CAR_Public/160304.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, March 4, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 46


                            Headlines


AFEXA LIFE: Plaintiff Seeks Class Certification of Cold-FX Suit
ALLIANCE SECURITY: "Chester" Suit Moved from Minn. to N.D. W. Va.
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION: Sued Over Telemarketing Law Violation
ARIZONA: Fails to Make Improvements in Prisoner Health Care
AUTOLIV INC: May 11 Settlement Approval Hearing Set

BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: CNB Suit Moved from S.D. Ala. to S.D.N.Y.
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: "Smith" Consolidated in MDL 2673, S.D.N.Y.
BARNES & NOBLE: Plaintiff Drops Case Over Defective Charger
BAYER: Class Action Won't Offer More Benefits to Essure Patients
BENCO DENTAL: Judge Keeps Antitrust Class Action Secret

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ: Court Reopens Suit Over Kickback Scheme
BHP BILLITON: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
BHP BILLITON: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
BLACKSTONE GROUP: "Caples" Sues over Onerous Merger Deal
BUMBLE BEE: Benjamin Foods Suit Consolidated in MDL 2670

BUMBLE BEE: Central Grocers Suit Consolidated in MDL 2670
BUMBLE BEE: Associated Grocers Suit Consolidated in MDL 2670
BUMBLE BEE: "Christensen" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2670
BUMBLE BEE: "Damske" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2670
BUMBLE BEE: "Waterman" Suit Moved and Consolidated in MDL 2670

BUMBLE BEE: "Machin" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2670
CANADA: Plaintiffs Oppose St. John's Bid to Get Victims List
CAPITOL VALLEY ELECTRIC: "Brooks" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
CARESOUTH HHA HOLDINGS: "Simpson" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
CHARLES SCHWAB: Averts Bond Fund Securities Class Action

CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Under DoJ Investigations Over E.Coli Outbreak
COLUMBIA GAS: 6th Cir. Reviews First-to-File Rule in Class Action
COOK MEDICAL: Faces Two Class Actions in Canada Over IVC Filters
COOPER TIRE: 3rd. Circ Hears Oral Arguments in Merger Suit
CRYPTSY: Updated Class Action Lawsuit Names New Defendant

CRYPTSY: Founder's Ex-Wife Likely Involved in Lost Funds
DALLAS, TX: Sued Over Proposed Ban of Porn Convention
DOW CHEMICAL: Growing Political Uncertainties Prompt Settlement
DOW CHEMICAL: Settlement Decision Encouraging for Plaintiffs Bar
DOW CHEMICAL: Some Politics Behind Settlement, Bland Says

ENCORE ENERGY: "Goldman" Sues over Termination, Retaliation
EXXON MOBIL: Landowners' Attorneys Appeal Class Action Dismissal
FLINT, MI: Attorney Provides Update on Water Crisis Class Action
FORD: Can't Duck Power Steering Class Action, Judge Rules
FOX SEARCHLIGHT: Interns' Bid for Rehearing of Class Action Nixed

G. WILLI-FOOD: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
GRAND THEFT: 9th Circuit Reverses Dismissal of Class Action
GRENVILLE CHRISTIAN: Abused Students Relate Harrowing Stories
HEARTWARE INTERNATIONAL: Faces St. Paul Fund Securities Suit
HOME DEPOT: Judge OKs $2.1MM Wage Class Action Settlement

HORTONWORKS INC: April 29 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline
IRSA INVERSIONES: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Action
JEFFERSON PARISH, LA: Red Light Camera Refund Checks Mailed
JPMORGAN CHASE: Shareholders Attempt to Revive Madoff Suit
JPMORGAN CHASE: May 10 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

KRAFT HEINZ: Faces Another Class Action Over Parmesan Cheese
MASIMO CORP: Appeals Court Reinstates $5.3MM Arbitration Award
MATCH GROUP: April 26 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
MDL 2672: 55 Class Suits v. Volkswagen et al. Transferred
MOHONK MOUNTAIN: Settles Class Action Over Norovirus

MONTREAL INSTITUTE: Settles Sexual Abuse Class Suit for $30MM
MORGAN & MORGAN: Settles Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
MORGAN KEEGAN: 8th Circuit Limits American Pipe Tolling
NAPW INC: "Martin" Suit to Recover Commissions, OT, Missed Breaks
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Loses Bid to Avert Compensation Limits Suit

NEW YORK: NYPD Commissioner Dismisses Job Quota Claims
NEWS AMERICA: Settles Antitrust Class Action
NU SKIN: Settles Securities Class Action for $47 Million
PDS TRANSPORTATION: "Lopez" Suit Asserts Labor Law Violations
PFIZER INC: Seeks to Strike Two Experts in Zoloft MDL

RALPH'S GROCERY: NLRB Panel Invalidates Arbitration Policy
RECKITT BENCKISER: Sued Over Misleading Nurofen Pain Drug Claims
REMINGTON: Rifle Settlement Deadline Extended Until April 29
REPLANET LLC: "Medina" Suit to Recover Missed Break Compensation
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Faces Class Action Over Storm Cruise

SAN BERNARDINO, CA: Faces Class Action Over Inmate Abuse
SAINT-GOBAIN: NY Firm Sues Over Chemicals in Village Water
SCRANTON, PA: Judge Nixes Part of Rental Fee Class Action
SEMPRA ENERGY: Faces Class Action, May 2 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
SHORE MEDICAL: Law Firm Expects More Patients to Come Forward

SLATER & GORDON: Aggrieved Investors Mull Class Action
SLATER & GORDON: Financial Woes Pile Up as Class Action Looms
SOLVAY SPECIALTY: Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Approval
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS: "Lopez" Sues over Gas Leaks
SUBWAY: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court Approval

TEEKAY CORP: Scott+Scott Files Class Action in Connecticut
TIDAL: Faces Class Action Over $5MM in Past-Due Royalties
TIDAL: Denies Claims in Class Action Over Unpaid Royalties
TOKYO ELECTRIC: 3 Former Execs Indicted Over Fukushima Disaster
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Donald May Testify in Civil Class Action

TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Opposes Lead Plaintiff Removal in Fraud Case
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Fraud Class Action Can Proceed, Court Rules
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Defends Driver Background Check Policy
UBS AG: Settles Price Rigging Class Action for $100-Mil.
UNION PACIFIC: Employees File ADA Class Action in Washington

UNITED STATES: Finalizes $940MM Settlement with Tribes
UNITED STATES: Health Republic Files $2.5-Bil. Suit
UTICA, NY: Refugees' Discrimination Class Action Ongoing
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Seeks to Centralize Emissions Fraud Suits
WALGREEN CO: "Legget" Sues over Overcharging on Prescriptions

WESTERN PACIFIC: "Centria Homeowners" Sues Over Building Flaws
WHOLE FOODS: Judge Tosses Pre-pack Food Overpricing Class Action

* Oklahoma Takes Measures to Address Fracking-Related Quakes
* Scalia's Death Poses Challenges for Class Action Defendants
* U.S. Supreme Court Won't Consider Class Membership Test


                          Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mich. Man Sues 15 Companies Over Lung Cancer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pipe Tests Positive For Asbestos in Regina Bldg.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Alpena County Courthouse
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victims, Lawyers Fear Bill May Delat Payment
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Unexpected Asbestos Adds Costs to Bldg Demo

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Connecticut's Asbestos Docket Finally Shrinks
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Canada's Asbestos Workers Condemn Ruling
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazardous Asbestos Waste Dumped Over Bridge
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Border Force Dusts Off Asbestos Controls
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Beech-Nut Plant Developer Sued in Scrap Dispute

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Miss. Jury Awards $1-Mil. to Plaintiff
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found at Tauranga Historic Village
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victory in Compensation Battle for Veterans
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Imported Asbestos Creating Danger for Workers
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Find Means Longer Closure for Court

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fincantieri To Pay EUR1.1MM to Welder
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Saints Coach Dies of Asbestos-Caused Cancer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Retirement Village
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Civil Court Filings Down in Illinois
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Wash. AG Pushes Back on FACT Act Critics

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duncan Medical Bldg. Shut Down Due to Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Considers Application of Fairchild Test
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Company Fined GBP20,000 For Disturbing Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Taskforce Releases Pics of Fluffy Contamination
ASBESTOS UPDATE: B.C. Judge Clears Contractor of Contempt

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mammoth Trial Scheduled in Kentucky
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Dumped Near Homes in Western Sydney
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Orlando Firefighters Exposed to Asbestos at Work
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alexandria Subject to Environmental Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor Insurance Recovery Offsets Revenue Cuts

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Maremont Corp. Had 5,700 Claims at Jan. 3
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Maremont Had $38-Mil. Recoveries at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor Had $14-Mil. Recoveries at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harris Corp. Continues to Defend Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Cases Still Pending v. Tidewater Inc.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carpenter Tech Continues to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Haynes Int'l Continues to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow Incurs $78MM Pretax Charge in 4Q 2014
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Briggs Still Subject to Product Liability Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Seeks Review of "Amato" Ruling

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Continues to Pursue Appeal in "Peraica"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Appeal on "DeLisle" Ruling Set for Q1 2016
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shipowners Lose Summary Judgment Bid "Griffin"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Arroyo" to Proceed Against Shipowners
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shipowners Fail in Bid to Dismiss "Zuegg"

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Illinois Court Refuses to Transfer "Watts"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MSA Obtains Partial Win in Coverage Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Partially Flips Judgment in "Lapore"




                            *********


AFEXA LIFE: Plaintiff Seeks Class Certification of Cold-FX Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
John McKinley, writing for Nanaimo News Bulletin, reports that a
blunt-spoken Ladysmith senior is at the epicentre of a legal
battle that could have a huge impact on not only a popular cold
remedy, but on the country's entire natural health industry.

Don Harrison is the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit seeking class-
action certification against the makers of Cold-Fx, which bills
itself Canada's number-one selling cold remedy.

On April 4-8, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Janice Dillon will rule
on whether or not Harrison's case can be expanded to include
virtually anyone who used the product between 2004 and 2012.

"We still must show that there are common issues and that a class
action is the preferable way of resolving all class members'
claims, but based on the recent Supreme Court of Canada case law,
we are confident that this hurdle can be met," Harrison's lawyer
John Green said.

The particulars of the suit are many, but its thrust is
straightforward: it alleges Afexa Life Sciences and Valeant
Pharmaceuticals misled consumers into thinking Cold-Fx was capable
of relieving flu and cold symptoms if taken for periods of less
than two months. Essentially, it argues that the Cold-Fx packaging
promised something it could not deliver.

"At trial, we may prove fraud by showing that the statements on
the boxes we say are false, were also material to a person's
purchase," Green said.

"Given that the statements we say were fraudulent concerned
efficacy, dosage, and dosage duration (all regulated by Health
Canada), we are confident that the defendants have an uphill
battle now."

The claims remain unproven. The defendants have thus far declined
to discuss the case in the media. They did attempt to have it
thrown out of court, but Supreme Court Justice John Truscott ruled
Jan. 21 that it could proceed.

"Since the matter is before the courts, it would be inappropriate
for us to comment at this time," spokesperson Caroline De Silva
said on behalf of the defendants. "We believe the action is
without merit and are defending it vigorously."

Green, who specializes in lawsuits regarding the pharmaceuticals
industry asked Harrison to be the representative plaintiff after
watching a CBC documentary on the product and reading a letter
Harrison wrote to the Ladysmith Chronicle on the topic.

"I said 'in a goddamn heartbeat," Harrison said. "They've got a
hell of a case."

Filed in New Westminster in March of 2012, the suit alleges
Harrison purchased Cold-Fx in February 2011 after reading
marketing material that suggested the product would supply
immediate relief for cold and flu symptoms, a suggestion the
plaintiff maintains the defendants knew to be false.

The suit states that while the firm's own research indicates the
product may address cold and flu symptoms, that same research is
based on participants who took the product for periods of two to
six months.

"Afexa and Valeant had (other) research as far back as 2004 which
showed Cold-Fx was less effective than a placebo at treating cold
or flu symptoms if taken during a short duration," Green said.

Green's trial plan is to prove the marketing statements are false,
determine the number of boxes of the product sold with those
statements, and then estimate the value paid by British
Columbians.

"On top of this there would be interest, which began compounding
about decade ago, and so that amount by itself is expected to be
quite large," he said.

The National Post reported "more than $117 million worth of the
ginseng-based product was sold in Canada as recently as 2011."

Green said the point of the lawsuit is not to earn money for the
plaintiffs. Instead, it aims to make anyone who may have misled
the public accountable for their actions, while delivering a stern
warning to any health remedy company making, or considering
making, false claims.

The likelihood of any lawsuit proceeds ending up in the hands of
Cold-Fx customers is slim, given the relatively small expense of
their individual purchases and the difficulty reimbursing people.
Rather the judge would more likely direct any reward to a
charitable public service fund in a related area.

Harrison hopes a statement will be made.

"Those natural products, they can get away with murder almost,"he
said. "I hope that the judge rules in our favour. That damned
money doesn't belong to them."


ALLIANCE SECURITY: "Chester" Suit Moved from Minn. to N.D. W. Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Chester v. Alliance Security Inc.,
Case No. 0:15-cv-04231, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota, to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of West Virginia (Clarksburg). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-00010-IMK-MJA to
the proceeding.

Alliance Security provides security services. The Company provides
burglar, fire, and medical protection, as well as provides home
automation services. The Company is based in Warwick, Rhode
Island.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400 6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520 5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Patrick J Helwig, Esq.
          Peter F Barry, Esq.
          BARRY & HELWIG, LLC
          2701 University Avenue SE, Suite 209
          Minneapolis, MN 55414
          Telephone: (612) 379 8800
          Facsimile: (612) 379 8810
          E-mail: phelwig@lawpoint.com
                  pbarry@lawpoint.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Barbara P Berens, Esq.
          Erin K Fogarty Lisle, Esq.
          BERENS & MILLER, PA
          80 S 8th St Ste 3720
          Mpls, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 349 6171
          Facsimile: (612) 349 6416
          E-mail: bberens@berensmiller.com
                  elisle@berensmiller.com


AMERICAN ASSOCIATION: Sued Over Telemarketing Law Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that weeks
before the head of a national trial lawyers group condemned a
legal maneuver used by businesses in attempts to fight class
action lawsuits, the group was accused of using the same move by
one of its own members.

The American Association for Justice -- a lobbying group for
plaintiffs lawyers that was formerly known as the Association of
Trial Lawyers of America -- was a defendant in a lawsuit filed by
Miami attorney Timothy Blake, who alleged he'd received a fax that
violated a federal telemarketing law.

Mr. Blake, who wrote in his 2014 complaint that he's been a member
of AAJ for more than three decades, alleged the AAJ benefited from
faxes sent regarding a health insurance plan because it receives
royalty payments from the insurer when AAJ members sign up.

While fighting the lawsuit, the AAJ made a Rule 68 offer of
judgment in December to Blake. The AAJ offered Blake an amount
equal to or greater than what he was requesting as an individual
in an effort to end the case before it became a full-fledged class
action, though Blake wished to continue the lawsuit as the lead
plaintiff of a class.

The offer was $2,000, enough to cover the costs of one violation
of the federal law.

"This judgment amount represents AAJ's total liability for any and
all of Plaintiff's losses, claims, damages and any other amounts
or expenses that may have been recoverable . . . from AAJ on
Plaintiff's individual claims in this action," the AAJ wrote in
its Rule 68 offer.

"This offer is intended to fully satisfy Plaintiff's individual
claim asserted in this action or which could have been asserted in
this action."

According to the AAJ's own president, using Rule 68 offers to end
class actions in preliminary stages is unfair.  In the wake of a
January U.S. Supreme Court ruling that said those offers couldn't
moot class action lawsuits, Linda Lipsen released a statement
praising the 6-3 decision.

"Class actions are necessary to help ensure fairness and
efficiency in our judicial system," Ms. Lipsen's statement said.

"By allowing groups of similarly harmed individuals to join
together, the Supreme Court ensured that Americans with even the
most limited means can hold the most powerful corporations
accountable for wrongdoing.

"An alternative result in this case would have upended that
balance and, as Justice Ginsburg writes, 'would place the
defendant in the driver's seat' of the civil justice system."

The AAJ release said Rule 68 offers threatened the viability of
class actions and threatened to allow defendants to pick off named
plaintiffs in order to extinguish entire class actions.

In the case against the AAJ, the plaintiff, Mr. Blake, attempted
to strike the Rule 68 offer on Dec. 11.  His concern about the
Rule 68 offer made to him was similar to the stance the AAJ took
more than a month later, after the U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

Mr. Blake said the offer was "merely an attempt to pick-off the
named Plaintiff, create a conflict between Plaintiff and the
putative class, and undermine this consumer class action."

Mr. Blake said courts have ruled that Rule 68 offers like the one
he received create conflicts of interest between class
representatives and the putative classes they seek to represent.

"Accordingly, Defendant AAJ's Offer of Judgment is an improper
attempt to thwart this class action and create a conflict between
the named Plaintiff and the class he seeks to represent,"
Mr. Blake's attorneys wrote.

"Based upon the weight of the above authority, Defendant AAJ's
purported Offer of Judgment should be stricken and deemed
ineffective."

Mr. Blake was represented by the Social Justice Law Collective and
Bennett & Bennett in Coral Gables, Fla.

Ten days after the motion to strike, Blake and his attorneys
voluntarily dismissed their case without prejudice, meaning they
could refile in the future. Court records do not offer the reason
for their decision.

The fax in question was sent to AAJ members about the
organization's creation of a Health Care Marketplace for them and
their employees.  It included seven listed benefits of joining the
program, but Blake said it did not include instruction on how to
opt out of receiving future faxes, in violation of federal law.

The AAJ, in a motion to dismiss that was denied on Sept. 1, said
there is a debate as to whether opt-out notices are required for
solicited faxes.

The AAJ was represented by Podhurst Orseck in Miami and Jones
Foster Johnston & Stubbs in West Palm Beach, Fla.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling came in Jose Gomez's case over
unsolicited text messages against Campbell-Ewald, which had made a
Rule 68 offer to him -- $1,503 per violation and reasonable costs.

When he denied the offer, the company said the offer of judgment
should have ended the case.

The court affirmed a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.


ARIZONA: Fails to Make Improvements in Prisoner Health Care
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jacques Billeaud, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
attorneys who won a settlement in a class-action lawsuit over the
quality of health care in Arizona's prisons say the state is
dragging its feet in carrying out the improvements it promised
when it agreed to resolve the case.

The lawyers contend health care in the state's prisons hasn't
improved since the October 2014 settlement, saying Arizona has
dramatically inflated its compliance figures and failed to carry
out many requirements called for by the agreement.

The requirements include having sick inmates see registered nurses
within 24 hours of requesting help and having medical providers
tend to inmates with chronic diseases as specified by their
treatment programs.

A hearing over the lawyers' complaints was scheduled on March 1
before U.S. Magistrate John Buttrick.

The settlement was won on behalf of 33,000 Arizona inmates after
some complained that their cancer went undetected or they were
told to pray to be cured after begging for treatment.

As part of the settlement, state officials agreed to seek more
money from the Legislature to increase health care staffing, offer
cancer screenings to certain prisoners, follow requirements in
treating patients with chronic diseases, and provide more out-of-
cell time to prisoners kept in isolated cells.

The Legislature gave the Department of Corrections an additional
$6.6 million in health care funding last year in response to the
settlement.

Don Specter, one of the attorneys for the inmates, said another
problem is that the people monitoring the state's compliance are
employees of the Arizona Department of Corrections.

"They aren't trained," Mr. Specter said.  "They don't have
specific instructions, and their interpretations of what the
agreement requires are often wrong."

Andrew Wilder, a spokesman for the Arizona Department of
Corrections, declined to comment.

The lawsuit against Arizona Corrections Director Charles Ryan and
another prison official alleged the failure of medical personnel
at one prison to diagnose the metastasized cancer of one inmate
resulted in his liver enlarging to the belly size of a pregnant
woman at full term.

It said another inmate with a history of prostate cancer had to
wait more than two years for a biopsy, and nothing was done for a
prisoner who suffered from depression and told staff members he
was suicidal before killing himself.

Prison officials have denied the allegations and didn't
acknowledge any wrongdoing when making the settlement.

The prisoners who filed the lawsuit weren't seeking monetary
damages and instead asked for a court order declaring that
Arizona's prisons violated the Eighth Amendment right of inmates
against cruel and unusual punishment.


AUTOLIV INC: May 11 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------
If You Bought or Leased a New Motor Vehicle, or Bought Certain
Replacement Parts for a Motor Vehicle in the U.S. Since 1998 You
Could Get Money from Settlements Totaling Approximately $225
Million.

Eleven Defendant groups and their affiliates ("Settling
Defendants") have agreed to Settlements resolving claims that they
fixed the price of certain motor vehicle components.  This may
have caused individuals and businesses to pay more for new motor
vehicles and certain replacement parts.  The Settling Defendants
deny any claims of wrongdoing.

Am I included?

You may be included if, from 1998 to 2015, you: (1) bought or
leased a new motor vehicle in the U.S. (not for resale), or (2)
indirectly paid for a motor vehicle replacement part.  Indirectly
means you bought the replacement part from someone other than the
manufacturer of the part. New motor vehicles include, but are not
limited to, automobiles, cars, light trucks, pickup trucks,
crossovers, vans, mini-vans, and sport utility vehicles.  Visit
the website, www.AutoPartsClass.com or call 1-877-940-5043 for a
full list of Settling Defendants and applicable time periods.

What do the Settlements provide?

The Settlements provide money for consumers in 30 states and the
District of Columbia as well as non-monetary relief, including
cooperation, and they also include agreements by certain Settling
Defendants not to engage in certain conduct for a period of 24
months.

The 30 states are: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Hawaii,
Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire,
New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode
Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont,
West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

How can I get a payment?

No money will be distributed yet.  Class Counsel will pursue the
lawsuits against the Non-Settling Defendants.  All funds received
in this case will be distributed at the conclusion of the lawsuits
or as ordered by the Court.  You will need to file a valid claim
to receive a payment.  Notice about the claims
process will be provided at a later date.

If you want to receive notice about the claims process or future
settlements, you should register at www.AutoPartsClass.com

What are my rights?

Even if you do nothing, you will be bound by the Court's decisions
concerning these Settlements.  If you want to keep your right to
sue the Settling Defendants regarding a particular motor vehicle
component part, you must exclude yourself from that Settlement
Class by April 11, 2016.  If you stay in a Settlement Class, you
may object to one or more of the Settlements by
April 11, 2016.

The Court will hold a hearing on May 11, 2016, to consider whether
to approve the Settlements and approve Class Counsel's request
that up to $11.25 million be set aside for future litigation costs
and expenses.  Class counsel will also request at the hearing, or
at a later date, attorneys' fees of up to
one-third of the Settlement funds, plus reimbursement of costs and
expenses.  You or your own lawyer may appear and speak at the
hearing at your own expense.

If the cases are not dismissed or settled, Class Counsel will have
to prove their claims against the Non-Settling Defendants at
trial.  Date for the trials have not been set yet.

For More Information or to Register: 1-877-940-5043
www.AutoPartsClass.com


BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: CNB Suit Moved from S.D. Ala. to S.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled CNB Bancorp, Inc. v. Bank of Nova
Scotia, New York Agency et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00595, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York (Foley Square). The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:16-cv-00030-PGG to the proceeding.

The Defendants allegedly colluded and manipulated the market for
U.S. Treasury securities, including Treasury bills, notes, bonds,
Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities and floating rate notes
(Treasury Securities), and derivative instruments based on such
securities, including U.S. Treasury futures and options (Treasury
Instruments).

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 CNB case is being consolidated with MDL 2673 in re: Treasury
Securities Auction Antitrust Litigation. The MDL was created by
Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation on December 8, 2015. It consists of allegations that
over 20 financial institutions, referred to as primary dealers,
conspired to manipulate the pricing of U.S. Treasury securities
(Treasury bills, notes, bonds, and related debt instruments) at
Treasury auctions overseen by the Federal Reserve Bank of New
York; and derivative financial products. In its December 8, 2015
Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL 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 Judge Paul G. Gardephe, United States District Judge and
experienced transferee Judge. The lead case is 1:15-md-02673-PGG.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick Charles Cooper, Esq.
          WARD & WILSON, L.L.C.
          2100A Southbridge Parkway, Suite 580
          Birmingham, AL 35209
          Telephone: (205) 871 5404
          E-mail: patrickcharles003@yahoo.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Robert G. Houck, Esq.
          David J. Yeres, Esq.
          John D. Friel, Esq.
          CLIFFORD CHANCE US, LLP (NYC)
          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 (NYC)
          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 -

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


BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: "Smith" Consolidated in MDL 2673, S.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Smith v. Bank of Nova Scotia, New
York Agency et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-08634, 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. 1:16-cv-00005-PGG to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly conspired to
fix and manipulate the markets for U.S. Treasuries and related
Auctions and derivative financial products (i.e., Treasury-
Predicated Instruments), including Treasury-predicated futures and
options traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME).

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 Smith case is being consolidated with MDL 2673 in re: Treasury
Securities Auction Antitrust Litigation. The MDL was created by
Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation on December 8, 2015. It consists of allegations that
over 20 financial institutions, referred to as primary dealers,
conspired to manipulate the pricing of U.S. Treasury securities
(Treasury bills, notes, bonds, and related debt instruments) at
Treasury auctions overseen by the Federal Reserve Bank of New
York; and derivative financial products. In its December 8, 2015
Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL 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 Judge Paul G. Gardephe,
United States District Judge and experienced transferee Judge. The
lead case is 1:15-md-02673-PGG.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David P. Germaine, Esq.
          Joseph M Vanek, Esq.
          VANEK, VICKERS & MASINI, P.C.
          55 W. Monroe, Suite 3500
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 224 1500
          Facsimile: (312) 224 1510
          E-mail: dgermaine@vaneklaw.com
                  jvanek@vaneklaw.com

               - and -

          Alberto Rodriguez
          NYC LAW DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 788 1328
          Facsimile: (212) 788 0940
          E-mail: alrodrig@law.nyc.gov

The Defendant is represented by:

          Robert G. Houck, Esq.
          David J. Yeres, Esq.
          John D. Friel, Esq.
          CLIFFORD CHANCE US, LLP (NYC)
          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 (NYC)
          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 -

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

               - and -

          Robert Y. Sperling, Esq.
          Elizabeth P Papez, 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
                  epapez@winston.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Lucas Shapiro, Esq.
          Penny Shane, Esq.
          Stephen Ehrenberg, Esq.
          SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
          125 Broad St.
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 558 3410
          Facsimile: (212) 291 9490
          E-mail: shapirojl@sullcrom.com
                  shanep@sullcrom.com
                  ehrenbergs@sullcrom.com

               - and -

          Joseph Laurence Motto, Esq.
          Susannah P. Torpey, Esq.
          Winston & Strawn LLP
          35 W. Wacker Dr.
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 558 3728
          E-mail: jmotto@winston.com
                  storpey@winston.com

               - and -

          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


BARNES & NOBLE: Plaintiff Drops Case Over Defective Charger
-----------------------------------------------------------
Karen Kidd, writing for Pennrecord.com, reports that the plaintiff
in a class action lawsuit against Barnes & Noble who claimed the
company's Nook e-reader chargers are defective has voluntarily
dismissed the case without prejudice, retaining the right to bring
the case again.

A Barnes & Noble spokesperson declined comment to the Pennsylvania
Record.

The case, Hainley vs Barnes & Noble, Inc. et al, was filed Oct. 7
in the Allentown federal court by Michelle Hainley, who claimed
the Nook chargers split apart, frayed and stopped working.
Hainley said Barnes & Noble provided a replacement charger the
first time she contacted the company but was denied a replacement
the second time because the company claimed her warranty period
had expired.

Two models named in the case were the Nook Color and Nook Simple
Touch. Hainley claimed hundreds were affected by the defect.
Hainley based that claim on complaints about the chargers on
Barnes & Noble's website and on other retailer websites that Nook
e-readers.

In December, Barnes & Noble filed a motion to dismiss the case,
maintaining that Hainley failed to properly plead her claims or to
demonstrate that the limitation provision in the company's express
warranty is unconscionable.

The following month, Hainley filed her opposition to that
dismissal, stating "while warranty limitations such as the ones at
issue here are not by themselves procedurally unconscionable as a
matter of law, under the circumstances of this case Plaintiff has
sufficiently alleged that she had not meaningful choice with
respect to the limitations provision."

Hainley's motion summarized, "In short, B&N took advantage of its
knowledge of the defect and plaintiff's relative lack of
sophistication in order to impose a warranty term that (1)
plaintiff had no reason to expect, and (2) was unfair in light of
the fact that B&N knew it was providing a flawed product."

In another filing on Feb. 8, Barnes & Noble maintained its motion
was not premature and that her case could not achieve class action
status.

In particular, Barnes and Noble claimed the basis upon which
Hainley sought class action status in the case "is vastly
overbroad" because it included everyone in Pennsylvania who
purchased a Nook Color or Simple Touch during an unspecified class
period.

"In short, B&N has identified a fatal flaw in Plaintiff's class
allegations apparent on the face of the complaint," the motion
said. "Plaintiff's response fails to explain how this flaw could
be remedied with or without additional discovery. Her class claims
should be stricken."

A few days later, Hainley's attorney -- Jonathan Shub of Kohn,
Swift & Graf in Philadelphia -- filed notice with the court that
he had withdrawn as counsel for the plaintiff.

Hainley filed her own motion of voluntary dismissal, without
prejudice, Feb. 13, with Hainley represented by Los Angeles
attorney Kevin S. Conlogue of Kabateck Brown Kellner.


BAYER: Class Action Won't Offer More Benefits to Essure Patients
----------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Herald reports that Essure sterilization implants have been
aggressively marketed as a highly effective, hassle-free method of
permanent contraception for women ever since their U.S. market
debut in 2002.  But the FDA has been receiving high volumes of
Essure complaints describing complications such as persistent,
intense pain, abnormal heavy bleeding, perforation of internal
organs, and dangerous ectopic pregnancies.  These unexpected side
effects often render patients unable to work or care for their
families.

Many patients feel that Essure's manufacturer, Bayer Healthcare,
should be held responsible for the declining health, emotional
distress, and financial hardship they've had to endure over what
was advertised as simple, safe birth control.  The legal community
anticipates that a large number of lawsuits will be filed in the
coming years, opening up the possibility of group litigation.

However, joining an Essure class action won't likely offer as many
benefits for victims as filing individual personal injury
lawsuits.

Why Joining An Essure Class Action May Be Ill-Advised

Since the idea behind class action is to have one or a few
plaintiffs represent a whole class of current and future
claimants, it works best in situations where most claimants are
expected to have very similar cases.  Yet there's considerable
reason to believe that Essure cases will differ dramatically from
one another, which suggests that class action would be a poor
choice for Essure litigation.

Possible Differences Among Essure Cases

Though many Essure victims have a story that starts with the
expectation of straightforward permanent birth control and
progresses to an onslaught of horrifying side effects, the
similarities often stop there.  Every woman's experience is
different, and certain details can bear heavily on how the lawsuit
should be presented, such as:

Training of Physician. The lawsuit needs to be formulated
differently if insufficient training of the implanting physician
might be an issue.  According to Heather Walsh, who filed one of
the first Essure lawsuits, the lack of training received by her
doctor directly caused her injuries, which included perforation of
the colon by a migrated implant and the need for removal of an
extraneous implant that the doctor accidentally inserted.  Because
of this, Walsh included negligence in training as a cause for
action (reason to ask for compensation).. On the other hand, in a
case where the implanting physician is acknowledged as an expert
in hysteroscopy, the matter of training would not be a valid cause
for action.

Specific Complications Experienced. The appropriate amount of
restitution to request could vary widely, depending on the number
and severity of the side effects or complications experienced.  A
plaintiff who suffered pain, emotional trauma, and financial loss
from multiple correction surgeries or from the development of
chronic diseases would likely be entitled to more compensation
than a plaintiff who only encountered short-term side effects.
Amount Of Information Received Prior To Implantation.  Since
another common cause of action is "failure to warn," there's an
important distinction between cases in which plaintiffs felt they
were adequately warned about possible risks before being implanted
with Essure and those in which patients believe that risks were
not discussed, downplayed, or even concealed from them.

Such variations between cases often translate into differing
amounts of appropriate compensation, and we can imagine how
claimants could potentially lose out if they join a class action
that's represented by a plaintiff who suffered from less severe
side effects than they had.

Other Drawbacks of Class Action

In addition to the difficulty of properly representing the
majority of Essure cases with one lawsuit, class action has a
number of other potential disadvantages for Essure claimants.

Lack of Control Over Direction Of Lawsuit. In class action, only
the lead plaintiff(s) are allowed to be full participants in the
legal processes necessary for the case.  This means that the other
class members are effectively entrusting the fate of their legal
claim to the lead plaintiff, most likely a stranger who they may
never even get the chance to speak with.

Shared Compensation. Even if a class action receives a large court
award or settlement, the money must be divided up between class
members. In cases where class action suits end up with
staggeringly high member numbers, individual members may receive
very little or nothing at all.

Loss of Legal Rights.  It's very common in class action lawsuits
to require class members to sign away their right to initiate any
further legal action for the claim in question.  This means that
claimants who end up unsatisfied with the outcome of a class
action are usually legally barred from filing their own individual
lawsuits afterward.

Luckily, class action isn't the only form of group litigation that
could be employed to help streamline Essure litigation.

Could Essure Cases Be Consolidated By Multi-District Litigation
(MDL)?

Consolidating individual lawsuits exclusively for pre-trial, which
allows the lawsuits to still be resolved individually, can still
help save considerable resources and time for all parties
involved. Such consolidation has already happened for the 5 first
Essure lawsuits, all of which were filed in Pennsylvania.

If high numbers of Essure lawsuits are filed all across the
country, as anticipated, they may eventually be consolidated via
Multi-District Litigation (MDL).  In MDL, similar cases from
different federal districts are transferred to a single court to
be handled together for pre-trial proceedings.  An well-known
example of a pre-trial event is discovery, the formal process
through which parties obtain information from one another that may
be used in trial.

MDL holds many potential benefits for Essure plaintiffs:

Efficiency.  Having one judge preside over pre-trial for multiple
cases saves time and energy because the judge becomes well-versed
in the common details after reviewing one or two of the cases,
eliminating or at least reducing redundancies such as having the
same witnesses testify multiple times.

Consistency. When pre-trial rulings for similar cases are made by
the same judge, it's likely that the rulings will be more
consistent than if they were made by judges from different
district courts.

Individual Rights And Control. Constituent cases in an MDL remain
separate lawsuits, so the individual plaintiffs maintain control
over decision-making for their cases, and retain all of their
legal rights.

Compensation Awarded Individually. After pre-trial, individual
cases are typically either "remanded" (sent to trial in their
original district) or proceed to settlement. Because the suits are
handled individually after pre-trial, there is no sharing of
compensation.

Make The Most Of Your Legal Rights -- Contact An Experienced
Attorney

We've seen here how joining an Essure class action suit could put
claimants seeking fair compensation at a distinct disadvantage,
but many injured patients may end up unwittingly choosing it after
seeing a convincing class action ad.  This is why it's  important
to get help from trusted, experienced lawyers, especially since
litigation for complicated medical devices like Essure often
proves to be challenging and complex.


BENCO DENTAL: Judge Keeps Antitrust Class Action Secret
-------------------------------------------------------
James Halpin, writing for The Citizen's Voice, reports that a
consolidated complaint being filed against Benco Dental and its
two largest competitors in a class-action antitrust lawsuit will
be secret.

At least 31 separate federal complaints by dentists across the
country have targeted the Pittston-area dental supply company in
recent months, alleging it conspired with industry giants
Patterson Cos. Inc., of St. Paul, Minnesota, and Henry Schein
Inc., of Melville, New York, to stifle competition and keep their
profit margins high.

U.S. District Judge Brian M. Cogan in Brooklyn, New York,
consolidated most of the cases into a single docket, giving the
plaintiffs until Feb. 26 to file a single amended complaint.

In a court filing, plaintiffs' attorney John Radice, of Long
Beach, New Jersey, says the defendants claim information in the
amended complaint is confidential. The motion says the plaintiffs
do not agree with all of the claims but requests permission to
file the complaint under seal.

Cogan approved the request, giving the defendants two weeks to
propose redactions for a version of the complaint that will be
made public. They will have to show a need for each redaction, he
ruled.

The dentists allege the trio of suppliers, which together hold an
estimated 80 percent share of the market, have boycotted or
threatened to boycott industry trade shows to pressure dental
associations into giving discounters the cold shoulder.

In 2015, Benco reached a $300,000 settlement with the state of
Texas over what that state's attorney general's office described
as an "illegal boycott." The company has also acknowledged being
investigated by prosecutors in Arizona as well as by the U.S.
Federal Trade Commission.

Benco officials maintain they have done nothing wrong.


BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ: Court Reopens Suit Over Kickback Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for The Legal Newsline, reports that a
federal appeals court has unsealed a lawsuit filed by a former
member of a prominent class action firm that he claims forced him
to resign for exposing a kickback scheme during the firm's
representation of a Mississippi pension fund.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ordered the
unsealing of Bruce Bernstein's now-settled lawsuit against
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman.

Bernstein alleges the firm, in the course of helping Mississippi
Attorney General Jim Hood's office represent a public employees
retirement fund, gave unnecessary work to an attorney and wife of
a member of Hood's staff that resulted in that wife being paid
more than $100,000.

Bernstein claimed he was forced to resign after blowing the
whistle and filed the lawsuit in 2014. It was to be under seal for
14 days, with a settlement coming on the 13th.

Three Second Circuit judges affirmed a district court ruling that
said the complaint must be opened to the public against objections
from both sides, who asked that it remain permanently sealed.

"(T)he complaint does not include information that is 'likely to
be embarrassing or detrimental to the client if disclosed,'" the
decision says.

"Of course, the information may be seriously embarrassing to
counsel (BLB&G and the AG's Office), but not to the client,
(Mississippi Public Employees' Retirement System).

The decision, authored by Judge John Walker, details allegations
of a kickback scheme that included more than $100,000 in legal
fees paid from Bernstein Litowitz to the wife of one of Hood's
staffers. Bernstein Litowitz had used her as local counsel in the
case.

"If anything, MPERS would appear to benefit from disclosure (of
the complaint); the worst that can be said about it is that it was
unlucky in its choice of counsel," Walker wrote.

The issue arose in Bernstein Litowitz's contract to represent
MPERS in a class action against Satyam Computer Services. MPERS
was one of four lead plaintiffs in the case.

Bernstein Litowitz used a Jackson, Miss., solo practitioner named
Vaterria Martin as local counsel. It is alleged that she was to
"occasionally check on the status of the case for MPERS, even
though (Bernstein Litowitz) was already providing this information
directly" to Hood's office.

The case was settled in principle in 2010 for $125 million. After
the settlement, Bernstein Litowitz partner Max Berger assigned an
allegedly unnecessary legal research project to Martin.

Bernstein said he objected to the project. Eventually, Martin
produced an 18-page memorandum and billed for 207 hours of work.

Bernstein said the memo drafted by Martin addressed the wrong
pleading, contained no meaningful analysis and was "ridiculous."

Martin was paid $112,500 from the funds received in the Satyam
settlement. In a 2011 fee petition to the court, it did not
disclose that payment.

As it turned out, Martin was married to DeShun Martin, then an
assistant attorney general for Mississippi. When he had protested
the unnecessary project given to Martin's wife, Bernstein says he
was told by a fellow partner, "Do you ever want us to work with
Mississippi again?"

Bernstein says he raised his concerns about what had happened in
several contentious meetings with partners at the firm and was
threatened to be blackballed if he blew the whistle.

Still, Bernstein reported his concerns to federal prosecutors in
New York City in December 2011.

After that, he says he became concerned with another agreement
with local counsel that he says did not have relevant experience
with the case.

He resigned in 2012 and claims the firm attempted to buy his
silence by offering him funds from a future settlement in another
case.

Bernstein did not file a brief regarding the unsealing of his
lawsuit but says it should remain sealed. He doesn't want to risk
unwinding the settlement.

The Second Circuit held that pleadings, even in settled cases, are
judicial records subject to a presumption of public access.

"Logical considerations also support a presumption of public
access," the decision says.

"Public access to complaints allows the public to understand the
activity of the federal courts, enhances the court system's
accountability and legitimacy, and informs the public of matters
of public concern."

Bernstein Litowitz gave $10,000 to Hood's campaign fund in 2007.
Hood also hired Vaterria Martin for a case against Standard &
Poor's, though the major firm hired for that case is Cohen
Milstein.


BHP BILLITON: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announced that a class action has
been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of purchasers of BHP Billiton Limited ("BHP Ltd.")
(NYSE: BHP) and BHP Billiton Plc ("BHP Plc") (NYSE: BBL)
(together, "BHP" or the "Company") American Depositary Receipts
("ADRs") during the period between September 25, 2014 and November
30, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from today.  If you wish to discuss this action
or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H. Rudman or
David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-
1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com.  If you are a member of
this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join
this class action online at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/bhp/.
Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges BHP and certain of its current and former
executive officers and directors with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. BHP is a leading global resources company
and is among the world's top producers of major commodities,
including iron ore, metallurgical and energy coal, conventional
and unconventional oil and gas, copper, aluminum, manganese,
uranium, nickel and silver.  The Company operates under a Dual
Listed Company structure, with parent companies BHP Ltd. and BHP
Plc operated as a single economic entity by a unified
board and management team.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
knew or recklessly disregarded the precarious condition of mining
operations and facilities at the Samarco mine, a Brazilian mining
operation jointly owned by BHP and Vale S.A., yet made materially
false and misleading statements concerning the Company's
commitment to safety and the implementation of safety and
monitoring protocols at the mine sites.

On November 5, 2015, a dam burst at the Samarco mining site,
flooding the nearby town and river with 60 million cubic meters of
mud and mine waste.  On that date and thereafter, the complaint
alleges that the price of BHP ADRs declined in concert with the
disclosure of news and analyst reports regarding the cause of the
dam failure, the Company's failure to adhere to safety standards
that defendants emphasized during the Class Period, and BHP's
potential liability and financial exposure for the dam failure.
When the truth about the Company's operations was revealed between
November 5 and 30, 2015, the price of BHP ADRs declined
significantly, harming investors.  As a result of this news, the
trading price of BHP Ltd.'s ADRs declined from $33.43 on November
4, 2015 (the day before the incident) to $26.68 on November 30,
2015 -- a decline of more than 20%.  The trading price of BHP
Plc's ADRs declined similarly, falling from $32.84 on November 4,
2015 to $24.25 on November 30, 2015 -- a decline of more than 26%.

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

Robbins Geller, with 200 lawyers in ten offices, represents U.S.
and international institutional investors in contingency-based
securities and corporate litigation.  The firm has obtained many
of the largest securities class action recoveries in history and
was ranked first in both the amount and number of shareholder
class action recoveries in ISS's SCAS Top 50 report for 2014.
Please visithttp://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/BHP/for more
information.

Contact:
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
Samuel H. Rudman, 800-449-4900
David A. Rosenfeld
djr@rgrdlaw.com


BHP BILLITON: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of BHP
Billiton Limited American Depositary Receipts (NYSE:BHP) from
September 25, 2014 through November 30, 2015, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for BHP
Billiton investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the BHP Billiton class action, go to the firm's website at
http://rosenlegal.com/cases-842.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or
Kevin Chan, Esq. toll free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for more information
on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants
issued false and misleading statements concerning BHP Billiton's
commitment to safety and the implementation of safety and
monitoring protocols at the mine sites despite knowing or
recklessly disregarding the precarious condition of mining
operations and facilities at the Samarco mine, a Brazilian mining
operation jointly owned by BHP and Vale S.A. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
April 25, 2016. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If
you wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's website at
http://rosenlegal.com/cases-842.htmlfor more information. You may
also contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of Rosen Law
Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com
orkchan@rosenlegal.com.

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

Contacts
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
Kevin Chan, Esq.
275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
kchan@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com


BLACKSTONE GROUP: "Caples" Sues over Onerous Merger Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Caples and David Romero, on behalf of themselves
and all other similarly situated stockholders of Vivint Solar,
Inc., Plaintiffs, v. Gregory S. Butterfield, Todd R. Pedersen,
Joseph S. Tibbetts, Jr., David F. D'Alessandro, Bruce Mcevoy,
Alex J. Dunn, Peter F. Wallace, The Blackstone Group L.P., 313
Acquisition LLC, Sunedison, Inc. and Sev Merger Sub Inc.,
Defendants, Case 11888 (Del. Ch., January 11, 2016), seeks
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs, expenses
including all reasonable attorneys' fees and other relief for
breach of fiduciary duties.

Vivint is a distributor of solar energy to residential customers
through various regions in the United States. It is controlled by
The Blackstone Group L.P. as majority stockholder.

The complaint says the Vivint Board made questionable merger
negotiations with SunEdison, Inc. that were disadvantageous to the
minority stockholders. Plaintiffs are owners of stock of Vivint.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremy Friedman, Esq.
      Spencer Oster, Esq.
      David Tejtel, Esq.
      FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC
      240 East 79th Street, Suite A
      New York, NY 10075
      Tel: (888) 529-1108

           - and -

      Peter B. Andrews, Esq.
      Craig J. Springer, Esq.
      David M. Sborz, Esq.
      ANDREWS & SPRINGER, LLC
      3801 Kennett Pike,
      Building C, Suite 305
      Wilmington, DE 19807
      Tel: (302) 504-4957


BUMBLE BEE: Benjamin Foods Suit Consolidated in MDL 2670
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Benjamin Foods LLC v. Bumble Bee
Foods LLC et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-04733, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
(San Diego). The Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:16-cv-00045-JLS-MDD to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Defendants conspired to fix,
raise, maintain, and/or stabilize prices for packaged seafood
products (PSPs) within the United States, its territories and the
District of Columbia in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Bumble Bee Foods produces and markets seafood products. It offers
canned and pouched tuna products, salmon products, shrimps,
sardines and mackerel products, clams, crabs, oysters, salads,
chicken, ready-to-eat kits, and specialty seafood products; and
fresh frozen seafood products. The company also provides frozen
tuna and other fish products to North American multi-unit
restaurant chains, food retailers, distributors, and value-added
processors.

The Benjamin Foods case is being consolidated with MDL 2670
in re: packaged seafood products antitrust 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 out of an alleged Conspiracy by the
Defendants -- the three largest producers of packaged seafood
products in the U.S. with an alleged collective market share of
more than 70% to fix prices of packaged seafood products.
In its December 9, 2015 Order, the MDL Panel found that the
actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization of this litigation in the Southern District of
California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation.
Presiding Judges in the MDL are Judge Gilliam, Judge Sammartino,
United States District Judges. The lead case is 3:15-md-02670-JLS-
MDD.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John M Potter, Esq.
          Sami H Rashid, Esq.
          Stephen Randall Neuwirth, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART OLIVER AND SULLIVAN, LLP
          50 California Street, 22nd Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 875 6600
          Facsimile: (415) 875 6700
          E-mail: johnpotter@quinnemanuel.com
                  samirashid@quinnemanuel.com

               - and -

          Dana Statsky Smith, Esq.
          Ronald J. Aranoff, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP
          10 East 40th Street
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 779 1414
          Facsimile: (212) 779 3218
          E-mail: dsmith@bernlieb.com
                  aranoff@bernlieb.com
                  stephenneuwirth@quinnemanuel.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Ashley M. Bauer, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS
          505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 391 0600
          Facsimile: (415) 395 8095
          E-mail: ashley.bauer@lw.com

               - and -

          Belinda S Lee, Esq.
          Daniel M. Wall, Esq.
          LATHAM AND WATKINS
          505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94111-6538
          Telephone: (415) 391 0600
          Facsimile: (415) 395 8095
          E-mail: belinda.lee@lw.com
                  dan.wall@lw.com


BUMBLE BEE: Central Grocers Suit Consolidated in MDL 2670
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Central Grocers, Inc. v. Bumble
Bee Foods, LLC et al., Case No., 3:15-cv-04241, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of.
Southern District of California (San Diego). The Southern District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-00024-JLS-MDD to the
proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Defendants conspired to raise,
fix, stabilize, or maintain prices, allocate customers, and
restrict capacity in the market for shelf-stable packaged seafood,
including tuna, clam, crab, mackerel, oyster, salmon, sardines,
and shrimp (Packaged Seafood) sold in the United States.

Bumble Bee Foods produces and markets seafood products. It offers
canned and pouched tuna products, salmon products, shrimps,
sardines and mackerel products, clams, crabs, oysters, salads,
chicken, ready-to-eat kits, and specialty seafood products; and
fresh frozen seafood products. The company also provides frozen
tuna and other fish products to North American multi-unit
restaurant chains, food retailers, distributors, and value-added
processors.

The Central Grocers case is being consolidated with MDL 2670 in
re: packaged seafood products antitrust 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 out of an alleged Conspiracy by the
Defendants--the three largest producers of packaged seafood
products in the U.S. with an alleged collective market share of
more than 70% to fix prices of packaged seafood products.
In its December 9, 2015 Order, the MDL Panel found that the
actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization of this litigation in the Southern District of
California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation.
Presiding Judges in the MDL are Judge Gilliam, Judge Sammartino,
United States District Judges. The lead case is 3:15-md-02670-JLS-
MDD.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Richard Saveri, Esq.
          JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
          555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1210
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 500 6800
          Facsimile: (415) 395 9940
          E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com

               - and -

          Solomon B Cera, Esq.
          Thomas C Bright, Esq.
          GOLD BENNETT AND CERA
          595 Market Street, Suite 2300
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2835
          Telephone: (415) 777 2230
          Facsimile: (415) 777 5189
          E-mail: scera@gbcslaw.com
                  tcb@gbcslaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
          Andrew M. Purdy, Esq.
          Matthew S. Weiler, Esq.
          JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM
          555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1210
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 500 6800
          Facsimile: (415) 395 9940
          E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
                  apurdy@saverilawfirm.com
                  mweiler@saverilawfirm.com

               - and -

          Louis Kessler, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX AND KILSTEIMER
          555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1501
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 772 4700
          E-mail: lkessler@kaplanfox.com

               - and -

          Matthew Sinclair Weiler, Esq.
          Dewey Ballantine, Esq.
          333 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2600
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 621-6000


BUMBLE BEE: Associated Grocers Suit Consolidated in MDL 2670
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Associated Grocers of Florida,
Inc. v. Bumble Bee Foods, LLC, et al, Case No. 3:15-cv-04536,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of. California, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California (San Diego). The Southern District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-00026-JLS-MDD to the
proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Defendants conspired to raise,
fix, stabilize, or maintain prices, allocate customers, and
restrict capacity in the market for shelf-stable packaged seafood,
including tuna, clam, crab, mackerel, oyster, salmon, sardines,
and shrimp (Packaged Seafood) sold in the United States.

Bumble Bee Foods produces and markets seafood products. It offers
canned and pouched tuna products, salmon products, shrimps,
sardines and mackerel products, clams, crabs, oysters, salads,
chicken, ready-to-eat kits, and specialty seafood products; and
fresh frozen seafood products. The company also provides frozen
tuna and other fish products to North American multi-unit
restaurant chains, food retailers, distributors, and value-added
processors.

