corporation and Successor-in-Interest
to Terry Steam Turbines; FMC CORPORATION, individually and
Successor-in-Interest to Peerless Pumps and Stearns Electric Co.;
I.M.O. INDUSTRIES, INC., f/k/a DeLaval Turbine, Inc., f/k/a
Delaval, Inc., f/k/a IMP Delaval, Inc., Individually and as
Successor-in-Interest to DeLaval Turbine, Inc. and Warren Pumps,
Inc; MCGRAW EDISON COMPANY, Individually and as Successor-in-
Interest to Worthington Pumps, Worthington Pumps, Inc. and
Turbodyne Corp.; FOSTER WHEELER LLC; FOSTER WHEELER ENERGY
CORPORATION; HOPEMAN BROTHERS, INC., Defendants, v. JOHN CRANE
INCORPORATED, Third Party Defendant, No. 14-2055.

A full-text copy of the Decision dated January 5, 2016, is
available at http://is.gd/sasSXofrom Leagle.com.

Harry Goldman, Jr., Esq., Robert Gordon Skeen, Esq. -- SKEEN,
GOLDMAN, LLP & John Amato, IV, Esq. -- jamato@gmelaw.com --
GOODMAN, MEAGHER & ENOCH, LLP, for Appellants.

Mitchell Y. Mirviss, Esq. -- mymirviss@Venable.com  -- VENABLE
LLP, David William Allen, Esq. -- dwa@gdldlaw.com -- GOODELL,
DEVRIES, LEECH & DANN, LLP, Frank Ford Loker, Jr., Esq. --
floker@milesstockbridge.com -- MILES & STOCKBRIDGE, P.C., Louis
Eberhardt Grenzer, Jr., Esq. -- lgrenzer@bodie-law.com  -- BODIE,
DOLINA, HOBBS, FRIDDELL & GRENZER, P.C, Donald Stephen Meringer,
Esq. -- dmeringer@meringerlaw.com -- MERINGER, ZOIS & QUIGG, LLC
for Appellees.

Theodore F. Roberts, Esq. -- tfroberts@Venable.com   -- VENABLE
LLP, Scott M. Richmond,Esq. -- srichmond@Venable.com   -- VENABLE
LLP, David J. Quigg, Esq. -- dquigg@meringerlaw.com -- MERINGER,
ZOIS & QUIGG, LLC, Derek P. Roussillon, Esq. --
droussillon@milesstockbridge.com -- MILES & STOCKBRIDGE, P.C.,
Terri Goldberg, Esq. -- tgoldberg@gdldlaw.com -- GOODELL, DEVRIES,
LEECH & DANN, LLP, Aaron L. Moore, Esq. -- amoore@gdldlaw.com --
GOODELL, DEVRIES, LEECH & DANN, LLP for Appellees.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Revises Scheduling Order in "Macqueen"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Warren Pumps, LLC, filed a motion to resolve a discovery
dispute that has arisen in the case captioned MARGUERITE MACQUEEN,
individually and as the surviving spouse of David MacQueen,
deceased, Plaintiff, v. UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 13-831-SLR-CJB. Consolidated.

The parties' discovery dispute in this case turns on the meaning
of the term "follow-up discovery" in the District Court's
September 30, 2015 Order.  Warren asserts that Plaintiff
Marguerite Macqueen's Notice seeking a deposition of Warren's Rule
30(b)(6) representative should be stricken, because the areas of
inquiry and requested documents set out therein stretch too
broadly beyond the scope of the District Court's Order.

The Plaintiff disagrees, and believes that the Order permits her
to take any discovery relevant to her claims from Remaining
Defendants, whether related to product identification discovery
first obtained from HII.

Magistrate Judge Christopher J. Burke of the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware granted Warren's
Motion.  The deposition notices served upon Warren and Remaining
Defendants are stricken.

Furthermore, in order to streamline the remainder of the limited
discovery period permitted by the District Court, the Court
modified the Revised Scheduling Order to provide, among other
things, that the deadline for the Plaintiff to request follow-up
discovery from Remaining Defendants is March 25, 2016, and the
deadline for resolution of all product identification discovery is
May 6, 2016.

A full-text copy of the Memorandum Order dated December 18, 2015,
is available at http://is.gd/4emC8Xfrom Leagle.com.

Marguerite MacQueen, Plaintiff, is represented by Thomas C.
Crumplar, Esq. -- Jacobs & Crumplar, P.A., Elizabeth Barnes Lewis,
Esq. -- Jacobs & Crumplar, P.A. & Raeann Warner, Esq. -- Jacobs &
Crumplar, P.A.

Warren Pumps LLC, Defendant, is represented by Jessica Lee Tyler,
Esq. -- JLTyler@mdwcg.com -- Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman &
Goggin.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Attorney Awarded $18K for Estate Administration
----------------------------------------------------------------
The administrator of Douglas A. Bender's estate filed a petition
for approval of separate fees for estate administration, reserved
by the Court in the August 6, 2015 Order.  The Petitioner
originally requested the sum of $12,000 be held in escrow to cover
these fees.  The attorney affirmation submitted by
local/administrative counsel, Coughlin & Gerhart, LLP, discloses
that in preparing the original petition, counsel overlooked a
prior estate billing in the amount of $8,956 already paid by LK
from funds held in escrow, bringing the total requested for legal
fees of administrative counsel to $18,931, plus disbursements in
the amount of $1,339.  The Petitioner asks that these fees and
disbursements be paid from the net proceeds of the settlement,
before distribution of the balance to the distributees.

Limited Letters of Administration were issued to Bonnie Bender,
widow of the decendent, on June 25, 2012.  The only asset of this
estate is a cause of action for pain and suffering, related to the
decedent's asbestos exposure, commenced by decedent and his spouse
before he died, and continuing thereafter with an additional
wrongful death claim.

The Surrogate's Court, Broome County, determines that the sum of
$18,000 is a reasonable and appropriate fee for C&G as
local/administrative counsel in this proceeding.  The
disbursements submitted by C&G in the amount of $1,339 are allowed
from the net settlement proceeds.  The legal fees allowed to C&G
are to be paid proportionately by Levy Konigsberg, LLP, and
referring counsel, Melissa Smith, Esq., from the fees awarded in
the Orders of Adequacy.

The case is MATTER OF DOUGLAS A. BENDER, DECEASED , 2012-364, 2015
NY Slip Op 51929(U).

A full-text copy of the Decision dated December 17, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/5Ie38gfrom Leagle.com.

Rachel A. Abbott, Esq. -- RAbbott@cglawoffices.com  -- of Coughlin
& Gerhart, LLP Trial counsel, Robin B. Blumenrkranz, Esq. of Levy
Konigsberg, LLP, Referring counsel, Melissa Smith, Esq. --
melissasmith@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin for Petitioner
Bonnie Bender.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler Wins Summary Judgment in "Ahnert"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Beverly Ahnert filed a third lawsuit naming many of the same
defendants.  Again, she alleges that Daniel Ahnert suffered from
asbestos related diseases including without limitation asbestosis.
Now, however, she includes the malignant mesothelioma diagnosis
from January 4, 2011.

Defendant Foster Wheeler raises four arguments in support of its
Motion for Summary Judgment: (1) the Wisconsin Worker's
Compensation Act provides plaintiffs exclusive remedy that
immunizes Foster Wheeler, as the employer, from the strict
liability and negligence claims; (2) plaintiff is unable to show
that Daniel Ahnert was exposed to or otherwise inhaled asbestos
fibers from any product distributed, supplied or installed by
Foster Wheeler; (3) the Wisconsin construction statute of repose
bars plaintiff's claims; and (4) the evidence fails to support
plaintiff's punitive damages claim.

Judge C. N. Clevert, Jr. of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted Foster Wheeler's motion
for summary judgment and the case is dismissed as to Foster
Wheeler.

The case is BEVERLY AHNERT, Individually and as Executrix of the
Estate of Daniel Ahnert, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. EMPLOYERS
INSURANCE COMPANY OF WAUSAU, FOSTER WHEELER LLC, PABST BREWING
COMPANY, SPRINKMANN SONS CORPORATION, WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER
COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 13-C-1456 (E.D. Wis.).

A full-text copy of the Order dated January 5, 2016, is available
at http://is.gd/fb8pTgfrom Leagle.com.

Beverly Ahnert, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of
Daniel Ahnert, Deceased,, Plaintiff, is represented by Jin Ho
Chung, Esq. -- Cascino Vaughan Law Offices Ltd, Daniel B Hausman,
Esq. -- Cascino Vaughan Law Offices Ltd, Robert G McCoy, Esq. --
Cascino Vaughan Law Offices Ltd & Michael P Cascino, Esq. --
Cascino Vaughan Law Offices Ltd.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Police Officer's Whisteblower Suit Remanded
----------------------------------------------------------------
Officer Paul Zenak, a Philadelphia police officer who previously
worked at a Police Athletic League (PAL) youth center, commenced
an action in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
against PAL, the City of Philadelphia, J. Bailey Builders, LLC,
and the Wissinoming United Methodist Church.

Officer Zenak's action asserted claims arising under, inter alia,
the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law, the Philadelphia False Claims
Ordinance and a negligence theory.  Before trial, the City filed a
"Motion in Limine to Bifurcate the Trial and Deny Plaintiff a Jury
Trial on His Whistleblower and False Claims Counts.  The City's
Motion to Bifurcate was denied without prejudice and the City was
directed to raise it with the trial judge.  Thereafter, the City
filed a Second Motion to Bifurcate with the trial court requesting
that Officer Zenak be denied a jury trial on his whistleblower and
false claims counts.

The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the trial court's
Order denying Officer Zenak's post-trial motion and reversed the
trial court's Orders denying the City's post-trial motions.  This
matter is remanded to the trial court to make independent findings
of fact and conclusions of law on Officer Zenak's whistleblower
claim or, in its discretion, hold a new bench trial.

