CAR_Public/160415.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, April 15, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 76


                            Headlines


3M COMPANY: Aware of Dangers of FPOA, Lawsuits Claim
ALL MARKET: Faces "Wasser" Fraud Class Suit in Florida
ALLSTATE: Must Face Robocall Class Action, Appeals Court Rules
ALTAIR NANOTECHNOLOGIES: May 25 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
ANTONELLI COLLEGE: Faces Class Actions Over Revoked Accreditation

APEX 1: B.C. Man Faces Fraud Case Over Pay Day Loan Business
APIGEE CORP: Faces Securities Class Action in Calif. Over IPO
APOLLO GLOBAL: Bid to Dismiss CEC Shareholder Litig. Pending
APOLLO GLOBAL: Bids to Transfer, Dismiss "Silva" Suit Pending
APOLLO GLOBAL: Continues to Defend OM Group Stockholders Suit

ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW ORLEANS: Faces "Yi" Suit in D. Md., Greenbelt
AUSNET: Maurice Blackburn Urged to Make Settlement Payments
BANK OF AMERICA: "Paneque" Sues Over Illegal Collection Practices
BED BATH & BEYOND: "Sweeney" Sues over Breach of Contract
BLOUNT INT'L: June 10 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline

BLUE CROSS: Faces "Aschenbrenner" Anti-trust Action in Kansas
BLUESTEM BRANDS: "Arce" Suit Goes to District of Minnesota
BONSOY: Consumers Still Waiting for Compensation Payouts
BPH BILLITON: Class Actions Pile Up Over Deadly Samarco Dam Burst
BROOKFIELD ASSET: George Leon Family Trust Files Suit in Delaware

CAL-TEX COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Pay OT, "Carter" Suit Claims
CANADA: Court Orders Crawford to Repay $874,000 in Legal Fees
CANADA: Court Upholds Reformulated G20 Class Actions v. TPS
CANADIAN PACIFIC: Lac Megantic Victims Contest Settlement Payouts
CERTEGY CHECK: "Alexander" Suit Moved to M.D. Florida

CLOVIS ONCOLOGY: Bernstein Litowitz to Lead Class Suit
CLOVIS ONCOLOGY: Pension Fund Suit Goes to Colorado
CNX GAS: Westmoreland Water Authority Suit Moved to W.D. Penn.
CONSORTIUM CONCESSION: Settles Highway 25 Bridge Fee Class Action
COOPER AEROBICS: "Cardona" Files Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Pay

DEFALCO'S HEAVY DUTY: Violated PTPA, "Walker" Suit Claims
DENVER, CO: Hiring Discrimination Class Action Goes to Trial
DOW CHEMICAL: Settles Remaining Polyurethane Price Fixing Claims
EASY CASH: Head Faces Racketeering Charges Over Loan Interest
ENCORE ENTERPRISES: Faces "Bell" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

ENHANCED RECOVERY: "Williams" Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection
FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Action Over Cancer-Related Website Ads
FELTEX: Ex-Chair's Lawyer Says Investment Prospectus Not Material
FELTEX: Dividend Payments Used to Boost IPO Size, Suit Claims
FIRSTMERIT CORP: June 13 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set

FITBIT INC: Hearing Held on Bid to Disimss Sleep Tracking Suit
FITBIT INC: Defending Suit Over Heart Rate Monitoring
FITBIT INC: Defending Against Securities Action in Calif.
FORD MOTOR: Faces "Bolt" Suit Over Defective Vehicle
GENERAL CHEMICAL: City of Milwaukee Suit Transferred to N.J.

HONEST COMPANY: "Alhadeff" Sues over False Advertising
INTERMOUNTAIN HEALTH: Faces "Weinstein" Suit in Utah Dist. Ct.
JACOBSEN MANUFACTURING: "Perez" Breach Suit Removed to M.D. Fla.
KRISHNA SCHAUMBURG: Sued for Storing Client Fingerprints
LOS PORTALES BOLIVAR: "Gallardo" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay

MANAGEMENT TEAM VALET: Faces "Fazeli" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MASSACHUSETTS: Bridgewater Hospital Probed Over Inmate's Death
MID WILSHIRE: Made Unsolicited Ad, Alliance Suit Claims
MINNESOTA: Appeals Court to Review Sex Offender Treatment Program
MISSISSIPPI: AG Disputes Kickback Scheme Allegations

MODESTO IRRIGATION: Faces Class Action Over Electricity Charges
MONSTER WORLDWIDE: Must Face Discrimination Class Action
NATIONAL RAILROAD: Sued in Conn. Over Health Insurance Plan
NEW YORK: Educ. Dept. Faces Suit over Civil Rights Breach
NEW YORK: Law Firm Withdraws Class Action v. Education Department