The Associated Grocers case is being consolidated with MDL 2670 in
re: packaged seafood products antitrust 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 out of an alleged Conspiracy by the
Defendants--the three largest producers of packaged seafood
products in the U.S. with an alleged collective market share of
more than 70% to fix prices of packaged seafood products.
In its December 9, 2015 Order, the MDL Panel found that the
actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization of this litigation in the Southern District of
California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation.
Presiding Judges in the MDL are Judge Gilliam, Judge Sammartino,
United States District Judges. The lead case is 3:15-md-02670-JLS-
MDD.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Solomon B. Cera, Esq.
          GOLD BENNETT AND CERA
          595 Market Street, Suite 2300
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2835
          Telephone: (415) 777 2230
          Facsimile: (415) 777 5189
          E-mail: scera@gbcslaw.com


BUMBLE BEE: "Christensen" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2670
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Christensen et al. v. Bumble Bee
Foods LLC et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-04093, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
(San Diego). The Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:16-cv-00021-JLS-MDD to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly conspired to
fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize prices for packaged seafood
products within the United States, its territories and the
District of Columbia in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and
state antitrust, consumer protection and unfair competition
statutes.

Bumble Bee Foods produces and markets seafood products. It offers
canned and pouched tuna products, salmon products, shrimps,
sardines and mackerel products, clams, crabs, oysters, salads,
chicken, ready-to-eat kits, and specialty seafood products; and
fresh frozen seafood products. The company also provides frozen
tuna and other fish products to North American multi-unit
restaurant chains, food retailers, distributors, and value-added
processors.

The Christensen case is being consolidated with MDL 2670 in re:
packaged seafood products antitrust 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 out of an alleged Conspiracy by the
Defendants--the three largest producers of packaged seafood
products in the U.S. with an alleged collective market share of
more than 70% to fix prices of packaged seafood products.
In its December 9, 2015 Order, the MDL Panel found that the
actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization of this litigation in the Southern District of
California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation.
Presiding Judges in the MDL are Judge Gilliam, Judge Sammartino,
United States District Judges. The lead case is 3:15-md-02670-JLS-
MDD.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Marvin Alan Miller, Esq.
          MILLER LAW LLC
          115 South LaSalle Street, Suite 2910
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 332 3400
          Facsimile: (312) 676 2676
          E-mail: Mmiller@millerlawllc.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Ashley M. Bauer, Esq.
          Belinda S Lee, Esq.
          Daniel M. Wall, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS
          505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 391 0600
          Facsimile: (415) 395 8095
          E-mail: ashley.bauer@lw.com
                  belinda.lee@lw.com
                  dan.wall@lw.com


BUMBLE BEE: "Damske" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2670
--------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Damske et al. v. Bumble Bee Foods
LLC et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-04025, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San
Diego). The Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-
cv-00019-JLS-MDD to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly conspired to
fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize prices for packaged seafood
products within the United States, its territories and the
District of Columbia in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and
state antitrust, consumer protection and unfair competition
statutes.

Bumble Bee Foods produces and markets seafood products. It offers
canned and pouched tuna products, salmon products, shrimps,
sardines and mackerel products, clams, crabs, oysters, salads,
chicken, ready-to-eat kits, and specialty seafood products; and
fresh frozen seafood products. The company also provides frozen
tuna and other fish products to North American multi-unit
restaurant chains, food retailers, distributors, and value-added
processors.

The Damske case is being consolidated with MDL 2670 in re:
packaged seafood products antitrust 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 out of an alleged Conspiracy by the
Defendants--the three largest producers of packaged seafood
products in the U.S. with an alleged collective market share of
more than 70% to fix prices of packaged seafood products.
In its December 9, 2015 Order, the MDL Panel found that the
actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization of this litigation in the Southern District of
California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation.
Presiding Judges in the MDL are Judge Gilliam, Judge Sammartino,
United States District Judges. The lead case is 3:15-md-02670-JLS-
MDD.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marvin A. Miller, Esq.
          Andrew Szot, Esq.
          Matthew E. Van Tine, Esq.
          MILLER LAW LLC
          115 S. LaSalle St., No. 2910
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 332 3400
          Facsimile: (312) 676 2676
          E-mail: mmiller@millerlawllc.com
                  aszot@millerlawllc.com
                  mvantine@millerlawllc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Ashley M. Bauer, Esq.
          Belinda S Lee, Esq.
          Daniel M. Wall, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS
          505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 391 0600
          Facsimile: (415) 395 8095
          E-mail: ashley.bauer@lw.com
                  belinda.lee@lw.com
                  dan.wall@lw.com


BUMBLE BEE: "Waterman" Suit Moved and Consolidated in MDL 2670
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Waterman v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC
et al. Case No., 3:15-cv-04094 was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San
Diego). The Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-
cv-00022-JLS-MDD to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly conspired to
fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize prices for packaged seafood
products within the United States, its territories and the
District of Columbia in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and
state antitrust, consumer protection and unfair competition
statutes.

Bumble Bee Foods produces and markets seafood products. It offers
canned and pouched tuna products, salmon products, shrimps,
sardines and mackerel products, clams, crabs, oysters, salads,
chicken, ready-to-eat kits, and specialty seafood products; and
fresh frozen seafood products. The company also provides frozen
tuna and other fish products to North American multi-unit
restaurant chains, food retailers, distributors, and value-added
processors.

The Waterman case is being consolidated with MDL 2670 in re:
packaged seafood products antitrust 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 out of an alleged Conspiracy by the
Defendants--the three largest producers of packaged seafood
products in the U.S. with an alleged collective market share of
more than 70% to fix prices of packaged seafood products.
In its December 9, 2015 Order, the MDL Panel found that the
actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization of this litigation in the Southern District of
California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation.
Presiding Judges in the MDL are Judge Gilliam, Judge Sammartino,
United States District Judges. The lead case is 3:15-md-02670-JLS-
MDD.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marvin A. Miller, Esq.
          Andrew Szot, Esq.
          Matthew E. Van Tine, Esq.
          MILLER LAW LLC
          115 S. LaSalle St., No. 2910
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 332 3400
          Facsimile: (312) 676 2676
          E-mail: mmiller@millerlawllc.com
                  aszot@millerlawllc.com
                  mvantine@millerlawllc.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Ashley M. Bauer, Esq.
          Belinda S Lee, Esq.
          Daniel M. Wall, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS
          505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 391 0600
          Facsimile: (415) 395 8095
          E-mail: ashley.bauer@lw.com
                  belinda.lee@lw.com
                  dan.wall@lw.com


BUMBLE BEE: "Machin" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2670
--------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Machin v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC et
al., Case No. 4:15-cv-00545, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California (San
Diego).The Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-
cv-00018-JLS-MDD to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly conspired
to fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize prices for shelf-stable
seafood products (PSPs) within the United States. The PSPs refers
to shelf-stable seafood products (predominantly tuna) that are
sold in cans, pouches, or ready-to-eat serving packages.

Bumble Bee Foods produces and markets seafood products. It offers
canned and pouched tuna products, salmon products, shrimps,
sardines and mackerel products, clams, crabs, oysters, salads,
chicken, ready-to-eat kits, and specialty seafood products; and
fresh frozen seafood products. The company also provides frozen
tuna and other fish products to North American multi-unit
restaurant chains, food retailers, distributors, and value-added
processors.

The Machin case is being consolidated with MDL 2670 in re:
packaged seafood products antitrust 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 out of an alleged Conspiracy by the
Defendants--the three largest producers of packaged seafood
products in the U.S. with an alleged collective market share of
more than 70% to fix prices of packaged seafood products.
In its December 9, 2015 Order, the MDL Panel found that the
actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization of this litigation in the Southern District of
California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation.
Presiding Judges in the MDL are Judge Gilliam, Judge Sammartino,
United States District Judges. The lead case is 3:15-md-02670-JLS-
MDD.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas P. Thrash, Esq.
          Marcus N. Bozeman, Esq.
          THRASH LAW FIRM, P.A.
          1101 Garland Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 374 1058
          Facsimile: (501) 374 2222
          E-mail: tomthrash@sbcglobal.net
                  bozemanmarcus@hotmail.com


CANADA: Plaintiffs Oppose St. John's Bid to Get Victims List
------------------------------------------------------------
Connell Smith, writing for CBC News, reports that the lawyer for
the plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit is fighting an attempt by
the City of Saint John to get a list of names of people alleging
abuse by former police officer Kenneth Estabrooks.

John McKiggan told a court the names are protected by solicitor-
client privilege.

He said the people who have contacted his office may yet choose to
opt out of the court action or choose to pursue individual claims
against the municipality.

The suit was launched by Robert (Bobby) Hayes on behalf of himself
and other people allegedly abused by Mr. Estabrooks between 1953
and 1998.

The suit lists the City of Saint John, its police commission and
the city police department as defendants.

Mr. Estabrooks was a Saint John police sergeant.  When confronted
in 1975, he admitted to sexually abusing children but was not
charged or fired.

Instead, he was transferred out of the police department into the
city works department, where he was in charge of tire maintenance
for city vehicles until he retired.

In 1997, after new complainants came forward, a formal
investigation was launched resulting in his conviction.

He was sentenced to six years in prison. He died in 2005.

Mr. McKiggan argued before Court of Queen's Bench Justice William
Grant the city is over-reaching in its application for the names.

He argued there is no reason anyone would need them at this stage
unless they intended to "harass, intimidate and investigate my
clients in advance."

Speaking to reporters after the Feb. 29 hearing, Mr. McKiggan
would not say how many individuals have approached his firm, only
that the number is "significant."

In September 2013, a private investigator hired by the city said
53 individuals had contacted him alleging they were sexually
abused by Mr. Estabrooks.

But the total number of victims, said Dave Perry of Toronto-based
Investigative Solutions, could be as high as 263.

A need for separate class actions

The city is represented in the case by lawyer Michael Brenton, who
told the court his clients are trying to sort out whether claims
are being filed by people alleging abuse while
Mr. Estabrooks was a police officer, while he was a city works
employee, or during the period after Mr. Estabrooks retired in
1984.

Mr. Brenton said Mr. Estabrooks' relationship with the city during
each period is different and he argued there may be a need for
three separate class actions, rather than one covering 45 years.

"We say the class period [1953 to 1998] may be too broad," said
Mr. Brenton.

He told the court his clients would accept, if necessary, a number
or some other type of identifier for each individual, instead of
the person's name.

All sides are scheduled to be in court in July for a certification
motion to determine whether the case may proceed as a class
action.

"We'd like to have the information in advance so we know what
we're dealing with," said Mr. Brenton.


CAPITOL VALLEY ELECTRIC: "Brooks" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Brooks, Plaintiff, v. Capitol Valley Electric Inc.
and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case CIV536903 (Cal.
Super., San Mateo County, January 12, 2016), seeks overtime
compensation with prejudgment interest, damages for failing to
provide rest periods pursuant to Labor Code Sec. 226.7 and Wage
Order No. 7- 2001, Sec. 11(B), statutory penalties pursuant to
Labor Code Section 226 and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
for violations of California Labor Code Section 512 and Industrial
Wage Order 16-2001.

Capitol Valley Electric Inc. is a corporation organized under the
laws of California with its principal place of business in the
county of Sacramento. It is an electrical subcontractor on multi-
unit commercial and residential building projects for general
contractors.

Plaintiff claims to have worked through meal and rest breaks,
rendered in excess of 40 hours per workweek without overtime
compensation and did not receive any wage statements.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Frank E. Mayo, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF FRANK E. MAYO
      4962 El Camino Real Suite 104
      Los Altos, CA 94022
      Tel: (650) 964 8901


CARESOUTH HHA HOLDINGS: "Simpson" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
Linda Simpson and Tera Miller, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Caresouth HHA Holdings,
LLC, Defendant, Case 3:16-cv-00079 (M.D. Tenn., January 25, 2016),
seeks compensation for all unpaid and underpaid wages, prejudgment
interest, liquidated damages, litigation costs, expenses and
attorneys' fees and other and further relief for violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant is a Georgia corporation headquartered at One Tenth
Street, Suite 500, Augusta Georgia 30901. It has forty five home
health and hospice operations across seven states.

Plaintiffs attend to the patients during home visits homes,
charting patient visits and completing other mandatory paperwork,
making phone calls to doctors and patients, driving between
patient homes, office and the laboratory during the workday,
attending mandatory meetings and training sessions and performing
various office duties. These activities routinely took over 50
hours per week and the Defendant denied of them of overtime pay
due, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jerry E. Martin, Esq.
      David W. Garrison, Esq.
      Scott P. Tift, Esq.
      Seth M. Hyatt, Esq.
      Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
      BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON LLC
      414 Union Street, Suite 900
      Nashville, TN 37219
      Tel: (615) 244-2202
      Fax: (615) 252-3798
      Email: jmartin@barrettjohnston.com
             dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
             stift@barrettjohnston.com
             shyatt@barrettjohnston.com
             jfrank@barrettjohnston.com

           - and -

      Peter Winebrake, Esq.
      R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
      WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
      715 Twining Road, Suite 211
      Dresher, PA 19025
      Tel: (215) 884-2491
      Fax: (215) 884-2492
      Email: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com
             asantillo@winebrakelaw.com


CHARLES SCHWAB: Averts Bond Fund Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Greene, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that
Dechert litigators Matthew Larrabee and Joshua Hess plus
co-counsel from Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan scored a win for
Charles Schwab Investment Management and the trustees of the
Schwab Total Bond Fund, killing a would-be class action that had
dragged on for eight years.

On Feb. 23, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh of the Northern District
of California dismissed Northstar Financial Advisors Inc.'s
complaint (which had already been amended four times) with
prejudice, putting an end to a case that was appealed twice to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Northstar first sued Schwab in 2008 seeking $150 million in
damages.  Represented by Berman DeValerio, Greenbaum Rowe Smith &
Davis, Wolf Popper and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, the investment
manager argued that Schwab breached state law fiduciary and
contract duties owed to shareholders by investing too aggressively
during the financial crisis.

Northstar claimed that the Schwab Total Bond Market Fund was
supposed to track the Lehman Brothers U.S. Aggregate Bond Index,
but instead bought much riskier collateralized mortgage
obligations.  According to Northstar, this resulted in a negative
return of 4.8 percent for the period of Sept. 1, 2007, through
Feb. 27, 2009, compared with a positive return of 7.85 percent for
the Lehman Index over this same period.

Schwab originally retained Morrison & Foerster as counsel.  The
company brought the Dechert team on board in 2015, and firm
lawyers were lead counsel in the successful motion for judgment on
the pleadings.  They joined Quinn partners John Potter --
johnpotter@quinnemanuel.com -- Karin Kramer --
karinkramer@quinnemanuel.com -- Patrick Doolittle --
patrickdoolittle@quinnemanuel.com -- and Richard Schirtzer as co-
counsel to the fund trustees.

The key question before Judge Koh (who, according to sibling
publication The Recorder, is about to be tapped for a spot on the
Ninth Circuit): Was Northstar's cause of action precluded by the
Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998?

"The central theme in Northstar's five complaints is that
defendants committed a misrepresentation or omission of material
fact because defendants promised to manage the fund according to
certain fundamental investment objectives, but did not actually do
so," Judge Koh wrote.

She found that such allegations are precluded by the act, which
bars private plaintiffs from bringing a class action based on
state law claims alleging a misrepresentation or omission in
connection with the purchase or sale of securities.

Northstar argued that its breach of fiduciary duty claims didn't
require proof of a material misrepresentation or omission, but
Judge Koh didn't buy it.  "Northstar's fiduciary duty claims have
hinged upon and continue to hinge upon the same material
misrepresentation or omission, even though Northstar has now filed
five complaints," she wrote.  "The court finds that providing
Northstar additional leave to amend would be futile."


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Under DoJ Investigations Over E.Coli Outbreak
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rebekah Mintzer, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that
customers hungry for a burrito or taco last fall in Washington
state or Oregon may have reached the door of their local Chipotle
Mexican Grill Inc. restaurant only to find the following sign:
"FYI: We are sorry.  But we are temporarily closed due to a supply
chain issue.  We will reopen as soon as possible."

A "supply chain issue" sounds fairly harmless, but what was
actually happening at the Denver-based, fast-casual food company
was anything but.  Chipotle temporarily shuttered 43 restaurants
in the two states because of an E. coli outbreak linked to its
restaurants.

And the mess stretched far beyond just the Pacific Northwest and
the E. coli bug.  Salmonella, norovirus and E. coli traced back to
Chipotle's Tex-Mex-themed chain restaurants wrecked havoc in 2015
from coast to coast, sickening more than 500 people.

The consequences for Chipotle, which declined to comment for this
report, have been severe.  Between October and December 2015, its
stock price plummeted 22 percent, and the company's image as a
more wholesome alternative to other fast-food chains (one Chipotle
tagline: "food with integrity") is under fire.  Consumers sickened
by Chipotle have filed civil lawsuits, and shareholders have filed
securities class actions, claiming that the company duped them
about its food safety practices.  But what may be even more
disturbing from the perspective of the company's legal department
is that in Simi Valley, California, Chipotle has received a grand
jury subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice along with the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration, seeking information about a
norovirus outbreak that happened there.

Chipotle might be the highest-profile company under investigation
by the DOJ for distributing contaminated food, but it isn't the
only one.  Just days before Chipotle's Jan. 6 disclosure of the
probe in a regulatory filing, a leak to news outlets revealed that
Blue Bell Creameries, the fifth-largest ice cream producer in the
U.S., is under investigation over a listeria outbreak linked to
three deaths and 10 illnesses.  Other food companies may also be
under DOJ investigation, but as private companies, they haven't
had to disclose to the public.

For Chipotle, Blue Bell and others, DOJ investigations could lead
to criminal sanctions.  This could be through prosecution of the
company as a whole.  In 2015, for instance, Omaha-based ConAgra
Foods Inc. pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges for its role in a
salmonella outbreak and paid the government a $11.2 million
criminal fine.

But a spate of recent cases shows that the DOJ is also targeting
food company executives in criminal prosecutions.  This new avenue
of legal action, virtually unused by the federal government in the
food safety realm until the last few years, is making company
officials sit up and take notice.  With the very real possibility
of prison time now on the table, even deep corporate pockets won't
be of much help to food company leaders if their companies'
practices sicken consumers or kill them.

Shawn Stevens, an attorney whose firm, Food Industry Counsel,
exclusively defends companies in food safety cases, sees a
profound shift occurring.  "The world has changed overnight," he
says.  "It used to be that we were worried about civil and
regulatory liability.  But for the first time ever, executives
have to worry about going to jail."

For the consumer, of course, eating contaminated food is no small
threat.  According to the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, foodborne illness, whether infection is limited to
just a few people or expands to hundreds, happens frequently and
all too often proves fatal.  In 2014, the CDC estimated that
around 48 million Americans get sick per year from contaminated
food, and about 3,000 die.  Many fatalities are young children,
the elderly and others with compromised immune systems.

The awareness of the frequency and potential severity of foodborne
illness has grown dramatically in the last 20 years. Many experts
believe the turning point came in 1993, when popular outrage
followed the revelation that E. coli-tainted meat from San Diego-
based, fast-food chain Jack in the Box Inc. had infected 732
people.  The outbreak killed four children under the age of 10,
and left 178 other victims with permanent health problems,
including brain and kidney damage.

Bill Marler, managing partner at law firm Marler Clark, was one of
the attorneys who sued Jack in the Box on behalf of victims. He
says that in the decades since this disaster, public attention on
food safety has increased.  Consumer lawsuits have also become
more common when an outbreak occurs.  "I think it's a combination
of Jack in the Box and the Internet that have led to consumers
having way more information about when there's an outbreak and who
is doing what," says Mr. Marler, who is perhaps the best known
plaintiffs attorney for foodborne illness in the country. Mr.
Marler has sued giants such as ConAgra, McDonalds Corp. and Subway
Inc. on behalf of consumers.  He is suing Chipotle over its recent
outbreaks.

Despite this uptick in litigation and awareness, it has only been
in the last four years that the government has turned up the
prosecutorial heat on food executives.  Stuart Delery, acting
associate attorney general of the U.S., has articulated this new
focus.  "We've made clear to people in the industry that the
safety of the public is important, and where [executives] are
responsible for an outbreak, and we can make the showings we need
to make under the law, we will hold them individually
accountable," he says.

This focus on the individual matches up well with recent guidance
from the DOJ. U.S. deputy attorney general Sally Yates explained
in a September 2015 memo that the department will focus on
individuals' culpability in future cases, and will refuse to give
companies cooperation credit unless relevant facts about
individual misconduct are disclosed.

Mr. Delery confirms that the Yates memo will be a consideration
when looking at foodborne illness cases going forward.  "It
obviously won't always be the case that criminal prosecution is
appropriate, or even where a criminal prosecution or resolution is
appropriate, that it would be appropriate to pursue individuals,"
he explains.  "But that is something we will have our eye on in
this area."


COLUMBIA GAS: 6th Cir. Reviews First-to-File Rule in Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Jennewine, Esq., of Squire Patton Boggs, in an article for
Lexology, reports that the first-to-file rule is a doctrine that
has grown out of the need to manage overlapping litigation across
multiple courts.  The doctrine provides that when actions
involving nearly identical parties and issues have been filed in
two different district courts, the court that first acquires
jurisdiction usually retains the suit to the exclusion of the
other court. Courts generally evaluate three factors when applying
the first-to-file rule: 1) the chronology of the events, 2) the
similarity of the parties involved, and 3) the similarity of the
issues or claims at stake. In addition to the three factors,
courts will also determine if equitable considerations merit not
applying the first-to-file rule.

The Sixth Circuit reviewed the application of the first-to-file
rule in Baatz, et al. v. Columbia Gas Transmission. A group of
almost 40 landowners in Medina, Ohio brought suit against Columbia
Gas Transmission in the Northern District of Ohio.  Just over a
year and a half earlier, another group of landowners, who have not
yet been certified as a class, brought a class action against
Columbia in the Southern District of Ohio. Both the Medina case
and the class action include claims of inverse condemnation under
the Natural Gas Act.  Due to the similarities between the two
claims, Columbia moved to dismiss the Medina claim, arguing that
the class action was the first filed and that the Medina
landowners should litigate their claims in that action.  The
district court agreed and dismissed the case.

The Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court's decision under an
abuse of discretion standard.  While acknowledging that all three
factors of the first-to-file rule were satisfied in this case and
that there were no equitable considerations that justified not
applying the first-to-file rule, the Sixth Circuit nevertheless
found that the dismissal of the Medina claim was an abuse of
discretion.  While the Sixth Circuit recognized that the district
court has the discretion to dismiss a duplicative action, it
agreed with the Seventh Circuit that "a district court can abuse
its discretion by dismissing a case under the first-to-file rule
when doing so could adversely affects the party's interest."

The Sixth Circuit's decision in Baatz that a dismissal is not
appropriate under the first-to-file rule when the party will be
adversely affected by the decision is in line with both the Fifth
Circuit and the Seventh Circuit.  The decision represents an
interesting interpretation moving forward because the Sixth
Circuit made it very clear that "this is not one of those rare
cases" where equitable considerations justify not applying the
first-to-file rule.  However, the decision to vacate the district
court's dismissal was based on the separate equitable
considerations, namely the realization that dismissal would
adversely affect the Medina landowner's interests.  The court's
decision seems to represent a conscious desire to avoid
unnecessarily inequitable consequences of the application of the
first-to-file rule, whether that may be the actual application of
the rule or when determining how a duplicative case should be
handled.


COOK MEDICAL: Faces Two Class Actions in Canada Over IVC Filters
----------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Woods, writing for Injury Lawyer News, reports that two
class action lawsuits have been formed against Cook Medical in
Canada, resulting from allegations that the manufacturer's
inferior vena cava filters are faulty. Plaintiffs claim the small
cone-shaped devices broke apart inside their bodies, which
resulted in excruciating complications.

One of the plaintiffs, Wendy Kopeck, has a Cook Medical IVC filter
implanted in August 2013.  Doctors inserted the device as a
precautionary measure to prevent a PE from forming if a blood clot
in her leg moved in the direction of her heart or lungs. When Ms.
Kopeck underwent surgery to have the IVC filter removed in
October, her doctors realized proceeding with the procedure was
too much of a risk.

Results of a subsequent PET scan exposed a broken filter inside
the body of the Reed Deer, Alta. woman, with one of the device's
legs impaling her internal jugular vein and the remainder shifting
into the small intestines.  Since she cannot have the broken
filter removed, Kopeck is now forced to take blood thinners
forever. She now lives in fear that it's only a matter of time
until the device kills her.

In January, Ms. Kopeck and her husband filed a class action
lawsuit seeking $200 million in damages from Cook Medical,
claiming she was not warned about potential IVC filter
complications prior to implementation.

Canadians file second class action against Cook Medical
On February 22, Arie Kulper formed another class action against
the manufacturer, claiming his doctors have made two unsuccessful
attempts to remove his IVC filter and a third is scheduled at the
end of the month.  In his claim, Mr. Kulper alleges that he has
suffered from dizzy spells and doctors have informed him of the
possibility that his device is gradually clogging, which is
obstructing blood flow.

The Courtice, Ont. man is asking for $500,000 in damages for every
patient that has one of the company's IVC filters and an
additional $20 million in damages.

Similar IVC filter lawsuits have been filed in the U.S. involving
the G2 filter, manufactured by C.R. Bard, which is also available
in Canada.

IVC filter implementation

The inferior vena cava is the body's largest vein.  It is
responsible for moving de-oxygenated blood from the lower
extremities of the body to the heart's right atrium, subsequently
proceeding into the lungs.

An IVC filter is implanted in the inferior vena cava to catch an
embolism and keep it from reaching the heart or lungs.  When the
device functions properly, it eliminates the potential of an
embolism blocking a pulmonary artery -- known as pulmonary
embolism -- which can cause chest pains, trouble breathing and can
even result in death. When a clot enters the IVC filter, the
device effectively sanctions the flow of blood around it and it
eventually breaks down.

IVC filters are commonly implanted if anticoagulants fail to stop
the development of pulmonary emboli or deep vein thrombosis, and
in patients who cannot take blood thinning medications.


COOPER TIRE: 3rd. Circ Hears Oral Arguments in Merger Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Matt Fair, Matt Chiappardi and Linda Chiem, writing for Law360,
report that a Delaware federal judge improperly limited his
analysis when he agreed to dismiss a putative class action from
investors accusing Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. of obscuring potential
roadblocks to its now-failed $2.5 billion merger with Apollo Tyres
Ltd., the Third Circuit heard during oral arguments on March 1.

Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP attorney James Harrod
-- jim.harrod@blbglaw.com -- told a three-judge panel in
Philadelphia that the district court had improperly narrowed his
analysis of the sweeping class action to individual allegations,
rather than looking more broadly for potential knowledge of
wrongdoing -- also known as scienter -- by Cooper in statements it
made to investors before the proposed merger with Apollo fell
apart.

"One of the principle errors that we see in the district court's
decision was that he looked at scienter on a statement-by-
statement basis, basically took those facts as they related to a
specific statement in insolation, and didn't consider them
holistically as the Supreme Court and this court and other courts
had acknowledged is the proper methodology," he said.

A group of investors filed suit in January 2014 alleging that
Cooper and its chairman hid the risks behind the $2.5 billion all-
cash deal -- in which Apollo first offered to buy Cooper for $35
per share -- by touting it as an unbeatable offer.

The plaintiffs alleged that Cooper's top brass knew, yet hid from
investors and the public, that the Chinese joint venture partner
in Cooper's most important subsidiary, Cooper Chengshan Tire Co.
Ltd., vigorously opposed the transaction, had the ability to
thwart the deal, and demanded as much as $400 million in exchange
for agreeing to not block the Apollo deal.

While the deal was announced in June 2013, it fell apart six
months later after hitting major snags including a strike by
workers at the Chinese facility, Apollo having to renegotiate
labor contracts for Cooper's Arkansas and Ohio plants after the
union filed grievances, and litigation over potential breaches of
the merger agreement in Delaware state court.

U.S. District Judge Richard Andrews dismissed the investors' case
in July after asking the plaintiffs to submit to the court five of
what they believed to be the biggest misrepresentations or
omissions by Cooper in the run-up to the merger's collapse.

The plaintiffs argued in their brief that this attempt to limit
the analysis resulted in many other allegations being entirely
ignored.

On March 1, Judge Kent Jordan pressed Mr. Harrod on whether the
investors had properly objected to the district court's approach
to the case.

"I'm trying to find where you said to the district court, 'Wait a
second, this is unfair to us, we have five additional things for
you to look at and you really do need to look at these five
additional things,'" he said.

Geoffrey Ritts -- gjritts@jonesday.com -- an attorney with Jones
Day representing Cooper, told the panel there was nothing improper
about the district court's attempts to organize the allegations
leveled by the investors.

"There was nothing unreasonable about asking the parties to focus
on what the plaintiffs themselves thought were the strongest
allegations in their complaint and then to hear over two hours of
argument on that," he said.

Mr. Ritts, however, also faced tough questioning over whether a
statement from an August 2013 proxy statement expressing continued
confidence in Cooper's ability to close the merger could be
considered misleading given the company's lack of control over
financial information from their Chinese subsidiary.

"Common sense tells you that most mergers aren't going to go
through if you don't have key financial information," Judge Thomas
Ambro said.

Judge Ambro suggested that the case could be remanded in order to
allow for discovery and summary judgment motions.

"Why decide this on a motion to dismiss?" he asked.  "Why not
allow at least additional information to be gathered through
discovery and then possibly have this case decided, if it can be,
at a motion for summary judgment?"

The panel said it would take the matter under advisement.

The case was argued for the plaintiffs by James Harrod of
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP.

The case was argued for Cooper by Geoffrey Ritts of Jones Day.

The case is OFI Asset Management et al. v. Cooper Tire & Rubber et
al., case number 15-2664, before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit.


CRYPTSY: Updated Class Action Lawsuit Names New Defendant
---------------------------------------------------------
Gola Yashu, writing for NewsBTC, reports the class action lawsuit
filed against Bitcoin exchange Cryptsy has just been updated with
the name of one more defendant.

The updated lawsuit filed by Silver Law Group (SLG) and Wites &
Kapetan names Lorie Ann Nettles -- Paul Vernon's former wife -- as
the new defendant. It says that both the individuals, who operated
an online business for public to trade and exchange Bitcoin and
similar cryptocurrencies, prevented customers from accessing
around $USD5 million worth of assets. Instead, the defendants
misused these funds for their own business and personal use,
including the cash purchase of a $USD1 million worth waterfront
villa in West Palm Beach, Florida.

The lawsuit goes on accusing that Vernon and Nettles took part in
a deceptive marriage resolution to improperly transfer the said
villa's ownership to Nettles. The marriage dissolution, according
to the available court documents, was concluded within four
months.

The accusations made in the lawsuit has brought Vernon and Nettles
under the purview of multiple criminal charges, including Claims
for Negligence, Conversion of Funds and Property, Violation of
Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practice Act, and Unjust
Enrichment.

"The class action lawsuit is pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida under Case No. 9:16-cv-
80060," SLG confirmed via mail.
A Look into Cryptsy's Past

Cryptsy was launched in 2013 under the flag of Project Investors
Inc, owned and operated by Paul Vernon. The new Bitcoin exchange
later registered itself with the Financial Crimes Enforcement
Network (FinCEN) as a "Money Services Business", which
legitimately enabled it to solicit public to register, deposit and
trade bitcoin and other digital currencies for fiat.

In May 2015, Cryptsy reported on its blogpost that millions of
dollars in customers' funds were disappeared from its online
wallets. During the same time, many customers and media outlets
accused Cryptsy of not complying with the FinCEN regulations after
discovering that it never filed a Suspicious Activity Report with
the regulators after the "alleged theft" of $USD5 million.

Sometime around November 2015, many of Cryptsy customers reported
of difficulties in withdrawing funds from Cryptsy accounts. Vernon
however blamed it on a "server failure" and assured the issue will
be resolved. In another tweet, he said the official website
www.cryptsy.com had faced a DDOS attack.

Two days after the commencement of lawsuit -- on January 15th 2016
-- Cryptsy admitted on its blog that it had concealed facts
regarding the insolvency of $USD5 million from customers and
regulators. The exchange also admitted that it had lied to
customers about the nature of the problems all this time. Vernon
however tried to reason with customers, saying that he didn't want
to cause any panic. He also sought help from the Bitcoin community
to recover the lost funds.


CRYPTSY: Founder's Ex-Wife Likely Involved in Lost Funds
--------------------------------------------------------
James Moreau, writing for CCN.LA, reports that in what has been
one strange and cryptic piece of news after another about the
troubles that Cryptsy and its founder have been surrounded by, an
update of the class action lawsuit against them has been released
and it expands the subjects of whom is liable for the lost assets
over the past year and a half.

In what seems to be a mixture of both information compiled from
Cryptsy's last updates of their blog, the founder Paul Vernon's
Twitter account and some individually investigated findings, the
class-action lawsuit's updates increase the level of criminal
allegations against Cryptsy substantially.

In the updated class-action lawsuit originally filed by Silver Law
Group, more details were released support the original assertions
leveled against Vernon and Cryptsy.  These details stem from his
recent divorce filings with ex-wife Lorie Ann Nettles.  Ms.
Nettles, whose name is now listed among the defendants with Mr.
Vernon and Cryptsy, divorced from Mr. Vernon a few months after
they made an all-cash purchase of a $1,374,881 waterfront mansion
in Palm Beach County, Florida in March 2015.

This added information is alarming due to the nature of the
timeline and publicized information that Vernon has publicly
admitted to on his company blog, on Twitter and as well in several
court documents which show Vernon's admittance that Cryptsy was
insolvent and likely to go out of business.

Vernon attempted to claim that he was attempting to locate the
funds through his own brand of vigilante justice on his blog and
that he was nervous to disclose to authorities that his company
had lost $5,000,000 in Bitcoin of their customer's assets.  He's
also made small attempts to show that Cryptsy is slowly working to
open up and un-freeze some wallets within their system so that
some customers can withdraw remaining funds.

However, the class-action lawsuit suggests that all of this is a
complex, but not well-masked ploy on behalf of Mr. Vernon and his
ex-wife Nettles to move assets away from Cryptsy into private
hands so that when the company did go under, Nettles would be in
possession of a large amount of the $5,000,000 which went missing
through Mr. Vernon's activities.

The lawsuit makes no qualms about stating outright that those
filing this claim don't believe anything that Mr. Vernon has said
about being the victim of online theft and that he has in fact
stolen this money for his and in extension, his ex-wife's personal
use.


DALLAS, TX: Sued Over Proposed Ban of Porn Convention
-----------------------------------------------------
H. Drew Blackburn, writing for Texas Monthly, reports that the
bizarre saga of the Exxxotica sex expo in Dallas continues.

In February, the Dallas City Council voted 8-7 to ban the expo
from returning to the the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center
in May. This effort was led by Dallas' self appointed "Chief Brand
Officer," Mayor Mike Rawlings. In an unsurprising move, the expo
is now suing, and the city's prudishness might have rolled out the
red carpet for a class action lawsuit.

Surprisingly, the first entity to sue Dallas over banning
Exxxotica wasn't the expo itself, but a potential patron and
vendor. Or, as the Dallas Morning News put it, just a guy that
wanted to go. Chino Salas, owner of Gentlemen's Texas Magazine and
ToplessFinder.com, is seeking a temporary and permanent injunction
that would ban Dallas from, uh, banning Exxxotica. Salas's
attorney, Gary Krupkin, said that it's a "possibility this might
turn into a class-action suit where the city could be prosecuted
by everybody who would like to attend Exxxotica." Krupkin noted
that what "Exxxotica would file would be a suit particular to
them. My suit offers the possibility of having other class members
join at some point in the future." So, Dallas could see itself
sued by vendors, patrons, participants, and Exxxotica over a porn
convention.

It didn't seem like a lawsuit was Exxxotica's end goal; it just
wanted to have its sexpo in peace. This is made apparent by an
ultimatum (or plea, however you want to slice it) sent out by the
Exxxotica organizer's attorney, Roger Albright, and an open letter
by Exxxotica to the city of Dallas. Albright, by the way, has been
on the city's public transportation board and was the city plan
commissioner. In his letter he says he has been "personally,
professionally and positively involved with the city for over four
decades. This is not a litigation I want to file nor do I think
it's in the best interest of the City. Our collective tax dollars
can be much more wisely spent than hiring yet more lawyers to
defend what I consider an unnecessary lawsuit and/or presumably
paying my fees as might be awarded by the Court."

Essentially, if the council overturned the ban during a meeting,
bygones would be bygones and chain and whips would excite
thousands of people at the convention center in May. But alas,
that didn't happen and a lawsuit has officially been filed.

Meanwhile, Exxotica's biggest competitor, Adultcon, has inquired
about available dates at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention
Center. They did this one day after Dallas banned Exxxotica.
Potentially, here's another lawsuit, or maybe Dallas will just
give up and stop fighting for purity.


DOW CHEMICAL: Growing Political Uncertainties Prompt Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lydia Wheeler, writing for The Hill, reports that the vacancy on
the Supreme Court left by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia is
shaking up the legal system and forcing some attorneys to rethink
their litigation strategy.

A dramatic example came on Feb. 26, when Dow Chemical Co. settled
a class-action lawsuit for $835 million.  The company cited
uncertainties on the Supreme Court in announcing its decision.

"Growing political uncertainties due to recent events within the
Supreme Court and increased likelihood for unfavorable outcomes
for business involved in class-action suits have changed Dow's
risk assessment of the situation," the company said in a
statement.

"Dow believes this settlement is the right decision for the
company and our shareholders."

Dow, which is in the midst of merging with Dupont, had appealed to
the Supreme Court after a federal jury found it guilty of
conspiring to inflate polyurethane prices. A judge issued a $1.06
billion judgment against the company.

In its petition, the company cited multiple violations of class-
action law and asked the high court to set aside the judgment.

With Justice Scalia's death, the Supreme Court lost its leading
conservative and a member known for pro-business rulings.  His
death has created an even split between liberal and conservative
justices that legal experts predict will lead to a slew of 4-4
ties in the months ahead.

"Between 20 to 30 percent of all cases over the last few years
have been divided 5-4," said Jake Faleschini, director of the
Courts Program for Legal Progress at the Center for American
Progress. "And in 20 to 30 percent of all cases this term and next
term, the court will not be able to come to a consensus."

The possibility of deadlock on the Supreme Court is likely to
change the way some attorneys litigate, because in the case of a
4-4 tie, the lower court ruling stands.

"It will certainly lead to much more jurisdiction picking, where
attorneys pick the circuit where they think they're going to win,"
Mr. Faleschini said.

But that strategy could prove difficult, with a number of lower
circuit courts stacked with Democratic appointments seen as less
friendly to business.

"The courts have been the backstop to the executive overreach and
regulatory overreach over the last seven years to a greater
extent, and there are very few circuits left that, generally
speaking, are favorable from a management perspective," said
Michael Lotito, who co-chairs the Workplace Policy Institute at
Littler Mendelson P.C.

"The last hope was to go to the Supreme Court, and that's being
put into serious question."

Cases that could now face a tougher climb, Mr. Lotito said,
include a challenge to the National Labor Relation Board's "ambush
election" rule that's now before the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals
and a petition before the Supreme Court asking the justices to
weigh the legality of the Obama administration's decision to make
homecare providers eligible for minimum wages and overtime pay.

"I think the appointment, or the inability to appoint someone and
the significance of this election, is so incredibly important and
far-reaching," Mr. Lotito said.  "I don't think the country has
completely grasped what's at stake here."

While some court watchers accept the Dow Chemical litigation as a
casualty of Scalia's vacancy, others are skeptical of the
company's explanation.

To settle a case of that size, Paul Bland, executive director of
Public Justice, said Dow would have had to hammer out the vast
majority of the settlement terms before Scalia died on Feb. 13.

"I think they are looking for a way to spin it politically," he
said. "I don't think they are sincere."

Dow's case before the Supreme Court was pending a decision in
Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Peg Bouaphakeo, et al.  In that case, the
justices were asked to weigh new limits on class-action lawsuits.

In oral arguments in November, the justices seemed skeptical of
requiring that all members of a class-action lawsuit show injuries
to have a legal right to damages. Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is
known as the court's swing voter, appeared to side with the
court's more liberal wing.  Justice Kennedy said he couldn't
understand the company's argument.

Though an opinion is still pending in the Tyson case, Bland
predicts the company will lose -- and a loss for Tyson is a loss
for Dow.

Though Dow did not admit to any wrongdoing in its settlement,
Bland believes it cited Scalia to distract the public from a
violation of anti-trust laws.

"Dow would have lost regardless," he said.


DOW CHEMICAL: Settlement Decision Encouraging for Plaintiffs Bar
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that The Dow Chemical Co. has agreed to pay $835 million to settle
price-fixing litigation over urethane sales, citing uncertainties
about the prospects of class actions before the U.S. Supreme Court
given the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.

The Feb. 26 announcement comes as Dow, represented by Carter
Phillips of Sidley Austin, had petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court
to overturn a $1.06 billion judgment against it in multidistrict
litigation brought by a class of purchasers of urethane, which is
used in everything from mattress pads to car seats.

Dow's decision is encouraging news to the plaintiffs bar that
other defendants in the same procedural situation will make
similar moves, faced with the uncertainty of the Supreme Court.
Dow's petition was on hold pending the outcome of a separate case,
Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo, a class action brought over wage-and-
hour violations in which the Supreme Court held oral arguments on
Nov. 10.

In both cases, the defendants made broad arguments against class
actions -- in particular, the growing concern about statistical
formulas used by plaintiffs attorneys to demonstrate classwide
damages.

"Growing political uncertainties due to recent events within the
Supreme Court and increased likelihood for unfavorable outcomes
for business involved in class action suits have changed Dow's
risk assessment of the situation," the company said. "Dow believes
this settlement is the right decision for the company and our
shareholders."

With Justice Scalia's death, Dow faced a predicament: If the
Supreme Court granted the petition, it could have waited until the
unknown ninth justice got appointed to hear the case, said
plaintiffs attorney Irving Scher -- ischer@hausfeld.com -- a
former chair of the American Bar Association's Section of
Antitrust who is not connected to the case. On the other hand, Mr.
Scher said, "If they deny cert, then you have a $1.06 billion
judgment that's final."  Mr. Scher is senior counsel to Hausfeld
in Washington.

Dow's predicament left some plaintiffs attorneys cautiously
optimistic that other defendants could make similar moves,
particularly in class actions -- although that's far from definite
given the uncertainties surrounding Scalia's replacement, said

Paul Bland, executive director of Public Justice in Washington.
"That's the first case I'm aware of that that reaction is
triggered," Mr. Bland said. "Hopefully, there should be others."

Justice Scalia was a powerful voice against class actions on the
Supreme Court.  In its petition, Dow cited two of the Supreme
Court's most pivotal class action decisions -- the 2011 ruling in
Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes and a 2013 opinion in Comcast v. Behrend
-- both of which Justice Scalia authored.

But observers of the oral arguments in Tyson Foods found the
justices to be less focused on the broader class action issue.
That doesn't mean the same issue won't resurface.  A spokesman for
the American Tort Reform Association, which filed amicus briefs in
both Dow and Tyson Foods, said it would continue to support
petitions that bring similar challenges before the Supreme Court.

"ATRA hopes that, despite its current vacancy, the Supreme Court
will continue to take and decide cases with an eye toward reducing
costly class action abuses," said spokesman Darren McKinney.

The judgment against Dow was the largest verdict in 2013. U.S.
District Judge John Lungstrum, applying antitrust law, trebled a
$400 million jury verdict awarded to a class of 2,400 companies
that purchased urethane from Dow.  He then reduced the judgment to
reflect prior settlements with other defendants.  The U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the judgment.
Dow, in its statement, said it "continues to strongly believe that
it was not part of any conspiracy" and noted that its settlement
was conditioned on the Supreme Court holding its petition in
abeyance and on Lungstrum approving the deal.


DOW CHEMICAL: Some Politics Behind Settlement, Bland Says
---------------------------------------------------------
Perry Cooper, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that Dow Chemical
Co. announced Feb. 26 that it will settle a major antitrust class
action pending before the U.S. Supreme Court in light of Justice
Antonin Scalia's death less than two weeks ago. One prominent
consumer advocate, however, says a fair amount of spin could be at
play here.

Dow cited "growing political uncertainties due to recent events
within the Supreme Court and increased likelihood for unfavorable
outcomes for business involved in class action suits" in its
statement announcing the $835 million deal (Dow Chem. Co. v.
Indus. Polymers Inc., U.S., No. 14-1091, settlement announced
2/26/16).

But F. Paul Bland Jr., executive director of Public Justice, which
often supports consumers in class action cases, said that there
might be some politics behind the settlement's announcement.

"There's something political going on outside of the legal
calculus that made them issue this press release saying, 'We
settled this case because of Justice Scalia,'" Mr. Bland told
Bloomberg BNA.

Dow is hoping the Senate will hold fast and not move forward on
any nominee President Barack Obama may appoint to replace Scalia,
Bland said. An Obama nominee isn't likely to be as hostile to
class actions as Scalia was.

A Dow spokesperson didn't respond directly to requests about
Mr. Bland's comments and instead referred Bloomberg BNA to its
press statement.  Other attorneys involved in the case also
wouldn't comment.

Doesn't Change Calculus

It was already looking like the court wouldn't rule for Dow even
if it took up the company's certiorari petition, Mr. Bland said.

Dow's petition challenged the plaintiffs' use of extrapolations to
prove classwide impact and damages, calling it improper "trial by
formula."

Mr. Bland acknowledged that Justice Scalia was the author of the
underlying ruling banning that practice, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v.
Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541, 2011 BL 161238 (2011) , and that his death
took away a very strong vote in Dow's favor had the court agreed
to hear the suit.

But, he said, the top court heard oral argument three months ago
in Tyson Foods Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, U.S., No. 14-1146, argued
11/10/15 , a case that raised similar arguments to those in Dow.

It appeared unlikely, Bland said, based on that argument, that the
top court had the appetite to extend further.

There was also a signal as far back as June that a settlement was
in the works between Dow and the other antitrust parties when they
filed-and then promptly withdrew-an emergency joint motion to hold
the certiorari petition in temporary abeyance.

A case like this doesn't get settled in a day, or even in the two
weeks since Scalia died, Bland said.

"Since I have a million cases that have been struggling and
hanging on for years, I really hope that this Dow thing turns out
to be right and that defendants start opening their checkbooks
across the country and settle every case on the grounds that
Justice Scalia's death changes everything," he said.

But so far, his phone hasn't been ringing off the hook with
defendants offering settlements, he said.


ENCORE ENERGY: "Goldman" Sues over Termination, Retaliation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wayne Goldman, as an individual and on behalf of all Aggrieved
Employees, Plaintiff, v. Encore Energy, Inc., a California
corporation and Does 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case BC606773
(Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles, January 12, 2016), seeks a
temporary restraining order, preliminary and permanent injunction,
enjoinment, recovery of wages, disgorgement of profits, pre-
judgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the California Labor Code Sec. 1194.

Encore Energy Inc. is a California corporation with principal
place of business located at 2029 Century Park East, Suite 200N,
Los Angeles, California 90067.

Goldman worked as a salesperson for the Defendants, selling
investment opportunities to prospective investors. Goldman was
misclassified as an independent contractor instead of an employee,
thus was not provided wage statements. He was terminated for his
complaints.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Neil Pedersen, Esq.
      Armond M. Jackson, Esq.
      PEDERSEN MCQUEEN, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
      17910 Skypark Circle, Suite 105
      Irvine, CA 92614
      Tel: (949) 260-1181
      Fax: (949) 260-1185


EXXON MOBIL: Landowners' Attorneys Appeal Class Action Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Debra Hale-Shelton, writing for Arkansas Online, reports that a
judge erred when he reversed his own decision and, without notice,
dismissed a class-action lawsuit against Exxon Mobil, attorneys
for landowners along the Pegasus pipeline argued in a document
appealing that ruling.

"What had changed in two weeks?" attorneys for landowners Arnez
and Charletha Harper and Rudy and Betty Webb, argued, "The facts
had not."

The attorneys filed the document in the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals in St. Louis in response to Exxon Mobil's arguments in
support of U.S. District Judge Brian Miller's March 2015 ruling.
In that ruling, the judge overturned his August 2014 decision to
grant class-action status to landowners whose property is crossed
by the pipeline that extends from Corsicana, Texas, to Patoca,
Ill.

Such status stood to affect thousands of landowners in Arkansas,
Missouri, Texas and Illinois.

The Pegasus pipeline, built in 1947-48, cracked open in
Mayflower's Northwoods subdivision March 29, 2013, sending tens of
thousands of gallons of heavy crude oil into the neighborhood,
drainage ditches and a cove of Lake Conway.

The oil giant shut down the entire, roughly 850-mile line after
the accident. All but a 211-mile section running from Corsicana to
Nederland, Texas, remains idle.

Exxon Mobil spokesman Ashley Smith Alemayehu sent an email late on
Feb. 29 saying the company doesn't comment on ongoing litigation.

Exxon Mobil has said previously it is pleased with the District
Court's March 2015 decision and believes "it properly applied the
law to the facts of this case."

But in the newest case filing on Feb. 25, landowners' attorneys
wrote that the judge had essentially "pivoted and reversed
direction, for the first time, adopting Exxon's argument,
regarding it as incorrect to refer to the Pegasus Pipeline as a
'single entity.'"

Though the facts remained the same, "the court now accepted,
apparently as an article of faith, that 'Exxon's actions, or
inactions, on one individual's land would not necessarily
implicate the interests of other landowners,'" the attorneys
added.

Further, Exxon's corporate policies and actions led to its misuse
of the Pegasus and to contamination of all affected landowners'
property, the landowners argued.

"Rather than operating in an isolation fashion, Exxon made a
unified corporate policy decision to continue using the entire
Pegasus Pipeline after twice its original intended life of 30
years," they wrote.

The company also consciously chose to transport "heavy tar sands
[oil] rather than sweet Texas crude through the entire pipeline"
and to reverse the product's flow, the attorneys said.  Exxon
Mobil further opted "to increase the pressure of the product
flowing through the entire Pegasus Pipeline," the plaintiffs'
attorneys said.

They also referred to the pipe's "antiquated cancer-causing
asbestos coating."

"The sacrifice of the Pegasus Pipeline to a corporate purpose
comes straight out of one place: the corporation," they said.

If Exxon Mobil considers such actions "reasonable, the showing
must be made to a jury, not a district court judge faced with a
Rule 23 [class-action] certification question," the attorneys
said.

The plaintiffs' lawyers again accused the oil giant of tying their
hands by "producing one corrupted document dump after filing its
motion for summary judgment."

"Not only did Exxon prevent access to information, but the
database produced by Exxon was corrupted," they wrote.

The landowners disputed Exxon Mobil's argument that the federal
Pipeline Safety Act pre-empts the residents' common-law claims.

"The district court's reliance on Exxon's argument was misplaced
and resulted in an error of law," they wrote.  "A pipeline is not
a segmented mechanism. While Exxon argues it can be viewed as made
of of pieces, it is not those pieces that define its use.

"The use of a pipeline is to provide a single, uninterrupted
delivery system.  Alone, the links are not a pipeline but have to
be put together to form a pipeline.  The pipeline is all or
nothing at all."