The case is Paul Zenak, v. Police Athletic League of Philadelphia,
City of Philadelphia Appeal of: City of Philadelphia Officer Paul
Zenak, Appellant, v. Police Athletic League of Philadelphia, Nos.
1194 C.D. 2014, 1801 C.D. 2014.

A full-text copy of the Order dated January 6, 2016 is available
at http://is.gd/joKLMyfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sprinkmann Loses Summary Judgment in "Ahnert"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Sprinkmann Sons Corporation moves for summary judgment
on plaintiff Beverly Ahnert's negligence, strict product
liability, and punitive damages claims.  According to the
complaint, Sprinkmann sold, installed and removed asbestos
products and manufactured asbestos-containing products that caused
Daniel Ahnert's asbestosis and malignant mesothelioma.  Sprinkmann
alleges that there is no evidence of exposure to asbestos-
containing products installed or supplied by Sprinkmann and no
evidence supporting a punitive damages claim.

Judge C.N. Clevert, Jr., of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Wisconsin denied Sprinkmann's and
Employers Insurance Company of Wausau's motion for summary
judgment.

The case is BEVERLY AHNERT, Individually and as Executrix of the
Estate of Daniel Ahnert, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. EMPLOYERS
INSURANCE COMPANY OF WAUSAU, PABST BREW ING COMPANY, SPRINKMANN
SONS CORPORATION, W ISCONSIN ELECTRIC POW ER COMPANY, Defendants,
Case No. 13-C-1456.

A full-text copy of the Order dated January 6, 2016, is available
at http://is.gd/eQbF8Ofrom Leagle.com.

Beverly Ahnert, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of
Daniel Ahnert, Deceased,, Plaintiff, is represented by Jin Ho
Chung, Esq. -- Cascino Vaughan Law Offices Ltd, Daniel B Hausman,
Esq. -- Cascino Vaughan Law Offices Ltd, Robert G McCoy, Esq. --
Cascino Vaughan Law Offices Ltd & Michael P Cascino, Esq. --
Cascino Vaughan Law Offices Ltd.

Employers Insurance Company of Wausau, Defendant, is represented
by James A Niquet, Esq. -- jniquet@crivellocarlson.com -- Crivello
Carlson SC & Travis J Rhoades, Esq. --
trhoades@crivellocarlson.com -- Crivello Carlson SC.

Sprinkmann Sons Corporation, Defendant, is represented by James A
Niquet, Crivello Carlson SC & Travis J Rhoades, Crivello Carlson
SC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pabst's Summary Judgment Bid in "Ahnert" Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pabst Brewing Company moves for summary judgment on plaintiff
Beverly Ahnert's claims that asbestos-containing products on the
Pabst premises caused Daniel Ahnert to contract asbestos-related
diseases.

Judge C.N. Clevert, Jr. of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Wisconsin denied Pabst's motion for
summary judgment.

The case is BEVERLY AHNERT, Individually and as Executrix of the
Estate of Daniel Ahnert, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. EMPLOYERS
INSURANCE COMPANY OF WAUSAU, PABST BREW ING COMPANY, SPRINKMANN
SONS CORPORATION, W ISCONSIN ELECTRIC POW ER COMPANY, Defendants,
Case No. 13-C-1456.

A full-text copy of the Order dated January 6, 2016, is available
at http://is.gd/IwPkRmfrom Leagle.com.

Beverly Ahnert, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of
Daniel Ahnert, Deceased,, Plaintiff, is represented by Jin Ho
Chung, Esq. -- Cascino Vaughan Law Offices Ltd, Daniel B Hausman,
Esq. -- Cascino Vaughan Law Offices Ltd, Robert G McCoy, Esq. --
Cascino Vaughan Law Offices Ltd & Michael P Cascino, Esq. --
Cascino Vaughan Law Offices Ltd.

Pabst Brewing Company, Defendant, is represented by Michael T
Antikainen, Esq. -- mantikainen@heplerbroom.com -- Hepler Broom
LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Velan Valve Wins Summary Judgment in "Bell"
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Velan Valve Corp. filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.

Velan asserts that the proffered evidence is insufficient to
establish that the Decedent was exposed to any products
manufactured by Velan or that these products were a substantial
factor in the Decedent's lung cancer.

Judge Staci M. Yandle of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois granted Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment, finding that the record does not contain enough
evidence -- direct or circumstantial --to create a genuine issue
of material fact.

The case is SHARON BELL, Executor of the Estate of Mr. Richard W.
Bell, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. THE ABB GROUP, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 13-CV-1338-SMY-SCW.

A full-text copy of the Memorandum and Order dated January 5, 2016
is available at http://is.gd/FQygCgfrom Leagle.com.

Sharon Bell, Plaintiff, is represented by Ben A. Vinson, Jr., Esq.
-- Vinson Law, John D Sloan, Jr, Esq. -- Sloan, Bagley, Hatcher &
Perry, Zane T. Cagle, Esq. -- Cagle Law Firm, LLC & Clay Zelbst,
Esq. -- Sloan, Bagley, Hatcher & Perry.

Velan Valve Corp., Defendant, is represented by Carl J. Geraci,
Esq. -- cgeraci@heplerbroom.com -- HeplerBroom LLC & Michael J
Chessler, Esq. -- mchessler@heplerbroom.com -- HeplerBroom LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Grants Bids to Dismiss "Clark"
-----------------------------------------------------
Defendants BASF Corporation, et al., filed motions to dismiss for
lack of jurisdiction the lawsuit filed by John Clark and Michele
Clark.  The Plaintiffs' responses were due between October 22,
2015, and December 3, 2015.  However, the Plaintiffs failed to
file a response to any of the pending motions to dismiss.

Judge Staci M. Yandle of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois granted the Defendants' motions to
dismiss, finding that the Defendants are not incorporated nor do
not maintain their principal place of business in Illinois.
Further, the Defendants' affiliations with Illinois are not so
continuous and systematic as to render Defendants at home in
Illinois, Judge Yandle held.

The case is JOHN CLARK and MICHELE CLARK, Plaintiffs, v. LOCKHEED
MARTIN CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-995-SMY-
PMF.

A full-text copy of the Memorandum and Order dated January 6,
2016, is available at http://is.gd/c0RtoCfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs are represented by Allyson M. Romani, Esq. -- Shrader &
Associates LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Ordered to Disclose Settlement Terms
-----------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Texaco Inc. moves to dismiss Ann M. South's Jones Act
complaint based on a release signed in connection with a
settlement of her husband Mason South's 1997 Jones Act/maritime
action.

The release settled Mason South's lawsuit for damages caused by
exposure to products manufactured, sold or used by Texaco
including known and unknown injuries resulting from exposure to
asbestos, silica, smoke and carcinogenic chemicals except for
benzene products.  The release provides that it is interpreted
under the Jones Act and general maritime law.  Texaco also seeks
sanctions.

The Plaintiff opposes the motion based on the heightened release
standards of the Federal Employment Liability Act ("FELA"). In
response, Texaco maintains that FELA is inapplicable, but even
under heightened requirements of FELA, Texaco maintains that the
release is still enforceable.

Judge Peter H. Moulton of the Supreme Court, New York County,
denied Texaco's motions for summary judgment and sanctions and
ordered the Plaintiff to serve a copy of the Decision and Order
with notice of entry on the defendant immediately.  Judge Moulton
further ordered the plaintiff's counsel to disclose the settlement
amount paid to the plaintiff immediately.

The case is IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to
ANN M. SOUTH, Individually and as Executor of the Estate of MASON
T. SOUTH, deceased. Plaintiff, v. CHEVRON CORPORATION,
individually and as successor by merger to TEXACO, INC. et al.,
Defendants, Docket No. 190029/2015, Sequence No. 004, 2016 NY Slip
Op 30011(U).

A full-text copy of the Decision dated January 4, 2016, is
available at http://is.gd/yIhMEtfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: South African Asbestos Mines to be Rehabilitated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ghana News reported that global programme and construction
consultancy Turner & Townsend is providing quantity surveying
expertise as part of a major programme by the South African
government to close and rehabilitate some 660 abandoned asbestos
mines and shafts in various regions around the country.

"So far we have worked with the SRK Consulting team on nine
abandoned asbestos mine sites in the Northern Cape, KwaZulu-Natal
and Limpopo," says Gordon Bulmer, senior quantity surveyor of
Turner & Townsend. "With three of these now closed and completed,
we are currently involved on a further six mine sites, while we
are preparing tenders on another three, with possible additional
projects in the pipeline.

"It is a privilege to work on projects of this nature and scale,
which will make a difference to the health and safety of
communities and the environments surrounding the mines. Apart from
the well-researched health issues of asbestosis, a chronic lung
disease, some of the mines are located next to water courses which
pose further environmental and health risks."

"The projects vary in complexity, therefore a key requirement of
being awarded the bid for the asbestos mines was our ability to
provide the highest standard of quantity surveying expertise in a
flexible and agile way. SRK Consulting's confidence in our
professionalism is testimony of our global reputation in this
field.

"While each mine site is different, the quantity surveyor in this
particular government rehabilitation programme plays a key role--
both in terms of advance planning as well as control or
containment of costs throughout the projects."

The rehabilitation programme falls under the Department of Mineral
Resources, which appointed Mintek -- a global leader in minerals
processing and metallurgical engineering products and services, to
provide the professional project management.

SRK Consulting has taken the engineering design lead on these
projects over the past three years, as a sub-contractor to Mintek,
delivering the conceptual design, final design, quality control
and project management. Chosen for its international track record
and world-leading expertise, Turner & Townsend has been selected
by SRK as one of the teams supporting the ongoing government
programme.