NEW YORK: State Assembly Approves Bill to End Tampon Sales Tax
NORDSTROM INC: Faces "Aghdasy" Suit Over Rolex Watches
PACKERS PLUS ENERGY: Faces "Crumb" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
PEANUT CORP: Exec Won't Have to Compensate Salmonella Victims
PENNSYLVANIA: TCPA Class Action Against PHEAA Dismissed

PHILIP MORRIS: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Tobacco Class Action
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces "Colley" Suit Over Old Spice Product
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Installment Fees Are Excessive, Suit Claims
PTC INC: May 6 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
QUAKER OATS: Faces "Aliano" Suit Over Misbranding for Product

RICHMOND ORGANIZATION: Sued Over "We Shall Overcome" Copyright
ROD'S PRODUCTION: "Ainsworth" FLSA Suit Transferred to W.D. Okla.
SEAS & ASSOCIATES: "Crawford" Sues Over Illegal Collection
SETERUS INC: Faces "Blake" Suit in Miami, Florida
SIMPLE PAYMENTS: "Youssofi" Sues Over TCPA Violations

SKYWAY CHILI: Faces "Como" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SONY PICTURES: Judge OKs $8MM Data Breach Class Action Settlement
ST. JOSEPH HEALTH: Data Breach Plaintiffs Get Settlement Payouts
SUNTRUST MORTGAGE: Sued Over Post-Payment Interest Charges
TARGET CORP: Fails to Provide Rest Period, "Craft" Suit Claims

TEXAS: Class Action Mulled Against SRA Over Flooding Damage
TRANS-CONTINENTAL: "Glidden" Sues over Illegal Collection
TRAVELERS INDEMNITY: 4th Cir. Tackles CGL Cyber Coverage Issue
TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Faces Guardrail Class Action in Missouri
UNITED STATES: ICE Sued for Illegally Detaining Immigrants

UNITED STATES: Baby in Terrorist Watch List, Class Action Claims
VEDANTA RESOURCES: Hearing to Address Jurisdiction Issue Begins
VISALUS INC: Sommers Schwartz Files Class Action in Michigan
VIZIO HOLDINGS: Emerson Scott Files Privacy Class Action
VIZIO INC: "Altman" Sues Over Illegal Data Gathering

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Chauncey" Emmission Suit Goes to N.D. Cal.
WELLS FARGO: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement
WISCONSIN: WEA Trust Settles Class Action for $4.9 Million
WISCONSIN: Oshkosh Schools to Get Highest Settlement Payout
WWE: Goguen Voluntarily Dismisses Streaming Royalties Suit

XEROX CORP: Faces "Brown" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
XPO LOGISTICS: Faces "Carter" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

* CFPB's New Regulations May Spur Consumer Finance Class Actions
* Class Action Tourism Trend Emerges, Law Firm Says
* Data Privacy Class Actions Expected to Grow, Survey Says
* Excessive FHA Loan Interest Payments Subject of Class Actions
* UK Class Action Market Expected to Heat Up in 2016


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EMC Strengthens Asbestos Reserves by $2.3MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Students, Teachers Risk Exposure in Chicago
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Contractors Fined for Asbestos Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Mechanic Alleges Exposure Led to Cancer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Belfast Company Fined for Asbestos Breaches

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chelsmford Dad May Have Died Due to Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Some NY Dems Lend Support to Transparency Bill
ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.C. Denies Post-Trial Motion in Asbestos Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in South-Doyle Highschool Library

ASBESTOS UPDATE: More Info on Death of Former Bus Driver Sought
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Banned in Construction at Federal Sites
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Ewing Community Center
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Settles with Eagle Ski Park Developer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Canberra Dump Contains Asbestos Insulation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: I-LAW Supports Legislation for Claims Oversight
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manufacturer Owes No "Take Home" Duty of Care
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Niagara County Violated Rules in Courthouse Job
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Retired Carpenter Wins GBP200,00 Payout
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ensign Remains Subject to Exposure Claims

ASBESTOS ALERT: Terreno Realty May Be Subject to PI Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Has 2,130 Respirator Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aearo Continues to Pay $100K Indemnification Fee
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Had 10,100 Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Resolved 5,300 Claims in 2015

ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Satisfies Damages in Calif. Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Paid $579MM in Claims Handling Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aerojet Faced 83 Asbestos Cases at Nov. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial in AMEC vs. Aerojet Suit Rescheduled
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Assurant Inc. Had $30.5MM Reserve for A&E Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: CPS 1's Bid to Preclude Evidence Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 9th Cir. Affirms Judgment for Olin Corp.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Allows Bankrupt Firm to Hire Counsel
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bids to Dismiss Cross-Claims in NY Suit Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Affirms Summary Judgment in PI Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5th Circ. Vacates Remand Order in "Savoie"


                            *********


3M COMPANY: Aware of Dangers of FPOA, Lawsuits Claim
----------------------------------------------------
Sharon Lerner, writing for The Intercept, reports that for
decades, 3M was the primary producer of C8, or PFOA, and was the
sole producer of a related chemical known as PFOS.  But while
DuPont was caught up in a massive class-action suit over C8, 3M
has largely avoided public scrutiny and serious legal or financial
consequences for its role in developing and selling these
industrial pollutants.