FLINT, MI: Attorney Provides Update on Water Crisis Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Chapman, writing for KITV, reports that as the water crisis
plays itself out, there's a common sentiment in Flint.

"We need to be able to know what to do, we don't know what to do,"
said resident Patsy Sutton.

Ms. Sutton lives near downtown and knows the water will one day be
safe again.

But she worries about the future for her granddaughter, who's had
rashes and tested positive for lead.

"I'm not going to be around in 15-20 years, and I want to make
sure she's taken care of," Ms. Sutton said.

On Feb. 29, Sutton joined hundreds of others in the same boat.

"A lot of people need to be held accountable. And it's been kind
of evasive and the facts are elusive to everybody," said resident
Matthew Willbrodt.

They listened to attorney Ven Johnson lay out possible courses of
action.

"Our position, of course, is no one out there should ever do this
on their own. It's a huge, legal endeavor," Mr. Johnson said.

Mr. Johnson is a Saginaw native and now is lead attorney for
Johnson Law in Detroit and Grand Rapids.

He updated people on the status of a class action he, along with
an environmental class action law firm, are behind.

Mr. Johnson said a federal judge in Detroit has taken it up, but
also reminded people they can get an individual lawyer to help
them through litigation that could take years to resolve.

"The only way we can make sure this never happens again is hold
these people accountable under the law," Mr. Johnson said.

Mr. Johnson hopes added pressure will get families answers and
help fast-track a fund to help compensate those impacted.

Ms. Sutton said this whole thing has been a nightmare and said she
hopes she can get some answers she desperately needs.

"All of a sudden, it's like bam. So we don't know what to do.
So we've got to open our ears and listen and go from there,"
Ms. Sutton said.


FORD: Can't Duck Power Steering Class Action, Judge Rules
---------------------------------------------------------
Mike Heuer, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that, a
federal judge refused to dismiss a class action about faulty power
steering in Ford Fusions and Focuses despite Ford's recall of
420,000 of the cars.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh denied Ford's motion to dismiss for
lack of standing and mootness.

Lead plaintiff William Philips says Ford concealed defects in its
Electronic Power-Assisted Steering (EPAS) system on the used 2011
Ford Fusion he bought in March 2012 to avoid costly repairs. He
seeks to represent a class of Californians who bought or leased
2010-2014 Fusions, and 2012-2014 Focuses.

Ford recalled the defective cars last year, and moved to dismiss
the class action as moot.

Koh refused, finding "Ford's standing argument involves factual
disputes that implicate the merits of California plaintiffs'
claims."

She said that resolution of these disputes "is essential to
determining what caused the defects at issue, whether and when
Ford knew about these defects, and whether these defects were
isolated."

Philips claims that "Ford concealed the fact that the EPAS system
is prone to sudden and premature failure from consumers so that
the warranty period on the defective vehicles would expire before
consumers were aware of the problem."

He says Ford "recklessly risked the safety of occupants of the
defective vehicles and the public at large" by concealing defects
and continuing to market the EPAS system as a "reliable and
beneficial product."

Ford's EPAS system includes a power steering control motor,
electronic control unit, torque sensor and steering wheel position
sensor, but Philips says it has a defect that "renders the system
prone to sudden and premature failure."

Philips says that after complaining repeatedly to Ford about the
problem, it told him it would cost $2,000 to fix, and offered to
pay only half of it. He did not repair it then, in 2013, but Ford
recalled his car in July 2015 and fixed the problem.

When the EPAS system fails, drivers "experience significantly
increased steering effort and an increased risk of losing control"
when their cars suddenly switch to manual steering, according to
the complaint.

Philips et al. say their personal experiences, a National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration investigation of the EPAS steering
system in the Ford Explorer, and similar complaints by other
California drivers amply demonstrate their claims.

Ford recalled 422,131 defective cars in 2015 and has repaired
about 51 percent of them, including the EPAS system in 8,000 cars
as of December 2015.


FOX SEARCHLIGHT: Interns' Bid for Rehearing of Class Action Nixed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Boyle, writing for Law360, reports that the Second Circuit
on Feb. 29 declined a bid by interns at Fox Searchlight to
reconsider its decision to toss out the standards they said should
be used to determine if they should have been paid as employees.

The circuit court rejected the interns' request for a rehearing by
the three-judge panel that overturned the decisions of a
New York federal judge, or for a hearing by the full appeals
court, sticking with its July ruling that a "primary beneficiary
test" should be applied to determine employee status rather than a
test that would give them that status if the company gained an
immediate advantage for their work.

"We continue to believe that the Second Circuit's test is
inconsistent with the Fair Labor Standards Act and binding U.S.
Supreme Court precedent," Rachel Bien, an attorney for the
interns, told Law360.  "We are evaluating our next steps,
including potentially petitioning the Supreme Court for a writ of
certiorari."

The decision leaves the case pending in the district court that
ruled in June 2013 that Fox misclassified unpaid interns when it
did not call them employees, saying Eric Glatt and Alexander
Footman provided free labor but got little of educational value
when they worked on "Black Swan," a movie produced by Fox
Searchlight Pictures Inc.

The appeals court said U.S. District Judge William H. Pauley III
incorrectly relied on a U.S. Department of Labor six-part test,
presented in a 2010 fact sheet offering guidance on unpaid
internships, saying the test is basically a distillation of facts
discussed in the U.S. Supreme Court's 1947 decision in Walling v.
Portland Terminal Co.  The court called the DOL test "too rigid"
and unpersuasive.

The panel agreed with Fox that the right question was whether the
intern or the employer was the primary beneficiary of their
relationship, and laid out seven factors to consider when
assessing when a worker qualifies as an employee under the FLSA.
Those factors include whether there's a clear understanding that
there's no expectation of compensation, whether interns receive
training similar to what they'd get an educational environment and
to what the extent the internship is tied to a formal education
program.

In January the Second Circuit amended its opinion, in part by
adding another feature to the primary beneficiary test.  The court
acknowledged that the relationship between interns and employers
should not be analyzed in the same way as employer-employee
relationships, noting that an intern enters the relationship "with
the expectation of receiving educational or vocational benefits"
that employees do not.

The amended opinion also said when considering whether a case can
proceed as a collective action, the lower court can take into
account evidence about an internship program as a whole rather
than just about a specific intern in question.

The appeals court had handled the Fox case in tandem with an
intern payment case brought against Hearst Corp., although the
denial of a rehearing involved an appeal by the Fox interns.

The circuit court panel was composed of Circuit Judges John M.
Walker, Dennis G. Jacobs and Richard C. Wesley.

Attorneys for Fox did not respond to requests for comment.

The interns are represented by Adam T. Klein, Rachel M. Bien and
Juno Turner of Outten & Golden LLP.

Fox is represented by Elise M. Bloom, Mark D. Harris, Chantel L.
Febus and Amy F. Melican of Proskauer Rose LLP and Neal Katyal,
Mary Helen Wimberly and Frederick Liu of Hogan Lovells.

The cases are Glatt et al. v. Fox Searchlight Pictures Inc. et
al., case numbers 13-4478 and 13-4481, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.


G. WILLI-FOOD: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Feb. 29
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of G. Willi-Food International Ltd. securities (WILC)
from April 30, 2014 through February 18, 2016, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period").  The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for G. Willi-Food investors under the federal securities
laws.

To join the G. Willi-Food class action, go to the firm's website
at http://rosenlegal.com/cases-840.htmor call Phillip Kim, Esq.
or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for more information
on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants
issued false and misleading statements to investors and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) Defendant Gregory Gurtovoy, along with
others, illegally transferred money out of G. Willi-Food; and (2)
as a result, G. Willi-Food's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.  When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
April 29, 2016.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If
you wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's website at
http://rosenlegal.com/cases-840.htmlfor more information.  You
may also contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of Rosen
Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com

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


GRAND THEFT: 9th Circuit Reverses Dismissal of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anthony V. Lupo, Esq., Sarah L. Bruno, Esq. --
sarah.bruno@arentfox.com -- Eva J. Pulliam, Esq. --
eva.pulliam@arentfox.com -- and B. Thorne Maginnis, Esq., of Arent
Fox LLP, in an article for Lexology, report that in a recent
opinion, the Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal of a lawsuit
against the developer of the highly-anticipated videogame Grand
Theft Auto V. Two plaintiffs filed a putative class action,
claiming that the game's packaging made promises that the company
did not keep.  In particular, the plaintiffs asserted that the
packaging suggested the game included an online, interactive
component, when in fact this functionality was not available to
users at the time the game was released.  While the district court
found that the plaintiffs had not properly stated a claim for
relief in their complaint, the Ninth Circuit disagreed, stressing
the plaintiff-friendly standard for a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim.  The case presents an interesting issue
for advertising related to videogame capabilities.

The District Court's Opinion

In 2013, plaintiffs Bruce McMahon and Christopher Bengston filed a
putative class action complaint against Take-Two Interactive
Software, Inc., a videogame developer and distributor well-known
for its Grand Theft Auto series.  Their lawsuit related to Take-
Two's latest installment in the series, Grand Theft Auto V. In
particular, the plaintiffs claimed that Take-Two misled consumers
to be believe, through representations on the product packaging,
that the game permitted purchasers to interact with other players
online.  According to the plaintiffs, however, when they purchased
the game, it was not configured for online play as advertised.
Rather, the game could only be played in single-player mode
without the ability to interact with any other videogame players.
The plaintiffs alleged violations of California false advertising
and unfair competition laws.

The US District Court for the Central District of California
dismissed both the false advertising and unfair competition claims
as unactionable, finding that the Grand Theft Auto V packaging did
not include any unlawfully false or misleading statements.
Specifically, the court agreed with Take-Two that the packaging
never claimed that the game's online capabilities would be
available immediately: "nowhere does the [Grand Theft Auto V] game
packaging use the word 'immediate[,]' nor is there any specific
language that suggests such gameplay was 'immediately' available .
. . " The court also denied leave to amend the complaint, finding
that an amended complaint was unlikely lead to valid claims and,
thus, would be futile. The plaintiffs appealed the decision to the
Ninth Circuit.

The Ninth Circuit's Recent Opinion

In a brief opinion, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district
court's dismissal.  At the motion dismiss stage, the court
explained, the district court is required to review the claims in
the light most favorable to the plaintiff.  Stating a claim under
both California's false advertising law and unfair competition
laws required the plaintiffs to allege that "members of the public
[were] likely to be deceived" by the Grand Theft Auto V packaging.
Here, the court recounted, plaintiffs alleged that they read all
of the game's packaging; that it led them to believe the game's
online capabilities would be available immediately; and that,
contrary to those representations, the game was not available
online at the time of their purchase. These allegations, viewed in
the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, was enough to overcome
Take-Two's motion to dismiss, the court held.  In so holding, the
Ninth Circuit reminded the district court that "whether a business
practice is deceptive will usually be a question of fact not
appropriate on [a motion to dismiss]."

The Takeaway

This case is a reminder to companies operating in the videogame
space of the need to ensure that advertising and promotional
claims are sufficiently substantiated by the game's actual
features and to include any necessary disclosures regarding
current and future capabilities.  While this is true for all
games, developers of new, highly-anticipated games such as Grand
Theft Auto V are an especially likely target for disgruntled
consumers and class action lawyers.  Developers should, thus, be
particularly cautious in such cases.  Moreover, it is very
difficult to clear the motion to dismiss hurdle, meaning that
defendants will often find themselves stuck in litigation into
discovery and perhaps until summary judgment, unless a settlement
is reached.  This advice is equally applicable mobile app game
developers, who should likewise make sure that they accurately
describe their games' features -- including what users are able to
win by playing, and whether the game is entirely free or certain
aspects are pay-to-play.  This also presents a good rationale for
including class action waivers and arbitration provisions in
applicable consumer terms, as this may provide defendants with
additional arguments to avoid lengthy and costly litigation.


GRENVILLE CHRISTIAN: Abused Students Relate Harrowing Stories
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Spurr, writing for The Star, reports that it's been nearly a
decade since the Grenville Christian College closed, but some of
the institution's former students say they're still haunted by
what happened behind its doors.

From 1973 until it shut down in 2007, the elite private boarding
school northeast of Brockville, Ont. promised pupils a world-class
religious and academic education at an idyllic campus on the
shores of the St. Lawrence River.

But a $225-million class action lawsuit alleges that pupils who
lived and studied there got something much more damaging -- a
strict regime of arbitrary discipline, bizarre religious
practices, and systemic abuse that left them "sexually,
physically, mentally, emotionally and spiritually traumatized."

Grenville denied the accusations in the suit, which was launched
in 2008 and certified in 2014. According to a statement of defence
the college filed in 2010 "there is no truth whatsoever" to the
allegations.  "The representative plaintiffs were never,
advertently or inadvertently, subjected to any conduct in the
nature of physical or mental abuse," the statement said.

In fact, the school's defense stated, "Grenville enjoyed a good
reputation over the years in Ontario and elsewhere for its
academic prowess, extracurricular activities and caring approach
toward the betterment of young people in its charge."

In affidavits to support the class action, five former students
described life at the school as being dominated by fear,
humiliation and occasionally violence.  Two more Grenville alumni
interviewed by the Star described similarly traumatizing
experiences.

The class action covers people who attended the school between
1973 and 1997, and according to a lawyer representing the
plaintiffs, so far 182 former pupils have come forward expressing
interest in making a claim.

Dan Michielsen enrolled at the college in 1985 when he was 15
years old. In an interview with the Star, he said that by the time
he left four years later, he was "a wreck."

He alleged that two weeks after arriving at Grenville a staff
member woke him up by punching him in the groin, an apparent
punishment for talking in his sleep.  Mr. Michielsen said he was
then dragged into the washroom and forced to clean it with a
toothbrush.  The staff member urinated on him as he scrubbed the
floor, he said.

Mr. Michielsen said he was often berated by staff, who called him
"disgusting," "evil," a "pig," and a "mutt."

Now 46, he says he has been left with debilitating self-esteem
problems as a result of the alleged abuse.  "After a while, I just
accepted that I was a loser, that I was a s---, that I should just
shut my mouth," he said.  "The doubt is always there."

Another former student, Andrew Hale-Byrne, alleged in his
affidavit that while at Grenville, he was physically assaulted,
punished with sleep deprivation and forced labor, and even
subjected to an exorcism to "cure" his dyslexia.

In an interview, he said he left the college believing that he
deserved to be abused and that he was "damned" to hell.

"(Grenville) destroyed you to the point where you thought you
couldn't achieve in life, and you didn't deserve to achieve," he
said.  He likened life at the college to "waking up in a horror
movie."

Central to the lawsuit are allegations of close ties between
Grenville faculty and a small religious sect founded in
Massachusetts in the 1970s called the Community of Jesus.  A 1981
Boston magazine story reported that former members of the
Community described it as a cult that practiced physical and
psychological abuse.  The group's leadership at the time denied
the report.

According to the plaintiffs' statement of claim, while the school
presented itself as Anglican, the college's staff engaged in a
"systematic campaign . . . to promote and indoctrinate students in
the teachings" of the Community of Jesus.

Fathers Charles Farnsworth and J. Alastair Haig, who co-founded
Grenville,were members of the Community of Jesus, but in 1977 they
were also ordained Anglican priests.  Father Haig served as
headmaster until 1983, at which point Farnsworth took over until
1997.

In affidavits for the suit, two former teachers said many staff
were either members of the Community of Jesus or shared its
values, but the college's statement of defense denied the school
promoted the sect's beliefs to students.

In an interview with CTV's investigative news program W5 that
aired Feb. 6, Joan Childs, who was a teacher and administrator at
Grenville for 32 years beginning in 1972, said one of the
techniques Grenville staff imported from the Community of Jesus
were so-called "light sessions."

The former students who filed affidavits and spoke to the Star
described these sessions as a form of ritual humiliation in which
they were compelled to confess sins, real or imagined, while staff
screamed abuse at them.  The sessions could occur day or night, in
front of a group or alone.

Ms. Childs told W5 the sessions "could get out of hand.  It could
get verbally abusive, it could get physically abusive at times,"
she said.

"They were intensely frightening," according to the affidavit
sworn by Lisa Cavanaugh, who boarded at the school for two years,
beginning in 1987.  "The only way to make it stop was to cry and
to tell them that I accepted that I had sinned."

Ms. Cavanaugh, who was 14 when she entered the school, said that
girls were often singled out during light sessions and "accused of
being whores."

The statement of claim alleges that other abuses included putting
students "on discipline," periods of excessive or abusive
punishment during which children could be forbidden to speak or
forced to perform tasks like scrubbing the kitchen with a
toothbrush or cleaning out grease traps with their hands.

Richard Van Dusen, who was a boarding student for two years
beginning in 1979 when he was 18, swore in his affidavit that when
two teachers found out he bought a younger pupil a case of beer,
they bent him over a chair and beat him with a wooden paddle.
Afterward his underwear was "soaked through with blood."
The Ontario Provincial Police investigated allegations of abuse at
Grenville in 2007, but a spokesperson for the force told the Star
that after consultation with the crown attorney, a decision was
made not to press charges.  The spokesperson couldn't say why that
decision was reached.

The two men in charge of the school during the alleged abuses are
no longer living -- Father Haig died in 2009, and Father
Farnsworth passed away in March 2015.

Not everyone has bad memories of Grenville.  Nine former students
presented evidence in support of the school's defense, denying
there was abuse.  David Webb, who attended the college from 1984
to 1987, said in an affidavit that staff exhibited "the kindest
and most caring spirit imaginable" and pushed the students to
achieve more they thought themselves capable of.

Donald Farnsworth, Father Charles Farnsworth's son, conceded in an
affidavit he filed as part of the suit that Grenville was strict,
but asserted "that was one of its strengths."

Donald attended grades nine to 13 at the college, and after
graduating in 1976 went on to serve for two decades as a teacher
and administrator at Grenville.  In an interview, he said the
school gave him "a fantastic education."

Even though Grenville staff sometimes "disciplined me in a way
that I found painful at the time," he said, "I am very grateful
for the growth that I experienced."


HEARTWARE INTERNATIONAL: Faces St. Paul Fund Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
St. Paul Teachers' Retirement Fund Association, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Heartware International, Inc., Douglas E. Godshall and Peter
McAree, Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-00520 (S.D. N.Y., January 22,
2016), seeks damages, including interest, reasonable costs and
attorneys' fees and other or further relief for violation of
Section 10(b), 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule l0b-5.

HeartWare is a medical device company that develops and
manufactures ventricular assist devices to treat patients
suffering from advanced heart failure. The device malfunctioned
and HeartWare shares of stock dropped significantly upon
disclosure.

St. Paul Teachers' Retirement Fund Association is a non-profit
organization that provides retirement, survivor, and disability
benefits to public school educators in St. Paul, Minnesota. They
purchased HeartWare common stock at artificially inflated prices
and lost substantially.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gerald H. Silk, Esq.
      Avi Josefson, Esq.
      Michael Blatchley Esq.
      Adam D. Hollander, Esq.
      BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
      1251 Avenue of the Americas
      New York, NY 10020
      Tel: (212) 554-1400
      Fax: (212) 554-1444
      Email: jerry@blbglaw.com
             avi@blbglaw.com
             michaelb@blbglaw.com
             adam.hollander@blbglaw.com


HOME DEPOT: Judge OKs $2.1MM Wage Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Siegal, writing for Law360, reports that a California judge
on March 1 approved Home Depot's agreement to pay $2.1 million to
end a class action alleging the retailer shorted sales managers in
its roofing division on overtime pay and meal breaks, ruling the
parties had resolved his prior concerns about notifying the class.

At the March 1 hearing, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Elihu M.
Berle noted that he had given his stamp of approval to the
fundamental terms of the deal in February.


HORTONWORKS INC: April 29 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Feb. 29 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Hortonworks, Inc. ("Hortonworks" or the
"Company") and certain of its officers.  The class action, filed
in United States District Court, Northern District of California,
and docketed under 16-cv-00980, is on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons or entities who purchased Hortonworks securities
between November 4, 2015 and January 15, 2016 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").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Hortonworks securities
during the Class Period, you have until April 29, 2016 to ask the
Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of
the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, ext. 9980.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of
shares purchased.

Hortonworks focuses on the development, distribution, and support
of the Hadoop open source project in the United States and
internationally.  The Company offers Hortonworks Data Platform, an
enterprise-grade data management platform that purportedly enables
its customers to capture, store, process, and analyze increasing
amounts of existing and new data types without the need to replace
their existing data center infrastructure.  The Company also
provides Hortonworks Sandbox, a personal, portable, and free to
use Hadoop environment purportedly designed to offer the easiest
way to get started with Enterprise Grade Hadoop and the
Hortonworks Data Platform.  In addition, Hortonworks provides
support subscription, and training and consulting services -- from
which it derives substantially all of its revenues.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, cash position, prospects, and
internal controls.  Specifically, in November 2015, Defendants:
(i) misrepresented that Hortonworks had sufficient cash and cash
equivalents to fund 12 months of working capital and capital
expenditure needs; (ii) failed to disclose that Hortonworks in
actuality lacked adequate cash to meet those working capital and
capital expenditure requirements over that period of time; (iii)
failed to disclose that, as a result, Defendants were
contemplating a significant offering to fund its operations; and
(iv) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On January 15, 2016, post-market, Hortonworks announced it had
retained Goldman Sachs to raise $100 million in a secondary
offering.  Analysts expressed surprise, with one stating, "We
believe it will be incumbent on HDP during its roadshow to show
why this offering, announced in this way, at this time, should not
be interpreted as evidence of serious difficulty."

On this news, Hortonworks's stock fell $6.13, or nearly 37%, to
close at $10.44 on January 19, 2016, the next trading day.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known
as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions.  Today, more than 70 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct.


IRSA INVERSIONES: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against IRSA Inversiones y Representaciones S.A ("IRSA" or the
"Company") (NYSE:IRS) and certain of its officers.   The class
action, filed in United States District Court, Central District of
California, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased IRSA securities between November 3, 2014
and December 30, 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").

If you are a shareholder who purchased IRSA securities during the
Class Period, you have until April 25, 2016 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss
this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby
atrswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of
shares purchased.

IRSA is a real estate company that engages in a range of
diversified real estates-related activities in Argentina. The
Company is incorporated in the Republic of Argentina with
principal executive offices located at Bol¡var 108 (C1066AAB)
Buenos Aires, Argentina.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period Defendants
issued false and misleading statements to investors and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) IRSA's subsidiary, Netherlands B.V.
("Dolphin"), does not adequately qualify as a Venture Capital
Organization, and therefore, IDB Development Corporation Limited's
("IDBD") $6.7 billion net debt should be consolidated with the
Company's financial statements; (2) the impending consolidation of
IDBD's debt would violate IRSA's Global Notes Indenture; (3) the
terms of the February 10, 2015 related party transaction between
Dolphin and Inversiones Financieras Del Sur S.A.; and (4) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On November 19, 2015, Spruce Point Capital Management published a
report on IRSA asserting, among other things, that IRSA is keeping
roughly $7 billion of net debt off the Company's books by not
consolidating its controlling investment in Israel's IDB
Development Corp., and that IRSA may therefore be in violation of
its debt covenant under its existing $300 million Global Bond
indenture that requires it to maintain an EBITDA/Interest coverage
of 1.75x.  In addition, the Spruce Point report alleged that
certain of IRSA's related party transactions had not been fully
disclosed.

On this news, shares of IRSA fell $1.25, or 7.7%, to close at
$15.06 on November 20, 2015.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida,
and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in
the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the
field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com

CONTACT: CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com


JEFFERSON PARISH, LA: Red Light Camera Refund Checks Mailed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Diana Samuels, writing for NOLA.com, reports that about 182,000
refund checks were sent on Feb. 26 to drivers who were ticketed
under Jefferson Parish's now-discontinued red light camera
program.

"They're hitting mailboxes over the weekend, and for the next
couple of days," said Steve Mauterer, one of the attorneys
representing drivers in the class-action lawsuit.  Anyone who
received a red light camera ticket in Jefferson Parish between
2007 and 2010 was automatically included in the suit and will be
sent a check, unless they opted out of the settlement.

Those who received a ticket and paid it without contesting it in
court receive a refund of $23.18.  Those who challenged the ticket
in court and lost, paying court fees along the way, get $38.93.
The refunds are significantly less than the $110 that the tickets
cost drivers.

About 177,000 of the checks are going to those who simply paid the
fine.  Another 5,000 or so are going to people who challenged the
tickets, Mr. Mauterer said.  Anyone with questions about their
checks may call 800.290.2151.

The checks are being mailed by a dispersing agent, a specialty
company that handles notices related to class action lawsuits.
Parish officials and the lawyers involved in the case can't help
with any questions about the checks.

Jefferson collected $21 million from the camera tickets.  The
settlement judgment split the pot between:

Redflex Traffic Systems, the contractor, which is getting $9
million

The ticketed drivers and their attorneys, $7 million.  Under the
terms of the settlement, a large portion of the drivers' $7
million pot went to pay $2.3 million to the attorneys.
Local government agencies, $5 million.  This is divided among the
parish government, the Sheriff's Office and 1st and 2nd Parish
Courts.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Shareholders Attempt to Revive Madoff Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Tom McParland, writing for Delaware Business Court Insider,
reports that attorneys appealing the dismissal of a derivative
suit against directors of JPMorgan Chase & Co. appeared on
Feb. 24 before the Delaware Supreme Court to beat back assertions
that they had improperly severed claims central to the case in the
Court of Chancery.

The City of Providence, an institutional investor, had sought to
hold directors personally liable for about $2 billion in damages
resulting from the company's failure to comply with federal anti-
money laundering laws and regulations.  The total damages claimed
included a $1.7 billion forfeiture, made as a part of a deferred
prosecution agreement, relating to the Bernard Madoff Ponzi
scheme.

Vice Chancellor Donald F. Parsons Jr. tossed the case in July,
saying previous cases brought in the Southern District of
New York barred the city's suit under New York's doctrine of res
judicata.

In opening briefs to the Delaware Supreme Court, Providence said
it no longer sought to recoup the $1.7 billion or any other
damages related to the Madoff affair.  The city focused, instead,
on an $88.3 million payment to settle potential civil liability
claims for failing to adhere to U.S. economic sanctions.

"This attempt at a post-dismissal amendment of the complaint, and
argument to this court based on a limitation of claims that was
not presented to the court below, is not permissible," attorneys
for JPMorgan and its directors responded in their answering brief.

Jeffrey P. Campisi -- jcampisi@kaplanfox.com -- of the New York
firm Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer tried to differentiate his client's
case from the prior derivative suit Central Laborers' Pension Fund
v. Dimon, saying that the New York complaint brought claims
primarily involving settlements relating to Madoff's Ponzi scheme.
The Delaware derivative case, City of Providence v. Dimon, related
only to breaches of fiduciary duties associated with money-
laundering in violation of U.S. sanctions laws, he argued.

But John F. Savarese -- JFSavarese@wlrk.com -- arguing on behalf
of JPMorgan's director defendants, called the argument a "13th-
hour effort" to "salvage the case on appeal," pointing out that
the alternative was never briefed or argued in the Chancery Court.

Mr. Savarese, of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz in New York, said
Providence in the lower court associated the deferred prosecution
agreement with the economic sanctions violations and other orders
from federal regulators.

The case amounted to the same Caremark claim made in the Central
Laborers' case because both addressed the same transactions, and
Parsons was correct to dismiss the case under New York's doctrine
of res judicata, he said.


JPMORGAN CHASE: May 10 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN RE JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.
SECURITIES LITIGATION

Master File No. 1:12-cv-03852-GBD

SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, CLASS
CERTIFICATION, AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT
HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF
ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES

TO:
All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the
common stock of JPMorgan Chase & Co. ("JPMorgan") during the
period from April 13, 2012 through May 21, 2012, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), and who were damaged thereby (the "Class"):
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE
CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
PENDING IN THIS COURT, AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE
$150,000,000 SETTLEMENT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, that the parties in
the above-captioned litigation (the "Action") have reached a
proposed settlement for $150,000,000 in cash (the "Settlement"),
that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the Action.

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that the Action has been certified as a
class action on behalf of the Class.  Certain persons and entities
are, however, excluded from the Class by definition as set forth
in the full printed Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action, Class
Certification, and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Hearing;
and (III) Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement
of Litigation Expenses (the "Notice"), which more completely
describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder.  If you have
not yet received the Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies
of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at In re
JPMorgan Chase & Co. Securities Litigation, c/o KCC Class Action
Services, P.O. Box 30204, College Station, TX 77842-3204, 1-877-
368-8161.  Copies of the Notice and Claim Form can also be
downloaded from www.jpmorgansecuritieslitigation.com

A hearing will be held on May 10, 2016 at 11:15 a.m., before the
Honorable George B. Daniels at the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse, Courtroom 11A, 500 Pearl Street, New
York, NY 10007, to determine: (i) whether the proposed Settlement
should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether
the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants,
and the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement dated December 18, 2015 (and in the
Notice) should be granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of
Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv)
whether Co-Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys'
fees and reimbursement of expenses should be approved.

If you are a member of the Class, in order to be eligible to
receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a
Claim Form postmarked no later than June 13, 2016.  If you are a
Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not
be eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of
the Settlement, but you will nevertheless be bound by any
judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action.

If you are a member of the Class and wish to exclude yourself from
the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is
received no later than April 19, 2016, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice.  If you properly exclude
yourself from the Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or
orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be
eligible to share in the proceeds of the Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Co-Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court and
delivered to Co-Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that
they are received no later than April 19, 2016, in accordance with
the instructions set forth in the Notice.

Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, JPMorgan, or
its counsel regarding this notice.  All questions about this
notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to
participate in the Settlement should be directed to Co-Lead
Counsel or the Claims Administrator.

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER
& GROSSMANN LLP
Salvatore J. Graziano, Esq.
1251 Avenue of the Americas,
44th Floor
New York, NY 10020
(800) 380-8496
blbg@blbglaw.com

GRANT &
EISENHOFER P.A.
Daniel L. Berger, Esq.
485 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017
(646) 722-8505
dberger@gelaw.com

KESSLER TOPAZ
MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
Andrew L. Zivitz, Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(610) 667-7706
info@ktmc.com

Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:

In re JPMorgan Chase & Co. Securities Litigation
c/o KCC Class Action Services
P.O. Box 30204
College Station, TX 77842-3204
1-877-368-8161
www.jpmorgansecuritieslitigation.com

By Order of the Court


KRAFT HEINZ: Faces Another Class Action Over Parmesan Cheese
------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Herra, writing for Cook County Record, reports that class
action lawsuits against Kraft Heinz and Walmart have begun to
accumulate in the aftermath of a February news investigation
turned up evidence of wood-based fillers in the companies' grated
Parmesan cheese products.

On Feb. 26, in a case docketed in Chicago federal court as
No. 16-cv-02626, plaintiff Yvonne Averhart brought the first
action locally against Chicago-based Kraft Heinz over the
controversy, saying she paid a premium price for Kraft grated
Parmesan cheese on multiple occasions, including as recently as
January, because the product's label says "100 percent Parmesan."
But on Feb. 16, Bloomberg News published an article discussing
common ways cheese manufacturers allegedly doctor grated hard
Italian cheeses to offset their expense.  The article said the
news agency sent samples of several brands of Parmesan cheese to
"an independent laboratory" for testing. According to the story
and the lawsuit, tests indicated the Kraft cheese contained 3.9
percent cellulose, a common food additive derived from ground wood
chips.

Ms. Averhart's complaint was joined Feb. 29 in Chicago federal
court by a similar class action complaint, docketed as 16-cv-
02687, filed by plaintiffs Janine Hechmer and Elizabeth Bidgood,
both of Florida, who also included Walmart with Kraft in their
complaint.  Their lawsuit noted the Bloomberg article indicated
the Walmart store brand Parmesan contained as much as 7.8 percent
cellulose.

The FDA has approved the use of cellulose as a filler, in
quantities up to 4 percent.  The lawsuits conceded Kraft's product
may contain a legal amount of cellulose, but argued the company
misleads consumers by advertising the product as pure Parmesan
cheese.

"Defendant has consistently marketed the product as consisting of
a single ingredient: 100% Parmesan cheese," Ms. Averhart's lawsuit
said.  "However, the product is not 100% Parmesan cheese. Rather,
a significant percentage of the product consists of filler
material that not only isn't Parmesan cheese, but isn't cheese at
all."

The plaintiffs said they bought the product and paid the premium
price for the brand because they believed it was a higher quality
product than other cheeses on the shelf that were not labeled 100
percent Parmesan.

The Chicago lawsuits closely followed the filing of similar
lawsuits against Kraft Heinz and Walmart in New York, California,
Missouri, southern Illinois, Minnesota and Florida.

The lawsuits have estimated a potential class of additional
plaintiffs who similar purchased the Parmesan cheese products in
the last five years likely numbers in the thousands and could seek
millions of dollars in damages.

The lawsuits all alleged Kraft Heinz and Walmart violated state
consumer fraud law, were willfully negligent, were unjustly
enriched and breached implied warranties with consumers, among
other claims.

The Illinois fraud and deceptive practices charges argued Kraft
and Walmart deliberately misled consumers by marketing the product
as 100 percent cheese, even going so far as to include the claim
on the packaging.

The breach of warranty charges claimed the description on the
product packaging amounts to a binding agreement between the
manufacturer and the consumer, and if that description is untrue,
the manufacturer has broken that contract.

The unjust enrichment charges claimed that, by using cellulose as
a filler while advertising the product as pure cheese, Kraft
reduced its manufacturing cost while convincing consumers to pay a
premium price for a lower quality product. This combination of
cost savings and increased profits resulted in "ill-gotten
revenue."

Ms. Averhart is being represented by attorneys James P. Batson and
Christopher V. Langone, each of Chicago.

Attorneys with the firms of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz,
with offices in Chicago and New York, and Levi & Korsinsky, of New
York, filed the action on behalf of Hechmer and Bidgood.


MASIMO CORP: Appeals Court Reinstates $5.3MM Arbitration Award
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that a federal
appeals court on Feb. 22 reinstated a $5.3 million employment
arbitration award against medical-device maker Masimo Corp. in a
case where the company made an issue of the arbitrator's family
ties to Cooley chairman Stephen Neal.

Masimo's appellate team at Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear had
claimed JAMS neutral Richard Neal, a former justice on the Second
District Court of Appeal, was biased because his brother had lost
two big-ticket cases against the company.

The argument persuaded U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney of the
Central District of California to toss the arbitration award in
2014, finding that Richard Neal was partial to two former Masimo
employees suing the company and had imposed excessive punitive
damages. (Richard Neal died on Jan. 1, 2015, while the appeal was
pending.)

In an unpublished decision issued on Feb. 22, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said that Masimo had failed to
demonstrate partiality and the arbitration award should stand.
Kathryn Dickson of Oakland's Dickson Geesman, who argued for the
plaintiffs at the Ninth Circuit, said that she was "thrilled" with
the decision.  "This is one of the big problems with arbitration,"
she said. "If a plaintiff wins big, the employers and companies
will stop at nothing to drag it out."

She added: "The thing that I am most pleased by is that the Ninth
Circuit has recognized that the bias challenge was baseless. There
was never a more respected, fairer arbitrator" than Justice Neal.

Ms. Dickson's clients, former Masimo sales representatives Michael
Ruhe and Vicente Catala, sued the company in federal court in 2011
claiming that Masimo had created intolerable working conditions by
forcing them to sell blood-testing devices that didn't work as
promised. The company forced the suit into arbitration, then chose
Neal from the plaintiffs' slate of potential arbitrators.

The company's lawyers at Paul Hastings and Atkinson, Andelson,
Loya, Ruud & Romo asked Neal to recuse himself just three days
before scheduled closing arguments in 2014.  They claimed Neal,
who had issued an interim ruling siding with the plaintiffs, was
biased because his brother Stephen had represented a Masimo
competitor in a pair of trials in 2004 and 2005 in which Masimo
was awarded $164 million and $420 million. respectively. Neal
stated that he had no prior knowledge of his brother's cases and
refused to step aside.  He later handed down an award that
included $5 million in punitive damages.

Overturning the award in March 2014, Jduge Carney criticized
Neal's decision to handle the recusal request himself rather than
referring it to JAMS as required under the arbitration house's
rules.  "The arbitrator's decision to decide Masimo's challenge
himself, without even making additional disclosures or providing
facts on the record to refute the alleged conflict, undermined the
fairness of the proceeding and demonstrated his partiality," Judge
Carney wrote.

But the Ninth Circuit panel -- which included Circuit Judges Harry
Pregerson and Kim Wardlaw -- found that Masimo hadn't established
specific facts showing that Neal was biased.  Circuit Judge Andrew
Hurwitz wrote in concurrence that he was "troubled" by the case
but had to side with his colleagues because of the extraordinary
deference given to arbitrator's decisions.

"In general, an arbitrator should not himself determine whether he
should be recused, given his financial interest in continued
employment," Judge Hurwitz wrote.  However, he noted the recusal
request came "very late in an extended arbitration" and that Neal
had already earned virtually all of his fees.

Though the punitive damages award of 16 times the amount of
compensatory damages raised "obvious due process concerns," Judge
Hurwitz wrote, it did not meet the very high bar for overturning
an arbitration award.

Knobbe Martens partner Joseph Re, who argued for Masimo at the
Ninth Circuit, wrote in an email that the company was
"disappointed" with the decision.  Mr. Re didn't say whether or
not the company plans to seek further review.  The same panel, Mr.
Re pointed out, upheld a lower court decision dismissing a related
qui tam case against Masimo, which claimed that the company had
misled customers and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration about
its products.

"Unfortunately, although the panel found that the arbitrator
committed error, and one of the panel noted that the arbitration
award 'raises obvious due process concerns,' the panel found that
the error did not rise to the level of affirmative misconduct that
would justify setting aside the arbitration award," Mr. Re said.


MATCH GROUP: April 26 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, the former
Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind
investors that they have until April 26, 2016 to file lead
plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit
against Match Group, Inc., if they purchased the Company's
securities pursuant or traceable to the company's initial public
offering ("IPO") on November 18, 2015.  This action is pending in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas.

What You May Do

If you purchased shares of Match Group and would like to discuss
your legal rights and how this case might affect you and your
right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without
obligation or cost to you, call toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or
email KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn -- lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com

If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you
must petition the Court by April 26, 2016.

About the Lawsuit

Match Group and certain of its executives are charged with failing
to disclose material information in connection with the IPO,
violating federal securities laws.

On February 2, 2016, less than three months after its IPO, Match
Group reported its fourth quarter 2015 and full year 2015 results,
revealing that it experienced a decline in total user growth and
per-user revenue, and the cannibalization of users and revenues
across competing platforms.  Match Group also disclosed that its
net income had fallen 25% year over year to $35.6 million and
dropped 44% on a per-share basis, and that there had been a
decline in revenue in its Princeton Review segment.

On this news, the price of Match Group's stock plummeted.

                   About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC

KSF -- http://www.ksfcounsel.com-- whose partners include the
Former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr. --  is a
law firm focused on securities, antitrust and consumer class
actions, along with merger & acquisition and breach of fiduciary
litigation against publicly traded companies on behalf of
shareholders.  The firm has offices in New York, California and
Louisiana.


MDL 2672: 55 Class Suits v. Volkswagen et al. Transferred
---------------------------------------------------------
Fifty-five class action lawsuits against Volkswagen Group of
America Inc., et al., have been transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.  The transfers are pursuant to
the Transfer Order entered in In re: Volkswagen "Clean Diesel"
Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, MDL
No. 2672, on Dec. 8, 2015.  The Hon. Charles R. Breyer oversees In
re: Volkswagen "Clean Diesel" MDL, Case No. 15-MD-2672-CRB (JSC)
(N.D. Calif.), and at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/crb/vwmdlthe
Court Clerk is making additional information about this proceeding
available to practitioners and the public.

   Cases Transferred to MDL No. 2672
   ---------------------------------
Behncke, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06293 (N.D. Cal., December 30, 2015)
Case in other court: New Jersey, 2:15-cv-07176

          Plaintiffs' Counsel:

               Stephen Lawrence Dreyfuss, Esq.
               HELLRING LINDEMAN GOLDSTEIN SIEGAL LLP
               One Gateway Center
               Newark, NJ 07102
               Telephone: (973) 621-9020
               E-mail: sldreyfuss@hlgslaw.com

          Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc.:

               Jeffrey L. Chase, Esq.
               HERZFELD AND RUBIN
               125 Broad Street
               New York, NY 10004
               Telephone: (212) 471-8500
               Facsimile: (212) 344-3333
               E-mail: jchase@herzfeld-rubin.com

                              - and -

               Michael R. McDonald, Esq.
               Jennifer Marino Thibodaux, Esq.
               Thomas R. Valen, Esq.
               GIBBONS PC
               One Gateway Center
               Newark, NJ 07102
               Telephone: (973) 596-4500
               Facsimile: (973) 596-0545
               E-mail: mmcdonald@gibbonslaw.com
                       jmarino@gibbonslaw.com
                       tvalen@gibbonslaw.com

                              - and -

               Natalie Marie Lefkowitz, Esq.
               CHASE KURSHAN HERZFELD & RUBIN LLC
               354 Eisenhower Pkway., Suite 1100
               Livingston, NJ 07039
               Telephone: (973) 535-8840
               Facsimile: (973) 535-8841
               E-mail: nlefkowitz@herzfeld-rubin.com

Underwood v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06294 (N.D. Cal., December 30, 2015)
Case in other court: New Jersey, 2:15-cv-07178

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
               NASTLAW LLC
               1101 Market Street, Suite 2801
               Philadelphia, PA 19107
               Telephone: (215) 923-9300
               Facsimile: (215) 923-9302
               E-mail: dnast@nastlaw.com

Husserl v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06297 (N.D. Cal., December 30, 2015)
Case in other court: New Jersey, 2:15-cv-07184

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               James E. Cecchi, Esq.
               CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
               5 Becker Farm Road
               Roseland, NJ 07068
               Telephone: (973) 994-1700
               Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
               E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com

Wolf v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06288 (N.D. Cal., December 30, 2015)
Case in other court: New Jersey, 2:15-cv-07899

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               Bruce Daniel Greenberg, Esq.
               LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG LLC
               Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor
               Newark, NJ 07102
               Telephone: (973) 623-3000
               Facsimile: (973) 623-0858
               E-mail: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com

Cua, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06298 (N.D. Cal., December 30, 2015)
Case in other court: New Jersey, 2:15-cv-07195

          Plaintiffs' Counsel:

               Alexander H. Schmidt, Esq.
               WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
               270 Madison Avenue
               New York, NY 10016
               Telephone: (212) 545-4600
               Facsimile: (212) 545-4677
               E-mail: schmidt@whafh.com

Minkina, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06170 (N.D. Cal., December 30, 2015)
Case in other court: New Jersey, 2:15-cv-07020

          Plaintiffs' Counsel:

               Alexander H. Schmidt, Esq.
               WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
               270 Madison Avenue
               New York, NY 10016
               Telephone: (212) 545-4600
               Facsimile: (212) 545-4677
               E-mail: schmidt@whafh.com

          Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc.:

               Jeffrey L. Chase, Esq.
               HERZFELD AND RUBIN
               125 Broad Street
               New York, NY 10004
               Telephone: (212) 471-8500
               Facsimile: (212) 344-3333
               E-mail: jchase@herzfeld-rubin.com

                              - and -

               Michael R. McDonald, Esq.
               Jennifer Marino Thibodaux, Esq.
               Thomas R. Valen, Esq.
               GIBBONS PC
               One Gateway Center
               Newark, NJ 07102
               Telephone: (973) 596-4500
               Facsimile: (973) 596-0545
               E-mail: mmcdonald@gibbonslaw.com
                       jmarino@gibbonslaw.com
                       tvalen@gibbonslaw.com

                              - and -

               Natalie Marie Lefkowitz, Esq.
               CHASE KURSHAN HERZFELD & RUBIN LLC
               354 Eisenhower Pkway., Suite 1100
               Livingston, NJ 07039
               Telephone: (973) 535-8840
               Facsimile: (973) 535-8841
               E-mail: nlefkowitz@herzfeld-rubin.com

Allen, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc., et al.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06310 (N.D. Cal., December 30, 2015)
Case in other court: New Jersey, 2:15-cv-07284

          Plaintiffs' Counsel:

               Daniel O. Rose, Esq.
               KREINDLER AND KREINDLER LLP
               750 Third Avenue, 32nd Floor
               New York, NY 10017
               Telephone: (212) 973-3433
               Facsimile: (212) 973-9432
               E-mail: drose@kreindler.com

                              - and -

               Noah H. Kushlefsky, Esq.
               KREINDLER & KREINDLER LLP
               100 Park Avenue
               New York, NY 10017
               Telephone: (212) 687-8181
               Facsimile: (212) 972-9432
               E-mail: NKushlefsky@kreindler.com

Barger v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06292 (N.D. Cal., December 30, 2015)
Case in other court: New Jersey, 2:15-cv-07175

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               James E. Cecchi, Esq.
               CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
               5 Becker Farm Road
               Roseland, NJ 07068
               Telephone: (973) 994-1700
               Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
               E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com

McKenna, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06304 (N.D. Cal., December 30, 2015)
Case in other court: New Jersey, 2:15-cv-07236

          Plaintiffs' Counsel:

               James E. Cecchi, Esq.
               CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
               5 Becker Farm Road
               Roseland, NJ 07068
               Telephone: (973) 994-1700
               Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
               E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com

Springfield v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06300 (N.D. Cal., December 31, 2015)
Case in other court: New Jersey, 2:15-cv-07219

          Plaintiffs' Counsel:

               James E. Cecchi, Esq.
               CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
               5 Becker Farm Road
               Roseland, NJ 07068
               Telephone: (973) 994-1700
               Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
               E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com

Solnick, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc.
Docket No. 3:16-cv-00009 (N.D. Cal., January 4, 2016)
Case in other court: New Jersey, 2:15-cv-07292

          Plaintiffs' Counsel:

               James E. Cecchi, Esq.
               CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
               5 Becker Farm Road
               Roseland, NJ 07068
               Telephone: (973) 994-1700
               Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
               E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com

Jeanice v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
Docket No. 3:16-cv-00016 (N.D. Cal., January 4, 2016)
Case in other court: Louisiana Eastern, 2:15-cv-04784

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               Scott R. Bickford, Esq.
               Jason Zachary Landry, Esq.
               Lawrence J. Centola, III, Esq.
               Neil Franz Nazareth, Esq.
               MARTZELL & BICKFORD
               338 Lafayette St.
               New Orleans, LA 70130
               Telephone: (504) 581-9065
               Facsimile: (504) 581-7635
               E-mail: jzl@mbfirm.com
                       lcentola@mbfirm.com
                       nnazareth@mbfirm.com

          Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc.:

               Joy Goldberg Braun, Esq.
               April L. Watson, Esq.
               SESSIONS, FISHMAN, NATHAN & ISRAEL
               201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 3815
               New Orleans, LA 70170
               Telephone: (504) 582-1500
               Facsimile: (504) 582-1555
               E-mail: jgb@sessions-law.com
                       alw@sessions-law.com

Niegelsen v. Volkswagen AG, et al.
Docket No. 3:16-cv-00028 (N.D. Cal., January 4, 2016)
Case in other court: Michigan Eastern, 2:15-cv-13714

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               E. Powell Miller, Esq.
               Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
               THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
               950 W. University Dr., Suite 300
               Rochester, MI 48307
               Telephone: (248) 841-2200
               Facsimile: (248) 652-2852
               E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
                       ssa@millerlawpc.com

                              - and -

               Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
               Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
               Joshua J. Rissman, Esq.
               GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
               Canadian Pacific Plaza
               120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
               Minneapolis, MN 55402
               Telephone: (612) 333-8844
               Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
               E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                       dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
                       jrissman@gustafsongluek.com

Ligeti, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06205 (N.D. Cal., January 5, 2016)
Case in other court: Virginia Eastern, 1:15-cv-01598

          Plaintiffs' Counsel:

               Stephen Earl Baril, Esq.
               Kaplan Voekler Cunningham & Frank PLC
               1401 East Cary Street
               Richmond, VA 23219
               Telephone: (804) 823-4003
               Facsimile: (804) 823-4099
               E-mail: sbaril@kv-legal.com

Cunningham v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06176 (N.D. Cal., January 5, 2016)
Case in other court: New Jersey, 2:15-cv-07079

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               James E. Cecchi, Esq.
               CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
               5 Becker Farm Road
               Roseland, NJ 07068
               Telephone: (973) 994-1700
               Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
               E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com

The George Leon Family Trust v. Volkswagen AG, et al.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06166 (N.D. Cal., January 5, 2016)
Case in other court: New Jersey, 2:15-cv-07283

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               Mark Hanna, Esq.
               MURPHY ANDERSON PLLC
               1701 K Street NW, Suite 210
               Washington, DC 20006
               Telephone: (202) 223-2620
               Facsimile: (202) 223-9600
               E-mail: mhanna@murphypllc.com

                              - and -

               Joseph E. White, III, Esq.
               Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
               SAXENA WHITE P.A.
               5200 Town Center Circle, Suite 601
               Boca Raton, FL 33486
               Telephone: (561) 394-3399
               Facsimile: (561) 394-3382
               E-mail: jwhite@saxenawhite.com
                       lhooker@saxenawhite.com

                              - and -

               Katharine M. Ryan, Esq.
               Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
               RYAN & MANISKAS, LLP
               995 Old Eagle School Road, Suite 311
               Wayne, PA 19087
               Telephone: (484) 588-5516
               Facsimile: (484) 450-2582
               E-mail: kryan@rmclasslaw.com
                       rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com

          Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc.:

               Michael R. McDonald, Esq.
               Thomas R. Valen, Esq.
               Samuel Isaac Portnoy, Esq.
               GIBBONS PC
               One Gateway Center
               Newark, NJ 07102
               Telephone: (973) 596-4500
               Facsimile: (973) 596-0545
               E-mail: mmcdonald@gibbonslaw.com
                       tvalen@gibbonslaw.com
                       sportnoy@gibbonslaw.com

          Counsel to Movant Arkansas State Highway Employees
          Retirement System:

               James E. Cecchi, Esq.
               CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
               5 Becker Farm Road
               Roseland, NJ 07068
               Telephone: (973) 994-1700
               Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
               E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com

Ivanoski v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc., et al.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06165 (N.D. Cal., January 5, 2016)
Case in other court: Oklahoma Western, 5:15-cv-01063

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               Carin L. Marcussen, Esq.
               MARUCUSSEN LAW FIRM PLLC
               P.O. Box 714
               Shawnee, OK 47802-0714
               Telephone: (405) 245-0111
               E-mail: clm@federmanlaw.com

                              - and -

               William B. Federman, Esq.
               FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
               10205 N. Pennsylvania
               Oklahoma City, OK 73120
               Telephone: (405) 235-1560
               Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
               E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com

          Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc. and
          Volkswagen A.G.:

               Colin H. Tucker, Esq.
               John H. Tucker, Esq.
               RHODES HIERONYMUS JONES TUCKER & GABLE
               PO Box 21100
               Tulsa, OK 74121-1100
               Telephone: (918) 582-1173
               Facsimile: (918) 592-3390
               E-mail: chtuckercourts@rhodesokla.com
                       jtuckercourts@rhodesokla.com