"We are involved in these projects from the very outset when the
engineer draws up the preliminary design, from the point of
preparing the tender document and putting a price to it for
budgeting purposes, and again to financially manage the project.
This includes making monthly payment assessments, evaluating any
changes in design or unexpected site conditions, through to final
project completion," says Bulmer.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Dumped at Borders Tourist Attraction
--------------------------------------------------------------
Border Telegraph reported that asbestos-riddled debris was found
dumped at the entrance to a popular tourist attraction, Jedburgh
Sheriff Court heard.

Police officers who came across the 10-ton pile of demolition
waste containing the hazardous material soon discovered it came
from a house four miles away which was being renovated.

Donald McAllister -- who runs a roofing, joinery and building firm
-- claimed he gave a man GBP700 to dispose of the debris.

But instead it was taken from the village of Lanton and dumped
four miles away at the entrance to the Harestanes Countryside
Visitor Centre near Ancrum on the B6400 road close to the A68.

At Jedburgh Sheriff Court McAllister, 46, pleaded guilty to a
charge of failing to take proper steps to dispose of the building
waste under the Environmental Protection Act.

Sheriff Peter Paterson said it was unfortunate the offence could
only attract the maximum penalty of a fine and that further
sanctions were not available.

He deferred sentence to allow McAllister to provide a full set of
accounts from his business RJB and documentation from the job of
re-placing the roof of the property in Lanton.

Prosecutor Keith Jones from the Crown office's wildlife and
environment crime unit described how the Harestanes Countryside
Visitor Centre was a popular attraction with families and dog
walkers and at the time of the offence, July 23, was busy due to
the school holidays.

He said the police received a call about a pile of roofing debris
had been dumped at the entrance and they inspected the site.

Samples were taken and it was later confirmed it contained white
asbestos called chrysolite which is hazardous.

Scottish Borders Council were called in to remove the demolition
waste to a special site with the bill coming to GBP1,768.80.

Mr Jones said it was established the building material had come
from a house in Lanton which was having its roof replaced and
spoke to the owner who confirmed McAllister was carrying out the
work and was to be paid GBP8,500 in cash for the week's work.

He continued: "Police were able to trace the suspect and he was
taken to Hawick Police Station where he was interviewed regarding
the matter and made a full and frank confession.

As owner of the business and an employer he was responsible for
the proper disposal of hazardous asbestos and roofing debris."

McAllister said he had paid a Charlie O'Connor to take the debris
away from the house at Lanton.

But Mr Jones added it was the Crown's understanding that
McAllister made no enquiry as to where the demolition waste was
being taken and he had a duty of care to ensure O'Connor had the
appropriate licence to allow him to remove the debris.

The court heard that McAllister , who lives at his wife's caravan
park in Bonnybridge , Stirlingshire, and plans to set up a new
business in Ireland, had a previous conviction for dishonesty.

Defence lawyer Ed Hulme said:"He accepts he did not make the
necessary enquiries to ensure the proper disposal of the waste. It
is his position he paid this man GBP700 to take it away."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Poisoned by Asbestos-Covered Husband
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joey Millar, writing for Mail Online, reported that an elderly
Yorkshire widow died four decades after she was poisoned by hugs
and kisses from her asbestos-covered husband, it is claimed.

Jack Briggs unwittingly exposed his wife of over 50 years to the
deadly substance every time he came home from work at a BBA
Aviation Plc factory covered in dust.

Paula, who would further expose herself as she washed her
husband's dirty laundry, emptied his work bag and swept the dusty
floor, died of an asbestos-related cancer in 2014.

Their daughter, Lisa Wharton, is now suing the aircraft repair and
support company for up to GBP110,000 in damages on behalf of her
mother's estate.

In a High Court claim, the family's lawyers claim the company did
not do enough to protect the couple from exposure to asbestos dust
when Mr Griggs worked at their factory in Cleckheathon, West
Yorkshire in the 1970s and 1980s.

Ms Wharton's lawyer Peter Cowan explained: 'Jack Briggs returned
home from work with the defendant each day in his work clothing
and footwear.

'He would greet the deceased with a hug and a kiss. He would then
go about his activities in the house.

'Later on he would remove his dusty clothing and place it in the
laundry basket.

'The deceased would later sort the clothing from the laundry
basket, shaking off the dust from the work clothing and in
particular removing the dust which had gathered in the trouser
turnups and in the various pockets.'

Mrs Briggs would then sweep dust off the kitchen floor, porch and
pantry before shaking out his work bag, which was also full of the
toxic dust.

Mr Cowan claims that Mr Briggs' former employers ought to have
known of the risk they were exposing him and his family to.
The labourer died aged 76, when he suffered a brain haemorrhage at
home in September 2011. His wife died in August three years later
at the age of 79.

The claim for damages, has been lodged at the High Court in
London. However the defence to the action was not available from
the court and the contents of the writ have yet to be tested in
evidence before a judge.

A spokesperson for BBA Aviation Plc said: 'It is not appropriate
to discuss ongoing legal proceedings. BBA Aviation no longer
operates in asbestos-using industries.'


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crawley Down Man Dies Due to Asbestos Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crawley and Horley reported that a Crawley Down man who was
exposed to asbestos in his work as a mechanic died of an
industrial disease.

An inquest into the death of Brian Suckling, 63, of Buckley Place,
was held in Horsham on January 28.

Mr Suckling spent most of his career working with motor vehicles,
and was exposed to asbestos while working at Crawley Down Garage
as a 16-year-old in 1968.

The inquest heard he was required to mix asbestos powder with
water with his bare hands -- the paste would be used to absorb
heat when welding.

Health and safety concerns were non-existent at the time, the
coroner's officer said.

He was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2015 with symptoms of
breathlessness, a cough and chest pain.

He died on January 6 at the Princess Royal Hospital in Haywards
Heath. The cause of death was advanced mesothelioma.

West Sussex coroner Penny Schofield said: "Mr Suckling was exposed
to asbestos during the 1960s and early 1970s and this took place
while he was in the course of his employment.

"I will record that he died from an industrial disease."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Launches GBP100K Damages Claim
-----------------------------------------------------
David Knights, writing for Telegraph & Argus, reported that the
widow of a man killed by deadly asbestos poisoning has launched a
GBP100,000 damages claim against his former employer.

Fred Barrett died, aged 87, in 2014 from mesothelioma, an
incurable asbestos-related cancer of the lining of the lungs.

He left behind his wife of over 65 years, Pamela, who is now suing
for damages for the loss of her husband.

Lawyers representing Mrs Barrett, 82, of Raines Drive, Bradley,
near Skipton, claim Mr Barrett's death was caused by exposure to
asbestos at work.

He had worked at Johnson & Johnson's factory in Gargrave, near
Skipton, from 1948 until 1984, his widow's legal team says in a
High Court writ.

It was there that he was exposed to poisonous asbestos dust, Mrs
Barrett's lawyer, Paul Glanville, claims.

In the writ, lodged in London, Mr Glanville accuses Johnson &
Johnson of failing to protect Mr Barrett from exposure.

He said: "There was hot water and steam pipework running all over
the plant. The pipework was lagged with insulation that contained
asbestos.

"The lagging was removed and replaced for repair work. The
deceased was working close by when this process was being carried
out.

"The deceased was exposed to and inhaled much asbestos dust and
thereby contracted mesothelioma."

Mr Glanville claims that the employer failed to take measures
necessary to prevent Mr Barrett inhaling asbestos dust.

Johnson & Johnson's defence to the action was not available from
the court and the contents of the writ have yet to be tested in
evidence before a judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Court Awards Summary Judgment to 7 Cos.
-------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a federal court in Delaware
had adopted a report and recommendation entered in an asbestos
case, agreeing with the magistrate judge that seven of the named
defendants were entitled to summary judgment.

In the Jan. 26 memorandum, the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware also found, however, that the magistrate
judge correctly denied similar motions filed by five additional
asbestos defendants.

Arthur Dumas alleged that during his 20-year service in the U.S.
Navy, he was exposed to asbestos-containing products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Denies 2 Cos.'s Summary Judgment Bids
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that an Illinois federal court
has denied motions for summary judgment filed by two asbestos
defendants, ruling that the plaintiff had established a genuine
issue of material fact as to whether he was exposed to asbestos-
containing products manufactured by both of the companies.

In two separate orders issued Jan. 28, U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois denied motions for summary judgment
by Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., and Excelsior Packing & Gasket Co.

Steven Watts contended in his lawsuit that he was exposed to
asbestos fibers while working as a warehouse worker.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Blames GE for Husband's Death
----------------------------------------------------
Molly English-Bowers, writing for Madison Record, reported that a
South Carolina woman is suing General Electric, alleging exposure
to asbestos during his working life led to her husband's death.

Patricia Hubert, of Summerville, South Carolina, individually and
as special administrator for the estate of Robert Hubert, filed
the lawsuit Jan. 15, in U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois against General Electric Company, alleging
negligence, loss of consortium and wanton and willful conduct.

According to the complaint, after spending his entire working life
around asbestos-containing products manufactured by the defendant,
Robert Hubert deceased was diagnosed with mesothelioma on Jan. 27,
2015. The suit says Hubert was exposed to, inhaled, ingested or
absorbed large amounts of asbestos fibers, the suit alleges, and
this led to his diagnosis.

As a result, the lawsuit says, Hubert experienced great pain and
suffering, mental anguish, physical disability and eventually
died. He wasn't able to keep working, thereby losing wages, and
his death has left his family without his means of support, the
suit states. Monies have been spent for medical and funeral
expenses as well, according to the suit.