In February, however, a state court in Minnesota, where the
company is headquartered, allowed a lawsuit against 3M to move
forward.  And late last year, lawyers filed a class-action suit in
Decatur, Alabama, home to one of 3M's biggest plants.  Both
lawsuits charge that 3M knew about the health hazards posed by the
perfluorinated chemicals it was manufacturing and using to make
carpet coating, Scotchgard, firefighting foam, and other products
-- and that the company knew the chemicals were spreading beyond
its sites.  With PFCs cropping up in drinking water around the
country and all over the world, the two lawsuits raise the
possibility that 3M may finally be held accountable in a court of
law.

State Attorney General Lori Swanson first filed the lawsuit
against 3M on behalf of the people of Minnesota in 2010, claiming
that the company polluted more than 100 square miles of
groundwater near its plant in Cottage Grove, Minnesota, as well as
four aquifers serving as drinking water for some 125,000 people in
the Twin Cities.  The suit charges that the company piped PFC-
polluted wastewater into a stream that flows into the Mississippi
River and disposed of it on land near the river, which allowed it
to leach into the river.

Based on the company's own research, the complaint argues, 3M
"knew or should have known" that PFCs harm human health and the
environment and that the chemicals would leach from their disposal
sites and "result in injury, destruction, and loss of natural
resources of the State."

William A. Brewer III, a partner in the firm representing 3M in
PFC-related litigation, said that 3M "absolutely and vigorously"
denies all charges in that suit -- and any others that "describe
what 3M did as polluting."  While the complaint says that 3M's
emissions of the chemicals into water were "not authorized or
permitted by the state," Mr. Brewer disagreed, arguing that "100
percent of 3M's conduct has been permitted by the state," which he
told me undermines the idea that 3M is responsible for any leakage
that might have resulted.  "When you take your waste or some of it
and you deliver it some place that the state tells you you can
bring it and then they turn around and tell you it wasn't properly
managed, we just deny that we have responsibility for other
people's conduct."

After the initial discovery of PFCs in drinking water near the
Cottage Grove plant, 3M installed filtration systems on the water
supply for the nearby community of Oakdale, provided bottled water
for residents with private wells, and remediated three of its
former dump sites.  However, the most recent water tests, released
by the EPA in January, still showed 25 detections of PFCs in wells
that provide drinking water to Woodbury, Oakdale, and Hastings --
all of which are near 3M headquarters -- as well as in the Cottage
Grove water utility, which serves more than 33,000 people.

In two wells in Oakdale, PFOS contamination detected by EPA tests
released in January exceeded the provisional health levels set by
the agency.  And several Oakdale wells had PFOA levels higher than
those that qualified residents to participate in a class-action
suit against DuPont in West Virginia and Ohio.

Since 2012, lawyers on both sides of the case have been caught up
with a technical question.  3M had tried to have Covington &
Burling LLC, the firm representing the state, disqualified on the
grounds that it had a conflict of interest because it had at one
point represented 3M on other PFC-related issues.  In February, a
judge ruled that the firm could represent the state and that the
suit could move forward.

An Early Exit Strategy

In part, 3M escaped blame for PFC contamination because it opted
to stop producing both PFOA and PFOS in 2002, while DuPont and
other companies didn't phase out PFOA until 2013 or later.  At the
time, the decision brought the company praise for its foresight
and good judgment.  "3M deserves great credit for identifying this
problem and coming forward voluntarily," said EPA Administrator
Carol M. Browner.

Mr. Brewer, 3M's attorney, continues to argue that the company's
early exit from the C8 business places it in a separate category
from DuPont. "3M has acted appropriately and on the principled
path," he told me.  "They immediately reported it, investigated
it, and frankly decided to exit the C8 chemistries in their
entirety well more than a decade before anyone else who was a
competitor."