Brown Daub Chevrolet of Nazareth, Inc. v. Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc., et al.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06245 (N.D. Cal., January 5, 2016)
Case in other court: Pennsylvania Eastern, 5:15-cv-06045

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               John K. Weston, Esq.
               Jeremy E. Abay, Esq.
               SACKS WESTON DIAMOND LLC
               1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1600
               Philadelphia, PA 19103
               Telephone: (215) 925-8200
               Facsimile: (267) 639-5422
               E-mail: jweston@sackslaw.com
                       jabay@sackslaw.com

          Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc.:

               Patricia Rodriguez Britton, Esq.
               NELSON MULLINS RILEY SCARBOROUGH LLP
               201 17th Street NW, Suite 1700
               Atlanta, GA 30363
               Telephone: (404) 322-6112
               E-mail: patricia.britton@nelsonmullins.com

Fugate, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc., et al.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06186 (N.D. Cal., January 5, 2016)
Case in other court: Pennsylvania Eastern, 2:15-cv-05440

          Plaintiffs' Counsel:

               John A. Corr, Esq.
               STARK & STARK PC
               777 Township Line Road, Suite 120
               Yardley, PA 19067-5559
               Telephone: (267) 759-9683
               Facsimile: (267) 907-9659
               E-mail: jcorr@stark-stark.com

          Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc.:

               Jo E. Peifer, Esq.
               Gerard Cedrone, Esq.
               LAVIN, O'NEIL, RICCI, CEDRONE & DISIPIO
               190 N. Independence Mall West, Suite 500
               Philadelphia, PA 19106
               Telephone: (215) 627-0303
               Facsimile: (215) 627-2551
               E-mail: jpeifer@lavin-law.com
                       gcedrone@lavin-law.com

Feeney v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06185 (N.D. Cal., January 5, 2016)
Case in other court: Pennsylvania Eastern, 2:15-cv-05738

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               Brian D. Ketterer, Esq.
               JANET JENNER & SUGGS LLC
               1777 Reisterstown Road, Suite 165
               Baltimore, MD 21208
               Telephone: (410) 653-3200
               E-mail: bketterer@myadvocates.com

          Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc.:

               Gerard Cedrone, Esq.
               LAVIN, O'NEIL, RICCI, CEDRONE & DISIPIO
               190 N. Independence Mall West, Suite 500
               Philadelphia, PA 19106
               Telephone: (215) 627-0303
               Facsimile: (215) 627-2551
               E-mail: gcedrone@lavin-law.com

Judy v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06195 (N.D. Cal., January 5, 2016)
Case in other court: West Virginia Northern, 2:15-cv-00074

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               Carrie Goodwin Fenwick, Esq.
               Richard D. Owen, Esq.
               Johnny M. Knisely, II, Esq.
               GOODWIN & GOODWIN LLP
               P.O. Box 2107
               Charleston, WV 25328-2107
               Telephone: (304) 346-7000
               Facsimile: (304) 344-9692
               E-mail: cgf@goodwingoodwin.com
                       rdo@goodwingoodwin.com
                       jmk@goodwingoodwin.com

          Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc.:

               Meghan Mitchell Cloud, Esq.
               MCGUIRE WOODS
               P. O. Box 1288
               Charlottesville, VA 22902
               Telephone: (434) 977-2534
               Facsimile: (434) 980-2254
               E-mail: mcloud@mcguirewoods.com

Klahn v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06295 (N.D. Cal., January 5, 2016)
Case in other court: New Jersey, 2:15-cv-07179

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
               NASTLAW LLC
               1101 Market Street, Suite 2801
               Philadelphia, PA 19107
               Telephone: (215) 923-9300
               Facsimile: (215) 923-9302
               E-mail: dnast@nastlaw.com

Hayashi v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06175 (N.D. Cal., January 5, 2016)
Case in other court: New Jersey, 2:15-cv-07060

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               Hunter J. Shkolnik, Esq.
               NAPOLI BERN RIPKA SHKOLNIK & ASSOCIATES, LLP
               350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7413
               New York, NY 10118
               Telephone: (212) 267-3700
               E-mail: hunter@napolilaw.com

Klinkov v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06266 (N.D. Cal., January 5, 2016)
Case in other court: New Jersey, 2:15-cv-07352

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               James E. Cecchi, Esq.
               CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
               5 Becker Farm Road
               Roseland, NJ 07068
               Telephone: (973) 994-1700
               Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
               E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com

Gibbons v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06265 (N.D. Cal., January 5, 2016)
Case in other court: New Jersey, 2:15-cv-07336

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               James E. Cecchi, Esq.
               CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
               5 Becker Farm Road
               Roseland, NJ 07068
               Telephone: (973) 994-1700
               Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
               E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com

Akyaz v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06156 (N.D. Cal., January 5, 2016)
Case in other court: Florida Southern, 0:15-cv-62356

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               Michael Thomas Fraser, Esq.
               THE LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD W. RUBINSTEIN, P.A.
               One Embarcadero Center, Suite 500
               San Francisco, CA 94111
               Telephone: (800) 436-6437
               Facsimile: (415) 692-6607
               E-mail: mfraser@thefraserlawfirm.net

                              - and -

               Joseph M. Pustizzi, Esq.
               LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH PUSTIZZI, PA
               3440 Hollywood Boulevard
               Hollywood, FL 33021
               Telephone: (954) 241-4244
               E-mail: joseph@pustizzilaw.com

          Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc.:

               Larry Martin Roth, Esq.
               RUMBERGER, KIRK & CALDWELL, PA
               300 S Orange Ave., Suite 1400
               P.O. Box 1873
               Orlando, FL
               Telephone: (407) 841-2133
               Facsimile: (407) 841-2133
               E-mail: lroth@rumberger.com

Brad Barber v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc., et al.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06256 (N.D. Cal., January 5, 2016)
Case in other court: California Central, 8:15-cv-01942

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               Julie R. Trotter, Esq.
               Scott R. Hatch, Esq.
               Matthew R. Orr, Esq.
               CALL AND JENSEN APC
               610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 700
               Newport Beach, CA 92660
               Telephone: (949) 717-3000
               Facsimile: (949) 717-3100
               E-mail: jtrotter@calljensen.com
                       shatch@calljensen.com
                       moor@calljensen.com

Verez v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06255 (N.D. Cal., January 5, 2016)
Case in other court: New Jersey, 2:15-cv-07123

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               James E. Cecchi, Esq.
               CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
               5 Becker Farm Road
               Roseland, NJ 07068
               Telephone: (973) 994-1700
               Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
               E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com

Sprague v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06305 (N.D. Cal., January 5, 2016)
Case in other court: New Jersey, 2:15-cv-07237

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               James E. Cecchi, Esq.
               CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
               5 Becker Farm Road
               Roseland, NJ 07068
               Telephone: (973) 994-1700
               Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
               E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com

Moreau v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc., et al.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06285 (N.D. Cal., January 5, 2016)
Case in other court: New Jersey, 2:15-cv-07758

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               Jeremy Edward Abay, Esq.
               SACKS WESTON DIAMOND LLC
               1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1600
               Philadelphia, PA 19103
               Telephone: (215) 928-8200
               E-mail: jabay@sackslaw.com

Kelley, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06246 (N.D. Cal., January 5, 2016)
Case in other court: Tennessee Eastern, 1:15-cv-00271

          Plaintiffs' Counsel:

               Van Bunch, Esq.
               BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
               2325 E. Camelback Road, Suite 300
               Phoenix, AZ 85016
               Telephone: (602) 274-1100
               Facsimile: (602) 274-1199
               E-mail: vbunch@bffb.com

          Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc.:

               John Randolph Bibb, Jr., Esq.
               Ryan Nelson Clark, Esq.
               LEWIS, THOMASON, KING, KRIEG & WALDROP, P.C.
               424 Church Street, Suite 2500
               Nashville, TN 37219
               Telephone: (615) 259-1366
               Facsimile: (615) 259-1389
               E-mail: rbibb@lewisthomason.com
                       rclark@lewisthomason.com

Dennis Burden, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al.
Docket No. 3:16-cv-00062 (N.D. Cal., January 5, 2016)
Case in other court: California Central, 2:15-cv-09125

          Plaintiffs' Counsel:

               John B. Quinn, Esq.
               Shon Morgan, Esq.
               QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
               865 S Figueroa St., Floor 10
               Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543
               Telephone: (213) 443-3000
               Facsimile: (213) 443-3100
               E-mail: johnquinn@quinnemanuel.com
                       shonmorgan@quinnemanuel.com

                              - and -

               Thomas E. Loeser, Esq.
               HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
               1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
               Seattle, WA 98101
               Telephone: (206) 623-7292
               Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
               E-mail: toml@hbsslaw.com

Truong, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc., et al.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06276 (N.D. Cal., January 6, 2016)
Case in other court: New Jersey, 2:15-cv-07577

          Plaintiffs' Counsel:

               John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
               KEEFE BARTELS
               170 Monmouth St.
               Red Bank, NJ 07701
               Telephone: (732) 224-9400
               Facsimile: (732) 224-9494
               E-mail: jkeefe@keefebartels.com

Clarke, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06275 (N.D. Cal., January 6, 2016)
Case in other court: New Jersey, 2:15-cv-07549

          Plaintiffs' Counsel:

               James E. Cecchi, Esq.
               CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
               5 Becker Farm Road
               Roseland, NJ 07068
               Telephone: (973) 994-1700
               Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
               E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com

Spiker v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06306 (N.D. Cal., January 6, 2016)
Case in other court: New Jersey, 2:15-cv-07241

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               James E. Cecchi, Esq.
               CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
               5 Becker Farm Road
               Roseland, NJ 07068
               Telephone: (973) 994-1700
               Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
               E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com

Manuel-Adams, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06296 (N.D. Cal., January 6, 2016)
Case in other court: New Jersey, 2:15-cv-07183

          Plaintiffs' Counsel:

               James E. Cecchi, Esq.
               CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
               5 Becker Farm Road
               Roseland, NJ 07068
               Telephone: (973) 994-1700
               Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
               E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com

Halper v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
Docket No. 3:16-cv-00010 (N.D. Cal., January 7, 2016)
Case in other court: New Jersey, 2:15-cv-07293

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               James E. Cecchi, Esq.
               CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
               5 Becker Farm Road
               Roseland, NJ 07068
               Telephone: (973) 994-1700
               Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
               E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com

Stone, et al. v. VW Credit Inc., et al.
Docket No. 3:16-cv-00096 (N.D. Cal., January 7, 2016)
Case in other court: Ohio Southern, 1:15-cv-00686

          Plaintiffs' Counsel:

               Jeffrey Phillip Harris, Esq.
               Sylvie Derrien, Esq.
               Alan J. Statman, Esq.
               STATMAN, HARRIS & EYRICH, LLC
               3700 Carew Tower
               441 Vine Street
               Cincinnati, OH 45202
               Telephone: (513) 621-2666
               Facsimile: (513) 621-4896
               E-mail: jharris@statmanharris.com
                       sderrien@statmanharris.com
                       ajstatman@statmanharris.com

          Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc., Volkswagen
          A.G. and VW Credit Inc., doing business as: Volkswagen
          Credit and Audi Financial Services and Ducati Financial
          Services:

               Hugh J. Bode, Esq.
               REMINGER & REMINGER CO. LPA
               1400 Midland Building
               101 Prospect Avenue West
               Cleveland, OH 44115
               Telephone: (216) 687-1311
               E-mail: hbode@reminger.com

Yeoman, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America, et al.
Docket No. 3:16-cv-00092 (N.D. Cal., January 7, 2016)
Case in other court: Utah, 2:15-cv-00692

          Plaintiffs' Counsel:

               Mark S. Schwarz, Esq.
               PINPOINT LAW PLLC
               75 E 400 S, Suite 201
               Salt Lake City, UT 84111
               Telephone: (801) 413-3442
               E-mail: mark@pinpointlaw.com

Bourn, et al. v. Volkswagen AG, et al.
Docket No. 3:16-cv-00090 (N.D. Cal., January 7, 2016)
Case in other court: Virginia Eastern, 1:15-cv-01295

          Plaintiffs' Counsel:

               Bernard J. DiMuro, Esq.
               Harvey B. Cohen, Esq.
               DIMUROGINSBERG, P.C.
               1101 King Street, Suite 610
               Alexandria, VA 23314
               Telephone: (703) 684-4333
               Facsimile: (703) 548-3181
               E-mail: bdimuro@dimuro.com
                       hcohen@dimuro.com

                              - and -

               Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
               Walter D. Kelley, Jr., Esq.
               James Pizzirusso, Esq.
               HAUSFELD LLP
               1700 K Street NW, Suite 650
               Washington, DC 20006
               Telephone: (202) 540-7200
               Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
               E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com
                       wkelley@.hausfeld.com
                       jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com

                              - and -

               Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
               Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq.
               Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq.
               HAUSFELD LLP
               600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200
               San Francisco, CA 94111
               Telephone: (415) 633-1908
               Facsimile: (415) 217-6813
               E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeldllp.com
                       bsweeney@hausfeldllp.com
                       clebsock@hausfeldllp.com

                              - and -

               Lesley E. Weaver, Esq.
               Whitney E. Street, Esq.
               BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
               520 Third Street, Suite 108
               Oakland, CA 94607
               Telephone: (415) 968-8999
               Cellphone: (415) 797-2617
               E-mail: lweaver@blockesq.com
                       wstreet@blockesq.com

          Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc.:

               Howard Feller, Esq.
               MCGUIRE WOODS BATTLE & BOTHE LLP
               One James Center
               901 East Gary St.
               Richmond, VA 23219-4030
               Telephone: (804) 775-4393
               Facsimile: (804) 698-2051
               E-mail: hfeller@mcguirewoods.com

                              - and -

               Casey Erin Lucier, Esq.
               Seth Abram Schaeffer, Esq.
               MCGUIREWOODS LLP
               Gateway Plaza
               800 East Canal Street
               Richmond, VA 23219
               Telephone: (804) 775-1000
               Facsimile: (804) 775-1061
               E-mail: clucier@mcguirewoods.com
                       sschaeffer@mcguirewoods.com

Miguel C. Fernandez, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
Docket No. 3:16-cv-00088 (N.D. Cal., January 7, 2016)
Case in other court: California Central, 2:15-cv-08699

          Plaintiffs' Counsel:

               Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Esq.
               Nicholas A. Carlin, Esq.
               PHILLIPS, ERLEWINE, GIVEN & CARLIN LLP
               39 Mesa Street, Suite 201
               The Presidio
               San Francisco, CA 94129
               Telephone: (415) 398-0900
               Facsimile: (415) 398-0911
               E-mail: bsc@phillaw.com
                       nac@phillaw.com

Plemmons v. Volkswagen AG, et al.
Docket No. 3:16-cv-00094 (N.D. Cal., January 7, 2016)
Case in other court: Tennessee Eastern, 1:15-cv-00275

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               David M. Wilkerson, Esq.
               Larry S. McDevitt, Esq.
               THE VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM
               11 North Market Street
               Asheville, NC 28801
               Telephone: (828) 258-2991
               E-mail: dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com
                       lmcdevitt@vwlawfirm.com

                              - and -

               Joseph R. White, Esq.
               Scott N. Brown, Jr., Esq.
               Joseph Alan Jackson, II, Esq.
               SPEARS, MOORE, REBMAN & WILLIAMS
               P O Box 1749
               Chattanooga, TN 37401-1749
               Telephone: (423) 756-7000
               Facsimile: (423) 756-4801
               E-mail: jrw@smrw.com
                       snb@smrw.com
                       JAJ@smrw.com

          Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc.:

               John Randolph Bibb, Jr., Esq.
               Ryan Nelson Clark, Esq.
               LEWIS, THOMASON, KING, KRIEG & WALDROP, P.C.
               424 Church Street, Suite 2500
               Nashville, TN 37219
               Telephone: (615) 259-1366
               Facsimile: (615) 259-1389
               E-mail: rbibb@lewisthomason.com
                       rclark@lewisthomason.com

Stempien v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
Docket No. 3:16-cv-00093 (N.D. Cal., January 7, 2016)
Case in other court: Tennessee Eastern, 1:15-cv-00269

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               Alison C. Harke, Esq.
               Howard M. Bushman, Esq.
               Lance A. Harke, Esq.
               HARKE, CLASBY & BUSHMAN, LLP
               9699 NE Second Avenue
               Miami Shores, FL 33138
               Telephone: (305) 536-8220
               E-mail: aharke@harkeclasby.com
                       sengel@harkeclasby.com
                       lharke@harkeclasby.com

                              - and -

               Patrick M. Barrett, III, Esq.
               BARRETT LAW OFFICE, PLLC
               4205 Hillsboro Pike, Suite 303
               Nashville, TN 37215
               Telephone: (615) 463-4000
               Facsimile: (615) 463-3717
               E-mail: pbarrett@barrettlawofficetn.com

                              - and -

               Charles F. Barrett, Esq.
               NEAL & HARWELL, PLC
               150 Fourth Avenue North, Suite 2000
               Nashville, TN 37219
               Telephone: (615) 244-1713
               Facsimile: (615) 726-0573
               E-mail: cbarrett@nealharwell.com

          Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc.:

               John Randolph Bibb, Jr., Esq.
               Ryan Nelson Clark, Esq.
               LEWIS, THOMASON, KING, KRIEG & WALDROP, P.C.
               424 Church Street, Suite 2500
               Nashville, TN 37219
               Telephone: (615) 259-1366
               Facsimile: (615) 259-1389
               E-mail: rbibb@lewisthomason.com
                       rclark@lewisthomason.com

Kevin Yazdi v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc., et al.
Docket No. 3:16-cv-00357 (N.D. Cal., January 22, 2016)
Case in other court: California Central, 8:15-cv-02157

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               Alexandra T. Steele, Esq.
               Thomas V. Girardi, Esq.
               GIRARDI KEESE
               1126 Wilshire Blvd.
               Los Angeles, CA 90017
               Telephone: (213) 977-0211
               E-mail: asteele@girardikeese.com
                       tgirardi@girardikeese.com

          Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc., a New
          Jersey Corporation, and Solazyme, a Delaware
          Corporation:

               Andrew Zachary Edelstein, Esq.
               John Nadolenco, Esq.
               Neil Michael Soltman, Esq.
               Matthew Henry Marmolejo, Esq.
               MAYER BROWN LLP
               350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2500
               Los Angeles, CA 90071
               Telephone: (213) 229-9500
               Facsimile: (213) 625-0248
               E-mail: AEdelstein@mayerbrown.com
                       jnadolenco@mayerbrown.com
                       nsoltman@mayerbrown.com
                       mmarmolejo@mayerbrown.com

          Counsel to Defendant Amyris Inc.:

               Laurie Carr Mims, Esq.
               KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP
               633 Battery Street
               San Francisco, CA 94111-1809
               Telephone: (415) 391-5400
               Facsimile: (415) 397-7188
               E-mail: lmims@kvn.com

Fidler, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al.
Docket No. 3:16-cv-00359 (N.D. Cal., January 22, 2016)
Case in other court: California Southern, 3:15-cv-02935

          Plaintiffs' Counsel:

               Alexandra T. Steele, Esq.
               Thomas V. Girardi, Esq.
               GIRARDI KEESE
               1126 Wilshire Blvd.
               Los Angeles, CA 90017
               Telephone: (213) 977-0211
               E-mail: asteele@girardikeese.com
                       tgirardi@girardikeese.com

          Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc., a New
          Jersey Corporation, and Solazyme, a Delaware
          Corporation:

               Andrew Zachary Edelstein, Esq.
               John Nadolenco, Esq.
               Neil Michael Soltman, Esq.
               Matthew Henry Marmolejo, Esq.
               MAYER BROWN LLP
               350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2500
               Los Angeles, CA 90071
               Telephone: (213) 229-9500
               Facsimile: (213) 625-0248
               E-mail: AEdelstein@mayerbrown.com
                       jnadolenco@mayerbrown.com
                       nsoltman@mayerbrown.com
                       mmarmolejo@mayerbrown.com

          Counsel to Defendant Amyris Inc.:

               Laurie Carr Mims, Esq.
               KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP
               633 Battery Street
               San Francisco, CA 94111-1809
               Telephone: (415) 391-5400
               Facsimile: (415) 397-7188
               E-mail: lmims@kvn.com

Amy Campion Scoggins v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al.
Docket No. 3:16-cv-00369 (N.D. Cal., January 22, 2016)
Case in other court: California Central, 2:15-cv-09567

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               Alexandra T. Steele, Esq.
               Thomas V. Girardi, Esq.
               GIRARDI KEESE
               1126 Wilshire Blvd.
               Los Angeles, CA 90017
               Telephone: (213) 977-0211
               E-mail: asteele@girardikeese.com
                       tgirardi@girardikeese.com

          Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc., a New
          Jersey Corporation, and Solazyme, a Delaware
          Corporation:

               Andrew Zachary Edelstein, Esq.
               John Nadolenco, Esq.
               Neil Michael Soltman, Esq.
               Matthew Henry Marmolejo, Esq.
               MAYER BROWN LLP
               350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2500
               Los Angeles, CA 90071
               Telephone: (213) 229-9500
               Facsimile: (213) 625-0248
               E-mail: AEdelstein@mayerbrown.com
                       jnadolenco@mayerbrown.com
                       nsoltman@mayerbrown.com
                       mmarmolejo@mayerbrown.com

          Counsel to Defendant Amyris Inc.:

               Laurie Carr Mims, Esq.
               KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP
               633 Battery Street
               San Francisco, CA 94111-1809
               Telephone: (415) 391-5400
               Facsimile: (415) 397-7188
               E-mail: lmims@kvn.com

Ross v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
Docket No. 3:16-cv-00365 (N.D. Cal., January 22, 2016)
Case in other court: Maryland, 1:15-cv-03973

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               Melanie Joustra Garner, Esq.
               LOCKS LAW FIRM
               601 Walnut St., Suite 720 East
               Philadelphia, PA 19106
               Telephone: (215) 893-0100
               Facsimile: (215) 893-3444
               E-mail: mgarner@lockslaw.com

                              - and -

               Stephen J. Nolan, Esq.
               STEPHEN J. NOLAN CHARTERED
               222 Bosley Ave., Suite A1
               Baltimore, MD 21204
               Telephone: (410) 821-8600
               Facsimile: (410) 821-8613
               E-mail: steve@sjnolan.com

          Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc.:

               John L. Hone, Esq.
               Ronald G. DeWald, Esq.
               LIPSHULTZ AND HONE CHTD
               8630 Fenton Street, Suite 108
               Silver Spring, MD 20910
               Telephone: (301) 587-8500
               Facsimile: (301) 495-9759
               E-mail: jhone@lhlegal.com
                       rdewald@lhlegal.com

Stroming v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
Docket No. 3:16-cv-00364 (N.D. Cal., January 22, 2016)
Case in other court: Illinois Northern, 1:15-cv-11686

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               Brian LaCien, Esq.
               Carolyn Daley Scott, Esq.
               POWER ROGERS SMITH P.C.
               70 W. Madison Street, 55th Floor
               Chicago, IL 60602
               Telephone: (312) 236-9381
               Facsimile: (312) 236-0920
               E-mail: blacien@prslaw.com
                       cdaley@prslaw.com

Walker v. Volkswagen Group of America, et al.
Docket No. 3:16-cv-00368 (N.D. Cal., January 22, 2016)
Case in other court: Utah, 1:15-cv-00161

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               Karra J. Porter, Esq.
               George W. Burbidge, II, Esq.
               CHRISTENSEN & JENSEN PC
               257 E 200 S, Suite 1100
               Salt Lake City, UT 84111
               Telephone: (801) 323-5000
               E-mail: karra.porter@chrisjen.com
                       george.burbidge@chrisjen.com

                              - and -

               Robert J. Fuller, Esq.
               FULLER LAW OFFICE LC
               1090 N 5900 E
               PO BOX 835
               Eden, UT 84310
               Telephone: (801) 791-7736
               E-mail: fullerlawyer@aol.com

          Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc.:

               Dan R. Larsen, Esq.
               Kimberly Neville, Esq.
               DORSEY AND WHITNEY LLP
               136 South Main, Suite 1000
               Salt Lake City, UT 84101
               Telephone: (801) 933-7360
               Facsimile: (801) 933-7373
               E-mail: larsen.dan@dorsey.com
                       neville.kimberly@dorsey.com

Hoekstra, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al.
Docket No. 3:16-cv-00397 (N.D. Cal., January 22, 2016)
Case in other court: Illinois Northern, 1:15-cv-10274

          Plaintiffs' Counsel:

               Todd Allen Smith, Esq.
               Carolyn Daley Scott, Esq.
               POWER ROGERS AND SMITH, PC
               70 W. Madison Street, 55th Floor
               Chicago, IL 60602
               Telephone: (312) 236-9381
               Facsimile: (312) 236-0920
               E-mail: tsmith@prslaw.com
                       cdaley@prslaw.com

Johnson v. Volkswagen AG, et al.
Docket No. 3:16-cv-00483 (N.D. Cal., January 28, 2016)
Case in other court: Virginia Eastern, 1:16-cv-00028

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               Daniel M. Cohen, Esq.
               CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP
               211 North Union Street, Suite 100
               Alexandria, VA 22314
               Telephone: (202) 789-3960
               Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
               E-mail: danielc@cuneolaw.com

Greenberg, et al. v. VWI, LLC
Docket No. 3:16-cv-00535 (N.D. Cal., February 1, 2016)
Case in other court: Florida Southern, 0:16-cv-60083

          Plaintiffs' Counsel:

               Albert L. Frevola, Jr., Esq.
               GORDON HARGROVE & JAMES
               2400 East Commercial Blvd., Suite 1100
               Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308-3092
               Telephone: (954) 958-2500
               E-mail: afrevola@conradscherer.com

                              - and -

               Bruce S. Rogow, Esq.
               BRUCE S. ROGOW PA
               Plaza 100
               100 Northeast 3rd Ave., Suite 1000
               Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
               Telephone: (954) 767-8909
               Facsimile: (954) 764-1530
               E-mail: brogow@rogowlaw.com

                              - and -

               Tara A. Campion, Esq.
               BRUCE S. ROGOW, P.A.
               500 East Broward Blvd., Suite 1930
               Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394
               Telephone: (954) 767-8909
               Facsimile: (954) 764-1530
               E-mail: tcampion@rogowlaw.com

                              - and -

               Ivan John Kopas, Esq.
               William R. Scherer, Esq.
               CONRAD & SCHERER, LLP
               633 South Federal Highway, Eighth Floor
               Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
               Telephone: (954) 462-5500
               Facsimile: (954) 463-9244
               E-mail: ikopas@conradscherer.com
                       wscherer@conradscherer.com

          Counsel to VWI, LLC, doing business as: Palmetto 57
          Volkswagen, on behalf of itself and all authorized
          Florida Volkswagen dealerships and similarly situated:

               Larry Martin Roth, Esq.
               RUMBERGER, KIRK & CALDWELL, PA
               300 S Orange Ave., Suite 1400
               P.O. Box 1873
               Orlando, FL
               Telephone: (407) 841-2133
               Facsimile: (407) 841-2133
               E-mail: lroth@rumberger.com

                              - and -

               Myron Shapiro, Esq.
               Michael Roland Holt, Esq.
               RUMBERGER KIRK & CALDWELL
               Brickell Bayview Centre
               80 SW 8th Street, Suite 3000
               Miami, FL 33130-3047
               Telephone: (305) 358-5577
               Facsimile: (786) 536-3451
               E-mail: mshapiro@rumberger.com
                       mholt@rumberger.com

Vigran v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc., et al.
Docket No. 3:16-cv-00619 (N.D. Cal., February 5, 2016)
Case in other court: Georgia Northern, 1:15-cv-04089

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               Alan J. Statman, Esq.
               Jeffrey P. Harris, Esq.
               Sylvie Derrien, Esq.
               STATMAN HARRIS & EYRICH
               441 Vine Street, Suite 3700
               Cincinnati, OH 45202
               Telephone: (513) 621-2666
               Facsimile: (513) 621-4896
               E-mail: ajstatman@statmanharris.com
                       jharris@statmanharris.com
                       sderrien@statmanharris.com

                              - and -

               Darren W. Pennsylvania, Esq.
               Jed Davis Manton, Esq.
               Jeffrey R. Harris, Esq.
               Madeline Elizabeth McNeeley, Esq.
               Stephen G. Lowry, Esq.
               HARRIS PENN LOWRY LLP
               400 Colony Square, Suite 900
               1201 Peachtree Street, NE
               Atlanta, GA 30361
               Telephone: (404) 961-7650
               Facsimile: (404) 961-7651
               E-mail: darren@hpllegal.com
                       jed@hpllegal.com
                       jeff@hpllegal.com
                       molly@hpllegal.com
                       steve@hpllegal.com

          Counsel to Porsche Cars North America, Inc., and
          Porsche Financial Services, Inc.:

               Cari K. Dawson, Esq.
               Kristine McAlister Brown, Esq.
               ALSTON & BIRD LLP
               One Atlantic Center
               1201 West Peachtree Street NW
               Atlanta, GA 30309
               Telephone: (404) 881-7000
               Facsimile: (404) 881-7777
               E-mail: cari.dawson@alston.com
                       kristy.brown@alston.com

Brown v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc., et al.
Docket No. 3:16-cv-00621 (N.D. Cal., February 5, 2016)
Case in other court: Georgia Northern, 1:15-cv-03867

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               Darren W. Penn, Esq.
               Jed Davis Manton, Esq.
               Jeffrey R. Harris, Esq.
               Kristy Sweat Davies, Esq.
               Madeline Elizabeth McNeeley, Esq.
               Stephen G. Lowry, Esq.
               HARRIS PENN LOWRY LLP
               400 Colony Square, Suite 900
               1201 Peachtree Street, NE
               Atlanta, GA 30361
               Telephone: (404) 961-7650
               Facsimile: (404) 961-7651
               E-mail: darren@hpllegal.com
                       jed@hpllegal.com
                       jeff@hpllegal.com
                       kristy@hpllegal.com
                       molly@hpllegal.com
                       steve@hpllegal.com

          Counsel to Porsche Cars North America, Inc.:

               Cari K. Dawson, Esq.
               Kristine McAlister Brown, Esq.
               ALSTON & BIRD LLP
               1201 West Peachtree Street NW
               Atlanta, GA 30309
               Telephone: (404) 881-7000
               Facsimile: (404) 881-7777
               E-mail: cari.dawson@alston.com
                       kristy.brown@alston.com

Thompson v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
Docket No. 3:16-cv-00675 (N.D. Cal., February 10, 2016)
Case in other court: Louisiana Eastern, 2:15-cv-04805

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               Daniel E. Becnel, Jr., Esq.
               Jennifer L. Crose, Esq.
               Matthew B. Moreland, Esq.
               Salvadore Christina, Jr., Esq.
               BECNEL LAW FIRM, L.L.C.
               106 West Seventh Street
               P.O. Drawer H
               Reserve, LA 70084-2095
               Telephone: (985) 536-1186
               Facsimile: (985) 536-6445
               E-mail: dbecnel@becnellaw.com
                       jcrose@becnellaw.com
                       mmoreland@becnellaw.com
                       schristina@becnellaw.com

                              - and -

               Mekel Smith Alvarez, Esq.
               Morris Bart, III, Esq.
               MORRIS BART, LLC
               909 Poydras St., Suite 2000
               New Orleans, LA 70112-4000
               Telephone: (504) 599-3385
               Facsimile: (504) 599-3380
               E-mail: malvarez@morrisbart.com
                       morrisbart@morrisbart.com

          Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc.:

               Joy Goldberg Braun, Esq.
               April L. Watson, Esq.
               SESSIONS, FISHMAN, NATHAN & ISRAEL
               201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 3815
               New Orleans, LA 70170
               Telephone: (504) 582-1500
               Facsimile: (504) 582-1555
               E-mail: jgb@sessions-law.com
                       alw@sessions-law.com


MOHONK MOUNTAIN: Settles Class Action Over Norovirus
----------------------------------------------------
Abbott Brant, writing for Poughkeepsie Journal, reports that those
affected by the gastrointestinal virus that sickened guests and
employees at the Mohonk Mountain House in New Paltz back in 2014
may receive money from a proposed $875,000 settlement, according
to an online class action notice.

The lawsuit was filed in February 2014 when class representatives
of the lawsuit Louis Bellotti and Anna Marie Bellotti of
New Jersey, "acting on behalf of themselves and those similar
situated," brought the lawsuit against Mohonk Mountain House,
according to the notice.  The Bellottis were two of many stricken
by the norovirus, which according to the notice, led to "nausea,
vomiting, diarrhea and/or abdominal pain" as well as lethargy,
weakness, muscle aches, headaches and fever.

According to the class action notice, subject to upcoming court
approval, the Mohonk Mountain House has agreed to a settlement
fund of $875,000 to resolve this litigation.  Of that amount,
$290,868 will be paid out of the settlement for "costs and
expenses related to the suit." Plaintiffs Bellotti and Bellotti
will "apply to the court" to receive $10,000 each, with the
remaining funds being distributed to class members who participate
in the settlement.

Calls to Mohonk Mountain House were not returned by press time.

Anyone who visited the resort between Jan. 27, 2014 and Feb. 28,
2014 may be members of the class action suit, according to the
notice.  To benefit from the settlement, class members must submit
a claim form prior to May 2.

Though the exact number of those affected is not known, surveys
conducted by the Ulster County and New York State Departments of
Health found that 200 class members claimed to be stricken by the
norovirus after staying at Mohonk.

In the 12-page lawsuit filed in state Supreme Court, attorney
Donald W. Boyajian of Albany claimed gross negligence, stating
that Mohonk knew the norovirus was present and failed to warn
visiting guests who stayed at the resort between late January and
early February of that year.

Mohonk "denies any liability for the claims," according to the
notice. However the court preliminary approved the proposed
settlement on Jan. 15 of this year, finding the proposed
settlement "to be within the range of reasonableness."

State Supreme Court Justice Judge Richard Mott will hold a hearing
at the Ulster County Courthouse March 14 to determine whether the
proposed settlement should be officially approved.

Norovirus is the most common cause of acute gastroenteritis, in
which a person's stomach, intestines or both become inflamed.  It
is the most common cause of food-borne disease outbreaks in the
United States, according to the website for the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention.

Norovirus is "very contagious" and can be caught from an infected
person, contaminated food or water, or by touching contaminated
surfaces.  It causes a person's stomach, intestines or both to get
inflamed, according to the CDC.

According to Journal archives, Mohonk hired Texas-based disaster
relief company, BMS CAT, to disinfect all the buildings on the
property at the time of the outbreak.  The resort was closed from
Feb. 7 to Valentine's Day, the longest it has been closed since it
began operation in 1869.


MONTREAL INSTITUTE: Settles Sexual Abuse Class Suit for $30MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
Francois Gloutnay, writing for The Catholic Register, reports that
about 150 former pupils and boarders of the former Montreal
Institute for the Deaf who were sexually abused between 1940 and
1982 will share $30 million after their class action was settled.

The record amount includes the $20 million the Clerics of St.
Viateur, whose members worked at the institute, agreed to pay in
November.

A second settlement of $10 million, was reached Feb. 10 with the
Raymond-Dewar Institute, the name for the Montreal Institute for
the Deaf as of 1984.

Superior Court Judge Eva Petras approved the settlements in mid-
February and asked attorney Andre Forget, a former judge at
Quebec's Court of Appeal, to review the victims' claims. Forget
was the court's assessor during other class actions against the
Brothers of the Holy Cross and the Redemptorists that were settled
in recent years.

The settlement is "by far the most important sum ever paid in
Quebec for sex abuse against minors," said a statement released by
Kugler Kandestin, the law firm representing the victims.

Officials with the Clerics of St. Viateur, known as the
Viatorians, declined comment on the settlements. The order also
refused to disclose the canonical status of congregation members
named in the lawsuit.

In November, Fr. Nestor Fils-Aime, the order's superior, said his
congregation would "have to submit itself to stringent financial
sacrifices to pay the agreed sums."

Meanwhile, the order released the 2014 update of its 28-page
policy regarding sexual misconduct within the community.

The lawsuit first filed in 2012 included the names of 27 priests
and brothers of the congregation. A seven-page table inserted into
the court record associated the initials of the victims with the
names of the 24 brothers and three priests accused of sexually
abusing the minors. One of the priests named was identified by 24
victims.


MORGAN & MORGAN: Settles Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
R. Robin McDonald, writing for Daily Report, reports that a law
firm that represents plaintiffs in wage-related cases is settling
two suits with former Atlanta employees who claimed the firm
violated federal labor laws by requiring them to work overtime
without fully compensating them.

Morgan & Morgan, the personal injury firm that advertises it is
"for the people, not the powerful," has agreed to settle suits by
former case manager Wanda Rosado and former paralegal Sheryl
Kolacki.

For now, those settlements remain confidential, and both sides in
Ms. Rosado's case have said because her claims will be paid in
full, court approval of the deal -- which would likely make the
terms public -- is unnecessary.

But the federal judge in Ms. Rosado's case has rejected arguments
that would keep the settlement agreement secret.  Judge Mark Cohen
has directed the parties to submit the settlement agreement to him
for review, citing a 1945 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Brooklyn
Savings Bank v. O'Neil, 324 U.S. 697, that "absent some compelling
reason, the sealing from public scrutiny of FLSA [Fair Labor
Standards Act] agreements between employees and employers would
thwart the public's independent interest in assuring that
employees' wages are fair and thus do not endanger the national
health and well-being."

Jim Kelleher, managing partner of Morgan & Morgan in Atlanta, said
in a statement that "resolving these cases very early in the
process was a business decision, and in NO WAY constitutes an
admission of any improper conduct on our part."

"The amount of the settlements represents our cost of defense," he
added. "At Morgan and Morgan, we recognize that our employees are
our greatest asset. We treat them with great respect and believe
our firm culture and work environment are second to none."

His attorney, Christopher Butler of Ford & Harrison, could not be
reached.

Alpharetta attorney Paul Sharman, who represents Ms. Rosado and
Ms. Kolacki, said the settlement agreements "are not necessarily
something I want to discuss," but he acknowledged "It's very rare
when FLSA agreements will be sealed."

The cases were assigned to two different judges, and Mr. Sharman
said he will be submitting the settlement agreements with motions
to dismiss both cases later this week.  He added that he doesn't
want to reveal the terms for fear he might jeopardize the
agreements before they are approved.

"I do not believe either of the judges will subscribe to" sealing
the terms of the settlements, he said.

Morgan & Morgan's website touts the firm's expertise in federal
wage-and-hour cases, saying that it has handled more than 6,000
wage-and-hour suits and recovered millions on behalf of its
clients who were wrongly denied overtime, underpaid or forced to
work off-the-clock.  The website promotes the firm's attorneys as
"dedicated to fighting for those who weren't paid properly and are
not afraid to take their cases to court to get their clients the
money they deserve."

Ms. Rosado worked for Morgan & Morgan for three years as a case
manager before she sued last year, seeking unpaid wages, an
overtime wage differential, attorneys' fees and litigation costs.
Although her suit was billed as a collective action on behalf of
anyone who worked as a Morgan & Morgan case manager between 2012
and 2015, Mr. Sharman said that only one other case manager joined
the litigation.  Ms. Rosado left the firm last year.

Ms. Rosado's suit contended that Morgan & Morgan had misclassified
its case managers as exempt from federal wage-and-hour provisions
that apply to hourly workers.  As a result, the suit said, Morgan
& Morgan did not pay Ms. Rosado time and a half whenever she
worked more than 40 hours in a single week.
Ms. Rosado was paid $44,720 a year and estimated in her complaint
that she worked, on average, about 45 hours a week at the law
firm.

Ms. Rosado's suit also claimed that even though her title
described her as a manager, it was a misnomer.  Her job required
her to provide updates to clients, send letters of representation,
coordinate with the firm investigator, and review files with firm
lawyers, according to the complaint.  She was not required to have
any specialized training, and a firm lawyer who supervised her had
discretion over her working hours, her employment status and any
overtime compensation -- all characteristics of an hourly worker
not exempt from federal overtime statutes.


MORGAN KEEGAN: 8th Circuit Limits American Pipe Tolling
-------------------------------------------------------
Grant & Eisenhofer, in an article for LGC, reports that in a
recent decision, Zarecor, et al. v Morgan Keegan & Co, Inc., the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that
American Pipe tolling -- pausing the statute of limitations in a
class action -- is limited to the exact claims asserted in the
earlier class action.

The court also held that the pursuit of arbitration through the
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) does not toll
statutes of limitations.  The decision reinforces the need for
institutional investors who are filing an individual action to
carefully consider the timing of their filing and the circuit in
which they file.

In 2007, investors in mutual fund securities filed a class action
against several defendants, including Morgan Keegan & Co, Inc.
Before the class action was resolved by settlement, several of the
class members 'opted out' of the class.

In 2009, the opt-out plaintiffs filed a statement of claim in
arbitration with FINRA alleging that Morgan Keegan had violated
state and federal securities laws.  The FINRA arbitration panel
found in favour of the plaintiffs but a federal district court
later revoked the award.

Then, in 2011, the opt-out plaintiffs filed a complaint in federal
court alleging that Morgan Keegan was involved in preparing and
approving false and misleading Securities and Exchange Commission
filings, prospectuses and marketing materials and thereby violated
state, and federal securities laws. Morgan Keegan filed a motion
to dismiss, which the district court granted on the basis that all
the claims were time-barred.

The district court rejected the opt-out plaintiffs' argument that
either the class action tolled the applicable statutes of
limitations under the US Supreme Court's decision in American Pipe
and Construction Co v Utah, or that the pendency of the FINRA
arbitration tolled the statutes of limitations.  The district
court held that American Pipe tolling applies only to claims that
are identical to those asserted by the earlier class action, and
found that the opt-out plaintiffs' claims did not meet this
standard.  The court also held that the FINRA arbitration did not
toll the statute of limitations. The opt-out plaintiffs filed an
appeal.

Update

On September 1, 2015, the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit held that American Pipe tolling applies only to claims
identical to those asserted by the earlier class action.  The
court further held that the pursuit of FINRA arbitration does not
toll statutes of limitations at all.

In American Pipe, the US Supreme Court held that the commencement
of a class action suspends the statute of limitations for class
members.

Agreeing with the district court, however, the Eighth Circuit held
that such tolling is limited to claims in a later-filed action
that are the same as those pleaded in the class action. The court
stated that the Supreme Court's concern in American Pipe was that
without tolling, putative class members would needlessly move to
intervene or file their own claims, undermining the purpose of
allowing class actions.

However, claims that are not asserted in the class action, the
court reasoned, are not subject to this logic.  Moreover, the
court added, tolling statutes of limitations for claims not
asserted in the class action would be unfair to defendants because
the class action would not give them notice of those claims.

Although plaintiffs' claims were similar to those asserted in the
class action, the court ruled that they were significantly
different and therefore not eligible for American Pipe tolling.

The court also held that the pursuit of FINRA arbitration did not
toll the federal statute of limitations.  The court noted that a
plaintiff pursuing arbitration need not await its outcome to bring
an action in court.  Rather, there is an accepted procedure for
pursuing both arbitration and a lawsuit simultaneously: a
plaintiff may file suit and then seek to stay the action pending
arbitration, thereby preserving the timeliness of the plaintiff's
claims.  Therefore, the court said, there is no reason to toll a
statute of limitations during the pursuit of arbitration.

The court therefore affirmed the district court's dismissal of
opt-out plaintiffs' federal claims as time-barred.

Implications

The court's decision endorses a very narrow view of the scope of
claims that may benefit from American Pipe tolling.  This view is
shared by some other US federal courts, although the Second
Circuit has held to the contrary and does not limit American Pipe
tolling to claims that are strictly identical to those asserted in
an earlier class action.

Until this disagreement is eventually resolved by the US Supreme
Court, members of putative classes who are considering pursuing
their own cases need carefully to consider in which circuit to
file their case if they contemplate pursuing claims different from
those asserted in the class action.


NAPW INC: "Martin" Suit to Recover Commissions, OT, Missed Breaks
--------------------------------------------------------------
Crystal Martin, Jeanette Infield, Jennifer Hess, Suzie James,
Kristin Lerner, Ilana Youngheim, Nili Sinai and Aggrieved
Employees, Plaintiffs, v. NAPW, INC. d/b/a National Association of
Professional Women, a corporation, Professional Diversity Network
LLC, a limited liability company and DOES 1-80, Defendants, Case
BC606543 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles, January 11, 2016),
seeks general, compensatory and special damages, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest on any lost or unpaid wages and reasonable
attorneys' fees, equitable relief, statutory and civil penalties,
treble damages and all other such relief pursuant to California
Labor Code Sec. 218.4, 226.7, 226(g) and 1194.

The complaint says the Defendants have withheld commission wages
from the Plaintiffs, imposed illegal pay deductions, failed to pay
overtime wages, failed to compensate for missed meal and/or rest
periods and failed to provide accurate time records.

Defendants own and operate sales facilities in Century City,
California where the Plaintiffs worked as call center agents.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kyle J. Todd, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF KYLE TODD
      611 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1112
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Tel: (323) 208-9171
      Fax: (323) 693-0822
      Email: kyle@kyletodd.com


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Loses Bid to Avert Compensation Limits Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Berkowitz, writing for USA TODAY Sports, reports that the
9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has rejected a bid from the NCAA
and 11 major conferences to appeal a district judge's decision to
grant class-action status to a pair of lawsuits seeking an
injunction against the NCAA's current limits on the compensation
athletes can receive while playing college sports.

The ruling was made on Feb. 26 and filed with the district court
on Feb. 29.

In early December, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken decided to
allow the cases to proceed as class actions, rejecting the NCAA's
and the conferences' argument that lifting the limits would result
in star athletes getting much greater compensation than they can
now while scholarship and playing opportunities for other athletes
would be eliminated because schools would need ways to find the
money to pay the stars.

On Dec. 18, the NCAA and the conferences field documents seeking
permission to appeal that ruling.

On Feb. 29, Judges Ronald Gould and Johnnie Rawlinson -- without
comment -- denied that permission.

This means that, barring further appeal, the cases will be allowed
to go forward as class actions seeking injunctions against the
NCAA's compensation limits.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs in one of the two cases on Feb. 17
filed documents that began the process of asking Judge Wilken to
grant class-action status to groups of athletes seeking monetary
damages based on the difference between the value of a traditional
athletic scholarship and one that also covers the full cost of
attending college.

Judge Wilken is the same judge who handled the Ed O'Bannon lawsuit
and found that the NCAA's limits on what major-college football
and men's basketball players can receive for playing sports
"unreasonably restrain trade" in violation of antitrust laws.

The damages and the injunctive relief are being sought in the case
being led primarily by lawyers from Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP. It began on behalf of former West Virginia football player
Shawne Alston.  Mr. Alston remains a named plaintiff, but the
initial case was consolidated with other suits involving athletes
in other sports.  According to a revised filing of the suit in
July 2014, it now seeks to cover Bowl Subdivision football
players, Division I men's basketball players and Division I
women's basketball players who received athletic scholarships.
Although the NCAA and 11 conferences are named as defendants,
other Division I schools and conferences are alleged to have been
co-conspirators.

The related case, which seeks the injunction -- but not
damages -- is being directed primarily by Jeffrey Kessler.  It is
being pursued on behalf of plaintiffs led by former Clemson
football player Martin Jenkins and two current Wisconsin athletes:
basketball player Nigel Hayes and football player Alec James.  It
covers football and men's basketball players in the power
conferences.


NEW YORK: NYPD Commissioner Dismisses Job Quota Claims
------------------------------------------------------
NBC New York reports that the current and former officer suing the
NYPD over alleged arrest quotas fired back at police Commissioner
Bill Bratton on March 1 after the city's top cop dismissed their
claims with an expletive.

The dozen minority officers listed as plaintiffs in the federal
class action lawsuit against the NYPD said on March 1 that the
alleged practice took umbrage with Mr. Bratton -- who said the
claims that the NYPD still enforce quotas and punish officers who
don't play along were "bulls---."

"For Commissioner Bratton to use profanity to address legitimate
concerns of employees is disrespectful and callous," said
Chukwuemeka Nwokoro.

The lead plaintiff on the case, Edwin Raymond, told the I-Team's
Sarah Wallace in an exclusive interview that he alleged "black and
Hispanic neighborhoods are hunted" under the quota system and that
he secretly recorded conversations with other officers confirming
its existence.

At a news conference on March 1, Mr. Raymond and other officers
outlined ways that they felt the department retaliated against
them for taking action.  Mr. Raymond was bounced around for a
promotion, while officer Adnyl Polanco said he had been bounced
around for speaking up.

"Quotas bring problems to the most vulnerable," said Adnyl
Polanco, a cop who works in the 94th precinct in Greenpoint,
Brooklyn.

They said that they hope their lawsuit will lead to better
community policing.

The city, meanwhile has asked a judge to toss the suit. A ruling
is expected within a couple of months.


NEWS AMERICA: Settles Antitrust Class Action
--------------------------------------------
News Corp on Feb. 29 announced the settlement of a class action
lawsuit alleging various antitrust claims arising out of past
operations at its News America Marketing division.

The company made the following statement:

"News America Marketing has consistently denied any wrongdoing in
this case, which involves allegations relating to historical
conduct reaching back as far as 1997. We are pleased to have
concluded this settlement, which allows us to avoid the expense
and uncertainty of further litigating this matter.  While we had
full confidence in our case, we believe this decision is in the
best interests of our company and stockholders."

Under the terms of the settlement with the plaintiffs, who consist
of consumer packaged goods companies, the company will pay
approximately $250 million, and the pending litigation will be
dismissed, subject to court approval.  Additionally the company
will pay approximately $30 million to resolve related claims.

The case was first brought in December 2012, prior to the
separation of News Corporation from 21st Century Fox in 2013.  The
trial began on Feb. 29 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

                        About News Corp

News Corp. -- http://www.newscorp.com-- is a global, diversified
media and information services company focused on creating and
distributing authoritative and engaging content to consumers
throughout the world.  The company comprises businesses across a
range of media, including: news and information services, book
publishing, digital real estate services, cable network
programming in Australia, and pay-TV distribution in Australia.
Headquartered in New York, the activities of News Corp are
conducted primarily in the United States, Australia, and the
United Kingdom.


NU SKIN: Settles Securities Class Action for $47 Million
--------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP on March 1 disclosed that the Firm reached a
$47 million settlement, subject to court approval, on behalf of
Boston Retirement System in a securities class action against Nu
Skin Enterprises, Inc. (Nu Skin) and others, In re Nu Skin
Enterprises, Inc., Securities Litigation, No. 14-cv-0033.  Founded
in 1984 and headquartered in Provo, Utah, Nu Skin is an
international, multilevel marketing company that distributes
personal care products and nutritional supplements.

Led by Labaton Sucharow partner Jonathan Gardner, Esq. --
jgardner@labaton.com -- the Firm served as lead counsel
representing lead plaintiff Boston Retirement System, alleging
that Nu Skin misled its investors, failing to disclose material
facts about the success and viability of Nu Skin's "direct
selling" business model and practices in China -- specifically 1)
Nu Skin's business practices violated Chinese laws and
regulations; and 2) Nu Skin's rapid expansion and growth in
revenues could not continue without its Chinese operations.