Patricia Hubert seeks at least $50,000 for each of the three
counts. She is represented by attorneys Allyson M. Romani and Ross
D. Stomel of Shrader & Associates LLP of Houston.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois case
number 16-cv-51


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Water Corp. Failed Workers Exposed to Asbestos
---------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reported that the risk to workers who were exposed to
asbestos on a maintenance project was low, the Water Corporation
says, despite an investigation finding the organisation failed on
multiple occasions to identify the danger and inform staff and
contractors.

The investigation was ordered in 2015 after nearly 140 workers
were potentially exposed to asbestos while renovating the
Minnivale Reservoir near Wyalkatchem, in the WA Wheatbelt.

It was only after the work was completed that the presence of
asbestos in caulking material being removed became known.

An investigation carried out by external firm Glossop consultancy,
found a variety of grinding tools were used to complete the job
and some of the workers were not wearing respirators.

A re-enactment was carried out at another reservoir near Wagin to
try to determine the level of risk.

The report concluded that while chrysotile asbestos was detected
in nearly all of the samples taken, the exposure levels not did
exceed those set by the National Occupational Health and Safety
Commission.

A separate internal report found the Water Corporation was aware
of the presence of asbestos at the Minnivale site but failed to
inform contractors of the risk.

It found there were gaps in the Water Corporation's asbestos
management process and project delivery process and that the two
were not well-integrated.

No safe level of asbestos exposure: Opposition

Labor spokesman Dave Kelly described the report as damning.

"This report confirms what we've been saying, that the risk to the
staff involved should have been well known to the Water
Corporation," he said.

"I find it odd that the Water Corporation and the Government are
still trying to play down the level of risk.

"In the modern workplace there is no safe level of exposure to
asbestos, so I don't think there's any good news for the
Government in this report at all."

In a statement, Water Corporation chief executive Sue Murphy
apologised and said she believed the report would reassure
workers.

"I am sincerely sorry for the concern this news no doubt caused
our employees and contractors, and I want to assure not only these
people, but also the Western Australian public, we are taking full
responsibility in every respect," she said.

"An analysis of about 1,000 projects carried out in recent years
shows no other such failure to communicate the risk of asbestos,
but we are taking all necessary steps to prevent this situation
from ever occurring again."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Japan Gov't Ordered to Pay for Damages
-------------------------------------------------------
The Japan Times reported that a court ordered the state and nine
makers of building materials to pay JPY216 million ($1.8 million)
in damages to former construction workers and their families for
illnesses they developed after being exposed to asbestos at
construction sites.

A total of 27 plaintiffs, including former workers who developed
lung cancer and mesothelioma, had sought a total of JPY1 billion
in damages from the state and 32 supply makers, saying the state
knew of the need to take measures against asbestos exposure by
1971 and that the makers should take responsibility over asbestos
products they made and sold.

In the first domestic court ruling to recognize the material
makers' responsibility from a series of similar damages suits
filed over asbestos exposure, the Kyoto District Court ordered the
makers to pay about JPY110 million to 23 of the 27 plaintiffs.

"It is highly probable that the construction materials sold by the
makers" caused damage to the plaintiffs, the presiding judge,
Kazumi Higa, said in handing down the ruling.

The court also ordered the state to pay about JPY100 million to 15
of the plaintiffs, saying it should have recognized by 1971 at the
latest that the workers could develop illnesses by spraying
asbestos.

The state has been ordered to pay damages in four earlier rulings
over the use of asbestos-linked construction materials. The Osaka
District Court on Jan. 22 held the state responsible while
rejecting plaintiffs' claims against the makers.

In the latest trial, the state argued it took proper measures
against asbestos exposure at an appropriate time while the supply
makers claimed the perpetrator cannot be specifically identified.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Awards Summary Judgment to Crane Co.
-----------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a South Carolina federal
court has awarded summary judgment to Crane Co. in an asbestos
case, finding that while there was evidence suggesting that some
of the defendant's valves required asbestos-containing gaskets,
there was no evidence that Crane Co. actually incorporated the
harmful material into the products it sold.

In the Jan. 27 opinion, the U.S. District Court for District of
South Carolina wrote that the plaintiffs' failure to include
evidence on this point was "fatal" to their claims.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Removal Underway at Maplewood Post Office Bldg.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Mann, writing for The Village Green, reported that local
residents were excited to see activity inside the former Maplewood
Post Office building on Maplewood Avenue in recent days.

Workers can be seen removing windows and pulling them inside the
building; the path along the south side of the building (facing
Village Coffee) leading the NJ Transit tunnel has been cordoned
off.

Post House Developer Joe Forgione says that the workers are
removing the windows for asbestos abatement -- there is asbestos
in the caulking -- in order to obtain demolition permits from the
Maplewood Building Department.

Like what you're reading? Help support community journalism and
The Village Green by subscribing to our daily newsletter. Click
here.
"We need to show the building department that we have disposed of
the windows properly," Forgione told Village Green. Windows are
being pulled inside in order to ensure public safety, he
explained.

(Forgione noted that he has had numerous requests from residents
for the windows; however, he said he cannot provide windows to
anyone due to the asbestos.)

Forgione added that much of the asbestos abatement work has been
timed so as not to inconvenience commuters who use the path to the
train tunnel. "We're being extra cautious. We don't want to
inconvenience anybody."

Mayor Vic DeLuca confirmed that "demolition of the building will
take place after permits are obtained from the Township" and added
that "a demolition plan is still being prepared and will be
reviewed by the Building Department prior to issuing demolition
permits."

Maplewood Director of Community Relations Annette DePalma outlined
the work of the Post Office Project Construction Mitigation
Committee in an article published by Village Green in early
January.  DePalma said that demolition should begin sometime in
February.

The Post Office building is being demolished to make way for a
mixed-use development with ground floor commercial space and 20
apartment on the second and third floors. A partially submerged
subfloor will contain parking.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: School Board Cancel Classes After Asbestos Find
----------------------------------------------------------------
Central Illinois Proud reported that the Midland School District
has canceled all classes.

"We have a problem, and we have to fix it," Midland Superintendent
Rolf Siversten said.

Dangerous amounts of mold, asbestos, and lead paint in the school
is what caused this whole thing. The school board made this
decision at an emergency school board meeting.

A yearly health inspection of midland elementary school that took
place on January 15th. After that inspection, an outside agency
was called in to do sample tests. The results of the test were
released and the data revealed the mentioned hazards in the
school.

The board decided they wanted to conduct even more tests on the
school before they decide how they want to fix the problems.

"We should not want to send our students or staff in that
building," said board member Bernie Kargol in the meeting. "We
need to do that entire test first before we know what we're
sending them back into. We know what these sample spots say. What
does the rest of the building say?"

Superintendent Siversten told WMBD that they would post updates on
the situation on their Facebook page.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: South Devon Residents Die Following Exposure
-------------------------------------------------------------
Herald Express reported that three people from South Devon have
died having been exposed to asbestos during their lives.

Richard Alan Bridge, 64, of Woodland Park Nursing Home in Torquay,
was diagnosed with mesothelioma in August 2015.

During his time working as a car mechanic, Richard had been
exposed to asbestos when working on brake pads.

He subsequently developed breathing problems and died at his home
on January 15 2016. The cause of death has been ascertained as
malignant mesothelioma of the left pleural cavity.

Inquest opens into death of retired Newton Abbot shop keeper
Brixham woman, 96, died after taking large amount of paracetamol
Bernard David Bourne, 78, of Luscombe Close, Ipplepen, died at
home on December 22 2015.

During the course of his working life it was believed that David
had been exposed to asbestos.

Although he had not worked directly with asbestos, he had worked
in a factory where the pipes were lagged with it.

In 2010, he was diagnosed as suffering with mesothelioma. The
cause of death has been ascertained as malignant mesothelioma of
the left pleural cavity.

Brenda Arcus nee Wakenell, 81, of Mallands Residential Home,
Abbotskerswell, died on January 2 2016.

In 1960's and 70's Brenda was employed at a builder's merchants
and it is believed that whilst working that she was exposed to
asbestos.

Her condition subsequently deteriorated and in November 2015 she
had a CT scan which showed that she had a large right sided
pleural effusion.

This was believed to be related to the asbestos exposure. The
cause of death has been ascertained as malignant mesothelioma.

Inquests into the three deaths have been opened and adjourned to a
later date.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Husband Unwittingly Caused Wife's Death
--------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Hirst, writing for The Huddersfield Daily Examiner,
reported that an elderly Dewsbury widow died four decades after
she was poisoned by hugs and kisses from her asbestos-covered
husband, it is claimed.

Jack Briggs unwittingly exposed his wife, Paula, to the deadly
substance every time he came home from work at a factory in
Cleckheaton.

However, he had himself died before his wife of over 50 years fell
ill with mesothelioma, an asbestos-related cancer, in 2014.

Lawyers for Mrs Briggs' family now say her husband's former
employer was responsible for the widow's death.

In a High Court writ it is claimed that BBA Aviation Plc did not
do enough to protect the couple, of Chickenley, Dewsbury, from
exposure to asbestos dust.

The couple's daughter, Lisa Wharton, is suing for up to GBP110,000
in damages on behalf of her mother's estate.

"Jack Briggs returned home from work with the defendant each day
in his work clothing and footwear," says her lawyer, Peter Cowan.

"He would remove his boots in the porch and shake off the worst of
the dust from them before placing them in the pantry.

"He would greet the deceased with a hug and a kiss. He would then
go about his activities in the house.

"Later on he would remove his dusty clothing and place it in the
laundry basket.

"The deceased would later sort the clothing from the laundry
basket, shaking off the dust from the work clothing and in
particular removing the dust which had gathered in the trouser
turnups and in the various pockets.

"Having done so, she would place the clothing in the washing
machine.

"She would have to sweep up the dust off the kitchen floor, porch
and pantry which had been shed from her husband's footwear,
clothing and person.

"She would shake out his work bag, which was also contaminated
with asbestos fibres and dust.