But Gary Davis, a partner in Davis & Whitlock, which filed the
2015 case against 3M in Decatur, said the company had evidence of
the dangers of PFCs well before it stopped making them.  "We've
found out that they knew it was toxic.  They have the knowledge
even more deeply than DuPont about the toxicity of the chemicals,"
said Mr. Davis.  "We believe it is absolutely parallel."

While the two companies stopped making C8 at different times, the
situations of the people living near their production sites were
alike in many ways.  "You had communities outside one of these
manufacturing plants that were knowingly exposed to these
perfluorinated compounds for many, many years and were seeking
relief and to get tested," said Rob Bilott, the attorney who
launched and continues to oversee the cases against DuPont in West
Virginia and Ohio.

Mr. Bilott was also one of the attorneys representing plaintiffs
in Minnesota in a 2004 case against 3M that was very similar to
the one in West Virginia.  Both suits sought damages on behalf of
the communities, and both argued that the companies knew the
chemicals were toxic to animals and were accumulating in people
and the environment.

In Minnesota, however, Judge Mary Hannon determined that state law
did not permit medical monitoring claims to be pursued in class-
wide suits.  So while the West Virginia suit yielded a $343
million settlement and led to the medical monitoring of tens of
thousands of exposed people, which in turn allowed epidemiologists
to find probable links between C8 and six diseases, the case in
Minnesota on behalf of people who had PFCs in their wells involved
no medical monitoring.  Judge Hannon ruled that plaintiffs'
lawyers could not even mention the possibility that the chemicals
posed any harm.

"Because of that, the jury never got to hear why having that
chemical in the water was bad," said Mr. Bilott.  In 2009, a
Minnesota jury decided in 3M's favor.

Judge Hannon also made decisions that kept the details of the 3M
case out of the public eye.  While the DuPont suit unearthed years
of the company's research on C8's health effects, embarrassing
internal communications, and depositions that explained how the
company shielded PFOA from regulation by the EPA, in 2005 Judge
Hannon sealed more than 500,000 documents in the 3M case.

"The Primary Source"

3M also escaped largely unscathed when the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency began investigating PFCs in 2001.  The coordinator
of the MPCA's emerging contaminants program at the time, a chemist
and biologist named Fardin Oliaei, found that the chemicals had
made their way from several of 3M's disposal areas into ground
water, drinking water, local fish, and the Mississippi River.
Eventually Ms. Oliaei's investigation was blocked by Sheryl
Corrigan, the commissioner of the MPCA, who managed 3M's
environmental affairs before taking the top job at the state
agency.  In 2006, Ms.Corrigan fired Ms. Oliaei.

When she began finding PFC contamination in fish and in unlined
landfills near active farmland, Ms. Oliaei told me, "I knew what I
was doing was important."  But the pushback began soon thereafter.
"The first person who questioned me was my immediate manager.
Then I found out he was directed by our commissioner," said Ms.
Oliaei, who now lives in Alabama.  "The last thing I thought about
was that I would lose my job.  I still thought that because I was
doing the right thing, because I'm doing my job, I am protected."

In 2006, after being told that if she didn't sign a resignation
letter she would be "removed from the building," Ms. Oliaei
settled a whistleblower claim against the MPCA for $325,000.
Ms. Corrigan ultimately stepped down from her post as a result of
the controversy, but 3M largely escaped responsibility for the
local PFC issue.  The state never published the investigation that
Ms. Oliaei had been researching before she was fired.

Ms. Olieai, who spent half of her settlement on lawyers' fees, was
unable to get a comparable job after she was fired.  Although the
MPCA did issue a report on PFCs two years after Ms. Oliaei's
departure, and the state health department ultimately conducted
its own research on contaminated hotspots throughout the state and
set health risk limits for some PFCs, it took four years for the
state to file the lawsuit attempting to hold the company
financially accountable for exposing the population to dangerous
chemicals.  And it was another six years of legal holdups before
the case was able to move forward.

Meanwhile, in Alabama, where the most recent EPA testing found
PFCs in 87 water samples, 3M has benefited from another series of
legal near misses.  One class-action suit filed in 2002 was stayed
until last year, when 3M and the plaintiffs agreed to begin the
mediation process. Two others have been put on hold pending the
outcome of the first.

The most recent class-action suit against 3M in Decatur, filed
last October by Davis & Whitlock, seeks damages for the customers
of the West Morgan-East Lawrence Water and Sewer Authority, whose
drinking water has been tainted with PFCs.  This suit argues that
3M emitted PFCs into the nearby wastewater treatment plant, which
in turn discharged them into the Tennessee River.  According to
the complaint, 3M was dumping chemicals into river and soil
despite having known since 1986 that it needed to dispose of them
in lined landfills or by burning.  The suit also charges the
Japanese company Daikin America with contaminating water, but
calls 3M's Decatur plant "the primary source" of PFOA and PFOS in
the Tennessee River and the Decatur area.