During the class period (October 25, 2011 - January 16, 2014), Nu
Skin's Chinese operations accounted for a large portion of the
company's revenues, and Nu Skin repeatedly highlighted the sharp
expansion of its China operations as indicative of the success and
viability of its business model.  However, an August 2012 report
alleged that Nu Skin's operations in China were nothing more than
a pyramid scheme based on multilevel marketing, a sales strategy
prohibited in China.  On this news, Nu Skin's stock price
declined, and Nu Skin's response was to issue a press release
assuring investors that the company was "confident that [its]
China operations [we]re in compliance with applicable regulations
as interpreted and enforced by the government of China."

In January 2014, the damaging allegations about Nu Skin's
practices reached a larger audience when China's leading
newspaper, People's Daily, published a separate report asserting
that the company's Chinese operations violated Chinese law and
were suspected to be an illegal pyramid scheme.  The article
further reported, among other things, that the company sold more
products than Chinese regulations allowed.  In response to these
revelations, the company's stock price fell more than 15 percent
that day.  The next two days, two separate Chinese agencies
announced they initiated investigations into Nu Skin following the
People's Daily report.  The company acknowledged the existence of
the investigations, noting that revenues could be negatively
affected. Following these disclosures, the company's stock price
plummeted more than 26 percent, and the following day, an
additional six percent.

According to Boston Retirement System Chairman Daniel J. Greene,
"We are very pleased with this recovery and look forward to
returning it to the class.  Boston Retirement System is committed
to protecting our members' interests, and when those interests
have suffered due to fraud, we believe it is our mission to pursue
recovery for our members and the class."

                   About Labaton Sucharow LLP

Labaton Sucharow -- http://www.labaton.com-- prosecutes
precedent-setting class actions, recovering billions of dollars on
behalf of defrauded investors and consumers.  The Firm's
successful reputation is built not only on its team of more than
60 attorneys, but also on its industry-leading in-house
investigators, financial analysts, and forensic accountants.  The
Firm litigates in the areas of securities, antitrust, and consumer
protection law.


PDS TRANSPORTATION: "Lopez" Suit Asserts Labor Law Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Horacio Lopez, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PDS Transportation, Inc.,
Intermodel Container Services, Inc. dba Harbor Rail Transport,
Pacer Cartage, Inc. and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case
BC606692 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles, January 11, 2016),
seeks a temporary restraining order, preliminary and permanent
injunction, enjoinment, recovery of wages, disgorgement of
profits, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees
and costs in accordance with the California Labor Code Sec. 226.7
and Industrial Wage Order No. 9-2001, Sec. 11(a).

Defendants misclassified its drivers as contractors, failed to pay
for all time worked every pay period at required minimum wages,
failed to provide off-duty meal and rest periods, failed to
reimburse business expenses and did not provide accurate wage
statements, the complaint says.

Defendants are transport companies based in California providing
various trucking and shipping service to its clients.  Lopez works
as a driver for the Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian S. Kabateck, Esq.
      Joshua H. Haffner, Esq.
      Levi Plesset, Esq.
      KABATECK BROWN KELLNER LLP
      644 S. Figueroa Street
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Tel: (213) 217-5000
      Fax: (213) 217-5010
      Email: bsk@kbklawyers.com
             jhh@kbklawyers.com
             lp@kbklawyers.com


PFIZER INC: Seeks to Strike Two Experts in Zoloft MDL
-----------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
almost three months after a summary judgment motion in the Zoloft
birth-defect MDL had been filed, Pfizer has asked a federal judge
to strike the testimony of two experts the plaintiffs put forward
after the judge's decision to bar testimony from their last key
witness.

Pfizer's motion to strike reports from Michael Levin and Thomas
Sadler were filed on Feb. 24.  Dianne Nast, lead counsel for the
plaintiffs, said the expert reports were recently filed as part of
a response to Pfizer's summary judgment motion.  The plaintiffs'
papers in opposition to summary judgment were filed under seal.

Mark Cheffo, an attorney for Pfizer, referred comment to a company
spokesperson who said in an email that the "plaintiffs' submission
of these reports is procedurally improper and is another attempt
at a Daubert do-over by resubmitting opinions that this court
already excluded."

U.S. District Judge Cynthia Rufe of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania ruled last December to exclude the testimony of the
plaintiffs' general causation expert, Dr. Nicholas Jewell, a
professor of biostatistics at the University of California,
Berkeley.  Judge Rufe had earlier barred testimony from the
plaintiffs' noncardiac birth injury expert, Dr. Anick Berard, as a
factor in the decision to dismiss the cases.

With the main plaintiffs experts out of the case, the MDL appeared
to be on the verge of collapse.  However, Judge Rufe has not yet
ruled on Pfizer's motion for summary judgment.

Judge Rufe's December ruling came after the dismissal of hundreds
of noncardiac birth defect cases in the litigation over the summer
-- halving the litigation in size.  Dr. Jewell was put forth as
the expert for the remaining, cardiac-related cases.  At one point
the MDL numbered around 600 cases.

According to Judge Rufe's December opinion, Dr. Jewell opined that
"maternal use of Zoloft during early pregnancy is capable of
causing, or contributing to cause, cardiovascular birth defects."
However, the judge held that Dr. Jewell's opinion was inadmissible
because he used unreliable science to reach his conclusions.

Judge Rufe said Dr. Jewell's opinion was based upon his review and
analysis of the medical literature, and his reanalysis of data
from published Zoloft studies.  The plaintiffs argued that Jewell,
a statistician, used well-accepted methods in arriving at his
conclusions, while drugmaker Pfizer argued that while the methods
he advocated may have been sound, he did not apply them in his
Zoloft opinions.

As a statistics expert, Judge Rufe said Dr. Jewell would have to
explain why he believes that the positive associations between
mothers' use of Zoloft and cardiac birth defects, reported in some
studies, are accurate and not the result of statistical flaws or
biases and reconcile those studies that claimed there was no
increased risk of cardiac birth defects with his opinion.

According to Judge Rufe, Dr. Jewell "has deviated from or
downplayed certain well-established principles of his field, and
has inconsistently applied methods and standards to the data so as
to support his a priori opinion.  It is improper for an expert to
take a results-driven approach to a question, molding his
methodology and selectively relying upon data so as to confirm his
preconceived opinion."

"As Pfizer pointed out to the court, Dr. Jewell's testimony
directly conflicts with the findings of a range of independent
expert organizations, such as the American Psychiatric
Association, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
and the American Heart Association, all of whom have found that
Zoloft's use--during pregnancy is not associated with birth
defects," a spokesperson for Pfizer said in an email.

Ms. Nast previously said the plaintiffs moved to dismiss the
noncardiac cases and proceed in cardiac-only matters for greater
efficiency.  Ms. Nast said cases can be refiled with the
understanding that the statute of limitations will not be running.
Ms. Nast also pointed to Judge Rufe's decision to exclude the
testimony Dr. Berard as a factor in the decision to dismiss the
cases.

"I'm not saying we would have made a different decision if she had
passed muster with the court," Ms. Nast had said, because
efficiency was the primary concern.


RALPH'S GROCERY: NLRB Panel Invalidates Arbitration Policy
----------------------------------------------------------
Michael L. Stevens, Esq. -- michael.stevens@arentfox.com -- of
Arent Fox LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that following
a recent trend that has not been received well by the courts, a
divided panel of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or
Board) invalidated an arbitration policy that required employees
to waive their rights to pursue class or collective actions in
employment-related claims in all forums, whether arbitral or
judicial.  Ralph's Grocery Company, 363 NLRB No. 128 (Feb. 23,
2016).

The Mediation and Binding Arbitration Policy

Ralph's Grocery maintained a Mediation and Binding Arbitration
Policy (MBAP).  The MBAP, which is four pages long and contains an
introduction and 14 separate untitled paragraphs, is deemed
accepted by an applicant upon submitting an application and by an
employee upon acceptance or continuation of employment.  The MBAP
is binding on the employee and the Company. The introductory
paragraph states, in relevant part:

This Arbitration Policy applies to all Employees' employment (or
application for employment) and is aimed at resolving employment-
related disputes quickly and fairly, to the benefit of everyone
involved.  This Arbitration Policy is not meant to supplant the
purpose, role and effect of managers, supervisors, administrators,
any applicable grievance and arbitration procedure contained in a
collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and applicable internal
grievance and complaint/dispute resolution procedures available to
Employees for resolving workplace issues, including, for example,
complaints of unlawful harassment, discrimination or retaliation.
Employees should continue to seek resolution of employment-related
disputes through such channels to the extent they are applicable
to their disputes.  However, this Arbitration Policy is the
exclusive mechanism for formal resolution of disputes and awards
of relief that otherwise would be available to Employees or the
Company in a court of law or equity or in an administrative
agency.

Paragraph 2 partially defines the term "Covered Disputes" and
states in part:

Except for Excluded Disputes, this Arbitration Policy applies to
any and all other employment-related disputes that exist or arise
between Employees and Ralphs (or any of them) that would
constitute cognizable claims or causes of action in a federal,
state or local court or agency under applicable federal, state or
local laws (referred to in this Arbitration Policy as "Covered
Disputes").

Paragraph 4 begins by stating that arbitration is the sole and
exclusive remedy for present and future "Covered Disputes" and
instructing that the MBAP requires "to the fullest extent
permitted by law" resolution of all "Covered Disputes" by final
and binding arbitration.

Paragraph 6 discusses the MBAP's effect on employees' access to
administrative processes, and states in part:

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Arbitration Policy all
Employees retain the right under the National Labor Relations Act
(NLRA) to file charges with the National Labor Relations Board
(NLRB), and to file charges with the United States Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) under federal equal
employment opportunity laws within the EEOC's administrative
jurisdiction.

Paragraph 8 states:

[T]here is no right or authority for Covered Disputes to be heard
or arbitrated on a class action basis, as a private attorney
general, or on bases involving claims or disputes brought in a
representative capacity on behalf of the general public, of other
Ralph's employees (or any of them), or of other persons alleged to
be similarly situated.

The paragraph then defines "Representative Action" as:

Any action or proceeding brought against Ralphs (or any of them)
by any person (whether an Employee bound by this Arbitration
Policy or not) or entity in a representative capacity on behalf of
or for the benefit of (in whole or in part) any Employee bound by
this Arbitration Policy." Paragraph 8 concludes by stating that,
while the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply," "there are no
Judge or Jury trials and there are no class actions or
Representative Actions permitted under this Arbitration Policy.
[Emphasis in original.]

On July 31, 2013, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) invalidated
the policy.  The case was then appealed to the NLRB.

The Board's Decision

Writing for the majority, Chairman Pearce and Member McFerran
ruled that the ALJ properly applied the Board's decision in D. R.
Horton, 357 NLRB No. 184 (2012), enf. denied in part, 737 F.3d 344
(5th Cir. 2013), and found that Ralph's violated Section 8(a)(1)
of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) by maintaining and
enforcing a policy that required employees, as a condition of
employment, to waive their rights to pursue class or collective
actions in employment-related claims in all forums, whether
arbitral or judicial.  The majority observed that in Murphy Oil
USA, Inc., 361 NLRB No. 72 (2014), enf. denied in relevant part
808 F.3d 1013 (5th Cir. 2015), the Board reaffirmed the relevant
holdings of D. R. Horton.

The majority also agreed with the ALJ that the MBAP violated
Section 8(a)(1) by interfering with employees' right to file
charges with the Board.  The Board will find that a policy upon
which employment is conditioned violates Section 8(a)(1) if
employees "would reasonably believe the policy interferes with
their ability to file a Board charge or otherwise access the
Board's processes."

Ralph's argued that employees would not reasonably conclude that
the MBAP prevents them from filing unfair labor charges with the
Board because paragraph 6 on page 3 of the policy informs
employees that they retain the right to file charges with the
Board.  However, the Board disagreed that this sentence saved the
policy.

According to the majority, "[p]aragraphs 2 and 4 of the policy
emphasize that all employment-related disputes must be resolved
through final and binding arbitration. Paragraph 6 reiterates this
requirement, declaring in the second sentence that final and
binding arbitration is the sole and exclusive remedy for Covered
Disputes (which, as defined elsewhere in the document, would
include disputes involving unfair labor practices under the Act)."
They reasoned that "while the last sentence of paragraph 6 allows
for charges to be filed with the Board, employees would reasonably
be confused as to their possession of this statutory right when
the sentence is read together with the previous two sentences that
state explicitly that arbitration is the sole forum for the
resolution of employment disputes."

The majority went on to observe that the ambiguity surrounding the
right to file Board charges is further demonstrated by an
employment application that all employees were required to sign
acknowledging that they read, understood, and agreed to follow the
MBAP.  The application contains a one-paragraph summary of the
MBAP, but any reference to employees' right to file Board charges
is conspicuously absent from that summary.  Instead, the summary
focuses exclusively on the requirement that employees waive the
right to resolve employment-related disputes before any Federal
court or agency.  "In these circumstances, we find that employees
would reasonably believe that the MBAP interfered with their
statutory right to have the Boarddetermine whether their Section 7
rights have been violated."

The Dissent

Member Miscimarra dissented from the majority for the same reasons
explained in his partial dissenting opinion in Murphy Oil USA,
Inc.  He reasoned that Ralph's did not violate the Act by
attempting to enforce the arbitration agreement.  He also
disagreed with the majority's finding that the policy unlawfully
prohibited employees from filing charges with the Board: "In the
instant case, it is clear that the Arbitration Policy does not
prohibit NLRB charge-filing. To the contrary, the Policy makes
crystal clear that employees retain the right to file charges with
the Board."  He observed that the policy states: "Notwithstanding
any other provision of this Arbitration Policy, all Employees
retain the right under the National Labor Relations Act ('NLRA')
to file charges with the National Labor Relations Board ('NLRB') .
. . ."

Takeaways

The Board continues to invalidate mandatory arbitration agreements
with class action waivers, even though the Fifth, Second, Eighth,
Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits have reversed that position.  The
issue may very well be headed for resolution by the Supreme Court,
making the recent Scalia vacancy even more significant.

If you have any questions about this post, please contact the
author or the Arent Fox professional who regularly handles your
matters.


RECKITT BENCKISER: Sued Over Misleading Nurofen Pain Drug Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marianna Papadakis, writing for Financial Review, reports that a
consumer class action has been launched against the makers of
Nurofen, Reckitt Benckiser, over drugs the company advertised as
targeting pain for specific areas.

The court action lodged by Bannister Law seeks a refund and
damages for customers who bought the drug company's Nurofen
Specific Pain Range products.

The pharmaceuticals company said it was aware some consumers were
seeking compensation but that it could not comment on the
proceedings.

It follows a Federal Court ruling on December 11 that packaging
for Reckitt Benckiser's Nurofen Back Pain, Nurofen Period Pain,
Nurofen Migraine Pain, and Nurofen Tension Headache products
misled consumers that the drugs were formulated to treat a
specific kind of pain.

The drug company admitted that the products were identical, with
each containing the same active ingredient, ibuprofen lysine
342mg.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, which brought
the case, also alleged the products were being sold at about
double the cost of Nurofen's standard ibuprofen products, but the
court made no finding on this issue.

A spokeswoman for Reckitt Benckiser said all Nurofen products
which had the same active ingredient, the same format and the same
formulation had the same manufacture's recommended retail price.

FEES HEARING

A hearing on how much the pharmaceutical company should pay in
fines and penalties has been set for April 12.

Court documents filed in the Federal Court on the class action,
show Bannister Law, on behalf of consumers, seeks declarations
that Reckitt Benckiser failed to comply with statutory guarantees
concerning acceptable quality, the description of the products and
warranties.

Correspondingly, it wants the court to order the pharmaceutical
company to honor the guarantees by refunding consumers for
purchases of the drugs made between January 2011 and December last
year.

The firm argues consumers would not have bought the products if
they knew it would be no more effective than other Nurofen
products.

The two lead applicants for the case made multiple purchases of
the products regularly, the first over 18 months, while the second
plaintiff bought the products over five years.


REMINGTON: Rifle Settlement Deadline Extended Until April 29
------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Cohn, writing for CNBC, reports that millions of allegedly
defective Remington firearms will remain in the public's hands for
at least a while longer, after attorneys for the gun maker and
class action plaintiffs said they need more time to come up with a
plan to notify owners about a program to fix the guns.

The parties had faced a deadline on Feb. 29 to submit the plan to
a federal judge in Missouri, but in a joint filing they cited "the
complexity of the issues" in asking for a 60-day extension.  On
Feb. 29, U.S. District Judge Ortrie Smith agreed to give them
until April 29, the second time he has extended the deadline.

Under a proposed nationwide settlement reached more than a year
ago, Remington agreed to replace the triggers on its popular Model
700 rifle and a dozen other firearms with similar designs. While
Remington maintains the guns are safe, plaintiffs say the guns
include a deadly design flaw that can cause them to fire without
the trigger being pulled. Lawsuits have linked the alleged defect
to some two dozen deaths and hundreds of injuries. Remington
blames user errors, but says it agreed to replace the triggers
anyway in order to avoid drawn out litigation. The proposed
settlement covers an estimated 7.5 million guns, some manufactured
as early as the 1940s.

Judge Smith sent the parties back to the drawing board in
December, the same day CNBC published a new investigation into
what the company knew about the alleged defect and when.  CNBC
first investigated Remington in 2010.

Among other things, the judge said he was concerned that a
relative handful of gun owners -- just over 2,000 out of more than
7 million -- had filed claims since the tentative settlement was
announced.  He said the numbers convinced him the parties were not
doing enough to alert the public.

"The Court cannot conceive that an owner of an allegedly defective
firearm would not seek the remedy being provided pursuant to this
Settlement Agreement," Judge Smith wrote on
Dec. 8.

Since then, according to the filing, both sides have been "working
diligently" to come up with a new plan, but they say it is not
ready.  Among other issues, the attorneys say, is the need to work
with unidentified "third parties" to formulate the plan.

"This motion is not made for the purpose of delay," the filing
says.

In addition to the Model 700, the settlement covers the following
Remington firearms: Seven, Sportsman 78, 673, 710, 715, 770, 600,
660, 721, 722 and 725 rifles, and the XP-100 bolt-action pistol.


REPLANET LLC: "Medina" Suit to Recover Missed Break Compensation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Medina, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff, v.
Replanet, LLC dba Replanet Recycling, LLC, and DOES 1-1000,
Defendants, Case RG16799801 (Cal. Super., County of Alameda,
January 12, 2016), seeks missed rest/meal break compensation,
restitution and disgorgement, injunctive relief and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs under California Labor Code Sec. 226.7
and 512 and the California Business and Professions Code Sec.
17200 et seq. under Unfair Business Practices.

Steve Medina worked as a recycling specialist at the Fremont,
California location of the Defendant. He usually could not take
any break unless specifically relieved of duties by his
supervisor.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      R. Craig Clark, Esq.
      James M. Tregiio, Esq.
      Dawn M. Berry, Esq.
      CLARK & TREGLIO
      205 West Date Street
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 239-1321
      Fax: (888) 273-4554

           - and -

      Walter Haines, Esq.
      UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP
      5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 201
      Huntington Beach, CA 92649
      Tel: (562) 256-1047
      Fax: (562) 256-4554


ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Faces Class Action Over Storm Cruise
-----------------------------------------------------
Celia Ampel, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that Royal
Caribbean Cruises Ltd. should be required to pay punitive damages
to passengers on its Anthem of the Seas for "knowingly sailing
directly into" a strong winter storm with 120-mph winds, a class
action lawsuit filed in Miami federal court claimed on Feb. 25.

The scheduled seven-day cruise from New Jersey to the Bahamas and
back ended early after the ship ran into the storm. The Miami-
based cruise operator reported four minor injuries among more than
6,000 people on board.

Passengers reported the captain alerted them as they were leaving
the port Feb. 6 that a weather system was building but he would
try to outrun it.

People aboard the Anthem of the Seas were "subjected to hours of
sheer terror as the gigantic cruise ship was battered by
hurricane-force winds and more than 30-foot waves," said the
complaint filed on behalf of passenger Frank DeLuca.

Passengers said the ship tilted up to 45 degrees, and Coast Guard
inspectors found damage to the ship's propulsion system.

The complaint filed by his Miami attorney, Michael Winkleman of
Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina & Winkleman, includes claims of
negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Royal Caribbean said it does not comment on pending litigation.
The company apologized when the cruise ended and offered
passengers a full refund plus a certificate for half-off a future
cruise.

"It is our responsibility to eliminate every surprise we possibly
can," its Feb. 10 statement said.  "We are strengthening our storm
avoidance policy and have added resources at our Miami
headquarters to provide additional guidance to our ships'
captains."


SAN BERNARDINO, CA: Faces Class Action Over Inmate Abuse
--------------------------------------------------------
Joe Nelson, writing for The Sun, reports that in a continuing
series of lawsuits alleging inmate abuse and other civil rights
violations in San Bernardino County jails, a prisoners rights
organization filed a class action lawsuit on Feb. 29 against the
county on behalf of two inmates.

The lawsuit, filed by the Berkeley-based Prison Law Office on
behalf of George Topete and Zachery Shovey, both inmates at the
West Valley Detention Center in Rancho Cucamonga, comes after
nearly two years of talks between the prisoner rights nonprofit
and the county in an effort to remedy the situation.

"San Bernardino County is violating the constitutional rights of
the nearly 6,000 people it incarcerates in its jails," according
to the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Riverside.  "Jail
medical, mental health and dental care is so deficient that it is
harming the people it aims to serve."

The lawsuit alleges "jail staff use excessive force against
inmates they are charged with protecting and fail to take even the
most basic steps to prevent violence."

Mr. Topete is physically disabled and has difficulty walking
without use of a cane, which he is routinely denied.  He was
provided a wheelchair, but was not housed in a unit that is
wheelchair accessible, according to the lawsuit.

"As a result he has fallen and is at risk of falling when trying
to access the visiting area, his cell and the toilet," the lawsuit
states, which also alleges Mr. Topete was denied access to a
machine he requires to treat his sleep apnea.

Mr. Shovey, according to the lawsuit, has a long history of
psychiatric problems including multiple suicide attempts, uses
psychiatric medications and spent nine months in a state
psychiatric hospital.  He was denied mental health treatment and
medications for one year after he was booked at West Valley,
despite symptoms including hallucinations, delusions, anxiety and
insomnia.  In addition, the lawsuit alleges jail staff failed to
provide Mr. Shovey with timely medical treatment for his seizure
disorder.

The San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department issued a news
release on Feb. 29 denying the allegations, saying the health care
provided to inmates is "high quality," that inmates with
disabilities are accommodated and that prisoners are housed in a
safe and secure environment.  It blamed prison realigment for the
issues at the jails, which has forced the county to pour millions
of dollars into security upgrades and additional law enforcement,
medical and mental health staff.

"Since prison realignment, counties, including San Bernardino,
have faced significant challenges in housing more inmates for
longer periods of time than they have historically," Sheriff John
McMahon said in a statement on Feb. 29.

In a news release, Prison Law Office Director Donald Specter said
Sheriff McMahon has been "transparent about the conditions in the
jails and has cooperated fully with the investigation" and that
cooperation was expected to continue during the litigation in
hopes that the matter can be resolved as soon as possible.

"These people are entirely dependent on the jail for their health
care and well-being -- they have no other options," said Prison
Law Office attorney Kelly Knapp regarding inmates housed in San
Bernardino County jails.

Prison Law Office attorneys corresponded with more than 700
inmates and reviewed the medical records of more than 250 inmates
during its investigation, concluding there was an "apparent
culture of violence" in the jails.  It began investigating jail
conditions in San Bernardino County in the wake of an FBI
investigation into allegations of inmate abuse at West Valley
including Taser gun torture involving inmates, including food
servers who claim they were repeatedly stunned on various parts of
their bodies as part of a brutal hazing ritual.  Many of the
inmates still had electrical burn scars on their bodies when the
criminal investigation began.

The allegations resulted in the filing of seven federal lawsuits
to date on behalf of dozens of current and former inmates at West
Valley, the latest being two lawsuits filed in December by
Victorville attorneys Jim Terrell, Sharon Brunner and Stanley
Hodge, which name a combined total of 21 plaintiffs.

San Bernardino County is not the first law enforcement agency the
Prison Law Office has sued over jail conditions.  In March 2013,
it sued Riverside County alleging inhumane treatment of inmates
who were denied access to timely and proper medical treatment.  In
September 2014, the lawsuit was elevated to class action status in
U.S. District Court in Riverside.

In 2011, the Prison Law Office, according to its website, filed a
class action lawsuit seeking to remedy cruel and unusual
conditions in the Fresno County Jail.

In its statement, the Sheriff's Department said the county has
"devoted significant resources over the last several years to
ensuring that conditions in its jails meet all relevant
constitutional, statutory and regulatory standards."

"We have appreciated the willingness of the Prison Law Office to
work constructively with the county on these issues, look forward
to continued cooperative discussions, and are optimistic that the
case can be resolved amicably" McMahon said in his statement.

Sharon Brunner and Jim Terrell, two of the three Victorville
defense attorneys representing dozens of current and former
inmates in four of the federal lawsuits, said they receive, on
average, 40 to 50 letters and telephone calls daily from inmates
or family members of inmates complaining about jail conditions.

They said their litigation, which remains suspended via court
order pending the outcome of the FBI investigation, has done
little to improve the situation at the jails, especially West
Valley, the county's most bustling jail.

"We actually have not seen an improvement," Brunner said. "We wish
that we could take more of these cases. There's clearly things
happening at West Valley, and they're (inmates) not getting the
proper treatment."

Mr. Terrell said it appears the only thing that is going to effect
change is going to be through the federal court system.

"The only possible way is to get this in federal court, in front
of a federal judge with power," Mr. Terrell said.


SAINT-GOBAIN: NY Firm Sues Over Chemicals in Village Water
----------------------------------------------------------
The North Country Public Radio reported that a New York City law
firm has filed a federal lawsuit against two companies identified
by state regulators as potentially responsible for toxic chemical
contamination in an upstate village's water supply.

The lawsuit accuses Honeywell International and Saint-Gobain
Performance Plastics of negligence for the Teflon-related chemical
PFOA in Hoosick Falls' water.

The lawsuit was filed by Weitz & Luxenberg. Consumer advocate Erin
Brockovich is working with the firm. She met with residents in
January after the federal government warned against drinking tap
water.

Saint-Gobain is providing free bottled water while a new
filtration system is installed.

A Honeywell spokeswoman says the company hasn't seen the suit but
is cooperating with the state investigation.

Saint-Gobain also noted its cooperation and says it respects the
right of people to sue.


SCRANTON, PA: Judge Nixes Part of Rental Fee Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Terrie Morgan-Besecker, writing for The Times Tribune, reports
that a Lackawanna County judge issued a mixed ruling on March 1 in
a lawsuit that challenges Scranton's rental registration fee,
finding that individual landlords cannot proceed as a class to
recover excess fees they contend are illegal.

The decision by Judge Terrence Nealon does not end the case,
however.  He must still decide whether to certify the lawsuit as a
class action relating to the underlying issue of the legality of
the fees.

Adam Guiffrida, the owner of multiple rental properties, sued the
city in May, alleging a 2014 increase in rental registration it
enacted is illegal because the money generated will exceed the
cost to run the program.

Mr. Guiffrida wants to certify the case as a class action, which
would allow all landlords in the city to join in the case.  Should
the judge decide against class certification, the landlords would
have to file individual lawsuits against the city.

The city filed a motion to dismiss the action seeking class
certification, arguing state law does not allow a person seeking a
refund of money owed to them by the government to transfer their
claim to a class.

Judge Nealon on March 1 granted the motion.  The judge noted
Mr. Guiffrida's attorney, Paul Batyko, agreed with the city's
interpretation of the law and conceded that part of the lawsuit
cannot proceed as a class action.

The judge denied the city's motion to dismiss Mr. Guiffrida's
request to certify the landlords as a class relating to the
underlying claim, however.  He is scheduled to hear arguments
regarding that matter today.

Should the judge rule in Mr. Guiffrida's favor, the case would
proceed as a class action, which means the legal ruling regarding
the legality of the fees would apply to all landlords.  If the
fees are later found to be illegal, the landlords would have to
individually seek refunds from the city, however.


SEMPRA ENERGY: Faces Class Action, May 2 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on March 1 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Sempra Energy ("Sempra" or the "Company"), and
certain of its officers.   The class action, filed in United
States District Court, Southern District of California, and
docketed under 16-cv-00512, is on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons or entities who purchased Sempra securities between
May 14, 2015 and November 23, 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").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Sempra securities on or
after May 14, 2015, you have until May 2, 2016 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888-4-POMLAW), toll
free, ext. 9980.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of
shares purchased.

Sempra operates as an energy services holding company worldwide.
The Company's Southern California Gas Company ("SoCalGas") segment
transmits, distributes, and stores natural gas.  As of February 6,
2015, this segment served approximately 21 million consumers
through 5.8 million meters in 500 communities.  This segment's
service territory comprises approximately 20,000 square miles
throughout Central and Southern California.

On October 23, 2015, Sempra's subsidiary SoCalGas discovered a
natural gas leak from the Company's Aliso Canyon natural gas
storage facility near the Porter Ranch neighborhood in Los Angeles
(the "Porter Ranch Leak").

On October 28, 2015, after a strong gas odor became noticeable to
Porter Ranch residents, SoCalGas publicly acknowledged the Porter
Ranch Leak.

For the next several months, SoCalGas attempted unsuccessfully to
plug the well.  Meanwhile, local residents reported symptoms
including headaches, nausea, and severe nosebleeds, and thousands
of families were relocated from the area as SoCalGas
unsuccessfully attempted to seal the well.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operations, cash position, prospects, and internal controls.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) SoCalGas lacked the capability
to expeditiously repair gas leaks, causing a public hazard; (ii)
an extended hazardous gas leak would constitute a serious threat
to public health and safety; and (iii) as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On November 23, 2015, displaced Porter Ranch residents filed a
class action lawsuit against SoCalGas, seeking damages and an
order requiring SoCalGas to disclose information related to the
health risks associated with the Porter Ranch Leak.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known
as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions.  Today, more than 80 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct.  The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members.


SHORE MEDICAL: Law Firm Expects More Patients to Come Forward
-------------------------------------------------------------
Don E. Woods, writing for NJ.com, reports that an Atlantic City
law firm is talking to two clients but expect more to come forward
who were potentially exposed to HIV and hepatitis at Shore Medical
Center for a class action lawsuit.

The alleged negligence of a former Shore Medical Center pharmacist
may have exposed 213 patients to HIV and hepatitis. The hospital
informed patients of the possible exposure through letters sent to
them.

Frederick P. McLeish, 53, of Egg Harbor Township, will appear in
court March 7 for a status conference for allegedly taking
morphine vials intended for patients and replacing it with saline
solution.

Mr. McLeish was suspended in September 2014 and arrested on
Jan. 21, 2016.  He was charged with drug tampering, theft by
unlawful taking and possession of a controlled dangerous
substance.

Mr. McLeish's attorney John Zarych declined to comment on the
matter as of Feb. 29.

GMS Law is putting together the class action lawsuit against Shore
Medical Center.  The status of the class action lawsuit is pending
the determination of a judge.

According to GMS Law attorney Mark Pfeffer, the hospital violated
the Pure Food and Drug Ac, which protects consumers from tainted
drugs.  Claims in the lawsuit also involve McLeish's employment
and the hospital's delay in notifying patients of their possible
exposure to HIV, hepatitis B or hepatitis C.

According to a Shore Medical Center spokesman, the hospital does
not comment on pending litigation but all employees are mandated
to follow strict policies when it comes to treating patients.

Shore Medical Center officials are notifying 213 patients that are
at risk due to an employee's violation of hospital protocol,
according to spokesman Brian Cahill.  The investigation period is
between June 1, 2013 and Sept. 17, 2014.

Officials originally began investigating between July 1, 2014, and
Sept. 17, 2014 but, as a precaution, the timeframe was expanded.

According to the state Department of Health, the hospital is
providing the testing for patients.

The tests will be free of charge, according to the hospital.

According to public records, Mr. McLeish surrendered his New
Jersey pharmacist license in 2002 after stealing pain medicine
from a CVS where he worked. The license was reinstated in 2004.

Ever since first getting his license in Pennsylvania in 1986, Mr.
McLeish was disciplined multiple times over the decades for
various reasons, including a sting in rehabilitation for substance
abuse.

He surrendered his New Jersey license on December 2014.


SLATER & GORDON: Aggrieved Investors Mull Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
David Hellier, writing for The Guardian, reports that Slater &
Gordon, the Australian law firm brought low by a clampdown on
whiplash claims in Britain and its purchase of the scandal-hit UK
insurer Quindell, faces further problems after being targeted for
possible class actions on behalf of aggrieved investors.

The Sydney-based legal firm ACA Lawyers said it had finalized a
funding agreement that would allow claimants to recover the money
they have lost on buying shares in Slater & Gordon.  A rival law
firm, Maurice Blackburn Lawyers, has opened registrations to
shareholders aggrieved over the company's performance and share
price losses.

The firm found itself embroiled in scandal after its purchase of
Quindell in March last year. Shares in the insurer were suspended
in June and the Serious Fraud Office opened an investigation in
August.

Bruce Clarke, principal with ACA Lawyers, said investors have many
questions about the UK acquisition.  "The directors have a lot of
explaining to do. It was only in November shareholders and the
market were being told the company was in good shape.  Now three
months later there are massive losses and writedowns.

"It is not only institutional investors who have been burnt.  Mum
and dad investors and the company's own staff took up shares in
the rights issue in reliance on what the company said. It now
looks like they have done with their money."

Slater & Gordon, which has 3,800 employees in the UK, has reported
a AUS$958 million (GBP494 million) net loss for the six months,
due primarily to the large writedown in the value of its UK
business.  It emerged during a conference call with analysts that
Andrew Grech, the group's chief executive, offered to resign.

"Clearly the results are very disappointing.  In particular the
decline in business performance in the UK is of serious concern to
all at Slater & Gordon and equally will be of concern to our
investors," Mr. Grech said.  "We will therefore be taking a number
of necessary and significant steps to improve the operational
performance of both the UK business and the broader Slater &
Gordon group."

The firm said it had agreed to produce an operating plan and
restructuring proposal by the end of April.

Slater & Gordon bought the professional services arm of Quindell
for GBP673m in a transaction partly financed by an equity capital
raising.  It renamed the company Watchstone.

Mr. Clarke said there was "a wide net for recoverability" for
actions of this type, with company advisers and insurers
potentially in the line of fire if a claim were to be successful.
He said there had been a significant number of successful cases in
Australia.


SLATER & GORDON: Financial Woes Pile Up as Class Action Looms
-------------------------------------------------------------
Felicity Nelson, writing for Lawyers Weekly, reports that listed
law firm Slater and Gordon has experienced a sharp decline in
share value after releasing its half-year financial results on
March 1.

The value of the firm's shares have decreased more than 50 per
cent since resuming trading on Feb. 29, dropping from $0.83 per
share on February 23 to $0.38 per share on March 1, says the
report.

On Feb. 29, Slater and Gordon announced almost a $1 billion loss
in the first half of FY2015-16.

A banking syndicate, lead by National Australia Bank and Westpac,
have set a one-month deadline for the firm to plan changes to its
operations to ensure the viability of the business.

Slater and Gordon has until April 30 to negotiate changes to the
terms of its existing loans.

If the firm does not present an operating plan and restructuring
proposal, the banks are able to demand a full debt repayment by
March 31, 2017.

At the close of 2015, Slater and Gordon's net debt position was at
$741 million.

Managing director Andrew Grech offered to step down following the
release of the financial results, but his resignation was rejected
by the board of Slater and Gordon.

    Class actions spurred on by crushing financial results

Maurice Blackburn has said it is "almost certain" that a class
action on behalf of shareholders will proceed following the
release of Slater and Gordon's financial results.

Rival plaintiff firm Maurice Blackburn announced the launch of the
class action in December last year.

Andrew Watson, national head of class actions at Maurice
Blackburn, released a statement saying: "The sheer size and scale
of this write down casts enormous doubt on the adequacy of
disclosures made by Slater and Gordon in relation the true value
of the Quindell assets."

"[The] announcement of an $876 million impairment in goodwill and
a near $1 billion loss strengthens the themes our class action
investigation is pursuing," he said.

Similarly, ACA Lawyers has finalized a funding agreement with two
leading litigation funding groups to investigate bringing a
shareholder class action against Slater and Gordon.

Bruce Clarke, principal at ACA Lawyers, said the potential class
action had received a lot of interest from investors.

"There is real anger among Slater and Gordon investors, from small
mum and dad investors to large institutional investors who are
looking for some way to recover the millions of dollars that have
been lost over the past 10 months," he said.


SOLVAY SPECIALTY: Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
David Bailey, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal judge
has given preliminary approval to a proposed settlement of a class
action that alleged a plastics plant had caused elevated levels of
a chemical compound in the water supply of a small New Jersey
town.

Solvay Specialty Polymers USA and Arkema, a previous owner of the
plant, which deny responsibility, would provide money for blood
tests for residents and payments to property owners under the
proposed settlement over perfluorinated chemicals in the drinking
water in Paulsboro, an industrial town across the Delaware River
from Philadelphia.


SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS: "Lopez" Sues over Gas Leaks
----------------------------------------------------
Arthur L, Lopez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Southern California Gas
Company, Sempra Energy, State Of California, Division of Oil, Gas
and Geothermal Resources and Does 1-100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case BC606776 (Cal. Super., January 12, 2016), seeks
unpaid minimum wage, overtime wage and gratuities, liquidated
damages and reasonable attorney's fees, costs, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Lopez resides in Porter Ranch community of Los Angeles where a gas
well leaked at Defendants' Aliso Canyon storage-facility releasing
dangerous levels of toxic gases into the air.

Southern California Gas Company is a natural gas distribution
utility with Sempra Energy as its parent company. They are under
the supervision of the State Of California, Division of Oil, Gas
and Geothermal Resources.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert C. Baker, Esq.
      Phillip A. Baker, Esq.
      Kenneth F. Spencer, Esq.
      BAKER, KEENER & NAHRA, LLP
      633 West 5th Street, Suite 4900
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Tel: (213) 241-0900
      Fax: (213) 241-0990

           - and -

      Gregory G. Petersen, Esq.
      21163 Newport Court Drive, Suite 600
      Newport Coast Drive
      Newport Coast, CA 92657
      Tel: (949) 864-2200
      Fax: (949) 640-8983


SUBWAY: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court Approval
---------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Subway customers can finally
rest assured that their "Footlong" sandwiches will be as long as
promised.

A judge granted final approval to a settlement of a class-action
suit filed against Subway after an Australian teenager posted an
image on Facebook of a sandwich that was a mere 11 inches.

The photo of a turkey sub alongside a tape measure shared by Matt
Corby, from Perth, on the company's Facebook page garnered
international media attention back in 2013.

The New York Post found that four out of seven Footlongs it
purchased in New York "measured only 11 or 11.5 inches."

A judge in Wisconsin gave preliminary approval in October to a
settlement between Subway's parent company Doctor's Associates and
plaintiffs' lawyers, with final approval granted on
February 25.

As part of the settlement, Subway agreed to institute practices
for at least four years to ensure its bread is at least 12 inches
long.  The judge approved $520,000 in legal fees and $500 for each
of the 10 individuals who were representatives of the class, but
no monetary claims were awarded to potential members of the class.

"It was difficult to prove monetary damages, because everybody ate
the evidence," said lawyer Thomas Zimmerman, adding that the fees
were being split between 10 law firms.

Subway said in a statement that it was pleased the judge found no
wrongdoing on its part.

"This allows us to move forward, without distractions, on our goal
to provide great tasting sandwiches and salads, made exactly as
each guest likes," the statement said.  "We have already taken
steps to ensure each guest receives the Footlong or six-inch
sandwich they order."

Lynn Adelman, judge for the US District Court Eastern District of
Wisconsin, wrote in the final approval that the plaintiffs'
lawyers realised their claims "were quite weak" after an initial
mediation session.

Instead of trying to get class certification for monetary damages,
he said plaintiffs decided to focus on injunctive relief requiring
Doctor's Associates to ensure its sandwiches are at least 12
inches long.

Ms. Adelman wrote that the plaintiffs' lawyers learned Subway
makes its bread with "dough sticks" that weigh the same when they
arrive at stores frozen.  The dough is then thawed and stretched
before baking, a process that can lead to variability in the size
and shape of the bread.

While the dough may have different shapes, it still has the same
quantity of ingredients, Ms. Adelman wrote.  The amount of meat
and cheese is also standardized, the judge observed, but it was
possible a shorter bread loaf might lead to less filling.

For instance, "a sandwich that was 1-inch shorter than advertised
might be missing a few shreds of lettuce or a gram or two of
mayonnaise," the judge wrote.

Bu Ms. Adelman also noted that sandwiches are made in front of the
customer, who can ask for more filling.
"Thus, the plaintiffs learned that, as a practical matter, the
length of the bread does not affect the quantity of food the
customer receives," he added.

Subway nevertheless agreed as part of the settlement to take steps
to ensure its bread is at least 12 inches long, including
requiring franchisees to "use a tool for measuring bread."


TEEKAY CORP: Scott+Scott Files Class Action in Connecticut
----------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP filed a class action complaint
in the United States District Court of Connecticut on behalf of
investors who purchased Teekay Corporation ("Teekay" or the
"Company") common stock between June 30, 2015 and December 17,
2015, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Teekay was founded in 1973 as a regional shipping company and
tanker operator.  Today, Teekay has a diversified fleet with over
$12 billion in assets and some of the world's largest fleets in
the Company's core markets.

On December 16, 2015, Teekay issued a press release in which it
announced that the Company's "Board of Directors has approved a
plan to reduce the Company's quarterly dividend to $0.055 per
share, down from $0.55 per share in the third quarter of 2015,
commencing with the fourth quarter of 2015 dividend payable in
February 2016."  On this news, Teekay's share price declined 58%.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the Company's repeated assurances that it would maintain
a quarterly dividend of at least $0.55 per share were baseless;
(2) the Company knew, based on then-present facts, that it could
not support future dividend payments in excess of $0.55 per share;
(3) the cash flows from the Company's master limited partnerships
("MLPs") -- Teekay LNG Partners LP ("TGP") and Teekay Offshore
Partners LP ("TOO") -- could not possibly sustain such high
dividends; and (4) Teekay misled the market about the strength of
its business and financial condition.

If you purchased Teekay stock and wish to serve as a lead
plaintiff in the action, you must move the Court no later than May
2, 2016.  Any member of the class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of its choice or may choose to do
nothing and remain an absent class member.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have questions concerning this notice or your
rights, please contact Scott+Scott --
scottlaw@scott-scott.com -- (800) 404-7770, (860) 537-5537) or
visit the Scott+Scott website for more information:
http://www.scott-scott.com

Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions
throughout the United States.  The firm represents pension funds,
foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide and has
recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of their
clients.


TIDAL: Faces Class Action Over $5MM in Past-Due Royalties
---------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Clark, writing for TheNextWeb, reports that it seems the
'artist friendly' streaming option, Tidal, has run into a
roadblock after failing to pay some $5 million in past-due
royalties.

After the relaunch of Tidal nearly a year ago, the service
promised to take a more artist-centric focus by paying a fair
share of revenue to each artist under the Tidal banner.

The royalties, Jay Z bragged, were higher than any other streaming
platform on the market.

A class-action lawsuit filed by Yesh Music Publishing and
John Emanuele (of the duo American Dollar) sought to prove that
this artist friendly persona was nothing more than lip service.

The lawsuit, which seeks $5 million in unpaid royalties and
copyright infringement damages, claims that Tidal licensed at
least 118 of American Dollar's songs without the duo's permission
and has yet to pay a royalty for any of those streams.

In a statement to Vulture, Tidal claims that Yesh Music and
Emanuele are misinformed about who owed them royalties.  Tidal has
since removed American Dollar's music from its service.

Since its launch, Tidal has always set out to differentiate itself
from the likes of Spotify and Apple Music as the 'artist friendly'
alternative.  But the confusion over who Tidal is actually paying
and may owe money to makes it seem decidedly unfriendly.


TIDAL: Denies Claims in Class Action Over Unpaid Royalties
----------------------------------------------------------
The Source reports that since the recent $5 million class action
lawsuit filed by John Emanuele of American Dollar, who claims that
his band was not paid royalties, Shawn "Jay-Z" Carter has begun
firing employees at Tidal streaming service.  The company has
recently issued a statement denying the claims in the suit,
however, this hasn't stopped Jigga from handing out pink slips.

Tidal also mentioned in their statement that they let go of COO
Nils Juel and CFO Chris Hart.  This is another instance where the
young streaming service has managed to fire an employee within
their executive ranks, especially after bad press.

The streaming service still isn't starving for subscribers with
their numbers doubling since the release of Kanye's The Life Of
Pablo album release.


TOKYO ELECTRIC: 3 Former Execs Indicted Over Fukushima Disaster
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mayumi Negishi, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
Three former executives of Tokyo Electric Power Co. were indicted
on Feb. 29 over the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster, a sign of
public anger that no one had been charged with a crime over the
biggest nuclear disaster since Chernobyl.

Court-appointed lawyers acting as prosecutors charged former Tepco
chairman Tsunehisa Katsumata and the former heads of the utility's
nuclear division, Sakae Muto and Ichiro Takekuro, with
professional negligence resulting in death and injury.

The criminal charges were the first to result from the disaster,
five years after a 13.1 meter tsunami swamped the Fukushima
Daiichi nuclear plant, triggering meltdowns at three of the
plant's six reactors.  Tepco knew it was possible the plant could
be hit by a tsunami bigger than it was designed to withstand, but
made cost saving a higher priority than long-term safety, the
prosecuting lawyers said in the indictment.

The executives are expected to plead not guilty.  They have
repeatedly said the possibility of such a massive tsunami was
unrealistic.

Legal experts say they are likely to be acquitted, with the onus
on the prosecution to prove that failure to protect the power
plant from a tsunami was an act of criminal oversight.

Prosecutors had twice decided not to indict the executives, saying
it was impossible to charge them with criminal negligence for
failing to take immediate action based on the unlikely threat of
such an unusually large tsunami over the long term.

Citizen panels twice challenged that decision, arguing that
nuclear plant operators should prepare even for unlikely natural
disasters, and that Tepco should have considered shutting down the
plant until adequate safety measures had been taken.

The second committee's decision was binding, requiring the
appointment of independent prosecutors to try the case.

Many Japanese are still angry about the Fukushima disaster,
blaming Tepco and the government for both the accident itself and
the way it has been handled.

Nearly 100,000 people have been prevented from returning to their
homes as entire towns around the plant have become temporary
dumping grounds for radiation-contaminated soil.  Communities have
been destroyed and families torn apart.

The nuclear meltdowns sent Tepco to the brink of bankruptcy,
requiring a 1 trillion ($8.77 billion) government bailout.  Tepco
plans to spend about 2 trillion on the daunting task of
decommissioning the plant, and has paid 5.9 trillion in
compensation to residents so far.

The compensation has done little to cool people's anger.

"Tepco won't acknowledge that they are the perpetrators," said
Ruiko Muto, one of 1,324 Fukushima residents who filed the
original criminal complaint against 42 Tepco executives and
government officials in 2012. " We hope the court proceedings will
show that executives had years to take action against the tsunami,
but did nothing."

The crux of the legal battle ahead is Tepco's internal calculation
in 2008 that a 15.7-meter tsunami could hit the plant, based on a
projection by a government earthquake research body.  Tepco has
argued in court that the risk of such a tsunami was so low that it
was outside the realm of realistic possibilities.

According to the indictments, the victims of Tepco's decision
include 13 people -- employees and members of Japan's Self-Defense
Forces -- who were exposed to rubble from two hydrogen explosions,
and 44 patients who died while being evacuated from a nearby
hospital to avoid the fallout.

Tepco is also fighting a class-action suit filed by a group of
shareholders.

The criminal trial won't start for about a year, due to the amount
of documents that need to be vetted by both sides, according to
Shozaburo Ishida, one of the court-appointed lawyers.


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Donald May Testify in Civil Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
CBS8.com reported that Republican presidential frontrunner Donald
Trump is on the witness list in a class-action lawsuit set for
trial in San Diego federal court, alleging fraud by his now-closed
Trump University.

According to pretrial documents reviewed by City News Service,
Trump is listed as one of 23 potential witnesses for the
plaintiffs.

Two different lawsuits filed in 2010 allege Trump University
engaged in deceptive practices and scammed thousands of students
hoping to make it rich in real estate.

One suit is a nationwide class-action and the other -- the one in
which Trump may testify -- is a class-action case in Florida, New
York and California.

If Trump were to take the witness stand, it would be in May, just
as voters cast ballots in Nebraska, West Virginia, Oregon and
Washington state. Trump's attorneys have contended the lawsuits
are politically motivated.


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Opposes Lead Plaintiff Removal in Fraud Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maggie Severns, writing for Politico, reports that in the latest
turn in the class-action lawsuit accusing Trump University of
fraud, Donald Trump's lawyers have asked a judge to block the lead
plaintiff from removing herself from the case -- which she is
seeking to do in part because of his presidential bid.

The plaintiff, Tarla Makaeff, has been deeply involved in the case
against Mr. Trump's education business since it was filed in
federal court in San Diego in 2010.  But as the case crept closer
to a trial, she filed paperwork asking to leave the class action.
She said she is grieving the death of her mother, has developed
health and anxiety issues, and never anticipated she could be
heading to court to testify against the leading presidential
candidate.

"No one could have anticipated that he would become a viable
presidential candidate and a 24/7 media obsession as this case
neared trial," Ms. Makaeff's lawyers wrote in January.

"Subjecting herself to the intense media attention and likely
barbs from Mr. Trump and his agents and followers simply would not
be healthy for her."

But Mr. Trump's lawyers wrote in a filing submitted on Feb. 26
that it's too late for her change of heart.  Mr. Trump argues that
the entire court battle would have played out differently -- with
the defense doing different discovery in the months leading up to
trial -- has Ms. Makaeff not been front and center.  They also
point out apparent discrepancies in Ms. Makaeff's case against
Trump, namely that she rated a number of her experiences at Trump
University highly while she was taking the coursework. (Ms.
Makaeff and others have said they were pressured to praise the
courses.)

"Makaeff brought this lawsuit, allowed herself to become the
public poster child for it, and should be required to finish what
she started," the filing says.

Mr. Trump also brought Ms. Makaeff's fears to realization on
Feb. 27 when he attacked her -- although he mangled her name -- at
a rally in Arkansas, pointing to her positive ratings for Trump
University.

"Her name is Tarloff or something," he said.  "She is a horrible,
horrible witness.  She's got in writing that she loves it."


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Fraud Class Action Can Proceed, Court Rules
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dareh Gregorian, writing for New York Daily News, reports there's
bad news for The Donald on Super on March 1 as court rules N.Y.
attorney general's Trump University fraud lawsuit can proceed.

On a day of Super Tuesday wins for Donald Trump, he suffered a
loss in New York -- a state appeals court gave a green light to a
civil fraud claim against the GOP front-runner and his Trump
University.

In a unanimous ruling, a four-judge panel of the state Appellate
Division said the state attorney general's office is "authorized
to bring a cause of action for fraud" -- despite the bloviating
billionaire's claims to the contrary.