"As a result of the deceased's said exposure to asbestos fibres
and dust, she suffered injury and death."

The writ explains how Mr Briggs had worked as a labourer at a
factory in Cleckheaton and at the Queens Mill Warehouse in the
1970s and 1980s.

There, it is claimed, he was exposed to large quantities of
asbestos dust -- taking it home on his clothing and boots, and in
his hair.

Mr Cowan claims that Mr Briggs' former employers ought to have
known of the risk they were exposing him and his close family to.

Mr Briggs died, aged 76, after suffering a brain haemorrhage at
his home in September 2011.

His wife fell ill in March 2014 when she became short of breath.
She died in August 2014, aged 79.

The writ, claiming damages, was lodged at the High Court in
London.

However the defence to the action was not available from the court
and the contents of the writ have yet to be tested in evidence
before a judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reservoir Asbestos Could Have Been Detected
------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reported that there were multiple
opportunities for asbestos to be identified during work on the
Minnivale Reservoir, but contractors were uninformed, Western
Australia's Water Corporation has found.

A total of 138 people visited or worked on the refurbishment of
the Minnivale Reservoir, about 180km north-east of Perth, between
March and September.

An investigation into the exposure of employees and contractors
also established that the asbestos-containing material removed
from the site was contained either at a landfill facility or on-
site.

Extensive sampling of the Minnivale Reservoir site did not
identify any asbestos fibres, the Water Corporation said.

An independent expert in asbestos risk management also conducted a
re-enactment of grinding work undertaken at the reservoir and
found that asbestos was not present at a concentration exceeding
the workplace exposure standard set by the National Occupational
Health and Safety Commission.

Water Corporation chief executive Sue Murphy said she was sorry
for the concern caused to employees and contractors.
"I want to assure not only these people, but also the West
Australian public, we are taking full responsibility in every
respect," she said.

"An analysis of about 1000 projects carried out in recent years
shows no other such failure to communicate the risk of asbestos
but we are taking all necessary steps to prevent this situation
from ever occurring again."

Ms Murphy said the Corporation's governance, processes and
accountabilities for asbestos management had been reviewed.
But the Community and Public Sector Union/Civil Service
Association says the government "took its eye off the ball" and
unnecessarily exposed people to asbestos.

Assistant secretary Rikki Hendon said the incident occurred
because the Water Corporation was too busy cutting back its
workforce at the request of the state government while the project
was taking place.

"This is about the most serious process failure you can have where
people's safety and well-being is compromised," she said.
Opposition spokesman for water, Dave Kelly, has called for an
independent inquiry into the incident.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Royal Navy Veteran Seeking Cancer Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------------
BBC News reported that a Royal Navy veteran who is living with
incurable cancer says he is waiting to hear if he will get any
compensation.

Fred Minall, 74, of Northampton, said he was diagnosed with
mesothelioma in October after working with asbestos as a naval
engineer from 1958 to 1963.

He is campaigning to get compensation in line with payouts he says
civilian employees are entitled to.

Mark Lancaster, defence minister, said the Ministry of Defence
(MoD) was "reviewing the options".

Cut-off date

Mr Minall said his diagnosis was related his service on HMS
Trafalgar, where asbestos was used to insulate pipes.

He said he was not entitled to compensation because he was
diagnosed before a cut-off date of 16 December 2015.

"The asbestos had to be removed and replaced by hand and we were
covered head-to-foot in the white asbestos powder -- we'd get it
in our eyes and up our noses," he said. "I've got severe back
pain, chest pain and feel pretty grotty all the time.

"What dates have got to do with it is beyond my comprehension, and
they've got to step forward and pay us proper compensation in line
with our civilian counterparts."

Mr Minall said he had about two months to live and wanted his
three sons to benefit from any compensation payment.

Northampton South MP David Mackintosh has backed his case and told
the House of Commons it was "an anomaly that we need to look at".
In a statement issued by the MoD, Mr Lancaster said: "Whether
[compensation] should be applied to this group is a complex issue
that has been the subject of much discussion."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Adelaide Buildings Need Urgent Asbestos Removal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Miles Kemp, writing for The Advertiser, reported that buildings
used by an elite private school and a state high school require
"urgent action" to remove asbestos, and are among several dozen in
the Parklands earmarked for clean-up, an Adelaide City Council
audit has found.

The council register shows seven buildings, of the 24 in which
asbestos needs to be removed, required urgent action: Scotch
College Rowing Club, Unley/Norwood High School Rowing Club,
University of Adelaide change rooms, Jolley's Boathouse building,
University of Adelaide machinery shed, a hockey club building and
a gardener's store and toilets.

The organisations affected are using council-owned buildings and
are working with the council to fix the problems.

A spokesman for Scotch College said the building would not be used
until the issue was resolved.

A spokesman for the Department of Education said in relation to
the Unley/Norwood High School Rowing Club: "The department is
seeking advice and will work with the council in relation to their
actions for remediation of the asbestos issues raised in the
report".

In total, 24 buildings in the audit needed action to remove
dangerous asbestos, which mainly included dust and debris lying
around as well as broken sheeting, in 56 asbestos was found but
considered safe if it was not broken or disturbed in the future
and in 33 buildings no asbestos was not found.

Anti-asbestos diseases advocates have praised the audit
initiative, which is part of making council-owned building
asbestos-free by 2018. The audit revealed one serious incident, in
2013, when an asbestos-insulated boiler exploded due to a gas
build-up.

The seven buildings earmarked for "urgent action", along with
another five, will have asbestos removed by mid year.

Adelaide City Council manager of infrastructure Phillip Burton
said that in total, the organisation owned 174 buildings,
including the town hall, which was the oldest municipal building
in the country.

Most buildings are in the Parklands and 76 were already asbestos-
free, he said.

"Council has set a target to be asbestos-free by mid-2018, which
will make it the first capital city council in Australia with such
credentials,'' Mr Burton said.

Mr Burton said the audits began in 2014 with a software program
rating the removal of asbestos within buildings in order of
priority, from Category 1 to Category 4, and there were no longer
any of the worst category 1 or 2 buildings in the council area.

"We completed a comprehensive audit of all one-hundred and
seventy-four Council buildings in 2014, and from there we have
facilitated the removal of all category one and two asbestos
hazards from our buildings," said Phillip.

"The results we have achieved so far, really are a testament to
our commitment to the safety and comfort of all who use our city
and when you consider the time frame in which we have achieved
this, we believe we have good reason to be proud.''

Mr Burton said that by June, the category 3 asbestos hazards which
had been identified in ten buildings would be removed.

He said the aim was to remove category 4 asbestos from 88
buildings which under asbestos safety guidelines, only needed
reinspection and assessment every five years.

"During the process, we have seen an amazing cultural shift within
our organisation and in those we work with -- where before people
were reluctant to report asbestos, they are now on the front foot,
approaching us for advice and assistance with its removal,'' he
said.

Asbestos Diseases Society of South Australia president Ian
Sheppard called on all councils to follow the lead of Adelaide
City Council and provide comprehensive public information about
any dangerous asbestos which needs to be removed from public
buildings.

"This is something Adelaide City Council they have done under the
own steam and had every one of their buildings inspected,'' he
said.

"I think it is wonderful and if only all the other councils is
South Australia would do the same bloody thing we would be happy.
The rest of them virtually couldn't care less.''

Mr Sheppard said the 640-page 2015 council document, which was
obtained by The Advertiser using the Freedom of Information Act,
should be uploaded on the council website as a model example of
how to rid publicly-owned buildings of the material.

Mr Sheppard said one serious incident was raised in the document,
when in 2013 an asbestos-insulated boiler exploded due to a gas
build up.

"That is not a good look at all, that is for sure,'' Mr Sheppard
said.

Airborne asbestos is known to cause around 700 deaths in Australia
from lung disease each year and the mineral was commonly used in
building materials and as insulation up to the 1980s.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Concerns Raised Over Block Redevelopment
---------------------------------------------------------
Tom McIlroy, writing for The Canberra Times, reported that the ACT
government won't consider calls from neighbouring residents for
the Northbourne House office block to be redeveloped in line with
strict Mr Fluffy asbestos removal rules.

Residents of the Monarch apartment building in Turner expressed
strong concerns about the removal of dangerous amosite and
chrysotile asbestos in debris, dust and sheeting and have called
for the development application process to be reopened.

The 10-storey former Defence building is set to be redeveloped as
a 176 room hotel and apartment development. A hazardous materials
report notes the presence of friable and bonded asbestos,
including some with the second highest risk rating.

Other materials found in the building include lead paint synthetic
mineral fibres and congener materials. Residents of the apartment
complex next door told the government's Environment and Planning
Directorate that some local property owners could have missed the
opportunity to consider the application as the process was
conducted over the Christmas period.

In 2014, the building was the subject of a two-day investigation
after a disproved claim about the presence of loose-fill asbestos
dating back to the 1990s.

In the submission, Monarch residents Colin Farlow and Karen Gallie
called for an extension of the public consultation process to
allow for the government's asbestos taskforce and WorkSafe ACT to
provide feedback. The public response period closed on January 14.
They argued the guidelines developed as part of the Mr Fluffy
loose-fill asbestos buyback scheme could create "different
classes" of Canberra citizens, if not applied to large, non-
residential developments like Northbourne House.

"The health of Canberrans is paramount and must be put above any
economic considerations. Like the neighbours of Mr Fluffy homes,
all local residents ought to be advised of the process for and
timing of the removal of asbestos in Northbourne House, regardless
of whether or not they have read the development application."

The Mantra Hotel group is building a full-service hotel with a mix
of 136 rooms and 40 suites across eight accommodation levels, as
well as a restaurant and bar, conference rooms, gym and car
parking.