Daikin provided a written response to questions from The
Intercept, noting that the company never used or manufactured
PFOS, and that any contamination on its plant "is there as a
result of activities by the previous owner."  Daikin acknowledged
using PFOA from 1994 to 2011, but noted that between 2000 and
2008, it "reduced overall releases of PFOA by over 99 percent."
The statement also said that "Daikin's discharges of PFOA to the
Tennessee River were made in compliance with permits issued by"
the Alabama Department of Environmental Management and that Daikin
"continues to cooperate with EPA and ADEM to address issues
relating to PFOA at the site."

Davis & Whitlock plans to file yet another lawsuit against 3M on
behalf of the conservation group Tennessee Riverkeeper, seeking
relief under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act for
endangering health and the environment by contaminating several
locations around Decatur with PFCs.

Although he feels 3M was "let off the hook" in previous
contamination suits, Mr. Davis believes recent research on the
health effects of PFCs will help make both of the upcoming cases.
In 2012, the C8 Science Panel linked PFOA with six diseases.  And
in 2014, the EPA summarized evidence of multiple health effects of
PFOS, including reproductive and liver effects, and noted that the
chemical is officially considered "suggestive of carcinogenicity."
Other recent studies have pointed to the fact that very low levels
of PFCs -- much lower than the drinking water levels set by the
state of Minnesota and, provisionally, by the EPA -- can impact
children's health.

Mr. Brewer dismissed all this research, saying, "There is no
scientific evidence that there's any connection between
environmental exposure to PFOS or PFOA and negative health
effects."  As for the C8 Science Panel, whose three members are
all epidemiologists with PhDs, Mr. Brewer said, "That's not
populated by medical researchers or scientists.  They're
statisticians."

Mr. Brewer said he's confident 3M will prevail in the upcoming
cases, pointing to a recent lawsuit in the States of Guernsey over
PFC contamination from firefighting foam, in which 3M argued its
PFCs posed no harm.  The plaintiffs dropped the charges after the
trial began.  But not everyone is quite so optimistic.  The
financial website The Motley Fool recently warned investors that
damages from the upcoming PFC litigation against the publicly held
company "could easily run into the tens of billions of dollars, or
more."


ALL MARKET: Faces "Wasser" Fraud Class Suit in Florida
------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Wasser, Ila Gold and Alyssa Rechtman, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. All Market, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-21238-JLK (S.D. Fla., April 8, 2016),
sues over fraud.

All Market, Inc. provides coconut water products and is based in
New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Philippe E. Lieberman, Esq.
      Steve I. Silverman, Esq.
      KLUGER KAPLAN
      Miami Center
      201 S Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1700
      Miami, FL 33131-8424
      Tel: (305) 379-9000
      Fax: (305) 379-3428
      Email: plieberman@klugerkaplan.com



ALLSTATE: Must Face Robocall Class Action, Appeals Court Rules
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Egelko, writing for SFGate, reports that ruling in a Bay Area
robocall case, a federal appeals court said on April 12 that a
company can't scuttle a proposed class-action suit it is facing by
trying to buy off the lead plaintiff.

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco addressed
an issue that the U.S. Supreme Court left unresolved in a ruling
in January: whether a company or person accused of violating the
rights of large numbers of people can avoid large-scale liability
by setting aside enough money to meet the demands of the
plaintiff, or plaintiffs, who seek to represent the entire group.

No, the appeals court said, because defendants facing class-wide
lawsuits can't elude them by "picking off lead plaintiffs."
Instead, the court said, a plaintiff is entitled to reject the
offer and ask the trial judge to approve the suit as a class
action.

The suit accuses Allstate Insurance Co. of violating a federal law
that prohibits unsolicited, automated nonemergency calls to
someone's cell phone.  The 1991 law provides for damages of $500
per violation, or $1,500 for "willful" violations.

The suit was filed by Richard Chen of San Mateo County and joined
later by Florencio Pacleb of Los Angeles County.  Both said they
were not Allstate customers but received a series of unsolicited
calls from the insurer on their cell phones in early 2013 and
heard only automated voices when they picked up the receiver. They
sought to represent all recipients of unwanted cell phone calls
nationwide and estimated their number in the tens of thousands.

Allstate immediately proposed to settle their cases by offering
$15,000 to Chen and $10,000 to Pacleb, along with their legal
costs and a promise not to call them in the future.  The company
then asked a federal judge to dismiss the case, saying the dispute
had been resolved. Chen accepted the offer, but Pacleb declined
it, arguing through his lawyers that he wanted to pursue the class
action.