Lawyers for Trump and his now-defunct school -- a signature issue
in Republican primary race -- have contended that Attorney General
Eric Schneiderman's suit should be tossed.  They say the statute
of limitations on the case had expired -- but the appeals court
disagreed.

Mr. Schneiderman charged Trump University, which operated between
2004 and 2010, was a sham that ripped off its students, beginning
with a "free" seminar.

Through "their deceptive and unlawful practices, (Trump and the
school) intentionally misled over 5,000 individuals nationwide,
including over 600 New Yorkers, into paying as much as $35,000
each to participate in live seminars and mentorship programs with
the promise of learning Donald Trump's real estate investing
techniques," the AG's office said.

Mr. Schneiderman's office filed suit in August 2013 after getting
almost 70 complaints from students who said they were duped into
paying thousands for investment advising services they never
received after getting lured in for "free" seminars.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Defends Driver Background Check Policy
---------------------------------------------------------
Rebekah Mintzer, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that
tragedy struck in Kalamazoo, Michigan, when a local man, Jason
Dalton, carried out a seemingly random shooting spree that left
six people dead.  Many observers were surprised to find out that
Dalton drove for Uber Technologies Inc. and may have even been
transporting passengers between murders.

Dalton had no criminal history and good customer reviews, so
perhaps no employer could have seen this coming.  But the shooting
has nonetheless breathed new life into a long-running debate over
whether Uber is doing enough to vet drivers.  Those concerns were
amplified by a 2014 lawsuit filed by state prosecutors in
California, which alleged that Uber's vetting process has missed
registered sex offenders and other felons.

Uber's critics say it needs stricter background checks on
prospective drivers. Ride-booking companies rely on private record
checkers to do name and Social Security number-based checks.  Taxi
companies, on the other hand, use government-run systems based on
fingerprinting.  "The fingerprint-based, government-conducted
criminal background check can access more fully an individual's
criminal history," says Dave Sutton, a spokesman for the Taxicab,
Limousine & Paratransit Association initiative "Who's Driving
You?"

Others say Uber may also want to re-evaluate its policy of not
doing in-person interviews with candidates.  A well-trained
interviewer can pick up cues from an interviewee about the risks
he or she might pose, says Brad Hiles, a partner at the law firm
Husch Blackwell.  With Uber, "there's less of an examination at
the time the [employment] relationship is initially established,"
Hiles says. "And then after that's established, you don't have the
human contact to observe bad behavior."

Uber representatives addressed these criticisms in a conference
call with reporters on Feb. 22.  According to Wired, the Uber
officials argued that a fingerprint-based background check would
not have raised red flags about Dalton's behavior.  Uber also
defended its policy of not doing in-person interviews.  "The idea
that simply by having someone look at someone, that they could
determine if they were about to have a psychotic episode, is a
faulty theory," Uber safety advisory board member Ed Davis told
reporters.


UBS AG: Settles Price Rigging Class Action for $100-Mil.
--------------------------------------------------------
Lawyer Herald reported that UBS AG and four other banks including
Natixis SA and JPMorgan Chase & Co, have agreed to pay more than
$100 million over the plaintiffs' claim that they connived to rig
prices for municipal securities.

The defendants have agreed to pay the investors of $100.5 million.
As per Yahoo, France's Natixis SA and Societe Generale, two of the
defendants would pay investors of $2.8 million.  .  If the
settlement would be approved by a federal judge, it would
reportedly end a private class action lawsuit that has been going
on for almost eight years. UBS and the four other banks and
brokerages would also end up paying over $226 million fines.
JPMorgan Chase & Co. would pay $44.6 million alone.

"We will not tolerate this type of misconduct at any level," said
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, after announcing the
states' settlement with Natixis and Societe Generale.

The City of Baltimore and the Central Bucks School District in
Pennsylvania are one of the plaintiffs accusing the defendants of
colluding to arrange prices for municipal derivatives. The
plaintiffs argued that the fixed price for municipal derivatives
resulted to lower interest rates than they would have received in
a an aggressive marketplace, HITC reports. Municipalities selling
bonds usually invest proceeds to spend in other means. The
plaintiffs alleged that UBS and other banks have abused this
process by deliberately presenting non-winning bids and by getting
advance peeks at their competitors' bids.

The private settlement between UBS and other banks, and the
investors was approved by U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero in
Manhattan. Despite the agreement, the plaintiffs have dismissed
the claims. UBS has agreed to pay $32 million, Natixis promised to
pay $28.45 million, Societe Generale with $25.41 million, Piper
Jaffray Cos with $9.75 million, Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc's
National Westminster Bank with $3.5 million, and George K. Baum &
Co promised to pay $1.4 million, Reuters claims.

Aside from UBS, other banks that have settled with the investors
include Bank of America Corp, Wells Fargo & Co, and General
Electric Co. The U.S. Department of Justice and state regulators
have also accused the municipal bond markets with corruption.
Five banks have agreed to pay over $740 million in penalties,
restitution and disgorgement.


UNION PACIFIC: Employees File ADA Class Action in Washington
------------------------------------------------------------
On February 19, 2016, six current and former employees of Union
Pacific Railroad Company filed a class action lawsuit in the
Western District of Washington at Seattle (Case No. CV15-1865JCC),
asserting that Union Pacific engaged in a pattern and practice of
discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act
("ADA"), 42 U.S.C 12101 et seq.

The case alleges that Union Pacific has put numerous long-time
employees out of work due to their actual or perceived
disabilities even though they could perform their jobs.  The suit
explains that Union Pacific requires certain employees to disclose
particular health events or conditions.  Once an employee makes
such a disclosure, Union Pacific removes the employee from service
and conducts a so-called "Fitness-for-Duty" procedure, but the
employees allege that this evaluation does not assess whether an
employee can perform the essential functions of their job.  The
employee is not even physically evaluated, and Union Pacific
routinely disregards the opinions of treating doctors who do
evaluate the employee.  Instead, Union Pacific collects extensive
medical information from the employee and conducts a "file review"
of the information.  Plaintiffs allege that Union Pacific then
mines the medical information and disqualifies the employees from
service -- either by deeming them "medically disqualified" or by
issuing permanent, unnecessary work restrictions that it then
refuses to accommodate.

The six named plaintiffs allege that Union Pacific discriminated
against them through this "Fitness-for-Duty" protocol.  The
plaintiffs include the following employees, all of whom were taken
out of service by Union Pacific:

   -- An individual who has had a pacemaker for more than 20 years
as a Union Pacific employee, who had never had a work-related
incident as a result;

   -- An individual with fully-controlled epilepsy who had never
had a work-related incident as a result;

   -- An individual who had lightheadedness on a few isolated
incidents outside of work;

   -- An individual with a fully-controlled heart condition who
never had a work-related incident;

   -- An individual with fully-controlled seizure disorder; and

   -- An Iraq War veteran formerly diagnosed with PTSD who never
had a work incident as a result.

Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of: "Individuals who were
removed from service over their objection, and/or suffered another
adverse employment action, during their employment with Union
Pacific for reasons related to a Fitness-for-Duty evaluation at
any time from 300 days before the earliest date that a named
Plaintiff filed an administrative charge of discrimination to the
resolution of this action."

Plaintiffs' Counsel James H. Kaster stated, "Our clients were
capable of performing the essential functions of their jobs, and
in fact were doing their jobs safely for a long time.  In most
cases, they had never had a work related incident as a result of
their conditions, and their treating doctors informed Union
Pacific they were fit to work. Nevertheless, Union Pacific
apparently stopped them from working because they had once been
diagnosed with certain conditions.  Railroads are not exempt from
the Americans with Disabilities Act and the ADA prohibits
discrimination against disabled employees who can perform the
essential functions of their jobs."

The plaintiffs are represented by James H. Kaster, David E.
Schlesinger, Bonnie M. Smith, Nicholas D. Thompson and Charles A.
Delbridge of Nichols Kaster, PLLP; Bradley W. Wahrlich and
Kristoffer S. Mayfield of Hildebrand McLeod and Nelson; and Joseph
A. Grube and Karen K. Orehoski of Breneman Grube Orehoski, PLLC.

Nichols Kaster is a plaintiffs firm that focuses on representing
employees and consumers whose rights have been violated.


UNITED STATES: Finalizes $940MM Settlement with Tribes
------------------------------------------------------
Kate Prengaman, writing for Yakama Herald, reports that Obama
Administration has finalized a $940 million settlement with
hundreds of tribes, including the Yakama Nation, ending a 25-year
legal dispute over inadequate payments to tribal agencies.
Officials announced the intended settlement in the case last fall,
but it was approved in U.S. District Court in Albuquerque, N.M.,
and settlement checks should be heading to tribal governments
soon.

The Yakama Nation's share of the class action suit is $7.2
million, according to documents prepared by the attorneys handling
the case.

The case was filed by the Ramah Chapter of the Najavo Nation, the
Oglala Sioux Tribe and the Zuni Pueblo on behalf of more than 600
tribes. It claimed that as tribes took control of programs such as
education, law enforcement and forest management that previously
had been run by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the government
failed to provide sufficient funding to meet its contract
agreements with the tribes.

In 2012, the Supreme Court ruled in the tribes' favor and
settlement negotiations began.

"Tribes can now be confident that the federal government will pay
sufficient costs to allow them to be successful in running federal
programs," said Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs Kevin
Washburn in a press release when the settlement plans were
announced in September.

It's the latest in a series of settlements by the Obama
Administration with tribes across the country, including the $3.4
billion Cobell case over government mismanagement of Indian lands
that was eventually paid out to individual tribal members.


UNITED STATES: Health Republic Files $2.5-Bil. Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Ayla Ellison, writing for Beckers Hospital Review, reports that
claiming health insurers were shortchanged by the Affordable Care
Act's risk corridor program, Health Republic Insurance Co. has
filed a $2.5 billion class-action lawsuit against the U.S.,
although the CEO of the company says recoveries could be up to $5
billion.

The risk corridor program is designed to temporarily level the
financial playing field for payers by limiting both unexpectedly
high gains and losses associated with participating in a new
insurance market. Insurers that saw greater profits paid into a
pool to compensate insurers with higher losses. The three-year
program, which runs through 2016, fell short by more than $2.5
billion in its first year because so many insurers experienced
losses in the individual market.

In its lawsuit, Lake Oswego, Ore.-based Health Republic alleges
the shortfall in 2014 caused financial distress for some insurers
and put others out of business. In October, Health Republic
announced it would not offer health plans in 2016.

Health Republic claims insurers participating in the risk corridor
program will incur even greater losses for 2015 because, like the
year prior, HHS is prevented from making any risk corridor
payments with government funds.

"If not remedied, this paradigm will require insurers to sharply
raise their rates and decrease benefits to protect against
potential losses from this new risk pool that needs more time to
stabilize, resulting in much higher costs to American taxpayers in
the long run than the temporary risk corridor program itself,
seemingly for perceived political gain," wrote Health Republic in
its complaint.

Health Republic is seeking full payment of the risk corridor
payments for itself and all other similarly situated insurers,
which Health Republic CEO Dawn Bonder said could be as much as $5
billion, according to the Portland Business Journal. Ms. Bonder
said repayment of its risk corridor money would allow Health
Republic to repay the $60 million in loans it owes the federal
government, rather than defaulting.

The lawsuit is pending in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.


UTICA, NY: Refugees' Discrimination Class Action Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Hasi Lo Wang, writing for NPR, reports that whether or not you're
a citizen in New York state, you have a right to attend a public
high school and earn a diploma until you're 21.  That was
Pawsansoe Bree's plan after she left a refugee camp in Thailand
when she was almost 19.

She resettled about four hours north of New York City -- in the
small, Rust Belt city of Utica, N.Y., which the United Nations
High Commissioner for Refugees once called "The Town That Loves
Refugees."

Ms. Bree says she knew she had a lot of work to do when she
arrived.

"I did not speak any English at all. I could barely say my name in
English," says Ms. Bree, whose family fled Myanmar, also known as
Burma, as refugees from the ethnic Karen community.

In Utica, Ms. Bree went to a newcomers program, where a teacher
from the local school district taught English to young refugees
like her.  Eventually, the students asked to move on to Thomas R.
Proctor High School, Utica's only high school.

"The teacher there told us, 'Oh, no, you cannot go to a high
school,' " Ms. Bree recalls.  "And we were like, 'Why?' And they
told us, 'Oh, you are too old. You're 19 now, so by the time
you're 21, you won't finish high school. You would just waste your
time.' "

'An Open Secret'

That conversation took place about eight years ago.  Ms. Bree says
since then, other district employees have given similar
explanations to refugees who speak little or no English and want
to go to high school.  That's why she helped organize a group of
students to sue the Utica City School District in federal court.
Their class-action lawsuit, filed last April, says that for almost
a decade, the district has discriminated against refugee students
over 16, who are not required to go to school under New York state
law.

"It was an open secret that refugees just knew within the
community that once you were at a certain age and you're arriving
in the country, you're just not going to get a chance to go to
high school," says Phil Desgranges, an attorney with the New York
Civil Liberties Union, which is representing the students along
with Legal Services of Central New York.

Mr. Desgranges says the district funneled his clients to
alternative programs, mainly to learn English. While some students
could attend GED classes, he claims none were given the choice to
earn high school diplomas.

"They're putting them on a track where they can't become a doctor,
where they can't become an engineer or a lawyer," he says.  "And
that is absurd. That's the exact opposite of what our country's
been built on, right?"

'Utica Needs To Get Its Fair Share'

NPR asked for an interview with the district's superintendent,
Bruce Karam.  His office directed requests to the district's
attorney, who did not respond to multiple requests before
publication.

But in a sworn statement filed in federal court, Mr. Karam says
that the district has not "denied enrollment to any eligible
students based upon their age."  He is also asking a judge to
dismiss a second, similar lawsuit filed by the New York state
attorney general in November.

"We want to be able to provide the sound basic education, which is
guaranteed under the state constitution to all students, including
our refugee population," Mr. Karam recently told Utica radio
station WIBX.  "But in order to do this, the funding formula has
got to be fixed, and Utica needs to get its fair share."

Utica is one of New York's poorest school districts.  It has faced
hundreds of layoffs and regular budget deficits.  In fact, it's
involved in a separate lawsuit that says public schools in Utica
and other small cities in New York have suffered from underfunding
by the state.

'The Children Have A Right To Study'

Still, the state attorney general's office argues that Utica is
breaking federal funding rules by discriminating against immigrant
students.  Justin Deabler, an assistant attorney general for New
York, adds that problems enrolling immigrants in schools have
grown since the recent surge of unaccompanied children from
Central America.

"The settlements that our office has reached have spanned
northern, western New York, southern New York," he says.  "We see
these problems cropping up all over New York state, not simply in
Utica."

More than 20 school districts have settled with New York's
attorney general's office, which announced its latest agreement on
Feb. 29 after an investigation found that the Westbury Union Free
School District on Long Island was excluding immigrants over 16
from high school.

Mr. Deabler says Utica is the first school district the state has
taken to court on this issue.

It's also the first district Patrick Tuyizere, 19, has ever sued.
He's one of the refugee students who filed the class-action
lawsuit claiming the district prevented them from going to high
school.

But now Mr. Tuyizere leaves his family's apartment most mornings
with a backpack strapped on.  After he filed the lawsuit, the
district contacted him about enrolling at Proctor High School,
which he and four other refugee students in the suit recently
started attending.

"We have a right to be in class to study. The children have a
right to study," says Mr. Tuyizere, who was born in a refugee camp
in Rwanda after his family fled from violence in the Democratic
Republic of Congo.

Both cases against the Utica City School District are still
ongoing. Mr. Tuyizere's attorneys say they want to make sure other
refugees can go to high school -- even if they don't have lawyers
backing them up.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Seeks to Centralize Emissions Fraud Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
David Gialanella, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
facing litigation in numerous federal and state jurisdictions over
alleged vehicle emissions fraud, Volkswagen is seeking to
centralize suits pending in New Jersey state court.

An application for multicounty litigation, posted Feb. 24 in a
notice to the bar, said sending those matters to Atlantic County
"is the most efficient, cost-effective, and non-prejudicial
vehicle for the 'Clean Diesel' actions to be managed[.]"
The company is likely to face opposition in that effort, an
attorney for one of the plaintiffs said.

According to the application, dated Feb. 11 and filed on
Volkswagen's behalf by Gibbons of Newark, there were more than 600
suits nationwide against Volkswagen Group of America Inc. as of
that date.  A dozen had been filed in 10 New Jersey Superior Court
vicinages, with two of those asserting claims on behalf of a
class.

In addition to Volkswagen, seven auto dealerships are named as
defendants in the New Jersey suits, the application states.
It seeks consolidation in Atlantic County -- one of three
vicinages that handles MCL matters.  The other two are Bergen and
Middlesex. Atlantic currently has the lightest MCL docket of the
three, according to the application.

Federal litigation already has been centralized.  The Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation directed those suits to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on Dec. 18.

As of that date, there were five Volkswagen suits pending in
New Jersey Superior Court, according to the application, which
points to the federal MDL as counseling in favor of centralizing
the New Jersey cases.

The application notes that former FBI Director Robert Mueller III,
now a partner in the Washington, D.C., office of Wilmer Cutler
Pickering Hale and Dorr, was appointed settlement master in the
federal MDL on Jan. 19.

MCL designation in New Jersey "would allow one . . .state court
judge to coordinate case management and stay apprised of potential
early settlement or mediation opportunities in the MDL and
encourage similar efforts here" to expedite the matter, Volkswagen
claimed in the application.

"The MDL court, with which the MCL court is expected to
coordinate, has reiterated its desire to resolve the federal
matter quickly," the company added.  "There is no reason to
believe that a judge presiding over a consolidated MCL here will
not be of the same mindset."

Andrew Wolf of the Wolf Law Firm in North Brunswick, who
represents the plaintiff in one New Jersey-based putative class
action in Middlesex County, contended that expediency is not
Volkswagen's goal when it comes to the New Jersey cases.

"The apparent intent of Volkswagen is to try to delay the state
court action while the federal action is pending," Mr. Wolf said.
Mr. Wolf said "we plan on opposing" the MCL application, which he
characterized as unnecessary given the relatively small number of
cases in New Jersey court.


WALGREEN CO: "Legget" Sues over Overcharging on Prescriptions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Leggett, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Walgreen Co., d/b/a Walgreens,
Defendant, Case BC606632 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles County, January
11, 2016), seeks damages, disgorgement of profits or restitution
pursuant to California Civil Code. 1750 et seq., economic,
monetary, actual, consequential and compensatory damages,
injunction, reasonable attorneys' fees and further relief as may
be necessary or appropriate for violation of Evidence Code 1158,
the California Unfair Competition Law
California Business & Professions Code Sec. 17200, et seq., the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California Civil Code Sec.
1750, et seq. and breach of contract and of duty of good faith and
fair dealing.

Defendants charged Legget fees exceeding applicable statutory
limitations for copies of their health records, specifically
$55.00 for copies of prescription records.

Walgreen Co. is an Illinois corporation having its principal place
of business at 200 Wilmot Road, Deerfield, Illinois 60015.
Walgreens is a pharmacy duly licensed under the laws of the state
of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Francis J. Flynn, Jr., Esq.
      CAREY, DANIS & LOWE
      Los Angeles, CA 90036
      Tel: (314) 662-2836
      Email: francisflynn@gmail.com

           - and -

      Tiffany M. Yiatras, Esq.
      CAREY, DANIS & LOWE
      8235 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1100
      Saint Louis, MO 63105-1643
      Tel: (314) 725-7700
      Email: tyiatras@careydanis.com


WESTERN PACIFIC: "Centria Homeowners" Sues Over Building Flaws
--------------------------------------------------------------
Centria Homeowners Association, a California non-profit
corporation on behalf of itself, and in its representative
capacity on behalf of its members, Plaintiff, v. Western Pacific
Housing, Inc., a Delaware corporation and D.R. Horton,
Inc., a Delaware corporation and Does 1-100, inclusive
Defendants, Case 16CV289945 (Cal. Super., Sta. Clara County,
January 11, 2016), seeks compensatory damages, pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest for breach of contract, violation of
Governing Documents and Breach of Fiduciary Duty.

Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant failed to address problems in
waterproofing, building envelope, window, deck, walkway,
hardscape, landscape, irrigation and drainage, plumbing, roofing
and structural and installation defects of the residential unit at
the Centria Condominium Project.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Randolph M. Paul, Esq.
      Jordan M. Rojas, Esq.
      BERDING, WELL LLP
      2175 N. California Blvd, Suite 500
      Walnut Creek, CA 94596
      Tel: (925) 838-2090
      Fax: (925) 820-5592
      Email: roaul@bcrdingweil.com
             jrojas@berdingweil.com


WHOLE FOODS: Judge Tosses Pre-pack Food Overpricing Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Knaub, Max Stendahl and Emily Field, writing for Law360,
report that a New York federal judge on March 1 threw out a
proposed class action accusing Whole Foods of overcharging for
prepackaged foods by overstating their weight, saying the
consumers leading the case had failed to show that they had
purchased items affected by the alleged mislabeling.

U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer agreed with Whole Foods that
plaintiffs Joseph Bassolino and Sean John, who have said they
regularly shop at Whole Foods stores and purchased the same kinds
of items that were implicated in the investigation, failed to
identify in their consolidated amended complaint any particular
transaction in which they were allegedly overcharged.

The complaint, Judge Engelmayer said, makes broad and conclusory
generalizations about Messrs. Bassolino and John having purchased
overweighed foods at Whole Foods, and such generalized claims
cannot confer standing.

He also found that the two men's exclusive reliance on the press
release issued by the New York City Department of Consumer
Affairs, which found that food sold by weight was "routinely"
overpriced, in some cases by as much as 40 percent, doomed their
claims as well, saying the release nowhere stated that every pre-
packaged food product, or every package of some smaller subset of
products, sold at every Whole Foods store in New York City was
labeled with an overstated weight and thus, overpriced.

"A claim based only on probabilistic evidence of injury, devoid of
any factual allegations particular to the plaintiff and without a
basis to plausibly infer that all covered products were
implicated, does not adequately plead injury-in-fact," Judge
Engelmayer said.

The judge alternatively found that the consolidated amended
complaint is defective on the ground that it fails to state a
claim.

The litigation stems from the DCA's announcement in June of its
investigation, in which it tested 80 different prepackaged
products, including berries, nuts, vegetables, meat and baked
goods.  The department found that 89 percent of the foods tested
were missing more product than was allowed under federal
guidelines.

Whole Foods later acknowledged that some customers had been
overcharged, but the company denied that the incorrect labeling
was intentional. It reached a $500,000 settlement with the DCA on
Dec. 28.

Messrs. Bassolino and John claimed they purchased the same kinds
of items that were implicated in the investigation, including
prepackaged cheeses, chicken and cupcakes.

The men had separately filed putative class actions against the
upscale grocer not long after the DCA issued its press release,
and the two suits were consolidated in October.  Mr. Bassolino had
tried remanding his case to state court, but lost his bid after
the court found that Whole Foods had shown, with reasonable
probability, that he had sought damages exceeding $5 million on
the theory he had pled.

Attorneys for the consumers did not respond on March 1 to a
request for comment. An attorney for Whole Foods declined to
comment.

The consumers are represented by Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, D. Greg
Blankinship and Todd Garber of Finkelstein Blankinship Frei-
Pearson & Garber LLP and Marie Napoli and Annie Causey of Napoli
Shkolnik PLLC.

Whole Foods is represented by David Sellinger --
sellingerd@gtlaw.com -- Gregory Casas -- casasg@gtlaw.com -- and
Todd Schleifstein of Greenberg Traurig LLP.

The case is Sean John v. Whole Foods Market Group Inc., case
number 1:15-cv-05838, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.


* Oklahoma Takes Measures to Address Fracking-Related Quakes
------------------------------------------------------------
William Yardley, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that more
than five years after Oklahoma first saw a startling spike in
earthquakes linked to the disposal of huge volumes of wastewater
created by hydraulic fracturing for oil, the state continues to
shake at an unprecedented rate and the number of strong quakes is
increasing.  In 2009, there were 20 quakes of magnitude 3.0 or
higher, according to the United States Geological Survey. Last
year, there were 890.  In 2009, no quake measured 4.0 or greater.
Last year, 30 did.

Yet even as many anxious Oklahomans now track seismic data on
their smartphones and struggle to sleep through the long, rumbling
nights, there has been one notable location where people rarely
seemed rattled.  That is here, in the state capital, where the oil
industry holds so much sway that for decades drill rigs have
extracted crude from directly beneath the Capitol building.

As one Democratic state lawmaker, Cory Williams, put it in an
interview: "They own the place."

Now, however, after quakes have shaken the homes of some top
elected officials -- and those of the worried constituents who
vote for them -- the state is taking new steps to address the
problem, even as critics say it is too little, too late.

The Oklahoma Corporation Commission, the agency that regulates the
oil and gas industry, asked oil producers operating in the
northwest part of the state to reduce the amount of wastewater
they are disposing of deep underground by 40%.

Scientists say natural faults in the area are being stirred by
billions of gallons of water injected deep into the ground after
it is used for hydraulic fracturing, commonly known as fracking.
Water and chemicals are used to break oil and gas free from rock
formations.  A large amount of the water returns to the surface
and, under federal law, must be disposed of in a way that does not
affect freshwater supplies.

Also, the speaker of the Oklahoma state House,
Jeff Hickman, a Republican who represents Fairview, sponsored a
bill that clarifies that the commission has the power to take
enforcement actions -- not just to politely ask the industry to
change.

And late in January, Gov. Mary Fallin, a Republican who only last
summer acknowledged the connection between quakes and oil
production, announced that she would direct $1.4 million in
emergency funds to the commission and to the Oklahoma Geological
Survey to hire new staffers and improve technology and monitoring
equipment. (Critics note that, days after making the announcement,
the governor did not mention earthquakes in her annual State of
the State speech.)

All of it comes as quakes increasingly have been felt in more
urban areas, leading to fear, frustration and larger crowds at
town hall meetings.

More than 500 people attended a public meeting on earthquakes at
the University of Central Oklahoma in Edmond, with some
participants having to watch from an overflow room.  The
environmental activist Erin Brockovich spoke, as did a Sierra Club
official and a lawyer who is building a class-action lawsuit
against the oil industry for personal property damage.

The Sierra Club is also suing energy companies on grounds that
they are endangering public health and the environment.

"Write your story," Little-Rock, Ark.-based lawyer Scott Poynter
wrote in a letter to people attending the meeting.  "Describe the
events that you and your family have experienced with the
earthquakes. This case will take years, and you will need the
story to refresh your memory. Also, it will help me keep
everyone's problems straight."

Richard Morrissette, a term-limited Democratic state lawmaker not
previously known for being active on the issue, announced to the
crowd that he planned to run for one of the three commission seats
in the fall election.  Among his promises: to fight for the repeal
of a bill the Republican-controlled Legislature passed last year
to prevent local governments from ordering moratoriums on
wastewater injection wells.

"The Legislature took away your rights," said Mr. Morrissette,
whose district is on the south side of Oklahoma City.

That prompted cheers from a crowd that grew raucous at times.
Edmond, where the meeting was held, is one of the wealthiest areas
of the state, and many of its residents have become more vocal as
quakes have crept closer and grown stronger.

On Feb. 13, a quake northwest of Fairview, about two hours away,
registered a magnitude of 5.1, making it the third-strongest quake
in the state's recorded history. The strongest was in 2011. The
second-strongest was in 1952; and scientists now say it, too, may
have been induced by nearby oil production.

"What's changed is the earthquakes have come back, and they've
come back to an area where the people know how to make noise,"
said Matt Skinner, a spokesman for the Oklahoma Corporation
Commission.  "They have the money. They have the power."

Mr. Skinner said he was weary of hearing that the commission is in
the pocket of the industry, that it is ignoring science and that
it should simply order a moratorium to stop all disposal wells.
The first and second are not true and the third would not stand up
in court, he said, because of the challenge of directly linking
specific disposal actions to specific quakes.

"We have broad correlations but we don't have specific
correlations," he said.

Mr. Skinner emphasized that he and other staff members have
suffered damage at their houses from quakes.  He said the recent
reductions, which critics note depend on voluntary compliance by
the industry, have shown the potential to work -- but that it may
take time.

"There's going to be a time when we have to go back and say, 'What
did we miss? Why did we miss this?'" he said.  "But right now,
we've got a fire on our hands and we've got to put it out."

Mr. Williams, who represents Stillwater, said state officials are
overstating the limitations they face and understating their
authority.  He says the state can order a moratorium, and he wants
it to create financial incentives for companies to find safer ways
to dispose of wastewater.

"We're taking some action," he said of recent moves by the
commission and the governor.  "But we are taking it three years
too late.  We have gotten better, but that's not saying much."


* Scalia's Death Poses Challenges for Class Action Defendants
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that Carter Phillips
of Sidley Austin is one of the most experienced U.S. Supreme Court
litigators in the country.  According to his official bio, Mr.
Phillips has argued 74 cases before the justices, more than anyone
else in private practice, but if you hire Phillips, you're not
just paying for his quick thinking at the podium.  You want his
strategic advice about how -- and whether -- you can win your
case.

So it's quite telling that Phillips seems to no longer believe
that the Supreme Court will act as a savior for corporations
facing class actions.

On Feb. 26, as you've probably heard, Mr. Phillips' client Dow
Chemical agreed to drop its bid for Supreme Court review of a jury
verdict against the company for participating in a price-fixing
conspiracy to inflate the cost of urethane chemicals.  Dow had
argued that the trial court improperly certified a class of
urethane purchasers in which some class members suffered no actual
injury -- a constitutional argument that has been a particular
bugaboo for class action detractors in the past couple of years.

Mr. Phillips persuaded the justices to take up the question of
uninjured class members in another of his cases this term, Tyson
Foods v. Bouaphakeo.  But at oral arguments, the court seemed
disinclined to use the Tyson case, which involved a jury verdict
for unpaid overtime wages to a class of Tyson meat processing
workers, as a vehicle for sweeping class action revisions.

The already very slim chance that the Supreme Court would issue a
ruling in Tyson that would help class action defendants like Dow
became even thinner with the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, the
court's leading class action skeptic.  Indeed, as my Reuters
colleague Lawrence Hurley reported on Feb. 26, Dow's announcement
of its $835 million capitulation to urethane purchasers was
unusually candid about how the uncertainty over Scalia's vacant
seat has led to "increased likelihood for unfavorable outcomes for
businesses involved in class action suits."

As if to underline Dow's prediction, the Supreme Court refused to
grant certiorari to the nutritional supplement seller Direct
Digital, which wanted the justices to overturn a decision from the
7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that said plaintiffs' affidavits
are a perfectly fine way to determine class membership.

The court also denied review of a class action against Wal-Mart
that presented the question of whether the filing of successive
class actions can extend the statute of limitations for absent
class members.

For class action detractors, it's increasingly evident that
Scalia's absence from the Supreme Court means at least a temporary
halt in the long campaign to rein in these cases -- not just
because Scalia won't be pushing his colleagues to circumscribe the
rights of class action plaintiffs in written opinions but because
there will be less appetite to take cases to begin with.

Defendants might not even want to bring class action issues to the
Supreme Court if they can't count on having Justice Scalia in
their corner.  Think about the Direct Digital case, for instance.
In that decision, the 7th Circuit explicitly split with the 3rd
Circuit on the standard for ascertaining class membership.  In the
3rd Circuit, plaintiffs cannot rely on affidavits from people
claiming to be in the class.  In the 7th Circuit, they can.

Without Justice Scalia, defendants have little chance of mustering
a majority to hold that, in essence, consumer class actions cannot
be based on sworn statements from consumers.  Their best outcome
would be a 4-4 tie, which would merely preserve the status quo.
And the worst-case scenario would wipe out favorable precedent in
the 3rd Circuit.

Under those circumstances, defendants might better off leaving
well enough alone, preserving a circuit split and uncertainty
-- which at least gives them a little leverage in settlement talks
-- rather than risking disadvantageous Supreme Court precedent.

The Supreme Court hasn't yet issued opinions in Tyson Foods and
the other potential class action blockbuster of this term, Spokeo
v. Robins, which poses the question of whether Congress can
legislate standing by creating a private right of action for
violations of federal consumer protection laws.  My prediction is
that the justices opt for relatively narrow rulings in both Tyson
and Spokeo.

In Tyson Foods, the likeliest outcome is an opinion upholding the
verdict against the company based on the class certification
standards for a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action rather
than Rule 23 class action standards.  At oral arguments in Spokeo,
the justices seemed to agree with the credit reporting company
that Congress does not have absolute authority to grant standing
by statute.  But the court also appeared to take a broad view of
what might constitute an injury under the Fair Credit Reporting
Act, the law at issue in the case.

Ms. Frankel said "I'm not suggesting the Supreme Court is likely
to roll back from the business-friendly class action opinions
Justice Scalia has written.  Wal-Mart v. Dukes, which raised the
bar for class membership, and AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion and
American Express v. Italian Colors, which upheld the primacy of
class action bans in mandatory arbitration agreements, are
securely in place.  But as I've said before, Justice Scalia's most
recent big class action opinion, Comcast v. Behrend, has turned
out to be an underachiever.  The justice included language in the
Comcast opinion that class action opponents hope to use to
prohibit class certification in cases involving individualized
damages calculations.  Lower appellate courts, however, have
refused to read the opinion that way."

At oral arguments in the Tyson and Spokeo cases, Justice Scalia
was characteristically sharp in his questions about class
certification and uninjured plaintiffs.  But until and unless
class action opponents bring another justice onto their side,
defendants ought not count on the Supreme Court for a reprieve.


* U.S. Supreme Court Won't Consider Class Membership Test
---------------------------------------------------------
Perry Cooper, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that the U.S.
Supreme Court declined Feb. 29 to consider how strict the test
should be for determining who is a member of a class for
certification purposes.

The top court, in refusing to review a dietary supplement consumer
suit, passed on what one defense attorney said was its best chance
this term to rule on ascertainability, an issue that many say has
divided the federal courts of appeal.

The Third Circuit requires that sales records--or other reliable
evidence of product purchases identifying class members--must be
available for a class to be found ascertainable.  The Sixth and
Seventh Circuits have rejected that strict approach.

The Sixth Circuit, and Seventh Circuit below in this case, both
stayed dietary supplement suits while defendants challenged
ascertainability at the Supreme Court, perhaps expecting that
review was likely.

But defense attorney Jonathan R. Chally told Bloomberg BNA in a
Feb. 29 e-mail that he wouldn't read too much into the stays.

Although the Seventh Circuit focused on the split, the plaintiffs
"went to great lengths to downplay" it in briefs before the
Supreme Court, Mr. Chally, a partner at King & Spalding in
Atlanta, said.

"My guess -- and you can only guess when it comes to trying to
explain why cert was denied -- is that the respondent was
effective in this regard," he said.

Could this denial have something to do with the court's cooling
interest in limiting the class action device after the death of
its most vocal opponent, Justice Antonin Scalia?

One consumer advocate says probably not.

"While it is clear that Justice Scalia was not favorable to class
actions, whether he would have adopted an argument that had no
basis in Rule 23 itself seems unlikely given that it is
contradictory to his steadfast notion of orginalism," Maia Kats,
director of litigation at the Center for Science in the Public
Interest in Washington, told Bloomberg BNA in a Feb. 29 e-mail.

Not in Rule 23

Ascertainability is an implied prerequisite to class certification
that doesn't appear in Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, the rule that governs
class actions.

"Rule 23 expressly sets forth the requirements for certification,
and ascertainability is not and never was among them," Ms. Kats
said.

"I think the denial of cert in Mullins is a clear indication that
challenges to class certification, and class actions more
generally, cannot encompass factors that are extraneous to Rule 23
itself," she said.

Plaintiffs' attorney Michael R. Reese of Reese LLP in New York
agreed that denial of certiorari wasn't unexpected.

"Ascertainability is a dubious concept, as it appears nowhere in
Rule 23 and seems to run counter to the language and spirit of the
Rule itself," he told Bloomberg BNA in a Feb. 29 e-mail.

"Moreover, ascertainability as applied by some courts could have
an adverse disparate impact on some minority groups that do not
use credit cards to the same extent as other groups," he said.
Credit card receipts create a better paper trial for identifying
class members.

Perceived Circuit Split

The Third Circuit established a strict standard for
ascertainability in 2013 in yet another consumer suit over weight-
loss supplements.

It held in Carrera v. Bayer Corp., 727 F.3d 300 (3d Cir. 2013) ,
that sales records or other reliable evidence of product purchases
identifying class members must be available for a class to be
found ascertainable.

The Seventh Circuit roundly rejected the Third Circuit's Carrera
strict standard for identifying class members in its July 2015
ruling in Mullins.

It held that as long as the class definition is spelled out
clearly and objectively, ascertainability is met.  The court also
endorsed class members' ability to self-identify through
affidavits when other means of identification aren't available,
which is often the case in false advertising suits over consumer
goods.

The Sixth Circuit followed suit in an August 2015 ruling in Rikos
v. Procter & Gamble Co., 2015 BL 268080, No. 14-4088, 8/20/15.

But Mr. Chally doesn't see the circuit split as significant.

"The Third Circuit's approach was defendant-friendly, to be sure,
but it did not announce a new standard," he said.  "That means
that one could harmonize Carrera and Mullins, and downplay the
extent of a circuit split."

Another Chance?

The Supreme Court has another opportunity this term to get
ascertainability on its docket. Procter & Gamble is seeking review
of the Sixth Circuit's decision, No. 15-835, cert. petition filed
12/28/15.

But that petition is unlikely to be granted solely on
ascertainability grounds, Mr. Chally said.

The Sixth Circuit, like the Seventh, described what it perceived
as a circuit split on the issue, and refused to follow the Carrera
approach, he said.

But Rikos offers the court other grounds for granting review, he
said.

"In other words, ascertainability was not the focus in Rikos, as
it was in Mullins, so one could conclude that if the court intends
to address ascertainability soon, was the better vehicle to do
so," he said.


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mich. Man Sues 15 Companies Over Lung Cancer
-------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Fallon filed a lawsuit with the Superior Court of the State
of Delaware alleging that he was wrongfully exposed to, inhaled,
ingested, and otherwise absorbed asbestos fibers emanating from
various sources which were mixed, mined, manufactured,
distributed, sold, removed, installed, and/or used by the
Defendants including, but not limited to: asbestos-containing
insulation, circuit breakers, panels, switch gears, substations,
transformers, disconnects, explosion proof fittings, lights and
fuse boxes.

The Plaintiff, a resident of Taylor, Michigan, asserts that as a
result of the Defendants' wrongful conduct, he suffers from an
asbestos-related disease including, but not limited to, Lung
Cancer.  The Plaintiff first became aware that he suffered from
the disease in or around August 2015, and, subsequently thereto,
became aware that the same was wrongfully caused.  As a result of
developing Lung Cancer, the Plaintiff says he has endured, and
continues to endure, great physical pain and suffering, mental
anguish, emotional pain and suffering, and loss of enjoyment of
life.  Further, as a result of the Defendants' wrongful conduct,
the Plaintiff is required to receive, and does receive, medical
treatment to mitigate his asbestos related disease, thus incurring
reasonable and necessary costs for medical care, diagnosis, and
treatment.

The Plaintiff seeks judgment against the Defendants and an award
of compensatory damages in an amount to be proved at trial, but
believed to exceed $100,000; and punitive damages in an amount
sufficient to punish the Defendants for their misconduct and to
deter similarly situated parties from committing like acts of
misconduct in the future; and other and further relief that the
Court deems appropriate.

The case is THOMAS FALLON Plaintiff, v. AUTO ZONE, INC.; BW/IP
INC., as successor to BYRON JACKSON PUMPS; CBS CORPORATION, a
Delaware Corporation, f/k/a VIACOM, INC., successor by merger to
CBS CORPORATION, a Pennsylvania Corporation, f/k/a WESTINGHOUSE
ELECTRIC CORPORATION, as successor in interest to THE BRYANT
ELECTRIC COMPANY; EATON CORPORATION, individually as successor in
interest to CUTLER-HAMMER, INC.; FORD MOTOR COMPANY; GENERAL
ELECTRIC COMPANY; HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., f/k/a ALLIED
SIGNAL, INC., as successor in interest to THE BENDIX CORPORATION;
HUBBELL INCORPORATED, as successor in interest to THE BRYANT
ELECTRIC COMPANY; PEPBOYS; ROCKWELL AUTOMATION, INC., as successor
by merger to ALLEN-BRADLEY COMPANY; SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC.,
individually and as successor in interest to SQUARE D COMPANY;
SIEMENS INDUSTRY, INC., successor in interest to SIEMENS ENERGY &
AUTOMATION, INC.; UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION; VIKING PUMP, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. N16C-02-213 ASB (Del. Sup.).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         A. Dale Bowers, Esq.
         Kenneth L. Wan, Esq.
         William J. P. Mulgrew, III, Esq.
         203 North Maryland Avenue
         Wilmington, DE 19804
         Tel: (302) 691-3786
         Fax: (302) 691-3790
         Email: dale@bowerslegal.com

            -- and --

         Michelle Murtha, Esquire
         WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.
         200 Lake Drive East, Suite 205
         Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
         Tel: (856) 755-1115
         Fax: (856) 755-1995


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pipe Tests Positive For Asbestos in Regina Bldg.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
OHS Canada reported that Saskatchewan's government authority for
occupational health and safety had to face a work-related safety
crisis of its own from Feb. 23 to 24, when a building that houses
some of its offices was evacuated over an asbestos scare.

The Ministry of Labour Relations and Workplace Safety, which
employs about 90 people on the third, fourth and sixth floors of a
building at 1870 Albert Street in Regina, brought in a plumbing
contractor on Feb. 19 after a leak in a sixth-floor ceiling water
pipe was found at about noon that day, according to Ray Anthony,
an executive director with the Ministry's oh&s division. The
possibility of an asbestos presence was raised after the
contractor's employees cut out a section of an orange concrete
rainwater pipe in the process of repairing the leak.

"Later on in the afternoon, one of our hygienists discovered this
piece of pipe in the stairwell and asked these plumbing
contractors if they had checked for asbestos," said Anthony, "and
they said, well no, they hadn't, they had been told that there was
no asbestos in the building."

A test on the material came back positive for asbestos late on
Feb. 22, although the Ministry management did not know about it
until the following morning. "So we knew that they hadn't followed
proper precautions," Anthony added, referring to the plumbers.

The building was evacuated immediately, due to uncertainty about
the air quality, and the Ministry brought in an independent third
party to test the air for asbestos fibres.

"We had basically all the floors cleaned up, and we did testing
before and after, all of which were negative for asbestos fibres,"
said Anthony. "It was an incident, and that's the way we treated
it."

After all of the offices were cleaned up and vacuumed according to
proper procedures, the building was declared safe and everybody
returned to work at about noon on Feb. 24.

"Basically, we're just trying to follow best practice," Anthony
added.

Since Nov. 2013, Saskatchewan has maintained an official public
registry of government-owned buildings -- including schools,
healthcare facilities and other buildings owned by provincial
government organizations -- indicating whether they contain
asbestos. The Saskatchewan Asbestos Registry resulted from the
passing of The Public Health Amendment Act, or Howard's Law, on
April 18 of that year (COHSN, Nov. 18, 2013). Ironically, the
registry does not cover 1870 Albert Street, since the building is
privately owned.

"We don't own this building," said Anthony. "We just rent here."

The Saskatchewan government does own more than 500 buildings
around the province, he explained, "and those are registered, and
the asbestos is mapped and listed in them under the registry."

The oh&s division of the Ministry has an office on the Albert
Street building's sixth floor, where the apparently contaminated
pipe was located.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Alpena County Courthouse
-----------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Parseghian, writing for WBKB11.com, reported that Alpena
County is set to spend $3500.00 on asbestos clean up in the
basement of the County Courthouse building.

The asbestos was discovered after county clerk Bonnie Friedrichs
was cleaning the clerk's vault and noticed debris on the pipes and
on some of the court files.

She then contacted the county's maintenance superintendent, Wes
Wilder, who brought in an outside local specialist in testing and
confirmed that the debris was in fact, the poisonous mineral.

The professional clean?up will include both vaults within the
basement of the court house, which stores files that date back
centuries.

"It will cost about thirty?five?hundred dollars to clean our vault
and the county treasurer's vault. And we have a number of files
down there, the files go back to 1859 and all our records go back
to that. If you can imagine, row after row of files" County Clerk
Bonnie Friedrichs said.

In addition to the extensive clean?up, the county will also spend
an additional $1600 dollars on training for county maintenance
workers, so they are able to test for asbestos if found again.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victims, Lawyers Fear Bill May Delat Payment
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Gehrke, writing for The Salt Lake Tribune, reported that
Dale Petersen didn't expect to live to see his 70th birthday.

After retiring to St. George six years ago, Petersen bought a bike
that he rode every day until he noticed about two years ago that
he was getting winded on bike rides. Doctors found that
mesothelioma, caused by years of exposure to asbestos when he was
installing and removing residential boilers for Utah Power &
Light, was attacking his lungs and would eventually take his life.

"This is just a terrible disease and it's going to take me at an
early age," Petersen said. "It's been very, very hard on my family
and my wife, especially. It's been tough."

Petersen marked his 70th birthday, and considered it "a blessing."
He also visited his doctor to have fluid drained from his lungs so
he would be well enough to travel to the Capitol to testify
against a bill he says would make it harder for patients like him
to sue over their asbestos-related ailments and likely mean many
would die before they receive compensation.

"I can't imagine some of my working friends who may get it later
on would have to go through a law like this," Petersen said. "I
can't imagine. And it's all in the name of slowing things down for
the patient."

Petersen is concerned about HB403, sponsored by Rep. Brad Wilson,
R-Kaysville.

The bill would :

   * Require plaintiffs to quantify the "dose" of their asbestos
exposure, identify the source and establish that the exposure was
"a substantial factor" in causing the disease;

   * Identify the beginning and end dates of each alleged exposure
and the manufacturer of the asbestos product in each exposure;

   * File a declaration disclosing personal information including
Social Security numbers and identifying any compensation the
plaintiff may have received for prior claims;

   * Allow companies named as defendants to file motions to delay
proceedings in order to dispute the information in plaintiffs'
declarations.

"It's not trying to slow the process down at all and if there's
the perception that that's what the intention is, it's wrong,"
Wilson said. "I would not ever do that. These victims have been
some victims of some bad stuff."

Wilson said some trial lawyers are going to court and suing
various asbestos businesses for damages, then, after receiving
that award, going back to the trusts and filing claims for damages
from the bankrupt companies' trusts, draining the resources.

"It's meant to ensure, when the courts as well as the trusts are
considering damages -- which are due, we're not arguing that at
all -- that we look at all these things at the same time," he
said. "Because, if we do double-dip, what happens is these trusts
are going to get depleted fast and the victims down the road are
not going to get their fair share."

Petersen's attorneys were able to file a lawsuit against the
companies that sold and distributed the asbestos products to which
Petersen was exposed. They were also able to file claims for
compensation from trust funds set up by companies that have gone
bankrupt in order to pay future victims, although the trust funds
pay out meager amounts in the settlements.

"It's complicated trying to get full compensation for everyone
knowing that we're going to get pennies on the dollar from" the
trust funds, said Rick Nemeroff, Petersen's attorney. "We're doing
the best we can to get as much as we can from the available
resources."

They were able to push the lawsuit through the courts in about a
year and speed is important for mesothelioma patients who
typically are given between six and 18 months to live, said
Nemeroff.

Petersen said the settlement -- the amount of which he could not
disclose -- gives him peace of mind "that my wife and family will
be OK after I'm gone."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Unexpected Asbestos Adds Costs to Bldg Demo
------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Horner, writing for Twin Cities Pioneer Press, reported that
the demolition of the former home of the Ramsey County adult
detention center and the West Publishing buildings will continue
in downtown St. Paul, despite climbing costs.

The Ramsey County Board voted 6-1 to increase the project's budget
by another $2 million to cover rising costs related to delays and
unanticipated asbestos discovered at the site.

The increase brings the total cost of demolition to about $17
million. Initial estimates for the work back in 2014 were about
$11.5 million.

The County Board voted then to raze the six-building former West
Publishing complex and the former adult detention center on
Kellogg Boulevard in an effort to make the parcel more attractive
to developers.

The county had tried to sell the properties as-is for more than a
decade but developers balked at the unknowns associated with
taking down a mammoth building built into the Mississippi river
bluff.

Before casting her no vote, Janice Rettman expressed concern about
the amount of due diligence done to ascertain the scope of the
work before the county signed off on the demolition.

Other commissioners said that while they were disappointed in the
rising costs, they knew this project might come with surprises
because of the age of the buildings and their unique position
along the bluff.

They added that the investment continues to be worth the return
the county hopes to receive once the site is clear and ready for
redevelopment by the private sector.

"When we made this decision, we knew there were risks,"
Commissioner Toni Carter said. "We determined that . . .  if no
one in the development community would take those risks, we needed
to take them so we could gain on the riverfront . . .  and re-
create (our vision) there. . .  That is an economic boon for all
of us."

County officials have pointed to the possibility of drawing $150
million in private development, which would yield about $7 million
in annual tax revenue, including $1.9 million for the county.

The site has been off the tax rolls since 1992, when West
Publishing moved to Eagan and its river-bluff headquarters were
later converted into government offices.

Demolition of the site is just over 30 percent complete. The
county expects to have the site ready for redevelopment by August
of 2017.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Connecticut's Asbestos Docket Finally Shrinks
--------------------------------------------------------------
John J. Robinson, Esq. -- jjrobinson@gordonrees.com -- Cullen W.
Guilmartin, Esq. -- cguilmartin@gordonrees.com -- in an article
for The Connecticut Law Tribune, wrote that the U.S. Supreme Court
once referred to the asbestos litigation as an "elephantine mass."
Although Connecticut's asbestos docket has never involved
thousands of cases -- let alone the hundreds of thousands of
claims pending nationwide in 1999 -- state judges and clerks have
likely considered the hundreds of asbestos cases pending in
Connecticut to be a considerable burden on our judicial system.
However, an assessment of the numbers suggests that burden is
rapidly declining.

There is prior history to the Connecticut asbestos docket. But for
all intents and purposes, the litigation froze in the 1990s and
then became active again around the turn of the 21st century. In
2003, the defense liaison counsel function, in its current
iteration, was created by agreement among the defendants and an
order of the court. As such, the authors of this article have
access to data dating to 2003.

In 2003, approximately 600 cases were pending in a consolidated
asbestos docket in Bridgeport Superior Court, titled Bridgeport
Asbestos Litigation (BAL). Taking into account multiple-plaintiff
cases, but not including loss of consortium claims, the total
number of claims was likely closer to 650. At that time, there was
a master BAL-assigned docket number for master filings and a
series of pretrial orders existed for the purpose of managing the
litigation. Those pretrial orders allowed for clusters of cases
ranging from 10 to 15; they were grouped together for all pretrial
proceedings, discovery and settlement conferences.

The cases within a group also shared a mutual scheduling order.
However, the clustered cases were never intended to be tried
together, as plaintiffs' efforts at consolidation for trial have
been consistently rejected by judges handling this docket. The
groups were based on a first-in-first-out system (based on filing
dates) with exceptions for cases involving living plaintiffs'
malignancies, which were expedited into earlier groups.