Future stages of the precinct, dubbed Midtown, would also include
terraces with 27 residential apartments while a future commercial
development could be built on green space at the corner of
Northbourne Avenue and Macarthur Avenue. The development
application includes the demolition of the existing three storey
office annex and multi-storey carpark and underground car parking
added.

The residents cite the federal government's strategic plan for
asbestos management and awareness, including principles for
prevention of exposure such as evidence-based decision making,
transparency and precaution.

"As Monarch residents we live directly adjacent to Northbourne
House and are deeply concerned that activities associated with the
proposed development carry unacceptable risks and potentially
terminal consequences to our health and welfare if they are not
conducted in a transparent, regulated and stakeholder-involved
manner," the submission said.

"We also believe that current processes for dealing with the
hazardous materials in a commercial building in close proximity to
residential properties may not be sufficient to manage risks to
residents and passers-by and are inconsistent with processes
adopted for residential properties adjoining or near to so-called
Mr Fluffy homes."

A government spokeswoman said removal of bonded or friable
asbestos in this building would be undertaken by licensed asbestos
assessors and removalists with WorkSafe ACT assessments.

"There would be no risk during removal to neighbouring residents,"
she said.

"There are no plans to re-notify the development application at
this time. The [application] is currently under assessment by the
Planning and Land Authority. The submission received will be
considered in the assessment process and will form part of the
final decision."

Mantra Group sales director Kent Davidson said the company had no
involvement in the development phase of the project and would not
comment.

A second development application for a new six storey, mixed use
building on David Street will be notified for a 15 business-day
period.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Fined Over Inspection of Shop
---------------------------------------------------------
Roane County News reported that James Kilby Jr., a Morgan County
contractor, was fined in December for failing to conduct an
asbestos inspection before beginning demolition work.

The work in question was at a property located at 206 Ruritan Road
in Harriman.

The order assessing the $1,500 fine was signed by Michelle Walker
Owenby, director of the Tennessee Department of Environment and
Conservation's Division of Air Pollution Control.

The property, which is known as the old Citgo Market, is owned by
Chandubhai Patel.

He was also fined $1,500.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fly-Tippers Dump Toxic Waste in Derby Garage
-------------------------------------------------------------
Derby Telegraph reported that hazardous asbestos is feared to have
been dumped in a Derby garage after it was broken into.

The site is at the end of Thorndike Avenue, Alvaston, where
several garages are owned by Derby Homes. It is not known whether
the break-in and the dumping of the suspected asbestos are
connected or separate incidents.

It happened between January 11 and January 29. Two other piles of
rubbish have been dumped at the site.

People living in the area have called on Derby City Council to
install CCTV or block off the area so it can only be used by
people who rent the garages.

A sticker on a lamppost at the site claims it is monitored by CCTV
there but Derby Homes -- the social housing arm of Derby City
Council -- says there is none and has no plans to install it

Lisa Woodward, 42, of Alvaston, rents the garage that was broken
into and said police had told her it could be asbestos. She said
raiders had got in by "yanking off" a padlock.

She added that one of the piles of rubbish -- mostly large plastic
bags -- had been there for about a week and the other --
comprising wood, car parts and rubble -- had been there since "the
end of last year".

Mrs Woodward said: "If it is asbestos it's dangerous because there
are kids mucking about around there."

Maurice Sharpe, 80, of Thorndike Avenue, said fly-tipping was a
regular problem at the garages.

He said: "There was asbestos there a couple of months ago. The
garages are used for storage rather than for cars so people don't
go down there a lot. I think it needs CCTV but how much would that
cost?"

A 65-year-old woman who would not be named, said she lived in
Baker Street, where gardens back on to the garage site and that
rubbish blew from it in to people's backyards.

The woman said: "The situation appears to be getting worse. It
ought to be blocked off so only people that rent the garages can
get on to the site."

Councillor Alan Graves, who represents Alvaston, suspects the
rubbish was dumped by people working on properties.

He said: "They are dumping it there instead of taking it to the
proper council tip. It's clearly very dangerous to be dumping
asbestos in peoples' garages."

There are at least four signs up in the area warning people that
fly-tipping is a criminal offence with maximum penalties of a
GBP50,000 fine and/or a 12-month prison sentence.

A Derby Homes spokeswoman said: "We already have an established
team who work to deal with fly-tipping, among other issues. Staff
carry out regular inspections across our estates. Staff also carry
out weekly visits to hot spots, or areas where we have
historically had a higher frequency of litter issues.

"Where reports of fly-tipping indicate an immediate threat to the
public's health or safety, we will deal with these as a matter of
urgency."

She said a housing officer was due to visit the site and organise
clearance.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure at Home Increasing, Study Says
--------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Muller, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reported that
overall rates of asbestos-related cancers may have slowed, but
exposure to the toxic material is increasingly occurring at home,
according to a report in the Australian Medical Journal.

The report said patterns of exposure had changed since the
importation and production of asbestos was banned in 2004.

A common source of home insulation in the 1960s and 1970s,
asbestos is known to cause asbestosis and deadly cancers such as
malignant mesothelioma.

Previously, exposure was worst for miners and builders working
directly with the material but cases are increasingly occurring at
home, according to researcher Arthur Musk from Sir Charles
Gairdner Hospital in Perth.

New cases included tenants and residents of affected homes,
particularly those who attempted to remove asbestos insulation
without proper protection, Professor Musk said.

While the potential exposure to asbestos in homes is "nothing like
the occupational exposure of tradesmen", Professor Musk warned
that any exposure was always a risk.

"The reason asbestos was so good in industry ... was that it's
indestructible," Professor Musk said.

"Once the fibres get down into the lung, they don't go away. So
the risk of getting mesothelioma continues to increase for 30 or
40 years after you've breathed in the stuff."

According to the report, new cases of malignant mesothelioma have
"levelled off" at 50 cases per million men each year, while the
rate is tenfold lower for women in Australia.

Professor Musk said doctors must remain "vigilant" in their
diagnosis, as often symptoms of asbestos-related cancers are
indistinguishable from smoking-related lung cancers.

"As exposure to asbestos in the community declines, it will be
increasingly unlikely that clinicians will be mindful of the
condition and diligent in taking an asbestos exposure history,"
Professor Musk said.

"It's only now that we are getting asbestos out of our environment
that the rates [of malignant mesothelioma] are going to go down."
In July 2015, the ACT government released a list of 1022
properties affected by asbestos insulation during the 1960s and
1970s, known as "Mr Fluffy".

The potentially deadly insulation may have affected up to 30,000
people who owned or rented the Canberra houses.

Government-funded demolitions of the affected houses began in mid-
2015.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Increased Waste Leads to Illegal Dumping
---------------------------------------------------------
Beth Swantek, writing for Asbestos.com, reported that every few
months, Andrew Morrison gets a call about a pile of asbestos
that's been illegally dumped.

Morrison, the owner of Andrew's Asbestos Solutions in Victoria,
Australia, says the cost of proper asbestos disposal sometimes
makes people feel forced to find their own solution.

But when it comes to asbestos, cutting corners can lead to harmful
exposures and serious health risks, including mesothelioma and
other cancers.

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

Much of Morrison's business includes removing asbestos from old
outbuildings present on most farms throughout the state and
disposing of it safely.

He says many farmers don't call him, but they decide instead to
bring the building down themselves and haul the asbestos waste
somewhere out in the bush.

Growing National Problem

According to an Australian federal government report, an estimated
44 pounds of asbestos-contaminated waste is generated for each
person in the country annually.

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

The volume of asbestos waste the country will need to dispose of
is expected to increase by about 2.8 percent annually over the
next 20 years, yet there's no effective plan in place to manage
the growing burden.

As the asbestos accumulates, landfills willing to accept the
deadly waste are on the decline. The report warns of a national
trend to replace landfills with transfer stations that are less
likely to accept asbestos, which complicates the problem.

Those that do accept asbestos hike the prices.

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

No wonder Australia faces this dilemma.

The country ranked highest in asbestos use per capita from the
1950s to the 1970s, mainly because of asbestos demands for
construction materials and textile mills.

Now commensurate with that use, Australia ranks second in the
world for deaths from mesothelioma, a fatal cancer caused by
breathing asbestos fibers. Since the 1980s, more than 10,000
people in the nation died from the disease.

Decrease in Asbestos Landfills Not Just in Australia

The shrinking number of landfills in nearby New Zealand means
waste with or without asbestos frequently travels across district
lines.

In the last ten years, New Zealand's landfills have declined from
300 to about 56 as a result of guideline changes.

Currently, about 12,000 tons of asbestos-contaminated fill from
Canterbury received approval for dumping in Dunedin. The deal
reportedly numbered in the millions of dollars.

"It's just good waste management, really," Catherine Irvine of the
Dunedin City Council said. "There are sites that can take this
material, and because so many landfills are closing down across
the country, waste is moving across districts on a regular basis."

Disposal of Asbestos Across the Pacific

In 2015, an effort to reduce waste disposal costs spawned rabid
public debate in Guam.

The Guam Environmental Protection Agency proposed to begin dumping
asbestos in Layon Landfill, departing from the island's decades-
long ban on asbestos disposal.

The current approach to asbestos disposal involves hauling an
estimated 100 tons of contaminated fill each year across the ocean
to approved disposal sites in Nevada and other locations on the
U.S. mainland.

According to Pacific Daily News, Guam could save 70 percent on
disposal costs by disposing of asbestos on the island rather than
shipping it off. Many elected officials spurned the idea, however,
arguing the savings aren't worth the danger asbestos poses to
nearby residents.

Layon landfill sits near the village of Inarajan, where Doris
Lujan serves as mayor. She says she and her constituents would
protest any plans to dump asbestos into the already problematic
landfill, which continually emits foul odors in the Inarajan
community.

Asbestos Dumping in Europe

Protestors in Ireland flatly rejected an idea to dump asbestos in
West Belfast in November 2015.