In a separate case in January, the Supreme Court ruled that a
plaintiff with an ongoing claim was entitled to a "fair
opportunity" to seek class-action status, but stopped short of
saying what would happen if the company that was being sued put
the money the plaintiff was seeking into an escrow account.

Allstate promptly placed $20,000 in an escrow account payable to
Pacleb -- doubling its previous offer -- and argued again that the
case was over, since it had relinquished control of the funds and
agreed to all of the plaintiff's demands. Business groups,
including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, filed supporting
arguments.

But the appeals court said Pacleb hadn't settled his case and is
entitled to an opportunity to expand it into a class action.  That
will be up to Chief U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton of
Oakland, who had denied Allstate's previous attempt to dismiss the
suit.

"As the Supreme Court has recognized, the class action device is
often the only effective means of pursuing relief on behalf of
injured persons," Judge Raymond Fisher said in the 3-0 ruling.
Attorney F. Paul Bland of the nonprofit group Public Justice,
which represents Pacleb, said the court rejected "this idea that
you can pick off a couple of people and keep the money from
everyone else you cheated."

Allstate's lawyer could not be immediately reached for comment.


ALTAIR NANOTECHNOLOGIES: May 25 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on April 12 disclosed that the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York has approved
the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement
that would benefit purchasers of common stock of Altair
Nanotechnologies, Inc.:

NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

TO: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
the common stock of Altair Nanotechnologies Inc. between May 15,
2013 and September 25, 2014.

A hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") shall be held before the
Honorable Analisa Torres of the Southern District of New York in
the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, Courtroom
15D, 500 Pearl St., New York, NY 10007-1312, on May 25, 2016 at
4:00 p.m.  At the Settlement Hearing, the Court will consider
whether (1) to permanently certify a class (the "Class"), for
settlement purposes only, of all persons or entities who purchased
or otherwise acquired the common stock of Altair Nanotechnologies
Inc. ("Altair") between May 15, 2013 and September 25, 2014 (the
"Class Period"); (2) to approve as fair, reasonable, and adequate
the proposed settlement of this action (the "Action") in exchange
for $1.5 million; (3) to dismiss with prejudice the Action and to
enter judgment releasing the Settled Claims against the Defendants
and Released Parties; and (4) to approve Lead Counsel's
application for payment of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
costs and expenses.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Altair common stock during
the Class Period, you will be bound by the Settlement unless you
send a letter stating that you "request exclusion from the Class
in the Altair Nanotechnologies Securities Litigation" to be
received by May 11, 2016 to: Altair Nanotechnologies Securities
Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, Claims Administrator,
P.O. Box 230, 600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 3, Media, PA 19063.  If
you are a member of the Class, in order to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof
of Claim and Release postmarked no later than May 30, 2016 to the
Claims Administrator, establishing that you are entitled to
recovery.

If you are a Class Member and do not exclude yourself, you can
object to the Settlement by filing a signed letter with the Court
saying that you object to the proposed Settlement in the Altair
Nanotechnologies Securities Litigation.  Your objection must be
filed with the Court and mailed or delivered to each of the
following addresses and received no later than May 11, 2016:

COURT

Clerk of the Court
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse
500 Pearl St.
New York, NY 10007-1312

LEAD COUNSEL

Jeremy A. Lieberman
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue
20th Floor
New York, NY 10016

SETTLING DEFENDANTS'
COUNSEL

William M. Regan
KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP
575 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10022

Any objection must include: (1) a written notice of an intention
to appear (if you intend to appear); (2) proof of ownership of
Altair common stock and membership in the Class; (3) a detailed
statement of your objections to any matters before the Court; and
(4) the grounds therefor or the reasons that wish to appear and be
heard, as well as all documents or writings you wish the Court to
consider.

For copies of the complete settlement documents, please visit the
Claims Administrator's website at
https://www.strategicclaims.net/altair or contact the Claims
Administrator toll-free at (866) 274-4004.

Any questions regarding the Settlement should be directed to Lead
Counsel. Please do not contact the Court or the Clerk's Office or
Defendants' Counsel regarding this Notice.


Dated: February 19, 2016

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


ANTONELLI COLLEGE: Faces Class Actions Over Revoked Accreditation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Brownfield, writing for Cincinnati Business Courier, reports
that an embattled nursing program at a Cincinnati college is
getting a reprieve after it was hit with two class action lawsuits
over revoked accreditation.

Franklin County Magistrate Ed Skeens issued a stay in the Ohio
Board of Nursing's revocation of Antonelli College's practical
nursing program's accreditation after two class action lawsuits
were filed against the school.  Antonelli College announced the
stay on April 12, hours after media reports about one of the
lawsuits.  Antonelli had filed an appeal in Franklin County Common
Pleas Court in response to the revocation.  The stay means
Antonelli can resume classes in the nursing program.