As a first case within a group reached a trial date, the next case
would not be called for trial until two weeks after the verdict
(which was a rarity) or complete resolution of the case before it.
This would continue through a trial group's completion. The next
trial group could not begin its first case until the trial group
before it was completely resolved. There were also many "false
starts" and trial dates were routinely pushed back, further
slowing the process. The end result was that a relatively small
number of asbestos cases were being resolved in the Connecticut
court system for a number of years. However, some cases were
resolved through negotiation by the parties.

Despite the slow pace of resolution, as of Sept. 30, 2009 (the
last time the Connecticut courts published a full census of the
docket), the docket was reduced to 304 pending asbestos cases, all
in Bridgeport. Accounting for multiplaintiff matters, the total
number of individual plaintiffs exceeded 400. Between the 2009
census and the beginning of 2012, the courts resolved about 25
cases per year, while there were approximately 80 new filings in
2010 and 2011. And so at the beginning of 2012, there were likely
430 to 450 pending cases in state court. In addition, a number of
Connecticut asbestos cases -- all now resolved -- were pending in
federal court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania's
multidistrict litigation. As such, over the course of 10 years
(2003 to 2012), the Connecticut docket was reduced by fewer than
200 cases.

In 2012, the judiciary assessed the aging asbestos docket and
pushed for cases to be resolved or tried. Since then, the pace of
resolution has drastically increased and the number of pending
cases has fallen considerably. Of particular note is that the BAL
master orders were disbanded, along with the master BAL docket,
and cases have since been litigated more like other personal
injury cases.

At the beginning of 2015, there were 160 active asbestos cases in
Connecticut (156 in state court and four in federal court).
Plaintiffs firms in Connecticut often bring separate lawsuits
against two different groups of defendants: those that remove
cases to federal court and those that do not. For the purposes of
this case count, these dual filings are considered as one case. As
such, there are far more than four asbestos cases pending in
federal court as some plaintiffs have cases concurrently pending
in both state and federal courts. Moreover, when accounting for
multiplaintiff filings, there were 191 individual plaintiffs with
claims pending in Connecticut. Thus, over this recent four-year
period, the docket was reduced by approximately 240 to 260 cases.

While a 191-case docket is substantial, when considering the pace
of resolution over the past four years, the numbers seem far less
daunting. For example, 63 asbestos cases were trial listed in
Connecticut in 2015 and resolved during that calendar year.

Including multiplaintiff cases, the total number of individual
plaintiffs with trial dates in 2015 was 95. All but two of the 95
cases resolved without the necessity of trial.

Of the two cases that did go to trial, there was one plaintiff's
verdict and one defense verdict. In addition to those 95 trial-
listed cases that resolved, two state court cases trial listed in
2016 were withdrawn and one of the federal court cases was
dismissed before the end of 2015. Therefore, the data suggests
that 98 of the 191 Connecticut asbestos cases pending at the
beginning of 2015 were resolved in 2015. The vast efforts of all
involved, including the court, court personnel, plaintiffs
counsel, defense counsel, and, of course, the clients, allowed for
the efficient resolution of essentially half the remaining
asbestos docket in just one calendar year.

Looking at the pace of resolution, however, only tells half the
story. Recent filings must be assessed as well. In 2015, there
were 41 new asbestos cases filed by plaintiffs in Connecticut.
That brought the number of pending asbestos cases in Connecticut
to 134 as of Jan. 1, 2016. Of those, 99 are pending in Bridgeport,
32 are pending in New London and three are fully pending in
federal court.

Furthermore, absent an increase in filings, the volume of pending
asbestos cases in Connecticut will decrease even further in coming
years. For example, there are 60 cases trial listed in Connecticut
state court in 2016 and three more cases pending in federal court
which may or may not reach trial in 2016. As such, around 60
asbestos cases will likely resolve this year.

When compared with the 41 new asbestos filings in 2015, and
assuming a similar filing rate in 2016, the likely result is about
115 asbestos cases remaining at the end of 2016. Given the pace of
case resolution in Connecticut, a docket of 115 cases does not
seem "elephantine" at all.

2016 will also mark an interesting change in Connecticut's
asbestos litigation. Over the past decade, all personal injury
asbestos cases were docketed in Bridgeport and are assigned to
Judge Barbara Bellis. Today, not all of the pending cases reside
in that venue. Many cases are now being filed in New London and
assigned to Judge Leeland Cole-Chu. The number of trial-listed
cases will rise from just one in New London in 2016 to 27 in 2018.
In that same period, the number of cases trial listed for
Bridgeport will shrink to eight by 2018. In short, there may be a
change in the dominant venue for the Connecticut asbestos
litigation as soon as 2018.

Where does Connecticut's asbestos litigation go from here? If
recent filing and resolution statistics remain consistent, the
asbestos trial docket will likely settle at approximately 40
trial-listed cases per year and the docket will be split between
Bridgeport and New London, and may eventually slant toward New
London. Whether the limited number of cases will encourage more
trials remains to be seen. Given the state of the docket back in
2002, and what has occurred since 2012, a docket of approximately
120 cases on three-year trial tracks, with 40 trial-listed cases
per year, does not seem "elephantine" at all.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Canada's Asbestos Workers Condemn Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Conference of Asbestos Workers (CCAW) expressed shock
and anger on behalf of Canada's asbestos workers in response to a
BC Supreme Court ruling rejecting health and safety claims on the
grounds the safety regulations were too complicated for asbestos
removal contractors to follow.

"The health and safety of Canadian workers is never too
complicated to protect," said Vince Engel, Western Canadian Vice-
President of the International Association of Heat and Frost
Insulators and Allied Workers. "The harmful effects of exposure to
asbestos are undeniable. We are outraged that the court has
decided health and safety laws are simply too complex to be
enforced," Engel added.

BC Supreme Court Justice George Macintosh dismissed a contempt of
court application against asbestos removal contractors Mike and
Shawn Singh of Seattle Environmental, despite significant
testimony that safety laws were breached. WorkSafeBC filed the
contempt of court application against Seattle Environmental after
repeated warnings were ignored, including a 2013 BC Supreme Court
order to follow safe asbestos removal regulations.

In a stunning ruling, Justice Macintosh said that safe asbestos
removal laws and regulations were "voluminous and complex",
likening the complexity to "looking through the Income Tax Act".

Asbestos exposure is the single largest workplace killer in
Canada. Since 1996, almost 5,000 approved death claims stem from
asbestos exposure, making it by far the top source of workplace
death in Canada. In 2013, the 368 asbestos related death claims
were greater than those from highway accidents, fires and chemical
exposures combined.

The CCAW and its members are calling on WorkSafeBC to appeal the
ruling, which they insist sets a dangerous precedent allowing
contractors to violate safety laws.

"This decision sends a dangerous message to contractors that
safety laws can be ignored if they seem too complicated to
follow," said Fred Clare, Eastern Canadian Vice-President of the
International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Allied
Workers. "These health and safety laws are supposed to protect the
lives of asbestos workers in Canada. But what good are these rules
if they aren't enforced, and there are no penalties for breaking
the law?" asked Clare.

The CCAW calls on all levels of government to ensure better
enforcement of the rules and regulations in place to protect the
safety of asbestos workers in Canada.

About the Canadian Conference of Asbestos Workers

The CCAW is an association consisting of nine local unions in
Canada affiliated with the International Association of Heat and
Frost Insulators and Allied Workers. The CCAW represents
approximately 6000 Insulators and Asbestos workers in Canada.

For more information contact:

Vince Engel
Vice President (Western Canada)
International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Allied
Workers
(306) 537-9699
vinengel@sasktel.net

Robin MacLachlan
Summa Strategies Canada
613-235-1400
rmaclachlan@summa.ca


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazardous Asbestos Waste Dumped Over Bridge
------------------------------------------------------------
Mid-Ulster Mail reported that numerous sheets of asbestos were
found to have been dumped over a bridge in Draperstown by a member
of the public.

The illegal waste, which was left lying right beside a river after
being tipped over the Whitewater Bridge, was reported to the
Environment Agency -- which has since been praised by Mid Ulster
MLA Patsy McGlone for its quick action.

Mr McGlone said: "I welcome the swift response from the waste
management team at the Environment Agency on being alerted to the
dumping of hazardous material, including asbestos, at the
Whitewater Bridge.

"They despatched the Flytipping Team to the site after being
alerted to the danger, carried out an assessment, and engaged
contractors to clear the asbestos waste, and take it to an
authorised facility, under the Flytipping Programme.

"Asbestos was removed from the banks of the river and the water
itself.

"On having the issue reported to me by a local resident I
immediately contacted the Department of the Environment who, in
turn, alerted the Environment Agency.

"Their vigilance enabled this dangerous material to be dealt with
promptly and safely removed from the area.

"However, it is a matter of concern that the Mid Ulster Council
was made aware of the danger a week before and had taken no action
to protect the public. This hazardous material could have been
spread by the river over a large area in that time.


"I condemn utterly those responsible for dumping this dangerous
material at a public site. Their irresponsible and illegal
activity demonstrates contempt for the environment and the health
of local residents.

"I urge anyone with any information about the illegal dumping of
hazardous material to contact the police."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Border Force Dusts Off Asbestos Controls
---------------------------------------------------------
PS News reported that an independent review of Australia's
asbestos border control management has been launched by the
Australian Border Force (ABF).

The review will examine the effectiveness of Australia's asbestos
border control as enforced by the ABF.

Announcing the review, the Minister for Immigration and Border
Protection, Peter Dutton said it would examine the Department of
Immigration and Border Protection's internal processes and
procedures for mitigating the risk that goods containing asbestos
would enter Australia.

"The review complements a range of ABF operations targeting
asbestos importation, and ongoing education initiatives intended
to prevent, detect and deter the importation of goods containing
asbestos," Mr Dutton said.

He said an Australia-wide ban on the importation, manufacture and
use of asbestos and goods containing asbestos took effect on 31
December 2003.

Mr Dutton said border control on asbestos complemented
Commonwealth, State and Territory regulations that implemented the
ban.

He said the independent review would focus on a number of
processes and procedures, including: the effectiveness of border
control on asbestos; procedures for asbestos handling, storage and
disposal; engagement with importers, other industry stakeholders
and other Government Agencies; and engagement with international
customs administrations.

Mr Dutton said the review's findings would be used to determine
whether Australia's asbestos border control measures required
strengthening.

He said it would be completed by the end of the first quarter of
the year and was being conducted by KGH Border Services.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Beech-Nut Plant Developer Sued in Scrap Dispute
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Nearing, writing for Times Union, reported that an Ohio
businessman linked to the partially demolished and stripped former
Beech-Nut plant in Montgomery County is now embroiled in a federal
lawsuit over valuable scrap metal from a former aerospace plant
that he owns in Connecticut.

Todd Clifford, owner of TD Development LLC, is being sued in U.S.
District Court by Wisconsin-based Wood and Bricks LLC in a
disagreement over demolition of the sprawling former Kaman Corp.
in Moosup, about an hour's ride east of Hartford.

Clifford, who bought the 550,000-square-foot vacant Kaman facility
in 2014, hired Wood and Bricks as his demolition contractor in
June. In the lawsuit, Wood and Bricks owner Arthur Sullivan claims
damages of up to $1 million, and accuses Clifford of unjustly
evicting him from the project in January after Sullivan's crews
had collected valuable scrap metal and other materials.

Clifford's company "intends to exert control over the salvage
product that (Sullivan's company) has stockpiled on the site ...
and sell the salvage on its own," according to a federal complaint
filed by Sullivan on Jan. 28.

Clifford has countered that Sullivan's crews had violated the
contract -- under which Sullivan paid Clifford $100,000 up front
and another $262,500 later for the right to take down the
buildings, and collect and resell scrap materials. Clifford claims
he fired Sullivan after his crews mishandled asbestos-tainted
material and damaged part of the site, his court papers said.
"We had piled up a half-million-dollars worth of salvage in the
yard before Clifford threw me out. Now that scrap is already being
moved off the site," said Sullivan. He denied his workers
mishandled asbestos or damaged the site.

This is a TU+ story. Click for more information.
"The plant is now half-destroyed," Moosup Selectman Paul Sweet
said. "We don't know where this is going, and I do not have a good
feeling about it.'' Sweet added that "a lot of stuff has already
been taken out of that mill ... we are very familiar with what
happened at Beech-Nut."

In Canajoharie, the former Beech-Nut plant, which Clifford
purchased in December 2013, remains partially demolished after an
ongoing series of disputes between Clifford and his contractors
over unpaid bills, as well as issues with Clifford's failure to
file proper federally required asbestos removal permits.

Tons of valuable scrap metal from Beech-Nut, which Clifford
initially vowed he would redevelop, are long gone, according to
Village Mayor Francis Avery. He estimates it will cost millions of
dollars to remove asbestos and finish demolition of the massive
structure.

Village Code Enforcement Officer Cliff Dorrough said he barred
demolition workers from the main plant during 2014, because there
were no permits sought for asbestos removal or demolition.

Dorrough said he returned a few months later to find tons of
valuable scrap metal had been cut out in areas tainted with
asbestos.

Avery said, the village issued arrest warrants for a principal of
an Oklahoma-based company, B&B Recycling of Broken Arrow, hired by
Clifford to take down a building, for leaving behind worthless
piles of rubble around the 20-acre site. The warrants cite state
building code violations.

With work at Beech-Nut now at a standstill, Montgomery County
officials are taking tentative steps to explore potential
foreclosure on the property for more than a half-million dollars
in delinquent property taxes.

Kenneth Rose, CEO and director of the Montgomery County Business
Development Center, said the county is seeking an environmental
study of the property to see how much asbestos remains and how
expensive it will be to remove so the site can be cleared for
potential redevelopment.

The troubled Beech-Nut demolition has been a major headache for
the village, which saw the plant close in 2010, taking good-paying
jobs and a big share of the village tax base with it. The state
provided tens of millions of dollars in assistance for Beech-Nut
to relocate to a new plant in the Montgomery County town of
Florida, but no funds were earmarked to deal with the old plant.
Beech-Nut later sold it to Clifford for $200,000.

Clifford has claimed he has no further responsibility for the
property due to its December 2014 sale to another Ohio-based
company, TD Development Inc. This company is owned by an apparent
Clifford business associate, Jeff Wendel.

Garrett Flynn, Clifford's lawyer, confirmed TD Development Inc. is
owned by Wendel. He declined comment on the situation in
Connecticut.

Avery called Clifford's claim "total baloney." The mayor said when
Clifford first came to the village for meetings about his
redevelopment plans for Beech-Nut, Wendel accompanied him. "They
were working together. For Clifford to say now that he is no
longer involved? We all know better," Avery said.

In April 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said that
Clifford faced hefty fines for not filing required asbestos
removal notices at Beech-Nut. So far, no enforcement action has
been publicly forthcoming. EPA regional spokesman Elias Rodriguez
had no additional information to provide.

EPA regional officials in Connecticut referred questions regarding
the dispute in Moosup, and potential issues with asbestos, to
Connecticut state environmental officials. The state Department of
Energy and Environmental Protection could not provide comment in
time for deadline.

Last summer, Clifford also acquired a former rubber factory in
Derby, Conn., with a promise similar to the one he made at Beech-
Nut to rehabilitate and redevelop the property.

In Ohio in 2012, Clifford sought bankruptcy protection, according
to records from U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of
Ohio. He faced about $1.3 million in claims from creditors, who
received payments totaling about $36,700.

In the bankruptcy records, an Ohio couple claimed they were
defrauded by Clifford after hiring him to build a million-dollar
home. He was paid $240,000, substituted inferior materials and
walked off the job without finishing the work, according to a
bankruptcy court filing by the couple, who said they lost about
$400,000. They also alleged that Clifford filed a falsified
mechanics lien against their property for more than $200,000.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Miss. Jury Awards $1-Mil. to Plaintiff
-------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a Mississippi jury has
awarded just over $1 million to an asbestos plaintiff, accepting
the plaintiff's claims that exposure to Union Carbide's Visbestos
and Super Visbestos in viscosifiers led him to develop asbestosis.

The Mississippi Circuit Court for Jefferson County jury reached
the verdict on Feb. 24, sources said. Union Carbide with the lone
remaining defendant at the time of the verdict; Judge Lamar
Pickard presided over the trial.

The jury broke down its award into $36,000 in economic damages for
future medical expenses; $800,000 in non-economic damages; and
$200,000 in punitive damages.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found at Tauranga Historic Village
------------------------------------------------------------
Bay of Plenty Times reported that asbestos has been found at
Tauranga Historic Village with one building will be demolished.

Tauranga City Council will be carrying out removal works.

The works, which are expected to take around two weeks, follow a
survey of the village that found a number of instances of
asbestos, the majority of which are low-risk. This means the
asbestos is currently in a stable condition, and doesn't pose a
health risk unless disturbed.

Five areas have been identified as medium risk, which means there
has been some minor damage and the asbestos should be removed.
Most of the medium-risk asbestos is in small parts of the
buildings such as external baseboards and soffits. These areas
will be removed by specialised contractors.

The workshop and storage building that was closed in September
last year after testing positive for asbestos fibres has been
identified as a high-risk area. The building, which also has
structural and weather-tightness issues, will be demolished from
March 7.

The building was constructed in the 1980s from recycled material
as a workshop and storage area. It is not classified as historic
and has no noteworthy features.

The village will remain open as usual during the asbestos removal
works and building demolition. A full health and safety management
plan will be in place during these works.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victory in Compensation Battle for Veterans
------------------------------------------------------------
The Herald reported that a retired Westcountry Royal Navy officer
is among a group of armed forces veterans with terminal asbestos
related cancer contracted while serving their country who have won
a compensation battle with the Government.

Around 60 veterans with mesothelioma, including three from the
Westcountry, are now in line for a 140,000 lump sum compensation
payouts which had been denied them under a rule change.

However, following a campaign by the Royal British Legion
ministers have bowed to pressure and agreed to pay up.

Commodore Rhod Palmer, a third-generation Royal Navy sailor who
was diagnosed with mesothelioma in April 2015 and stood to miss
out on the payments, described the move as a "real breakthrough".

The 62-year-old, who lives in rural Somerset, also called for more
research into the treatment of the "devastating" illness and
thanked the Royal British Legion for its support.

He said: "No amount of money will ever compensate sufferers and
their families for a preventable death.

"However, it is a real breakthrough that the Government will treat
all current and future sufferers of mesothelioma exposed to
asbestos during their service under comparable terms as civilians.

"This payment allows patients with mesothelioma to make
arrangements to maximise their quality of life during this
terminal illness and to support the family that they leave
behind."

Mesothelioma is a particularly aggressive form of terminal cancer
that affects the lining of the lungs and which is almost always
caused by exposure to asbestos.

The cancer can take decades to materialise but, once diagnosed
most sufferers will have a life expectancy of only one to two
years.

After the Government launched its compensation scheme it emerged a
group of 60 veterans were not eligible because they were diagnosed
before it started.

Chris Simpkins, director-general of the Royal British Legion, said
the Government had done the right thing.

"We are gratified that good sense has prevailed," he said.

"The Government has done the right thing and we appreciate the
effort that has gone into accommodating the 60 people who were
missing out.

"This has been a hard-fought campaign which began in 2013. To see
the campaign finally reach this stage I'm sure will provide a huge
sense of relief for dozens of proud servicemen and their families.

"We are grateful to the Ministry of Defence for taking our
campaign seriously and, in doing so, providing a fair result to
all those who contracted this terrible terminal cancer in the
service of their country."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Imported Asbestos Creating Danger for Workers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Heaton, writing for Sourceable.com, reported that materials
imported from China which contain asbestos are creating new areas
of danger for workers within the construction sector as well as
home owners and building occupants, unions and workplace safety
experts warn.

Following media reports of asbestos-containing materials being
found on more than 50 sites across the country, Electrical Trades
Union spokesman Lachlan Williams said the union was alarmed at the
situation, and feared that what was being reported may in fact be
the ?tip of the iceberg.'

"Our position is very clear," Williams said. "There has been a ban
on the importation of asbestos in any form since 2003. There is no
safe level of exposure to asbestos and it represents a significant
danger. It's extremely disappointing to see repeated breaches of
the asbestos importation ban. It puts all tradespeople who work
with these materials at risk. It also puts members of the public
at risk for many years."

Williams said allowing those who import and export materials to
?self-certify' that materials are asbestos free creates a
situation of inadequate levels of oversight.

He says the union would like to see independent certification,
meaningful levels of oversight and materials that have been
certified at the point of export actually inspected to ensure they
are indeed asbestos-free.

Williams expressed anger that problems were still occurring in
this area.

"We are seeing materials containing a deadly substance that has
been banned from importation into Australia for more than a decade
entering the country and putting at risk workers, tradespeople and
members of the public," he said.

Williams' comments follow ABC reports in mid-February which quote
Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency CEO Peter Tighe as
indicating that he was aware of as many as 64 work sites were
known to contain asbestos-tainted concrete fibre sheeting that has
been used in construction.

A Senate Inquiry into imported products which do not conform to
local standards under the Building Code of Australia is set to
report on March 16.

Workplace safety expert and founder of safety systems provider
Systems on a Shoestring Emma Bentton said imported materials were
creating a significant health and safety management risk for
employers in the construction sector.

Bentton said the problem was not new and alarm bells should have
been raised after recalls of 25,000 Great Wall and Chery Chinese
cars after asbestos was found in the engine and exhaust gaskets in
2012 and earlier thousands of toys were recalled after being found
to contain lead paint -- both of which got through customs.

She said construction firms should double check everything and not
rely on assurances from importers that materials coming in were
free from asbestos.

Bentton said imported asbestos was "absolutely" a significant
emerging safety problem.

"And what its saying is that we might be buying things that say
their compliant out of China but the onus is now on us to double
check that," she said. "I take it back to almost a quality issue,
test it, before you give yourself a safety problem."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Find Means Longer Closure for Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Megi Rychlikova, writing for The Press, reported that asbestos is
delaying the return of York magistrates to their courthouse in
Clifford Street.

They have not been able to hear cases in their own court since the
Boxing Day floods inundated its cells and flooded their offices.

On January 4, they started sitting at Leeds Magistrates Court, and
HM Courts and Tribunal Service hoped that they would be able to
return to York within eight weeks.

But since then, workmen at the Clifford Street courthouse have
found asbestos in the building, which had to be removed before
some of the repairs and cleaning could be done. That has delayed
the reopening of the building to normal operation until after
Easter.

Court staff, probation officers and solicitors are now expecting
to have to continue their daily commute to Leeds until April 1,
with the courthouse reopening for business on April 4.

A courts service spokesman said: "We now expect York Magistrates'
Court to re-open for business in early April. This is primarily as
a result of the work required to bring the cells back into use. We
have also had to remove asbestos so that repairs to the boiler
could be carried out."

It is not the first time the Clifford Street building has been
flooded. Both the court offices and cells were put out of action
by the November 2000 floods.

On that occasion, the courtrooms reopened for business immediately
but did not handle cases involving the cells, which did not reopen
for five months after they were flooded. Custody cases were heard
at the now-closed Selby courthouse during their closure.

The cells are in the courthouse basement and were flooded by
groundwater as the water table rose -- the same type of flooding
that closed Jorvik Viking Centre's star attraction, also in a
basement, this winter.

The court offices on the river bank were flooded by river water
because they are on the River Ouse bank.

Immediately after the Boxing Day floods, York magistrates sat at
York Crown Court because judges only heard cases on one day
between Christmas and New Year.

They are continuing to sit at the Crown Court to hear cases of
people arrested overnight on Fridays and held in custody by
police. They also sat at Harrogate Magistrates Court and at York
County Court until the arrangement with Leeds Magistrates Court
was set in place.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fincantieri To Pay EUR1.1MM to Welder
------------------------------------------------------
ANSA reported that a labour court judge sentenced Italian
shipbuilder Fincantieri to pay 1.1 million euros in damages to the
three children of a retired electrical welder who died of
asbestos-related complications in 2006.

The court found the company failed to adequately protect the
welder from 1973 when he first joined the company to at least
1990, when he was exposed to asbestos on a daily basis.

He took early retirement in 2000, because work-related accidents
and illness agency INAIL recognized he had been exposed to
asbestos for 17 years. He died in April 2006 aged 55.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Saints Coach Dies of Asbestos-Caused Cancer
------------------------------------------------------------
Daily Echo reported that he was the respected Saints coach who
helped train many of today's Premier League stars.

And during his work in football Roy Beazley helped raise more than
GBP4 million for charity.

But it was while working in Southampton docks decades earlier that
he developed the illness that was to claim his life.

The 78-year-old, who spent more than 40 years at Southampton, died
in December, an inquest heard.

Winchester Coroner's Court was told how the father-of-three
continued his charity work for nearly a decade despite a tumour
being found on his neck.

The cancer was caused by asbestos exposure during his work as a
stevedore in the docks, the coroner ruled.

Born in the city in 1937, Mr Beazley was briefly a youth player at
Saints before his career was cut short by injury.

He started work on the docks as a deck boy aged 16 and rose to
become a first hand, foreman and later superintendent.

Iin a statement written weeks before his death, Mr Beazley told
how toxic asbestos dust would "fall down like confetti" while he
was unloading ships from South Africa. "We were often working in a
cloud of asbestos dust," he said.

Senior central Hampshire coroner Grahame Short recorded a verdict
of death due to industrial disease.

Mr Beazley coached the club's 16- to 18-year-olds during his
career and retained close links to the academy after retiring at
63, helping ferry youngsters to games and training via minibus.

He also co-founded the Ex-Saints charity and was awarded an MBE in
2006 for his fundraising totalling over GBP4 million.

"I have always enjoyed helping others and doing what I can for my
community," he said in the statement.

"The diagnosis has come as a real shock to me and the family. I
have always remained very fit and active, whilst I was working and
even after retirement."

News of the death sparked tributes from across the city, led by
president Terry Paine, who described Mr Beazley as one of Saints'
"greatest supporters".

In January, midfielder James Ward-Prowse dedicated his free-kick
goal against West Brom to the late coach, and was one of many
Saints to visit him at home in the weeks before his death.

Roy Beazley died at his home in Irving Road, Maybush Triangle, on
December 27. He leaves a widow, Sheila, three children, two
grandchildren and a great-granddaughter.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Retirement Village
-----------------------------------------------------
Dan Dearth, writing for Herald-Mail Media, reported that a
renovation project at a Williamsport senior-living facility has
been put on hold after asbestos was found in wrapping around a
pipe, the Maryland Department of the Environment said.

MDE spokesman Jay Apperson said environmental officials received a
complaint on Feb. 12 that asbestos was found at the Williamsport
Retirement Village at 154 Artizan St.

Samples were taken and tested positive for asbestos. As a result,
MDE officials asked management at the facility to put the
renovation project on hold and seal off the area in which the
contamination was found, he said.

"We expect (the project) will remain stopped," Apperson said.
A small amount of asbestos was found in the pipe wrapping shortly
after workers removed a portion of the floor during the renovation
project, Williamsport Retirement Village Administrator Tim Berry
said.

Berry said a contracting company from Chambersburg, Pa., will
enter the 96-bed facility to abate the contamination.

"We are very interested in taking care of our residents and our
staff," he said.

Berry noted that the "very, very small amount" of asbestos has
remained undisturbed since it was found.

The contractor is required to notify MDE before the removal
process begins, Apperson said in a follow-up email.

"We are waiting for that notification, which includes details on
when the work is to be done," he said. "We reserve the right to be
present during any parts of that work, and our inspectors often
check on such work as it is being done."

When the work is done, the contractor is required to send MDE air-
testing results, and a manifest to show that the asbestos has been
disposed of properly, Apperson said.

Asbestos usually is not a serious problem. The mere presence of
asbestos in a home or a building is not hazardous. The danger is
that asbestos materials may become damaged over time and release
health-hazardous fibers, according to the U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission.

Breathing high levels of asbestos fibers can lead to an increased
risk of mesothelioma, a cancer of the lining of the chest and the
abdominal cavity; and asbestosis, a condition that causes the
lungs to become scarred with fibrous tissue, the commission said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Civil Court Filings Down in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------
Ann Maher, writing for Madison Record, reported that civil court
filings declined by approximately 25 percent in Illinois between
2010 and 2014, according to the Illinois Supreme Court's most
recent annual report.

And while statistics from Madison and St. Clair counties reflect
the overall statewide decline in civil lawsuit filings, they defy
a statewide downward trend with respect to Law (L) Division cases,
ones in which plaintiffs seek in excess of $50,000 in damages.

In Madison County, which is host to the nation's busiest asbestos
docket, the number of L cases filed in 2014 was up 38 percent from
the number filed in 2010.

In 2010, there were 1,292 L cases filed in Madison County; and in
2014, there were 1,787. Those totals include asbestos suits as
well as a wide range of personal injury, wrongful death and other
major civil cases.

In St. Clair County, the number of L cases filed was up 8 percent,
from 681 filed in 2010 to 830 in 2014.

By contrast, the number of L cases statewide dropped by about 8
percent over that same period. In 2010, there were 33,614 L cases
filed in Illinois; in 2014, there were 30,980.

In looking at the total number of civil filings in these divisions
of circuit court -- arbitration, chancery, eminent domain, law,
law magistrate, miscellaneous remedy and small claims -- Madison
County's numbers decreased by 15 percent from 2010 to 2014. In St.
Clair County, the decrease in that same period was 26 percent.

The biggest declines in civil filings from 2010 to 2014 can be
seen in chancery court -- where foreclosure actions are filed --
as well as in arbitration and small claims.

Here is a sample of the numbers by county and division:

Madison County:

2010

Arbitration: 1,064

Chancery: 1,649

Law: 1,292

Small Claims: 5,374

2011

Arbitration: 892

Chancery: 1,194

Law: 1,451

Small Claims: 4,427

2012

Arbitration: 752

Chancery: 1,522

Law: 2,102

Small Claims: 4,622

2013

Arbitration: 673

Chancery: 994

Law: 2,206

Small Claims: 4,091

2014

Arbitration: 567

Chancery: 847

Law: 1,787

Small Claims: 4,424

St. Clair County:


2010

Arbitration: 1,862

Chancery: 1,759

Law: 681

Small Claims: 5,119

2011

Arbitration: 1,587

Chancery: 1,291

Law: 703

Small Claims: 3,871

2012

Arbitration: 1,460

Chancery: 1,405

Law: 686

Small Claims: 3,524

2013

Arbitration: 1,417

Chancery: 1,090

Law: 642

Small Claims: 3,599

2014

Arbitration: 1,422

Chancery: 875

Law: 830

Small Claims: 2,368

Figures for both counties in 2015 also show a general decline.

In Madison County last year, there were about 21 percent fewer
total civil cases filed than there were in 2010. Also, there were
fewer L cases filed in 2015 than there were in 2014, but only by
approximately 5 percent -- from 1,787 in 2014 to 1,698 in 2015.

In St. Clair County last year, there were about 26 percent fewer
total civil cases filed than there were in 2010. There were fewer
L cases filed in 2015 than there were in 2014 by about 12 percent
-- from 830 in 2014 to 733 in 2015.

The Illinois Bar Journal reports on the downward trend of civil
filings in the state in its March edition.

The report, written by Matthew Hector, states that a possible
reason for the decline is "that non-contract claims make up less
of the total than they used to."

Hector quotes findings from the Illinois Trial Lawyers'
Association (ITLA), that indicate medical malpractice lawsuits in
the state are down 43 percent since 2003. In addition, ITLA says
that contract cases represent 64 percent of civil case filings
nationwide, Hector reports.

He also quotes Chicago attorney Joseph A. Power, Jr., a former
president of ITLA, who observed that the perception that "many or
most" civil suits are personal injury is "inaccurate."

In the article, Power points to a RAND Institute study that shows
that 1.3 percent of all civil cases are personal injury.

While not all Law Division cases seek damages for bodily injury,
they are considered major civil cases because they seek in excess
of $50,000 in compensation.

Figures in Madison County show that in 2015, nearly 20 percent
(1,698) of all civil cases (8,505) were L cases -- ones that
include personal injury, but which were predominantly asbestos
cases.

In St. Clair County, approximately 8 percent of the total civil
case filings in 2015 (8,807) were L cases (733).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Wash. AG Pushes Back on FACT Act Critics
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona Business Daily reports that sponsored by U.S. Senator Jeff
Flake (R-AZ), the Furthering Asbestos Claims Transparency (FACT)
Act would restore openness to asbestos bankruptcy trusts and
protect the ability of future claimants to be fairly compensated
by the trusts.

According to former Washington state Attorney General Rob McKenna,
the FACT Act would address the inadequate disclosure and
transparency in the asbestos trust system. That trust system was
created to compensate injured victims but instead resulted in a
system that enables claimants to file inconsistent claims among
numerous trusts or against trusts and solvent companies in the
tort system, said McKenna.

"All this law does is bring sunlight to the process, creates
communication between the tort system and the bankruptcy trusts --
and between the trusts themselves," McKenna told Arizona Business
Daily.

McKenna is a recognized leader in the development of data
protection and privacy regulation.

Not only would the bill discourage fraud and abuse in the asbestos
compensation system; it also would protect asbestos trust
claimants' sensitive personal information and confidential medical
records from disclosure and misuse, according to McKenna, who is
now a partner in the Seattle office of Orrick, Herrington and
Sutcliffe LLP, where he is co-head of the firm's Public Policy
Group.

"There really is no issue in regard to identity theft . . .  and
no risk that people's confidentiality would be compromised because
confidential medical records would not be allowed to be
disclosed," McKenna said. "Bankruptcy courts already have a great
deal of authority to protect sensitive information of all types
and those rules would continue to be in place."

Currently, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee is considering S.
357, its own version of the FACT Act, which would amend federal
bankruptcy law to require transparency and oversight of the
asbestos trusts that have been created to compensate claimants who
seek recovery for asbestos-related damages. A related bill, H.R.
1927, passed the House in January.

During a Feb. 3 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, McKenna told
congressional members that all state attorneys general also
recognize the controversy surrounding asbestos litigation and the
asbestos trusts that have been established to speed relief to
victims of asbestos exposure.

"Asbestos is a dangerous product that has harmed many people,"
McKenna said. "Companies with actual liability should be held
accountable. Courts in both the tort system and bankruptcy system
have worked hard to strike the appropriate balance between
expeditiously compensating injured individuals who have filed
claims and protecting future claimants' interests by safeguarding
the asbestos trusts from inappropriate claims."

At the same time, he stated, the attorneys general have a strong
interest in maintaining the public's confidence in the judicial
process concerning asbestos -- in the protection of both current
and future asbestos trust beneficiaries.

"Given the disturbing findings to date by several federal
bankruptcy courts concerning misrepresentations in claims made on
asbestos trusts, the public has a right to know how far and how
deep these problems may or may not extend, and the courts need to
know more about claims filed in other forums by the claimants who
come before them," McKenna said.

He explained that committee members wanted to understand more
about how the bankruptcy trust claims process works. They wanted
to understand how it differs from the tort litigation process and
what the problem is with the system's lack of transparency that
results in fraud and misrepresentations in a large number of
claims that are filed with the bankruptcy trusts.

"They wanted to know what the burdens would be on claimants, the
people who are filing claims with the bankruptcy trusts as a
result of the FACT Act," McKenna said. "The answer to that is
none. There is no additional burden."

That's because what the act would require is greater transparency
in the claims process. Bankruptcy trusts would be required to put
up the basic information on a claims file on a secure website, for
instance, which would be available to the bankruptcy judges and
other parties to view.

"That raises the question about if there is any risk to claimants
and their personal information and the answer to that is also no
because the information that would be put up by the courts and
made available to all the parties would be much less than what's
made available in the tort system," McKenna said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duncan Medical Bldg. Shut Down Due to Asbestos
---------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reported that a medical services building in Duncan has
been shut down temporarily over concerns about asbestos.

"It was determined that there is vermiculite contamination in the
air plenum and various workspaces in the building," said Scott
McCloy with WorkSafeBC. "It's always a concern when workers are
exposed to asbestos, which is a known carcinogen."

The Valley Medical Clinic on 335 Jubliee Street is home to a
medical clinic, dental offices and a pharmacy.

McCloy says the the fibres likely came from insulation that was
disturbed during construction or maintenance work, although he
could not confirm how many employees may have been exposed or for
how long.

"This is a complete and utter surprise to me and we are looking to
see what caused the issue," said Doyle Childs, who bought the
building a few months ago.

He added that the building will remain closed until WorksafeBC is
satisfied that the asbestos insulation material has been properly
dealt with.

'Make sure it's safe'

"What's really important to us is to make sure that workers that
have been in there are safe," said Childs. "Absolutely we want to
make sure it's safe."

Meanwhile the Vancouver Island Health Authority says an interim
location is being used at 256 Evans Street in Duncan and regular
phone lines for the clinic are in place.

"It is my understanding they are contacting patients with
scheduled appointments to advise them of the new location," said
spokesperson Valerie Wilson in an e-mail to CBC News.

Asbestos is present in many pre-1990 buildings and can impact the
health of people who breathe in the fibres, especially over long
periods of time.

WorksafeBC has an online registry for exposure because potential
health effects may not appear for years or even decades.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Considers Application of Fairchild Test
--------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Hopley, Esq. -- rhopley@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, in an
article for Lexology, wrote that in Heneghan v Manchester Dry
Docks Ltd & Ors [2016] EWCA Civ 86, the Court of Appeal considered
whether the Fairchild exception should be applied in a case of
multiple exposures to asbestos leading to lung cancer. Like
mesothelioma, lung cancer is regarded as an "indivisible" disease
-- the severity does not depend upon the exposure to asbestos.

Mr Heneghan was exposed to asbestos by the six defendants, who
were responsible for 35.2% of the whole exposure over Mr
Heneghan's working life. The claimant died of lung cancer. It was
common ground that the cancer was caused by his exposure to
asbestos; that he was exposed to asbestos while he was employed
successively by each of the defendants; that biological evidence
cannot establish which (if any) of the exposures actually caused
the disease; but that epidemiological or statistical evidence can
establish by how much the exposure attributable to each defendant
increased the risk that he would contract the disease.

The Court of Appeal identified the two stages of the causation
question. The first question (the "what" question) is what
probably caused the lung cancer. It was not in dispute that the
epidemiological evidence showed that on the balance of
probabilities the deceased's exposure to asbestos was the cause of
his lung cancer. The second question (the "who" question) arises
in a multi-contributor case where the issue is which contributor's
asbestos caused the cancer. It was common ground that it could not
be proved that the exposure attributable to any individual
defendant had doubled the risk (and thus satisfied the necessary
degree of probability) that Mr Heneghan would develop lung cancer.
In the circumstances, the Court of Appeal decided that the
Fairchild exception was the correct test for causation. In this
case, causation was established as each defendant had materially
increased the risk of the victim contracting lung cancer.

The result was that each defendant was liable. The issue of
apportionment of liability under the Fairchild exception had been
addressed in the House of Lords in Barker v Corus; it was decided
that a defendant was liable only in proportion to his own
contribution to the exposure to the asbestos and therefore to the
risk that the deceased would contract mesothelioma. Section 3 of
the Compensation Act 2006 had reversed this aspect of Barker and
had substituted joint and several liability for the whole of the
damage. However, the Compensation Act applies only to
mesothelioma. Therefore, in relation to lung cancer, the Fairchild
exception resulted in each defendant being liable only for the
exposure for which it was responsible as a proportion of the
victim's total exposure. Accordingly, the claimant could recover
only 35.2% of the damages from the defendants.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Company Fined GBP20,000 For Disturbing Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Spoors, writing for Northampton Chronicle, reported that a
company has been fined after risking possible exposure of children
and staff to asbestos that was contained in the roof of a
Northampton primary school.

Northampton Magistrates' Court heard how Amey Communities Limited
(ACL) were contracted to carry out roof refurbishment at Lings
Primary School, Hayeswood Road, Northampton.

During the course of the works, workers from ACL disturbed
asbestos insulation boards in a small plant room.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive found ACL
failed to monitor and identify asbestos materials or ensure key
personnel had suitable asbestos awareness training.

The company pleaded guilty and was fined GBP20,000 and ordered to
pay costs of GBP1,737.

HSE inspector Sam Russell said after the hearing: "The serious
health risks of asbestos, which is a class one carcinogen, are
well-known and publicised.

"Any maintenance or construction work undertaken in buildings
built before 2000 must consider and manage the risk of possible
asbestos-containing materials.

"It is important this material is considered at every stage of a
construction project and failure to do so places workers,
buildings occupants and the public at risk to possible exposure to
asbestos fibres."

It is understood that quick reactions by the school caretaker saw
the class next door secured soon after the incident, which
happened on November 6.

Safety checks and tests were carried out, during which time
children were kept out of the area.

However all air tests and checks came back negative and showed
that there was no risk to anyone within the building.

Afterwards, the area was cordoned off and the reception and year 1
class were taught in the year 5 and 6 area.

Lings school was subsequently closed all students as further tests
were undertaken.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Taskforce Releases Pics of Fluffy Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kirsten Lawson, writing for The Canberra Times, reported that the
Asbestos Taskforce has released photographs of some of the worst
contamination found to date of a Fluffy home, as it prepares the
first 10 cleared blocks for sale.

Taskforce head Andrew Kefford would not provide the address of the
home where the wall cavities were found contaminated by the loose-
fill asbestos, beyond saying it was in Weston Creek.

Nor would the former owners be told, he said, with the taskforce
unable to quantify the amount of Fluffy insulation for each home.
Mr Kefford said the key issue for homeowners was the level of
contamination in living areas -- and the significant finds in the
walls did not necessarily translate to contamination of living
areas.

"What we found inside the walls was a very significant amount of
asbestos insulation," he said. "We're releasing this really so
that people get a sense of what's happening inside the houses ...
and to demonstrate the extent to which, notwithstanding the
removal of the visible and accessible asbestos in the original
program, that product has migrated through the structures."

Homes insulated in the 1970s by "Mr Fluffy" Dirk Jansen with loose
asbestos were cleaned in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when the
material was removed from ceilings. The government has decided to
demolish them all after discovering the extent of asbestos
contamination of wall cavities and subfloors in a Downer house in
2014.

The photos were released as the government updated its demolition
schedule, with 213 houses scheduled to come down this year. To
date, demolition has focused on Weston Creek, especially Rivett
and Chapman, where authorities wanted to move quickly to remove
homes at risk of bushfire attack. Eighty-four houses have been
demolished, half of them in Weston Creek.

Now the new unit title rules have been passed by the ACT
parliament, the government will begin selling cleared blocks, with
10 to be auctioned about April 12.

Mr Kefford said five blocks had been sold back to owners already -
- blocks that were either heritage listed or too small to be
affected by the unit title rules.

The unit title changes allow owners of Fluffy blocks of 700 square
metres or more to divide the blocks into two titles for two homes
-- a strategy deigned to maximise their value and claw back some
of the cost of the scheme.

Homes are being offered to former owners first, at a value
determined by the Land Development Agency, with 657 owners wanting
the first right of refusal. After that, they are offered to
Housing ACT at the same price, then they go to auction. Owners of
the first 10 did not want first right of refusal to buy.

Mr Kefford said homes were being bundled for demolition
contractors -- with a Kambah group of 35 homes offered as one
package, to help bring down the cost of demolition. He would not
reveal demolition costs.

Also to keep costs down, the government was not demolishing
garages, cubby houses, gardens or driveways and was not restoring
blocks to level ground before selling them. Soil testing for
asbestos contamination was limited to the footprint of the house
and the demolition site.

When the scheme was announced in 2014, the government said it
would "scrape" the blocks clean, with then chief minister Katy
Gallagher saying, "The block is essentially scraped, so the trees
will go, the garden will go, the pool will go, everything will
go."

But Mr Kefford said the blocks were more attractive with
established gardens and there was no reason to think the gardens
would be contaminated if soil around the house itself had been
tested and was clean.

The government is also buying nine neighbouring houses, attached
to Fluffy homes, where the Fluffy house could not be demolished
without affecting the integrity of the neighbour.

In all, 1022 houses are affected, housing 4000 people. One
thousand owners had agreed to the buyback.  To date, 971 had
accepted offers and 828 homes were in government hands, with
owners  paying prices ranging from $360,000 to $3 million.

Most of the Fluffy homes in Chapman and Rivett in Weston Creek
have been demolished, with just five of the 24 Chapman homes and
nine of the 27 Rivett homes remaining.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: B.C. Judge Clears Contractor of Contempt
---------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reported that a British Columbia Supreme Court
judge has concluded the province's workplace-safety laws are too
vague in a decision union leaders say threatens to undermine
B.C.'s entire regulatory regime.

Justice George Macintosh tossed out allegations that an asbestos-
removal contractor and his son disobeyed a 2012 court order to
comply with the Workers Compensation Act, saying the law is too
complex and difficult to understand.

"If the court is to punish anyone for not carrying out its orders,
the order must in unambiguous terms direct what is to be done,"
Macintosh said.

"Even if every word of the act or the regulation (were) contained
in the order, it would still be impossible in my view for the
respondents to know when they went to work each day whether their
work put them ... in contempt of this court."

The 2012 order was directed at Seattle Environmental Consulting
Ltd., owner Mike Singh and his son Shawn Singh.

Between 2007 and 2012, WorkSafeBC issued 237 violation notices to
the company and two men. It also imposed fines in excess of
$200,000.

Those breaches included failing to correctly identify asbestos
during building surveys, neglecting to put up warning signs and
leaving potentially contaminated drywall debris uncovered on
countertops and carpets.

Macintosh's ruling also dismissed the Singhs' application that the
2012 order be set aside, despite finding it "overly broad and
unclear."

Mike Singh said he was happy with the decision but that he would
appeal Macintosh's decision upholding the court order.

"I want to make it clear ... we do not expose people to asbestos,
period," Singh said.

Irene Lanzinger, president of the B.C. Federation of Labour, said
the notion that a company with expertise in asbestos removal
wouldn't understand the laws governing its industry is "nonsense."

"We will be urging (the Workers Compensation Board) to appeal,"
she said.

WorkSafeBC spokeswoman Trish Chernecki said the agency will review
the ruling in detail and consider its legal options, including
filing an appeal.

The head of the Hazardous Materials Association, Don Whyte, said
he was shocked by what he called "the wrong decision."

"They teach me in elementary school that ignorance of the law is
no excuse," Whyte said. "Now we have a judgment that is telling us
that if the law is too complex you don't have to follow it."

This ruling will call into question the entire regulatory regime
governed by the Workers Compensation Act, he added.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mammoth Trial Scheduled in Kentucky
----------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reported that an
asbestosis lawsuit brought by plaintiff Doris White and scheduled
to go to trial underwent some changes in December of last year,
although the case was preserved.

The circumstances of the case, while not unique, are nonetheless a
little different from the everyday fodder of the legal blotter.
White, the plaintiff who suffers from an asbestos disease, was
married at one time to Ronald Eades, an asbestos worker who spent
much of his career as a union insulator at Triangle Insulation and
Sheet Metal Co. Eades, according to court documents, would
habitually wear his work clothes home. White would shake them out
prior to laundering the clothing.

White, who was married to Eades in the 1960s and 1970s before
their divorce in 1985, inhaled asbestos dust her husband brought
home on his work uniforms, or so it is alleged. Eades himself
suffered from asbestosis disease, whereas White was diagnosed with
asbestos mesothelioma, a similar form of asbestos cancer.

Asbestosis and related asbestos diseases are almost always caused
by exposure to asbestos, and are usually fatal. The aftereffects
of such exposure can incubate and languish in the body for years
and sometimes decades without the individual even being aware,
before suddenly emerging without warning.

It is not known if Eades is still living.

According to the Messenger-Inquirer of Owensboro, Kentucky
(12/24/15), White has previously reached settlement agreements
with some of the plaintiffs in her asbestosis claim, including Big
Rivers, Domtar, Goodrich and Hoosier Energy.

Other plaintiffs in the asbestosis compensation lawsuit include
General Electric, Goodyear, Indianapolis Light and Power, York
International Corp. and Alcoa amongst other plaintiffs, together
with Triangle Sheet Metal Co. Nine remaining defendants in total
made a bid in December of last year to seek dismissal from the
lawsuit based partially on an argument that there could not be a
unified defense in the lawsuit.

However, it has been reported that the trial judge dismissed most
of their arguments.

It's a complicated asbestosis lawsuit, in that White is litigating
against Eades's employer -- Triangle -- as well as a host of
companies that supplied materials allegedly containing asbestos to
Triangle. Some of the defendants that acted as suppliers argued
that Triangle had the duty to protect Eades as their employee, and
thus to protect White by extension.

NPR Reports on "Third Wave" of Asbestos Disease

Appeals Court Rules in Favor of Asbestosis Lung Cancer Victim
Most of the defendants argue that White was never a direct
employee, never having set foot in, or on, their premises.

According to the Messenger-Inquirer (9/18/15) in a report
published in September of last year, Daviess County Circuit Court
Judge Joe Castlen had characterized arguments and positions taken
by the defendants as subterfuge, based on the undue delay it might
cause.

"?Subterfuge' can be defined in various ways," Castlen said,
according to the report. "One of which is the real purpose of
these motions is not to develop evidence from these people,
because that can already be done, but to delay the trial that's
scheduled for February.

"We've got a lady that's dying."

Case information was not available.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Dumped Near Homes in Western Sydney
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Griffits and Jayne Margetts, writing for ABC News, reported
that a 50-metre trail of asbestos-laden material has been dumped
on a street in Sydney's west, close to a number of homes.

Parramatta City Council said a white tip truck dumped its load
onto Boundary Road at Chester Hill, sometime between 2:00am and
3:00am (AEDT) on Feb. 25.

It left a trail of building waste approximately 50 metres long and
three metres wide strewn along the road.

Fire and Rescue New South Wales Hazmat crews were called to help
prevent asbestos particles in the material from dispersing.

The material has since been removed from the street.

Parramatta Lord Mayor Paul Garrard described the dumping as an act
of "vandalism".

"This is a despicable act that definitely shows no care or concern
for the community and it's the type of behaviour which is totally
unacceptable," he said.

"These are cowboys taking shortcuts. They take money off people to
dispose of things correctly and of course they go and dump it
illegally.

"It's also the type of behaviour that is happening too prevalently
in Parramatta."

Councillor Garrard said it was the sixth incident of illegal
dumping in the area in the past 12 months.

"Those six occasions have all been in similar areas in the
Woodville Ward, where this occurred [today]," he said.

Councillor Garrard said it was the largest example of illegal
dumping in the Parramatta area in the past 12 months.

Dumpers should be named and shamed: residents

Residents have reacted with anger at the latest dumping incident.

"We should name them and shame them," one resident said.

"This affects everyone in this area."

Another resident, Anju Kalsh, said surveillance systems need to be
installed to stop the repeated dumping in the area.

"Cameras should be put up because it's always the same thing
happening every time," she said.

Ms Kalsh said waste had previously been dumped on each side of the
same road "many times".

She said the dumped waste had also caused traffic problems.

The Council is seeking CCTV footage of the dumping and has
commenced an investigation to identify those responsible.

Councillor Garrard said those responsible for the dumping faced a
fine of up to $1 million.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Orlando Firefighters Exposed to Asbestos at Work
-----------------------------------------------------------------
9 Investigates was first to discover that Orlando firefighters
were sent to train in an apartment building filled with asbestos
without knowing it.