The backlash came after quarry company Whitemountain filed an
application to dump an expected 300 tons of asbestos per year in
its Black Mountain Quarry site.

Sinn F‚in, Ireland's Republican Party, organized the opposition,
which according to The Irish News demanded the company withdraw
its application.

"People are very concerned with regards to all this toxic waste on
their doorstep -- and what if there is an accident when waste is
going in or out?" Sinn F‚in parliament member Paul Maskey said.

A petition circulated with hundreds adding their name to the list
while Whitemountain declined to comment.

North America and Its Issues with Asbestos Disposal

"The people who want to avoid regulation, they're going to dump it
wherever they can," Jim Caya, general manager of the Canadian
demolition firm Green Demo, said in a Global News report.

WorkSafe BC in Vancouver, British Columbia, initiated a crackdown
on renovation and demolition as a result of asbestos-contaminated
wallboard, sheetrock and other contaminated products in older
homes.

"Asbestos disease is on the increase in this province. We have
more workers today dying of asbestos-related disease than ever in
the history of WorkSafe BC," Al Johnson, vice president of
prevention at WorksSafe BC, said.

The increased stringency in regulation results in long lines at
the dump to dispose of the toxic building materials, and according
to Caya, also increases illegal dumping of asbestos-contaminated
wallboard on municipal land and parks.

"It's a very serious issue -- it's not just the dumping of the
materials. The issue is someone has ripped it out from somewhere
where people have been contaminated," Caya said.

Asbestos Disposal Is a Global Problem

Around the world, asbestos disposal creates a dilemma for local,
state and federal municipalities.

As dumping sites decrease and regulation increases, the issue of
where to put the harmful waste escalates.

Morrison claims an asbestos disposal job that used to take him two
hours now takes five or six because he has to travel a farther
distance to dump the toxic materials.

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

Pickin admits Australia lacks an answer.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Retired Bricklayer Diagnosed with Mesothelioma
---------------------------------------------------------------
North-West Evening Mail reported that a retired Barrow council
bricklayer is appealing to his former colleagues to come forward
in a bid to find out how and where he was exposed to asbestos.

Dennis Pearson, 66, from Stainton, was diagnosed with
mesothelioma, which is caused by exposure to asbestos and affects
the lining of the lungs, in August 2015 after suffering with
shortness of breath.

He believes the disease developed due to exposure to asbestos
decades ago, during his working life.

The father-of-one told his legal team at Irwin Mitchell that
during his time working for Barrow Corporation between 1964 and
1971, which later became Barrow Borough Council, he worked on a
number of building sites in the town.

He explained that he was involved in building new council houses
in Barrow and that asbestos was commonly used in the construction
of buildings at this time.

He recalled as an apprentice bricklayer, cutting down large sheets
of asbestos with a hand saw or angle grinder, which would lead to
asbestos dust and fibres being released into the working
environment.

Mr Pearson also recollected building an extension on the Victoria
Girls' School, which required him to remove asbestos-lagging from
pipework in the existing building. He also recounted maintaining
boilers at schools operated by Barrow Corporation and working
alongside other tradesmen who repaired pipework.

He said asbestos was often disturbed during repair work and that
the environment was often very dusty, he was never provided with
protective equipment or training on how to handle asbestos
correctly.

Mr Pearson said: "I'm still struggling to fully come to terms with
my mesothelioma diagnosis and what that means for my future. Since
my diagnosis my health has begun to deteriorate and I don't have
as much energy as I used to.

"I recall regularly working with asbestos while I was employed by
the council and that we were not provided with breathing masks or
other protective equipment to prevent our exposure to it.

"Now I'm appealing to my former colleagues who worked on council
buildings in Barrow alongside me to come forward and help provide
my legal team with the information they need to get me the answers
I'm looking for."

Anyone with information is asked to contact Emma Tordoff at Irwin
Mitchell in Manchester.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Vets, Teachers Push Congress to Reject FACT Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lydia Wheeler, writing for The Hill, reported that veterans, first
responders and teachers are urging lawmakers to reject legislation
that would require asbestos victims to share personal information
when seeking compensation in court.

Two letters were sent to Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck
Grassley (R-Iowa) ahead of the committee hearing voicing
opposition to the Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency, or FACT
Act introduced by Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.).

In their letter to Grassley and the committee's Ranking Member
Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), veterans from 17 organizations, including
the Air Force Sergeants Association (AFSA), the National Defense
Council and Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA), said the bill puts
many of their veterans, who are ill and likely dying from
asbestos-triggered diseases, at a greater risk of becoming victims
of identity theft.

The FACT Act would require trusts to file quarterly reports on
their public bankruptcy dockets that include personal information
on the victims making demands for payments and the basis for
payments made.

"The bill is a cynical ploy by the asbestos industry to avoid
compensating its victims who are seeking justice in court -- many
of whom are veterans who were doubly exposed; first while in
uniform and when they went on to work for companies that knowingly
exposed them to the deadly fiber," the veteran groups said in
their letter.

A spokesman for the Senate Judiciary Committee said that the
hearing is being held to explore possible legislative fixes to
bring about greater transparency and accountability in the
asbestos trust system.

Republicans have argued that these trusts -- accounts set up under
the bankruptcy code to pay victims of asbestos-related diseases --
need to be protected to prevent fraudulent or inflated claims from
drawing down on this finite funding.

The hearing comes about a month after the House passed the FACT by
adding it to another piece of legislation that set new limits on
class-action lawsuits.

The International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), the
National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation
of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) also sent a
letter calling on members of Congress to oppose the bill.

"Victims of asbestos exposure, including first responders and
teachers, among many other dedicated public employees, are
entitled to compensation from the companies that caused their
illnesses," they said. "S. 357, however, would give companies an
unfair advantage over asbestos victims seeking justice for their
injuries -- speciously touted as a "transparency bill," the
measure actually is designed to help the asbestos industry avoid
paying victims through delay tactics and waste of scarce trust
resources set aside for victims."

Alex Formuzis, of the Environmental Working Group Action Fund said
the overwhelming opposition to the bill should send a strong
message to the Judiciary Committee and the rest of the Senate.

"Supporting legislation that would almost certainly put tens of
thousands of innocent Americans, including veterans and
firefighters, at risk of identity theft should be a non-starter
for lawmakers," he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Measure Sacks Kansas's Worker Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Carpenter, writing for The Topeka Capital-Journal, reported
that the Kansas environmental regulatory agency requested a House
committee support repeal of a 30-year-old law requiring annual
training certification by Kansas officials of workers performing
asbestos abatement.

Adoption of legislation sought by the Kansas Department of Health
and Environment wouldn't undermine federal mandates applicable to
people stripping the cancer-causing substance from building
floors, pipes and other areas.

In addition, KDHE still would share responsibility with federal
officials for inspection of asbestos job sites or for responding
to complaints about improper removal.

John Mitchell, director of the environment division at KDHE, told
the House Energy and Environment Committee that House Bill 2516
would drop from state law redundant training provisions that exist
in federal law.

"To be clear," he said, "this bill does not remove the need for
worker training -- only for a specific KDHE training course.
Federal laws are doing the job just fine."

Mitchell said asbestos company employees would be expected to
comply with federal training mandates, but about 900 individuals
no longer would be subject to annual KDHE certification standards
on training. A requirement that asbestos companies be licensed by
the state would remain on the books, he said.

The bill, which could be subject to a committee vote, would alter
a legal requirement Kansas operators of asbestos abatement
companies retain records for six years. Under the measure, records
would have to be kept for three years.

"I'd like to know if that's an arbitrary number. Asbestos is scary
stuff," said Rep. Annie Kuether, D-Topeka.

Andy Sanchez, a lobbyists who represents Kansas AFL-CIO, expressed
opposition to the House bill because of the potential health risk
from diminishing the state's regulatory position on asbestos.

"Certification does offer some degree of public accountability,
and that documentation is meaningful in an industry where class-
action lawsuits seem to go hand-in-hand," Sanchez said.

Mitchell said he didn't know how many KDHE inspectors were engaged
in monitoring asbestos eradication, nor did he know how many
companies or individuals had been caught operating without proper
certification. He said violations had been reported in the past.

Mark Schreiber, vice president for government affairs at Westar
Energy, said the company endorsed the bill sponsored by KDHE. He
said the agency had sufficient oversight to maintain high
standards for asbestos workers, despite removal of the state
certification component.

"Asbestos remediation work has sufficient dangers to require
expertise to protect both workers and those that will occupy those
areas after remediation," Schreiber said.

In 1985, public alarm about handling of asbestos being pulled from
Kansas public schools led to adoption of state regulations.
Inferior removal work in schools led the state to implement
training and certification restrictions, Mitchell said.

"With no regulation in place," Mitchell said, "some asbestos
abatement companies were doing sloppy work, which resulted in more
problems for the schools. This brought about concerns for the
health of students and faculty in these school buildings."

Federal law in 1990 set new training requirements for asbestos
workers, and Kansas stopped imposing the state-established
training mandate. Kansas continued with the certification process
to verify adequate worker training, he said. Under the bill
pending in the House, KDHE would stop doing the training
certifications.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Lawsuit in Kentucky Opens
---------------------------------------------------
James Mayse, writing for Messenger-Inquirer, reported that the
first arguments in a lawsuit filed by a former Owensboro woman who
claims she contracted asbestos-associated cancer from asbestos
brought home on her husband's clothes while he was working as an
insulator at several regional companies, were heard in Daviess
Circuit Court.