Nursing student Annie Borden filed the class action suit against
for-profit Antonelli in the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas
on April 5.  In her suit she claims that she and other nursing
students -- a number her attorney estimates to be between 40 and
50 -- were misled about the status of the school's practical
nursing program's accreditation with the state of Ohio and
continued to be charged tuition up through the program's ultimate
suspension on March 30.

"From the moment we learned of the Board's decision (to revoke the
nursing program's approval) our first focus has been to find a
solution for the students," Antonelli President Mary Ann Davis
said in a news release.  "This decision will impact so many of our
students by allowing them to continue in their pursuit to become
nurses."

Borden's attorney, Phyllis Brown, told me the stay doesn't change
anything for the lawsuit.

"They (Antonelli) have to line up the classes, get the clinical
sites, get the instructors -- because they got rid of them all --
so this is not going to happen quickly," she said.  "They still
have the same problem. Students have been out of school that they
paid tuition for, and my hunch is they'll be out of school for a
month. So they still have damages out of this."

A second class action suit against the school and its nursing
program was filed on April 12 on behalf of student Tenesha Adams
and other Antonelli nursing students.


APEX 1: B.C. Man Faces Fraud Case Over Pay Day Loan Business
------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Proctor, writing for CBC News, reports that a B.C. man has
been charged with fraud and international money laundering as part
of a U.S. indictment involving a multi-million dollar payday loan
business.

American prosecutors allege that Randall Ginger claimed he was
hereditary chief of a Vancouver Island First Nation to help the
masterminds behind a massive payday loan company hide their
activities from authorities.

'Rent-a-tribe'

According to an indictment filed in federal court in Philadelphia,
the 66-year-old was paid thousands of dollars a month from 2009 to
2013 "to pretend that his Canada-based tribe issued payday loans".

"This model was widely characterized throughout the payday lending
industry as 'rent-a-tribe,'" the indictment reads.

Mr. Ginger is charged along with Charles M. Hallinan, a
Pennsylvanian who allegedly owned, operated, controlled and
financed numerous payday loan businesses.

A Delaware attorney, Wheeler K. Neff, is also charged.

All three face a count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud, wire
fraud and money laundering, as well as two counts of mail fraud
and three counts of wire fraud.

The conspiracy allegedly generated revenues of $688 million from
hundreds of thousands of customers.

Messrs. Ginger, Hallinan and Neff are also accused of conspiring
to convince people who sued one of the payday loan companies to
abandon a class action lawsuit that could have netted as much as
$10 million.

Payday loan companies offer short-term credit to lenders at
inflated rates.

According to the indictment, Mr. Hallinan's companies allegedly
charged customers $30 for every $100 they borrowed, which meant
the annual interest rates on the loans often exceeded 700 per
cent.

'Tribal sovereign immunity'

Pennsylvania and more than a dozen U.S. states have outlawed loans
at those kinds of rates.  But prosecutors claim Mr. Hallinan moved
his business to the internet, hiding his activities through sham
business arrangements.

Mr. Ginger allegedly claimed to be hereditary chief of the
Mowachaht/Muchalaht First Nation.

According to the indictment, Mr. Hallinan pretended to sell one of
his companies to Mr. Ginger, who was then paid as much as $10,000
a month to claim he had "tribal sovereign immunity" if law
enforcement tried to shut down the operation.

In 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed in Indiana state court
against Apex 1 Processing, the company Mr. Ginger allegedly was
pretending to run.  Nearly 1,400 people had joined the class by
2013.

The indictment claims that in 2013, Mr. Ginger's lawyer told the
plaintiffs the company was no longer in operation and had no
assets.

In fact, prosecutors claim the payday loan companies were footing
Mr. Ginger's legal bills and Mr. Hallinan was transferring $15,000
a month to a bank account controlled by Mr. Ginger and his wife.

The class action plaintiffs settled for $260,000 instead of the
$10 million their lawyers estimated the damage was worth.

Mr. Ginger could not be reached.  Prosecutors say he could face up
to eight years in prison.

A spokeswoman for the Mowachaht/Muchalaht First Nation said Ginger
is not a hereditary chief.

None of the charges have been proven in court.


APIGEE CORP: Faces Securities Class Action in Calif. Over IPO
-------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Apigee Corporation ("Apigee" or the "Company")
pursuant or traceable to the Company's April 24, 2015 initial
public offering.