Orange County Environmental Protection officials launched an
investigation and inspectors found the ceilings, floor tiles and
duct work all had asbestos in them.

The Orlando Fire Department shut down training operations at the
Lakeside Village Apartments for good.

A doctor met with the firefighters to explain the impact asbestos
could have on their health and they learned that they'll have to
monitor their lungs for years to find out if it will take a toll.

The asbestos problem was well documented in city files before the
firefighters were sent in to do the work.

Dr. Stan Haimes told the firefighters that the risk of
mesothelioma is low, but not zero.

"On the other hand, I do think it's reasonable that they get
medical testing on a regular basis, just to make sure that if
anything does develop they'd be able to treat that early on,"
Haimes said.

Each firefighter has had a record placed in their file documenting
the risk in case they get sick in the future.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alexandria Subject to Environmental Liability
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc., disclosed that its
properties that may have asbestos-containing building materials
subjects the Company to potential environmental liability,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2015.

The Company states: "Some of our properties may have asbestos-
containing building materials.  Environmental laws require that
asbestos-containing building materials be properly managed and
maintained and may impose fines and penalties on building owners
or operators for failure to comply with these requirements.  These
laws may also allow third parties to seek recovery from owners or
operators for personal injury associated with exposure to
asbestos-containing building materials."

"In addition, some of our tenants routinely handle hazardous
substances and wastes as part of their operations at our
properties.  Environmental laws and regulations subject our
tenants, and potentially us, to liability resulting from these
activities or from previous uses of those properties.
Environmental liabilities could also affect a tenant's ability to
make rental payments to us.  We require our tenants to comply with
these environmental laws and regulations.

"Independent environmental consultants have conducted Phase I or
similar environmental site assessments on the properties in our
portfolio.  Site assessments are intended to discover and evaluate
information regarding the environmental condition of the surveyed
property and surrounding properties and do not generally include
soil samplings, subsurface investigations, or an asbestos survey.
To date, these assessments have not revealed any material
environmental liability that we believe would have a material
adverse effect on our business, assets, or results of operations.
Nevertheless, it is possible that the assessments on our
properties have not revealed all environmental conditions,
liabilities, or compliance concerns that may have arisen after the
review was completed or may arise in the future; and future laws,
ordinances, or regulations may impose additional material
environmental liability."

Headquartered in Pasadena, California, Alexandria Real Estate
Equities, Inc., is a fully integrated, self-administered, and
self-managed urban office REIT.  It is the largest and leading
urban office REIT uniquely focused on collaborative science and
technology campuses in AAA innovation clusters locations.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor Insurance Recovery Offsets Revenue Cuts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Meritor, Inc., disclosed that the Company's revenue declines,
which impacted Adjusted EBITDA margin were more than offset by
lower material costs and a favorable insurance recovery related to
legacy asbestos liabilities, according to the Company's Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated
February 3, 2016.

Adjusted EBITDA was $76 million, compared to $79 million in the
same period last year.  Adjusted EBITDA margin was 9.4 percent for
the quarter, compared to 9.0 percent in the same period last year.

A copy of the Form 8-K is available at http://is.gd/mS0Dno

Headquartered in Troy, Michigan, Meritor, Inc., is a global
supplier of a range of integrated systems and components to
original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and the aftermarket for
the commercial vehicle, transportation and industrial sectors.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Maremont Corp. Had 5,700 Claims at Jan. 3
----------------------------------------------------------
Meritor, Inc., reported that its subsidiary, Maremont Corporation,
had 5,700 pending asbestos-related claims, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended January 3, 2016.

Maremont Corporation, a subsidiary of Meritor, manufactured
friction products containing asbestos from 1953 through 1977, when
it sold its friction product business.  Arvin Industries, Inc., a
predecessor of the company, acquired Maremont in 1986.  Maremont
and many other companies are defendants in suits brought by
individuals claiming personal injuries as a result of exposure to
asbestos-containing products.

Maremont had approximately 5,700 and 5,600 pending asbestos-
related claims at December 31, 2015 and September 30, 2015,
respectively.  Although Maremont has been named in these cases, in
the cases where actual injury has been alleged, very few claimants
have established that a Maremont product caused their injuries.
Plaintiffs' lawyers often sue dozens or even hundreds of
defendants in individual lawsuits, seeking damages against all
named defendants irrespective of the disease or injury and
irrespective of any causal connection with a particular product.
For these reasons, the total number of claims filed is not
necessarily the most meaningful factor in determining Maremont's
asbestos-related liability.

Headquartered in Troy, Michigan, Meritor, Inc., is a global
supplier of a range of integrated systems and components to
original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and the aftermarket for
the commercial vehicle, transportation and industrial sectors.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Maremont Had $38-Mil. Recoveries at Dec. 31
------------------------------------------------------------
Meritor, Inc., disclosed that its subsidiary, Maremont
Corporation, had $38 million asbestos-related recoveries as of
December 31, 2015, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period January 3, 2016.

Maremont has engaged Bates White LLC, a consulting firm with
extensive experience estimating costs associated with asbestos
litigation, to assist with determining the estimated cost of
resolving pending and future asbestos-related claims that have
been, and could reasonably be expected to be, filed against
Maremont.  Bates White prepares these cost estimates annually in
September.  Although it is not possible to estimate the full range
of costs because of various uncertainties, Bates White advised
Maremont that it would be possible to determine an estimate of a
reasonable forecast of the cost of the probable settlement and
defense costs of resolving pending and future asbestos-related
claims, based on historical data and certain assumptions with
respect to events that may occur in the future.

As of September 30, 2015, Bates White provided a reasonable and
probable estimate that consisted of a range of equally likely
possibilities of Maremont's obligation for asbestos personal
injury claims over the next ten years of $71 million to $100
million.  Management recognized a liability of $71 million as of
each of December 31, 2015 and September 30, 2015 for pending and
future claims over the next ten years.  The ultimate cost of
resolving pending and future claims is estimated based on the
history of claims and expenses for plaintiffs represented by law
firms in jurisdictions with an established history with Maremont.
Historically, Maremont has recognized incremental insurance
receivables associated with recoveries expected for asbestos-
related liabilities as the estimate of asbestos-related
liabilities for pending and future claims changes.  However,
Maremont currently expects that its settled insurance coverage
will not be sufficient to fully offset its expected asbestos-
related liabilities through the end of the ten-year forecasted
liability period.

The following assumptions were made by Maremont after consultation
with Bates White and are included in their study:

    * Pending and future claims were estimated for a ten-year
period ending in fiscal year 2025;

    * Maremont believes that the litigation environment could
change significantly beyond ten years and that the reliability of
estimates of future probable expenditures in connection with
asbestos-related personal injury claims will decline for each year
further in the future.  As a result, estimating a probable
liability beyond ten years is difficult and uncertain;

   * On a per claim basis, defense and processing costs for
pending and future claims will be at the level consistent with
Maremont's prior experience;

   * Potential payments made to claimants from other sources,
including other defendants and 524(g) trusts favorably impact
Maremont's estimated liability in the future; and

   * The ultimate indemnity cost of resolving nonmalignant claims
with plaintiffs' law firms in jurisdictions without an established
history with Maremont cannot be reasonably estimated.

Maremont has insurance that reimburses a substantial portion of
the costs incurred defending against asbestos-related claims.  The
insurance receivable related to asbestos-related liabilities is
$38 million and $41 million as of December 31, 2015 and September
30, 2015, respectively.  The receivable is for coverage provided
by one insurance carrier based on a coverage in place agreement.
Maremont currently expects to exhaust the remaining limits
provided by this coverage sometime in the next ten years.  The
difference between the estimated liability and insurance
receivable is primarily related to exhaustion of settled insurance
coverage within the forecasted period and proceeds from settled
insurance policies.  Amounts received from insurance settlements
generally reduce recorded insurance receivables.

Maremont maintained insurance coverage with other insurance
carriers that management believes also covers indemnity and
defense costs.  During fiscal year 2013, Maremont re-initiated
lawsuits against these carriers, seeking a declaration of its
rights to coverage for asbestos claims and to facilitate an
orderly and timely collection of insurance proceeds.  One of these
insurance policies has been partially settled in cash.  On
December 12, 2015, Maremont received $17 million, of which $5
million was recognized as reduction in asbestos expense and $12
million was recorded as a liability to the insurance carrier as it
is required to be returned to the carrier if additional asbestos
liability is not incurred.  The settlement also provides
additional recovery if certain spending thresholds are met.

The amounts recorded for the asbestos-related reserves and
recoveries from insurance companies are based upon assumptions and
estimates derived from currently known facts.  All such estimates
of liabilities and recoveries for asbestos-related claims are
subject to considerable uncertainty because such liabilities and
recoveries are influenced by variables that are difficult to
predict.  The future litigation environment for Maremont could
change significantly from its past experience, due, for example,
to changes in the mix of claims filed against Maremont in terms of
plaintiffs' law firms, jurisdictions and diseases; legislative or
regulatory developments; Maremont's approach to defending claims;
or payments to plaintiffs from other defendants.  Estimated
recoveries are influenced by coverage issues among insurers and
the continuing solvency of various insurance companies.  If the
assumptions with respect to the estimation period, the nature of
pending and future claims, the cost to resolve claims and the
amount of available insurance prove to be incorrect, the actual
amount of liability for Maremont's asbestos-related claims, and
the effect on the company, could differ materially from current
estimates and, therefore, could have a material impact on the
company's financial condition and results of operations.

Headquartered in Troy, Michigan, Meritor, Inc., is a global
supplier of a range of integrated systems and components to
original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and the aftermarket for
the commercial vehicle, transportation and industrial sectors.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor Had $14-Mil. Recoveries at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Meritor, Inc., disclosed that its subsidiary, ArvinMeritor, Inc.,
had $14 million asbestos-related recoveries as of December 31,
2015, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
January 3, 2016.

ArvinMeritor, Inc. ("AM"), a subsidiary of Meritor, along with
many other companies, has also been named as a defendant in
lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos used in certain components of Rockwell International
products many years ago.  Liability for these claims was
transferred at the time of the spin-off of the automotive business
from Rockwell in 1997.  Rockwell had approximately 3,100 and 3,000
pending active asbestos claims in lawsuits that name AM, together
with many other companies, as defendants at December 31, 2015 and
September 30, 2015, respectively.

A significant portion of the claims do not identify any of
Rockwell's products or specify which of the claimants, if any,
were exposed to asbestos attributable to Rockwell's products, and
past experience has shown that the vast majority of the claimants
will likely never identify any of Rockwell's products.
Historically, AM has been dismissed from the vast majority of
similar claims filed in the past with no payment to claimants.
For those claimants who do show that they worked with Rockwell's
products, management nevertheless believes it has meritorious
defenses, in substantial part due to the integrity of the products
involved and the lack of any impairing medical condition on the
part of many claimants.

The company has engaged Bates White to assist with determining
whether it would be possible to estimate the cost of resolving
pending and future Rockwell legacy asbestos-related claims that
have been, and could reasonably be expected to be, filed against
the company.  Bates White prepares these cost estimates annually
in September.  As of September 30, 2015, Bates White provided a
reasonable and probable estimate that consisted of a range of
equally likely possibilities of Rockwell's obligation for asbestos
personal injury claims over the next ten years of $55 million to
$74 million.  Management recognized a liability for the pending
and future claims over the next ten years of $55 million as of
each of December 31, 2015 and September 30, 2015.  The ultimate
cost of resolving pending and future claims is estimated based on
the history of claims and expenses for plaintiffs represented by
law firms in jurisdictions with an established history with
Rockwell.

The following assumptions were made by the company after
consultation with Bates White and are included in their study:

    * Pending and future claims were estimated for a ten-year
period ending in fiscal year 2025;

    * The company believes that the litigation environment could
change significantly beyond ten years and that the reliability of
estimates of future probable expenditures in connection with
asbestos-related personal injury claims will decline for each year
further in the future.  As a result, estimating a probable
liability beyond ten years is difficult and uncertain;

    * On a per claim basis, defense and processing costs for
pending and future claims will be at the level consistent with the
company's prior experience;

    * Potential payments made to claimants from other sources,
including other defendants and 524(g) trusts favorably impact the
company's estimated liability in the future; and

    * The ultimate indemnity cost of resolving nonmalignant claims
with plaintiff's law firms in jurisdictions without an established
history with Rockwell cannot be reasonably estimated.

The insurance receivable related to asbestos-related liabilities
was $14 million as of each of December 31, 2015 and September 30,
2015.  Included in these amounts are insurance receivables of $9
million as of each of December 31, 2015 and September 30, 2015
that are associated with policies in dispute.  Rockwell has
insurance coverage that management believes covers indemnity and
defense costs, over and above self-insurance retentions, for most
of these claims.  The company has initiated claims against certain
of these carriers to enforce the insurance policies, which are in
various stages of the litigation process.  The company expects to
recover some portion of the defense and indemnity costs it has
incurred to date, over and above self-insured retentions, and some
portion of the costs for defending asbestos claims going forward.
The amounts recognized for policies in dispute are based on
consultation with advisors, status of settlement negotiations with
certain insurers and underlying analysis performed by management.
The remaining receivable recognized is related to coverage
provided by one carrier based on a coverage-in-place insurance
arrangement.  If the assumptions with respect to the estimation
period, the nature of pending claims, the cost to resolve claims
and the amount of available insurance prove to be incorrect, the
actual amount of liability for Rockwell's asbestos-related claims,
and the effect on the company, could differ materially from
current estimates and, therefore, could have a material impact on
the company's financial condition and results of operations.

Headquartered in Troy, Michigan, Meritor, Inc., is a global
supplier of a range of integrated systems and components to
original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and the aftermarket for
the commercial vehicle, transportation and industrial sectors.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harris Corp. Continues to Defend Suits
-------------------------------------------------------
Harris Corporation, from time to time, faces product liability
lawsuits related to the prior sale or use of former products
allegedly containing asbestos or other restricted materials,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities & Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
January 1, 2016.

Headquartered in Melbourne, Florida, Harris Corporation is an
international communications and information technology company
serving government and commercial markets in more than 150
countries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Cases Still Pending v. Tidewater Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tidewater Inc. is involved in various legal proceedings that
relate to asbestos and other environmental matters, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended December 31,
2015.

The Company says it is proactive in establishing policies and
operating procedures for safeguarding the environment against any
hazardous materials aboard its vessels and at shore-based
locations.

Headquartered in New Orleans, Louisiana, Tidewater Inc. provides
offshore service vessels and marine support services to the global
offshore energy industry through the operation of a diversified
fleet of marine service vessels.  The Company operates in two
reportable segments: International and the United States, and it
has one of the broadest global operating footprints in the
offshore energy industry.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carpenter Tech Continues to Defend PI Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Carpenter Technology Corp. continues to defend itself against
lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to
chemicals and substances in the workplace such as asbestos,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the the quarterly period
ended December 31, 2015.

The Company is defending various routine claims and legal actions
that are incidental to its business and common to its operations,
including those pertaining to product claims, commercial disputes,
patent infringement, employment actions, employee benefits,
compliance with domestic and foreign laws, personal injury claims
and tax issues.  Like many other manufacturing companies in recent
years, the Company, from time to time, has been named as a
defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of
exposure to chemicals and substances in the workplace such as
asbestos.  The Company provides for costs relating to these
matters when a loss is probable and the amount of the loss is
reasonably estimable.  The effect of the outcome of these matters
on the Company's future results of operations and liquidity cannot
be predicted because any such effect depends on future results of
operations and the amount and timing (both as to recording future
charges to operations and cash expenditures) of the resolution of
such matters.  While it is not feasible to determine the outcome
of these matters, management believes that the total liability
from these matters will not have a material effect on the
Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows
over the long-term.  However, there can be no assurance that an
increase in the scope of pending matters or that any future
lawsuits, claims, proceedings or investigations will not be
material to the Company's financial position, results of
operations or cash flows in a particular future quarter or year.

Headquartered in Reading, Pennsylvania, Carpenter Technology Corp.
engages in the manufacture, fabrication, and distribution of
specialty metals and engineered
products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Haynes Int'l Continues to Defend PI Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Haynes International, Inc., continues to defend itself against
asbestos-related personal injury suits, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015.

The Company is currently, and has in the past been, subject to
claims involving personal injuries allegedly relating to its
products and processes.  For example, the Company is presently
involved in two actions involving welding rod-related injuries,
which were filed in California state court against numerous
manufacturers, including the Company, in May 2006 and February
2007, respectively, alleging that the welding-related products of
the defendant manufacturers harmed the users of such products
through the inhalation of welding fumes containing manganese.  The
Company is also involved in three actions related to asbestos in
its facilities, which were filed in 2012 and 2014.  The Company
believes that it has defenses to these lawsuits and that, if the
Company were to be found liable, the cases would not have a
material effect on its financial position, results of operations
or liquidity.

Headquartered in Kokomo, Indiana, Haynes International, Inc.,
develops and manufactures nickel- and cobalt-based alloys, high-
temperature alloys and corrosion-resistant alloys.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow Incurs $78MM Pretax Charge in 4Q 2014
----------------------------------------------------------
During the fourth quarter of 2014, The Dow Chemical Company
recorded a pretax charge of $78 million related to an increase in
asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims,
according to the Company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities & Exchange Commission dated February 2, 2016.

Headquartered in Midland, Michigan, The Dow Chemical Company is as
an integrated science and technology company.  It is a worldwide
manufacturer and supplier of products used primarily as raw
materials in the manufacture of customer products and services.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Briggs Still Subject to Product Liability Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Briggs & Stratton Corporation disclosed that it is subject to
various unresolved legal actions that arise in the normal course
of its business, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended December 27, 2015.

These actions typically relate to product liability, including
asbestos-related liability, patent and trademark matters, and
disputes with customers, suppliers, distributors and dealers,
competitors and employees,

Headquartered in Wauwatosa, Wisconsin, Briggs & Stratton
Corporation is a producer of air cooled gasoline engines for
outdoor power equipment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Seeks Review of "Amato" Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. is asking the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to review
the verdict in the asbestos lawsuit filed by Thomas Amato,
according to the Company's Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on January 25, 2016.

On February 25, 2013, a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, state court
jury found the Company responsible for a 1/10th share of a $2.5
million verdict in the Thomas Amato claim and a 1/5th share of a
$2.3 million verdict in the Frank Vinciguerra claim, which were
consolidated for trial. The Company filed post-trial motions
requesting judgments in the Company's favor notwithstanding the
jury's verdicts or new trials, and also requesting that settlement
offsets be applied to reduce the judgment in accordance with
Pennsylvania law. These motions were denied. The Company has
appealed, and on April 17, 2015, a panel of the Superior Court of
Pennsylvania affirmed the trial court's ruling. The Company's
motion for reconsideration was denied, and it is seeking review
before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Crane Co. manufactures and sells engineered industrial products in
the United States and internationally. It operates in four
segments: Fluid Handling, Payment & Merchandising Technologies,
Aerospace & Electronics, and Engineered Materials. Crane Co. was
founded in 1855 and is based in Stamford, Connecticut.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Continues to Pursue Appeal in "Peraica"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. continues to pursue further appeal of the New York City
state court's ruling in the asbestos lawsuit filed by Ivo Peraica,
according to the Company's Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on January 25, 2016.

On March 1, 2013, a New York City state court jury entered a $35
million verdict against the Company in the Ivo Peraica claim. The
Company filed post-trial motions seeking to overturn the verdict,
to grant a new trial, or to reduce the damages, which the Company
argues were excessive under New York appellate case law governing
awards for non-economic losses and further were subject to
settlement offsets. After the trial court remitted the verdict to
$18 million, but otherwise denied the Company's post-trial motion,
judgment was entered against the Company in the amount of $10.6
million (including interest). The Company has appealed. The
Company has taken a separate appeal of the trial court's denial of
its summary judgment motion. The Court has consolidated the
appeals, which were heard in the fourth quarter of 2014.
On July 31, 2013, a Buffalo, New York state court jury entered a
$3.1 million verdict against the Company in the Lee Holdsworth
claim. The Company filed post-trial motions seeking to overturn
the verdict, to grant a new trial, or to reduce the damages, which
the Company argues were excessive under New York appellate case
law governing awards for non-economic losses and further were
subject to settlement offsets. Post-trial motions were denied, and
the court entered judgment in the amount of $1.7 million. On June
12, 2015, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed the
trial court's ruling denying the Company's motion for summary
judgment. The court denied reargument of that ruling. The Company
is pursuing a further appeal of the trial court rulings and
judgment.

On September 11, 2013, a Columbia, South Carolina state court jury
in the Lloyd Garvin claim entered an $11 million verdict for
compensatory damages against the Company and two other defendants
jointly, and also awarded exemplary damages against the Company in
the amount of $11 million. The jury also awarded exemplary damages
against both other defendants. The Company filed post-trial
motions seeking to overturn the verdict, which were denied, except
that the Court remitted the compensatory damages award to $2.5
million and exemplary damages award to $3.5 million. Considering
settlement offsets, the Court further reduced the total damages
award to $3.5 million. The Company has settled the matter. The
settlement is reflected in the first quarter 2015 indemnity
amount.

Crane Co. manufactures and sells engineered industrial products in
the United States and internationally. It operates in four
segments: Fluid Handling, Payment & Merchandising Technologies,
Aerospace & Electronics, and Engineered Materials. Crane Co. was
founded in 1855 and is based in Stamford, Connecticut.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Appeal on "DeLisle" Ruling Set for Q1 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Oral argument for Crane Co.'s appeal on a Fort Lauderdale, Florida
state court jury's ruling in an asbesos lawsuit filed by Richard
DeLisle is scheduled for the first quarter of 2016, according to
the Company's Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on January 25, 2016.

On September 17, 2013, a Fort Lauderdale, Florida state court jury
in the Richard DeLisle claim found the Company responsible for 16
percent of an $8 million verdict. The trial court denied all
parties' post-trial motions, and entered judgment against the
Company in the amount of $1.3 million. The Company has appealed.
Oral argument on the appeal is scheduled for the first quarter of
2016.

Crane Co. manufactures and sells engineered industrial products in
the United States and internationally. It operates in four
segments: Fluid Handling, Payment & Merchandising Technologies,
Aerospace & Electronics, and Engineered Materials. Crane Co. was
founded in 1855 and is based in Stamford, Connecticut.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shipowners Lose Summary Judgment Bid "Griffin"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Willard E. Bartel and David E. Peebles, Administrators
of the Estate of Freddie Griffin, allege that Mr. Griffin was
exposed to asbestos while working aboard various ships.  The
Plaintiffs assert that Decedent developed two asbestos-related
illnesses as a result of his exposure to asbestos aboard those
ships.

The Thompson Hine Shipowners moved for summary judgment, arguing
that (1) Plaintiffs' non-malignancy claims are barred by way of
judicial estoppel because Mr. Griffin failed to disclose the
asbestos action as an asset in his bankruptcy filing, and (2) the
Plaintiffs cannot pursue any of the asbestos claims in the
asbestos action (neither the initial non-malignancy claims nor his
post-petition malignancy claims) because the entire asbestos
action is now owned by the bankruptcy estate.

The Plaintiffs contend that the non-malignancy asbestos claims are
not barred on grounds of judicial estoppel.  First, the Plaintiffs
contend that Mr. Griffin did not take inconsistent positions
between his bankruptcy filing and the present asbestos action
because at the time of his bankruptcy filing -- and throughout the
entire duration of that action -- his non-malignancy asbestos
claims were dismissed, such that he was not required to list them
as an asset in his bankruptcy action. Moreover, Plaintiffs argue
that even if Mr. Griffin should have identified the non-malignancy
asbestos claims, the failure to do so was a good faith mistake
such that judicial estoppel is not warranted.

In a Memorandum dated January 29, 2016, which is available at
http://is.gd/kiTf5Zfrom Leagle.com, Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania denied the Defendants' motion for summary judgment,
concluding that Mr. Griffin's malignancy asbestos claims are not
sufficiently rooted in his pre-bankruptcy past to constitute
property of the bankruptcy estate.

The case is WILLARD E. BARTEL, et al., (Administrators for Estate
of Freddie L. Griffin), Plaintiffs, v. A-C PRODUCT LIABILITY
TRUST, ET AL., Defendants, Consolidated Under No. MDL 875, E.D. PA
Civil Action No. 2:11-32101-ER.

WILLARD E. BARTEL, Plaintiff, is represented by DONALD A. KRISPIN,
Esq. -- dkrispin@jaquesadmiralty.com -- THE JAQUES ADMIRALTY LAW
FIRM, P.C., DUANE C. MARSDEN, Esq. -- dmarsden@jaquesadmiralty.com
-- JAQUES ADMIRALTY LAW FIRM, P.C. & JOHN E. HERRICK, Esq. --
jherrick@motleyrice.com -- MOTLEY RICE LLC.

DAVID C. PEEBLES, Plaintiff, is represented by DONALD A. KRISPIN,
THE JAQUES ADMIRALTY LAW FIRM, P.C., DUANE C. MARSDEN, JAQUES
ADMIRALTY LAW FIRM, P.C. & JOHN E. HERRICK, MOTLEY RICE LLC.

A-C PRODUCT LIABILITY TRUST, Defendant, is represented by WILLIAM
A. VISCOMI, Esq.

ACANDS, INC., Defendant, is represented by MARY ELLEN FAIRFIELD,
Esq. -- VORYS SATER SEYMOUR PEASE.

ARGO INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Defendant, is represented by MARIA
A. KORTAN, GOODRICH CORPORATION.

AUBURN MFG. CO., Defendant, is represented by EDWARD J. CASS, Esq.
-- GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN.

AURORA PUMP DIVISION OF GENERAL SIGNAL CORP., Defendant, is
represented by ERNEST W. AUCIELLO, Jr., Esq. --
ernest.auciello@tuckerellis.com -- TUCKER, ELLIS & WEST LLP.

BETHLEHEM STEEL CORP., Defendant, represented by JILL G. OKUN,
Esq. -- jokun@porterwright.com -- PORTER WRIGHT MORRIS & ARTHUR
LLP.

The BLACK & DECKER CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by BARRON
LEGRANT STROUD, Jr., Esq. -- bstroud@wongfleming.com -- WONG
FLEMING, PC.

BOYD CO., A.B., Defendant, represented by EDWARD J. CASS,
GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN.

BRYAN STEAM CORP., Defendant, represented by EDWARD J. CASS,
GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN.

CHAMPION INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by
SAMUEL R. MARTILLOTTA, Esq. -- smartillotta@mggmlpa.com --
MANSOUR, GAVIN, GERLACK & MANOS CO..

A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY, Defendant, is represented by JOHN P.
PATTERSON, Esq. -- john.patterson@tuckerellis.com -- TUCKER ELLIS
WEST & THOMAS P. ERVEN, esq. -- terven@yandalaw.com -- YOUNG
ALEXANDER LPA.

DURABLA MANUFACTURING CO., Defendant, represented by BRUCE P.
MANDEL, ULMER & BERNE.

EVERLASTING VALVE CO., Defendant, represented by SAMUEL R.
MARTILLOTTA, MANSOUR, GAVIN, GERLACK & MANOS CO..

FEDERAL-MOGUL CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by EDWARD J.
CASS, GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN.

FEL-PRO INCORPORATED, Defendant, represented by JOHN C. CUBAR,
MCNEAL, SCHICK, ARCHIBALD & BIRO.

FELT PRODUCTS INCORPORATED, Defendant, represented by JOHN C.
CUBAR, MCNEAL, SCHICK, ARCHIBALD & BIRO.

FOSTER WHEELER COMPANY, Defendant, represented by JAMES E. MOSS,
CUYAHOGA COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE.

GATKE CORPORATION, Defendant, is represented by JOHN M. HERKE,
Esq. -- SPYRIDON PALERMO & DORNAN.

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant, represented by REGINALD S.
KRAMER, OLDHAM KRAMER.

GENERAL REFRACTORIES, Defendant, represented by CHARLES R. JANES.

GOODALL RUBBER CO., Defendant, represented by EDWARD J. CASS,
GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN.

GOODRICH, B.F., Defendant, represented by RICHARD D. SCHUSTER,
VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE.

GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO., Defendant, represented by MARY ELLEN
FAIRFIELD, VORYS SATER SEYMOUR PEASE.

HAJOCA CORP., Defendant, represented by EDWARD J. CASS, GALLAGHER
SHARP FULTON NORMAN.

HARBISON-WALKER REFRACTORIES GROUP, Defendant, represented byMARY
ELLEN FAIRFIELD, VORYS SATER SEYMOUR PEASE.

INGERSOLL-DRESSER PUMP, Defendant, represented by EDWARD J. CASS,
GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN.

INGERSOLL-RAND CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by EDWARD J.
CASS, GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN.

JANOS INDUSTRIAL INSULATION CORP., Defendant, represented byEDWARD
J. CASS, GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN.

JOHN CRANE, INC., Defendant, is represented by EVAN J. PALIK, Esq.
-- epalik@mdllp.net  -- MCMAHON DEGULIS & STEPHEN H. DANIELS, Esq.
-- sdaniels@mdllp.net  -- MCMAHON DEGULIS LLP.

KEASBEY, ROBERT A. COMPANY, Defendant, represented by BRUCE P.
MANDEL, ULMER & BERNE.

MELRATH GASKET, INC., Defendant, represented by WILLIAM A.
VISCOMI.

NOLAND COMPANY, Defendant, represented by EDWARD J. CASS,
GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN.

NORTH AMERICAN REFRACTORIES CO., Defendant, represented by ERIC H.
MANN, GALLAGHER SHARP.

NORTH AMERICAN TRAILING CO., Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER
D. KUEBLER, RAY ROBINSON CARLE & DAVIES P.L.L., DAVID G. DAVIES,
RAY, ROBINSON, CARLE, DAVIES & SNYDER, GENE B. GEORGE, RAY,
ROBINSON, CARLE & DAVIES PLL & JULIA R. BROUHARD, RAY, ROBINSON,
CARLE & DAVIES PLL.

The OKONITE CO., Defendant, represented by WILLIAM A. VISCOMI.

OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS CORP., Defendant, represented by JAMES
ARTHUR GIBB, OWENS CORNING FIBERGLAS CORP.

PPG INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant, represented by DONALD A. POWELL,
HANNA CAMPBELL & POWELL, LLP.

PECORA CORP., Defendant, represented by EDWARD J. CASS, GALLAGHER
SHARP FULTON NORMAN.

PHOENIX SPECIALTY MANUFACTURING CO., INC., Defendant, represented
by EDWARD J. CASS, GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN.

PREFERRED UTILITIES MFG. CORP., Defendant, represented by EDWARD
J. CASS, GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN.

RHOPAC INC., Defendant, represented by ERNEST W. AUCIELLO, Jr.,
TUCKER, ELLIS & WEST LLP.

SELBY BATTERSBY AND CO., Defendant, represented by MICHAEL JOSEPH
SULLIVAN, WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE LLC.

SHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO., Defendant, represented by MICHAEL D. EAGEN,
DINSMORE & SHOHL.

SKINNER ENGINE COMPANY, INC., Defendant, represented by EDWARD J.
CASS, GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN.

WALWORTH CO., Defendant, represented by BRUCE P. MANDEL, ULMER &
BERNE.
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORP., Defendant, represented by PERCY
SQUIRE, PERCY SQUIRE CO., L.L.C..

WORTHINGTON PUMP, INC., Defendant, represented by MARY ELLEN
FAIRFIELD, VORYS SATER SEYMOUR PEASE.

ZIMMERMAN PACKING & MFG., INC., Defendant, represented by EDWARD
J. CASS, GALLAGHER SHARP FULTON NORMAN.

FIBERBOARD CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by DONA L. ARNOLD,
BENESCH FRIEDLANDER COPLAN ARONOFF & ERIC LARSON ZALUD, BENESICH
FRIEDLANDER COPLAN & ARONOFF.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Arroyo" to Proceed Against Shipowners
-------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Willard E. Bartel and David E. Peebles, Administrators
of the Estate of Fernando Arroyo, allege that Mr. Arroyo was
exposed to asbestos while working aboard various ships.  The
Plaintiffs assert that Decedent developed two asbestos-related
illnesses as a result of his exposure to asbestos aboard those
ships.

The Thompson Hine Shipowners moved for summary judgment, arguing
that (1) the Plaintiffs' non-malignancy claims are barred by way
of judicial estoppel because Mr. Arroyo failed to disclose the
asbestos action as an asset in his bankruptcy filing, and (2) the
Plaintiffs cannot pursue any of the asbestos claims in the
asbestos action (neither the initial non-malignancy claims nor his
post-petition malignancy claims) because the entire asbestos
action is now owned by the bankruptcy estate.

The Plaintiffs contend that the non-malignancy asbestos claims are
not barred on grounds of judicial estoppel. First, Plaintiffs
contend that Mr. Arroyo did not take inconsistent positions
between his bankruptcy filing and the present asbestos action
because at the time of his bankruptcy filing -- and throughout the
entire duration of that action -- his non-malignancy asbestos
claims were dismissed, such that he was not required to list them
as an asset in his bankruptcy action. Moreover, Plaintiffs argue
that even if Mr. Arroyo should have identified the non-malignancy
asbestos claims, the failure to do so was a good faith mistake
such that judicial estoppel is not warranted.

In a Memorandum dated January 29, 2016 which is available at
http://is.gd/zMJsAnfrom Leagle.com, Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania denied the Defendants' motion for summary judgment,
finding that Mr. Griffin's malignancy asbestos claims are not
sufficiently rooted in his pre-bankruptcy past to constitute
property of the bankruptcy estate.

The case is WILLARD E. BARTEL, et al., (Administrators for Estate
of Fernando Arroyo), Plaintiffs, v. A-C PRODUCT LIABILITY TRUST,
ET AL., Defendants, Consolidated Under No. MDL 875, E.D. PA Civil
Action No. 2:11-30108-ER.

WILLARD E. BARTEL, Plaintiff, is represented by DONALD A. KRISPIN,
Esq. -- dkrispin@jaquesadmiralty.com -- THE JAQUES ADMIRALTY LAW
FIRM, P.C., & John David Hurst, Esq. -- jhurst@motleyrice.com --
MOTLEY RICE LLC.

DAVID C. PEEBLES, Plaintiff, is represented by DONALD A. KRISPIN,
THE JAQUES ADMIRALTY LAW FIRM, P.C., DUANE C. MARSDEN, JAQUES
ADMIRALTY LAW FIRM, P.C. & JOHN E. HERRICK, MOTLEY RICE LLC.

A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY, Defendant, is represented by JOHN P.
PATTERSON, Esq. -- john.patterson@tuckerellis.com -- TUCKER ELLIS
WEST.

GATKE CORPORATION, Defendant, is represented by JOHN M. HERKE,
Esq. -- SPYRIDON PALERMO & DORNAN.

GULF OIL COMPANY, Defendant, represented by RICHARD C. BINZLEY,
Esq. -- Dick.Binzley@ThompsonHine.com -- THOMPSON, HINE AND FLORY.
IMO INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant, is represented by COLLEEN A.
MOUNTCASTLE, Esq. -- cmountcastle@gallaghersharp.com  -- GALLAGHER
SHARP, KEVIN C. ALEXANDERSEN, Esq. --
kalexandersen@gallaghersharp.com  -- GALLAGHER SHARP & STEPHEN M.
BEAUDRY, Esq. -- sbeaudry@gallaghersharp.com  -- GALLAGHER SHARP.

JOHN CRANE, INC., Defendant, is represented by STEPHEN H. DANIELS,
Esq. -- sdaniels@mdllp.net -- MCMAHON DEGULIS LLP.

MATHIASEN TANKER IND. INC., Defendant, is represented by HAROLD W.
HENDERSON, THOMPSON, HINE LLP.

UNITED FRUIT COMPANY, Defendant, is represented by HAROLD W.
HENDERSON, Esq. -- Hal.Henderson@ThompsonHine.com -- THOMPSON,
HINE LLP, RICHARD C. BINZLEY, THOMPSON, HINE AND FLORY & SUSAN K.
DIRKS, Esq. -- Susan.Dirks@ThompsonHine.com  THOMPSON HINE LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shipowners Fail in Bid to Dismiss "Zuegg"
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Willard E. Bartel and David E. Peebles, Administrators
of the Estate of Joseph F. Zuegg, allege that Mr. Zuegg was
exposed to asbestos while working aboard various ships. Plaintiffs
assert that Decedent developed two asbestos-related illnesses as a
result of his exposure to asbestos aboard those ships.

The Thompson Hine Shipowners (THS) moved for summary judgment,
arguing that (1) the Plaintiffs' non-malignancy claims are barred
by way of judicial estoppel because Mr. Zuegg failed to disclose
the asbestos action as an asset in his bankruptcy filing, and (2)
the Plaintiffs cannot pursue any of the asbestos claims in the
asbestos action (neither the initial non-malignancy claims nor his
post-petition malignancy claims) because the entire asbestos
action is now owned by the bankruptcy estate.

The Plaintiffs contend that the non-malignancy asbestos claims are
not barred on grounds of judicial estoppel. First, Plaintiffs
contend that Mr. Zuegg did not take inconsistent positions between
his bankruptcy filing and the present asbestos action because at
the time of his bankruptcy filing -- and throughout the entire
duration of that action -- his non-malignancy asbestos claims were
dismissed, such that he was not required to list them as an asset
in his bankruptcy action. Moreover, Plaintiffs argue that even if
Mr. Zuegg should have identified the non-malignancy asbestos
claims, the failure to do so was a good faith mistake such that
judicial estoppel is not warranted.

In a Memorandum dated January 29, 2016 which is available at
http://is.gd/50RMhCfrom Leagle.com, Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania denied the Defendants' motion for summary judgment,
concluding that Mr. Zuegg's malignancy asbestos claims are not
sufficiently rooted in his pre-bankruptcy past to constitute
property of the bankruptcy estate.
The case is WILLARD E. BARTEL, et al., (Administrators for Estate
of Joseph F. Zuegg), Plaintiffs, v. A-C PRODUCT LIABILITY TRUST,
ET AL., Defendants, Consolidated Under No. MDL 875, E.D. PA Civil
Action No. 2:11-31112-ER.

WILLARD E. BARTEL, Plaintiff, is represented by DONALD A. KRISPIN,
Esq. -- dkrispin@jaquesadmiralty.com -- THE JAQUES ADMIRALTY LAW
FIRM, P.C., & John David Hurst, Esq. -- jhurst@motleyrice.com --
MOTLEY RICE LLC.

DAVID C. PEEBLES, Plaintiff, is represented by DONALD A. KRISPIN,
THE JAQUES ADMIRALTY LAW FIRM, P.C., DUANE C. MARSDEN, JAQUES
ADMIRALTY LAW FIRM, P.C. & JOHN E. HERRICK, MOTLEY RICE LLC.

A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY, Defendant, is represented by JOHN P.
PATTERSON, Esq. -- john.patterson@tuckerellis.com -- TUCKER ELLIS
WEST.

GATKE CORPORATION, Defendant, is represented by JOHN M. HERKE,
Esq. -- SPYRIDON PALERMO & DORNAN.
GULF OIL COMPANY, Defendant, represented by RICHARD C. BINZLEY,
Esq. -- Dick.Binzley@ThompsonHine.com -- THOMPSON, HINE AND FLORY.
IMO INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant, is represented by COLLEEN A.
MOUNTCASTLE, Esq. -- cmountcastle@gallaghersharp.com  -- GALLAGHER
SHARP, KEVIN C. ALEXANDERSEN, Esq. --
kalexandersen@gallaghersharp.com  -- GALLAGHER SHARP & STEPHEN M.
BEAUDRY, Esq. -- sbeaudry@gallaghersharp.com  -- GALLAGHER SHARP.

JOHN CRANE, INC., Defendant, is represented by STEPHEN H. DANIELS,
Esq. -- sdaniels@mdllp.net -- MCMAHON DEGULIS LLP.

AMOCO SHIPPING CO., Defendant, represented by JOHN G. GAUL, Esq. -
- jgg@maronmarvel.com -- MARON, MARVEL, BRADLEY & ANDERSON, P.A.,
LINA M. CARRERAS, Esq. -- lmc@maronmarvel.com -- MARON MARVEL
BRADLEY ANDERSON PA & WAYNE A. MARVEL, Esq. -- wam@maronmarvel.com
-- MARON MARVEL BRADLEY & ANDERSON PA.

MARITIME OVERSEAS CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by HAROLD W.
HENDERSON, Esq. -- Hal.Henderson@ThompsonHine.com -- THOMPSON,
HINE LLP.

SINCLAIR OIL CORP., Defendant, represented by JOHN M. DEITCH, Esq.
-- COUGHLIN DUFFY LLP & JOSEPH P. FITENI, Esq. --
jfiteni@coughlinduffy.com  -- COUGHLIN DUFFY LLP.

UNITED FRUIT COMPANY, Defendant, represented by HAROLD W.
HENDERSON, THOMPSON, HINE LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Illinois Court Refuses to Transfer "Watts"
-----------------------------------------------------------
In January 2014, Plaintiff Steven Watts filed an action in the
Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois, alleging
injuries as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products
attributable to numerous defendants.

On March 12, 2014, Defendant Crane Co. removed the action to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois.  Now pending before the Court is the Motion to Transfer
Venue filed by Defendant Ingersoll-Rand Company. Defendant
Borgwarner Morse Tec, Inc. joined the motion.  The Defendants seek
the transfer of the action to the United States District Court for
the District of Alaska.

In a Memorandum and Order dated January 29, 2016, which is
available at http://is.gd/mBiZU3from Leagle.com, Judge Staci M.
Yandle of the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois denied the Defendants' Motion to Transfer
Venue.

The case is STEVEN WATTS, Plaintiff, v. 84 LUMBER COMPANY et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-327-SMY-DGW.

Steven Watts, Plaintiff, is represented by Eric D. Jackstadt, Esq.
-- Napoli Bern, et al., Christopher Fonville, Esq. -- Napoli Bern
et al. & Kardon Stolzman,  Esq. -- Napoli Bern et al.

Borgwarner Morse Tec, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Donald W.
Ward, Esq. -- dww@herzogcrebs.com -- Herzog Crebs LLP, MO, Gary L.
Smith, Esq. -- gls@herzogcrebs.com -- Herzog Crebs LLP/AC, James
D. Maschhoff, Esq. -- jdm@herzogcrebs.com -- Herzog Crebs LLP,
Mary Ann Hatch, Esq. -- mahw@herzogcrebs.com -- Herzog, Crebs et
al. & Mordecai D. Boone, Esq. -- mordecai.boone@dentons.com --
Dentons US, LLP.

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant, is represented by Benjamin J.
Wilson, Esq. -- bwilson@heplerbroom.com -- HeplerBroom LLC, Carl
J. Geraci, Esq. -- cgeraci@heplerbroom.com -- HeplerBroom LLC,
Deborah St. Lawrence Thompson, Esq. --
dstlawrence@milesstockbridge.com -- Miles & Stockbridge PC,
Michael J Chessler, Esq. -- mchessler@heplerbroom.com --
HeplerBroom LLC & Robert H. Sands, Esq. -- rsands@heplerbroom.com
-- HeplerBroom LLC.

Asbestos Corporation LTD., Defendant, is represented by Anthony M.
Goldner, Esq. -- anthony.goldner@wilsonelser.com  -- Wilson Elser
et al. & Karen E. Bettcher, Esq. -- Karen.bettcher@wilsonelser.com
-- Wilson, Elser et al.

Cleaver-Brooks, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Erin Renee
Griebel, Esq. -- O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C. &
Meredith S Hudgens, Esq. -- O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns
L.L.C.

Georgia Pacific, LLC, Defendant, represented by Benjamin J.
Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC, Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael
J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.

Trane US, Inc., Defendant, represented by Benjamin J. Wilson,
HeplerBroom LLC, Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael J
Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.

Excelsior Packing & Gaskets, Defendant, is represented by Keith B.
Hill, Esq. -- khill@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et al., Lisa
A. LaConte, Esq. -- llaconte@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et
al., James R. Grabowski, Esq. -- jgrabowski@heylroyster.com --
Heyl, Royster et al., Michael D. Schag, Esq. --
mschag@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et al. & Patrick D. Cloud,
Esq. -- pcloud@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et al..

Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Luke
J. Mangan, Esq. -- lmangan@polsinelli.com  -- Polsinelli PC,
Allison K. Sonneveld, Esq. -- asonneveld@polsinelli.com  --
Polsinelli Shughart PC, Kathleen Ann Hardee, Esq. --
khardee@polsinelli.com  -- Polsinelli PC & Kirra N. Jones, Esq. --
kjones@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli PC.

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Defendant, represented by Kyler H.
Stevens, Esq. -- Kurowski Shultz LLC & Jerome S. Warchol, Jr.,
Esq. -- Kurowski Shultz LLC.

Viking Pumps, Inc., Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl,
Royster et al., James R. Grabowski, Heyl, Royster et al., Michael
D. Schag, Heyl, Royster et al. & Patrick D. Cloud, Heyl, Royster
et al.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, is represented by Keith B. Hill,
Esq. -- khill@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et al..

Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, is represented by James R. Grabowski
Esq. -- jgrabowski@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et al.,
Michael D. Schag, Esq. -- mschag@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster
et al. & Patrick D. Cloud, Esq. -- pcloud@heylroyster.com -- Heyl,
Royster et al..

William Powell Company, Defendant, is represented by Michael R.
Dauphin, Esq. -- mdauphin@foleymansfield.com  -- Foley &
Mansfield, PLLP & Michael W. Newport, Esq. --
mnewport@foleymansfield.com  -- Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MSA Obtains Partial Win in Coverage Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Mine Safety Appliances Company manufactured, distributed
and sold products designed to protect miners from inhaling
asbestos, silica and coal dust.  Mine Safety purchased general
liability and excess insurance policies from numerous insurers.
MSA filed a declaratory judgment action seeking coverage for tort
actions alleging bodily injuries from the use of MSA products.

The Superior Court of Delaware decided 13 Phase I summary judgment
motions by Memorandum Opinion decided August 10, 2015.  On
November 16, 2015, the Court heard argument on 13 Phase II
motions.  The analysis involves certain common legal authorities
and public policy considerations.  The parties agree that
Pennsylvania law governs the disputes that are the subject of
these motions.

In a Memorandum Opinion on Phase II Summary Judgment Motions dated
January 22, 2016, which is available at http://is.gd/VdBaIrfrom
Leagle.com, the Superior Court of Delaware granted in part and
denied in part MSA's motion.

Among other things, the Superior Court held that the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court has applied continuous trigger for coal dust
injuries.  There appears no reason to usurp the prerogative of
another jurisdiction to establish its governing principles on the
basis of its own well-reasoned decisions.  Therefore, the
Insurers' motions for summary judgment on trigger of coverage for
coal dust claims are denied and MSA's cross motion is granted.

The Court deems other defenses waived as having not been actively
pursued in a timely manner.  Laches is an equitable defense that
is not available in the Superior Court, which is a court of law.
The defense of lack of justiciability already has been decided.

The case is Mine Safety Appliances COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. AIU
INSURANCE COMPANY, et al. Defendants, C.A. No. N10C-07-241 MMJ.

Jennifer C. Wasson, Esq. jwasson@potteranderson.com, Michael B.
Rush, Esq. -- mrush@potteranderson.com  -- Potter Anderson &
Corroon LLP, Mark A. Packman, Esq. (Argued) --
packmanm@gotofirm.com, Jenna A. Hudson, Esq. (Argued) --
hudsonj@gotofirm.com,Gabriel Le. Chevallier, Esq. (Argued) --
chevallierg@gotofirm.com, Jo?o Santa-Rita, Esq. -- santa-
ritaj@gotofirm.com, Todd T. Itami, Esq. -- itamit@gotofirm.com,
Ivan J. Snyder, Esq. -- snyderi@gotofirm.com, Gilbert LLP,
Attorneys for Plaintiff Mine Safety Appliances Company.

Megan T. Mantzavinos, Esq. -- mmantzavinos@moodklaw.com, Emily K.
Silverstein, Esq. -- esilverstein@moodklaw.com, Marks, O'Neill,
O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., Ellen G. Margolis, Esq. --
emargolis@moundcotton.com, Pamela Minetto, Esq.(Argued) --
pminetto@moundcotton.com --  Mound Cotton Wollan & Greengrass,
Attorneys for Defendants American Home Assurance Company, Granite
State Insurance Company, Insurance Company of the State of
Pennsylvania, Lexington Insurance Company, National Union Fire
Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, AIU Insurance Company,
Chartis Property Casualty Co f/k/a Birmingham Fire Insurance Co.

Peter B. Ladig, Esq. -- pladig@morrisjames.com, David J. Soldo,
Esq. -- dsoldo@morrisjames.com, Meghan A. Adams, Esq. --
madams@morrisjames.com -- Morris James LLP, Alan S. Miller, Esq.
(Argued) --asmiller@jonesday.com, Henry M. Sneath, Esq. --
hsneath@psmn.com, Bridget M. Gillespie, Esq.--
bgillespie@psmn.com, Katherine C. Dempsy, Esq., Picadio Sneath
Miller & Norton, PC, Dennis O. Brown, Esq. --
dbrown@gordonrees.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP, Attorneys for The
North River Insurance Company.

Richard M. Beck, Esq., Sean M. Brennecke, Esq., Klehr Harrison
Harvey Branzburg LLP, James P. Ruggeri, Esq., Joshua D. Weinberg,
Esq. (Argued),Michele L. Backus, Esq., Shipman & Goodwin LLP,
Attorneys for Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, First State
Insurance Company, and Twin City Fire insurance Company.

Neal J. Levitsky, Esq., Seth A. Niederman, Esq., Fox Rothschild
LLP, Daren S. McNally, Esquire (Argued), Barbara M. Almeida,
Esquire (Argued) Clyde & Co US LLP, Attorneys for Travelers
Casualty and Surety Company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Partially Flips Judgment in "Lapore"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Geraldine Bierner Lepore, et al., appeal after the
trial court granted summary judgment to defendants Ford Motor
Company, Navistar, Inc., Gibbs International, Inc., and Kelsey-
Hayes Company in a wrongful death action based on Lepore's
exposure to asbestos.  They contend the trial court erred in
granting summary judgment and in excluding evidence submitted in
support of their motion for a new trial.

The operative complaint in the action alleged that Lepore was
exposed to asbestos at his workplace and that as a result he
contracted mesothelioma and died of it.  The Plaintiffs asserted
causes of action for negligence (wrongful death), strict
liability, products liability, survivorship, and loss of
consortium against multiple defendants.  Motions for summary
judgment brought by four of those defendants are at issue in this
appeal.

None of the defendants disputed that Lepore had been exposed to
asbestos during the course of his work.  All four motions relied
on the theory that there was no admissible evidence that the
products they supplied, distributed, or sold were a source of that
exposure.

In a Decision dated February 8, 2016, which is available at
http://is.gd/B5bWh1from Leagle.com, the Court of Appeals of
California, First District, Division Four, reversed the judgments
as to Ford, Navistar, and Kelsey-Hayes and affirmed the judgment
as to Gibbs.

The case is GERALDINE BIERNER LEPORE et al., Plaintiffs and
Appellants, v. KELSEY-HAYES COMPANY et al., Defendants and
Respondents, No. A137451.






                            *********

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  * * *