Doris White, who now lives in Louisville, has mesothelioma, a form
of cancer closely tied to exposure to asbestos fibers. White is
suing a number of companies, including Alcoa, Big Rivers Electric
Cooperative, General Electric, Goodyear, York, Amec Foster Wheeler
and Triangle Enterprises.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Canadian Federal Gov't Still Using Asbestos
------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Ireton, writing for CBC News, reported that the news agency
has confirmed the federal government continues to use asbestos-
containing materials in the construction and renovation of federal
buildings, even though asbestos is a known carcinogen and toxin.

The World Health Organization recommends replacing asbestos with
safer substitutes.

But both the Canada Revenue Agency and Public Services and
Procurement (formerly Public Works) have confirmed that they
continue to use asbestos in construction projects.

"It's appalling, but unfortunately, it's not surprising," said
Laura Lozanski, occupational health and safety officer at the
Canadian Association of University Teachers, a group that for
years has been lobbying for the removal of asbestos from public
buildings.

"That they're continuing to use a known carcinogen in the
workplace is just unbelievable," said Lozanski.

Denis St-Jean, national health and safety officer with the Public
Service Alliance of Canada said Canada still imports construction
products that contain asbestos.

Unions asking for asbestos building registry

The PSAC is part of Ban Asbestos Canada, a group which recently
sent a letter to Prime Minister Trudeau asking for legislation to
ban the use, export and import of asbestos, as many other
countries including the European Union and Australia have already
done.

"This practice needs to be ceased immediately," said St-Jean.
"We're also asking that the use of any asbestos containing
material be withdrawn from any federally funded infrastructure
projects from the federal government."

The Canadian Labour Congress says that in fact the use of asbestos
cement pipe is on the rise in Canada and is increasingly being
installed in federally funded infrastructure projects in Ontario
and Quebec through the former federal governement's New Building
Canada Fund. The CLC also said that imports of asbestos related
items is on the increase in Canada.

Several unions continue to call for a Canadian registry of
asbestos-containing buildings that have public access.

Non-friable asbestos still in use

A spokesman for the Canada Revenue Agency confirmed the use of
asbestos, but said the use is controlled.

"Its use is limited to non-friable forms (not easily broken into
smaller pieces) and is strictly controlled under the Asbestos
Products Regulations," said Philippe Brideau, a media relations
advisor with the Canada Revenue Agency.

But Lozanski and other health and safety officers argue that non-
friable asbestos eventually breaks down over time and becomes a
danger.

"This continued putting forward that it's non-friable and it's
safe is complete nonsense and should not be used by people who
should know better," said Lozanski.

The Public Services and Procurement department also confirmed in a
statement to CBC that the department continues to use asbestos-
cement pipes in new or renovated buildings because "the National
Building Code still allows for the use of non-friable asbestos-
cement products."

"Asbestos-cement pipes normally have a life cycle of 70 years and
are often found in tall buildings since they provide better sound
insulation against falling water compared to cast iron pipes,"
Jessica Kingsbury, a media relations officer with the public
services department said in a statement.

Asbestos abatement ongoing

Right now, the parliament buildings are undergoing millions of
dollars of renovations which includes the abatement of asbestos
that's documented to have infected federal workers over the years.

Ian Culbert, executive director of the Canadian Public Health
Association said to find out these asbestos products are still
legal and being used is a concern to his association.

"I don't believe anyone believes asbestos is a legal product for
the building trades anymore," said Culbert. "You'd think the
federal government would be the last landlord to be using that
kind of a product."

Recently, updated figures from Statistics Canada reveal the number
of cases and deaths from mesothelioma -- a deadly cancer caused
primarily by workplace asbestos exposure -- have continued to rise
and show no signs of abating.

Exposure to asbestos doesn't guarantee illness, but there is
concern because the latency period can be 10 to 40 years.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Substantial Relief Needed for Japan Victims
------------------------------------------------------------
The Yomiuri Shimbun reported that the court has blamed nonfeasance
on the part of the state and construction material makers.

In a class-action lawsuit filed by former construction workers and
others seeking compensation for damage caused by asbestos at
construction sites, the Kyoto District Court ordered the state and
nine construction material makers to each pay just over JPY100
million in damages to the plaintiffs.

The compensation called for in the latest ruling can be considered
substantial.

Asbestos, which was cheap and offered superior fire resistance,
was imported in large quantities from the 1970s through the 1990s
and was used as construction material and for other purposes. At
construction sites where the materials were processed, fine
particles that included asbestos fiber were said to have been
generated in large amounts.

In the lawsuit, 27 plaintiffs, including bereaved family members,
tried to establish the responsibility of both the state and
material makers for causing lung cancer and other health problems
among those who inhaled asbestos at construction sites.

The court pointed out that the state must have been aware of the
health hazards of asbestos by the early 1970s. In light of this,
the court concluded that the state should have made it mandatory
for business operators to have their workers wear dust masks and
to use tools equipped with dust collectors at construction sites,
and to label the asbestos-containing construction materials with a
warning of a possible health hazard.

The court acted rationally in taking a grave view of the state's
negligence, as the government failed to take sufficient
countermeasures, while prioritizing housing construction.

Due responsibility of makers

Of the five similar lawsuits, the courts have recognized the
state's responsibility in four cases. The judicial trend of ruling
against the state, albeit at the stage of a district court, seems
to be taking hold.

To be noted this time is that the court has gone as far as to put
the blame on construction material makers for the first time in
the series of lawsuits.

Construction workers usually move from one workplace to another.
Because of such itinerant working patterns, court rulings until
now had turned down compensation claims against construction
material makers, saying that it was impossible to identify the
materials that had caused health damage.

On the assumption that a construction worker works at more than 10
different workplaces in a year, the Kyoto court has ordered those
makers with more than a 10 percent market share to pay
compensation.

It may be debatable whether drawing a line at 10 percent market
share is appropriate. Yet those makers that failed to put a
warning on the materials ought to assume their due responsibility,
we believe.

After the health damage due to asbestos was identified around a
machine maker's mill in Amagasaki, Hyogo Prefecture, the asbestos
health damage relief law came into effect in 2006. On the basis of
this law, the government has given relief to people living near
such plants, and workers who were not recognized for industrial
accident compensation.

Just like the plaintiffs of the latest case, however, there were
many who complained that compensation for absence from work and
the cost of medical expenses alone was not sufficient.

Considering that after asbestos has been inhaled, it takes 20 to
50 years for the ill effects to appear, health damage among
construction workers will surely come to light on a nationwide
scale in the years ahead.

Supporting organizations are calling for a compensation fund to be
established jointly by the government and construction material
makers. The government should discuss relief measures with such a
proposal in mind.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Has Until June to Perfect Appeals
------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, on January 19, 2016, enlarged to the June 2016 Term
Crane Co.'s time to perfect appeal in the following cases:

   * IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to
McLAUGHLIN, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Motion No. M-6099
(N.Y. App. Div.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available
at http://is.gd/TYZXI5from Leagle.com.

   * IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to HISCHE,
v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Motion No. M-6105 (N.Y. App.
Div.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/SlowPYfrom Leagle.com.

   * IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to ENGLE,
v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Motion No. M-6098 (N.Y. App.
Div.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/QjYNmEfrom Leagle.com.

   * IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to
BATTIPAGLIA, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS, Motion No. M-6100 (N.Y.
App. Div.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/GZw2kZfrom Leagle.com.

   * IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to
D'ANDRADE, v. A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY, Motion No. M-6101 (N.Y.
App. Div.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/rvyjIFfrom Leagle.com.

   * IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to PORTA,
v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS, Motion No. M-6107 (N.Y. App. Div.).
A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/PhOXCefrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dismissal of Suit vs. JPMorgan Officers Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Delaware, in an order dated January 28, 2016,
affirmed the judgment of the Court of Chancery on the basis of and
for the reasons assigned in its May 21, 2015 decision in the case
captioned ASBESTOS WORKERS LOCAL 42 PENSION FUND, derivatively on
behalf of Nominal Defendant, JPMorgan Chase & Co., a Delaware
corporation, Plaintiff Below-Appellant, v. LINDA B. BAMMANN, et
al., Defendants Below-Appellees, and JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., Nominal
Defendant Below-Appellee, No. 322, 2015.

In the May 21, 2015 Decision, the Chancery Court granted the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Verified Derivative Complaint
for Failure to Plead Demand Futility.

The Plaintiff in this case is a stockholder of JPMorgan Chase &
Co., seeking derivatively to hold those at the helm accountable
for the damage caused by the so-called London whale.  The
Plaintiff seeks to sue the directors (and certain officers) of
JPMorgan under a theory based on the rationale of the Court's
decision In re Caremark International Inc. Derivative Litigation.

A full-text copy of the Jan. 28, 2016 Decision is available at
http://is.gd/98x3Glfrom Leagle.com.

A full-text copy of the May 21, 2015 Decision is available at
http://is.gd/LdudUefrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Had $648MM Litigation Reserve at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc. has $176 million in asbestos insurance receivable and
$648 million in asbestos litigation reserve for the quarter ended
Dec. 31, 2015, according to the Company's preliminary first
quarter results disclosed in a Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan. 25, 2016.

A full-text copy of the Form 8-K is available at
http://is.gd/bC4FSY

Ashland Inc. (Ashland) is a specialty chemical company that
provides products, services and solutions to industries. The
Company's segments are: Ashland Specialty Ingredients offers
products, technologies and resources in key markets including
personal and home care, pharmaceutical, food and beverage,
coatings, construction, energy and other industries; Ashland Water
Technologies is a supplier of specialty chemicals and services to
the pulp, paper, mining, food and beverage, power generation,
refining, chemical processing, general manufacturing and municipal
markets. Ashland Performance Materials helps customers to create
substitutes for traditional materials through higher performing,
cost-efficient resin and adhesive technologies that improve the
manufacturing, fabrication and design process, and Ashland
Consumer Markets delivers premium-branded automotive, commercial
and industrial lubricants, automotive chemicals and car-care
products.




                            *********

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 2016. 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  * * *