You are hereby notified that a securities action has been
commenced in the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of San Mateo.  If you purchased or otherwise acquired Apigee
securities pursuant to the initial public offering, your rights
may be affected by this action. To get more information go to:
http://zlk.9nl.com/apigee

The complaint alleges that documents filed in connection with the
IPO contained materially false and misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose material information, including that, among
other allegations: (a) increases in revenue in the fourth quarter
of 2014 and second quarter of 2015 had been inflated due to non-
recurring one-time deals recognized in those quarters; (b) Apigee
touted the "increasing predictability" of its revenue growth
despite direct competition from Amazon; and (c) lowered demand for
Apigee's product offerings was requiring the Company to scale back
on its direct sales efforts and to focus on selling through
channel partners.

If you suffered a loss in Apigee and would like additional
information, contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@zlk.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877)
363-5972, or visit http://zlk.9nl.com/apigee

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York,
New Jersey, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The
firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience
representing investors in securities litigation involving
financial fraud, and have recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for aggrieved shareholders.


APOLLO GLOBAL: Bid to Dismiss CEC Shareholder Litig. Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a motion to
dismiss the consolidated class action complaint in the case, In re
CEC Entertainment, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Case No. 14C57,
remains pending.

Following the January 16, 2014 announcement that CEC
Entertainment, Inc. ("CEC") had entered into a merger agreement
with certain entities affiliated with Apollo (the "Merger
Agreement"), four putative shareholder class actions were filed in
the District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas on behalf of
purported stockholders of CEC against, among others, CEC, its
directors and Apollo and certain of its affiliates, which include
Queso Holdings Inc., Q Merger Sub Inc., Apollo Management VIII,
L.P., and AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P.

The first purported class action, which is captioned Hilary Coyne
v. Richard M. Frank et al., Case No. 14C57, was filed on January
21, 2014 (the "Coyne Action"). The second purported class action,
which was captioned John Solak v. CEC Entertainment, Inc. et al.,
Civil Action No. 14C55, was filed on January 22, 2014 (the "Solak
Action"). The Solak Action was dismissed for lack of prosecution
on October 14, 2014.

The third purported class action, which is captioned Irene Dixon
v. CEC Entertainment, Inc. et al., Case No. 14C81, was filed on
January 24, 2014 and additionally names as defendants Apollo
Management VIII, L.P. and AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P. (the "Dixon
Action"). The fourth purported class action, which is captioned
Louisiana Municipal Public Employees' Retirement System v. Frank,
et al., Case No. 14C97, was filed on January 31, 2014 (the "LMPERS
Action") (together with the Coyne and Dixon Actions, the
"Shareholder Actions").

A fifth purported class action, which was captioned McCullough v.
Frank, et al., Case No. CC-14-00622-B, was filed in the County
Court of Dallas County, Texas on February 7, 2014. This action was
dismissed for want of prosecution on May 21, 2014.

Each of the Shareholder Actions alleges, among other things, that
CEC's directors breached their fiduciary duties to CEC's
stockholders in connection with their consideration and approval
of the Merger Agreement, including by agreeing to an inadequate
price, agreeing to impermissible deal protection devices, and
filing materially deficient disclosures regarding the transaction.
Each of the Shareholder Actions further alleges that Apollo and
certain of its affiliates aided and abetted those alleged
breaches. As filed, the Shareholder Actions seek, among other
things, rescission of the various transactions associated with the
merger, damages and attorneys' and experts' fees and costs.

On February 7, 2014 and February 11, 2014, the plaintiffs in the
Shareholder Actions pursued a consolidated action for damages
after the transaction closed. Thereafter, the Shareholder Actions
were consolidated under the caption In re CEC Entertainment, Inc.
Stockholder Litigation, Case No. 14C57, and the parties engaged in
limited discovery.

On July 21, 2015, a consolidated class action complaint was
brought by Twin City Pipe Trades Pension Trust in the Shareholder
Actions that did not name as defendants Apollo, Queso Holdings
Inc., Q Merger Sub Inc., Apollo Management VIII, L.P., or AP VIII
Queso Holdings, L.P., continued to assert claims against CEC and
its former directors, and added The Goldman Sachs Group Inc.
("Goldman Sachs") as a defendant.

The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that CEC's
former directors breached their fiduciary duties to CEC's
stockholders by conducting a deficient sales process, agreeing to
impermissible deal protection devices, and filing materially
deficient disclosures regarding the transaction. It further
alleges that two members of the board who also served as the
senior managers of the company had material conflicts of interest
and that Goldman Sachs aided and abetted the board's breaches as a
result of various conflicts of interest facing the bank. The
consolidated complaint seeks, among other things, to recover
damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

On October 22, 2015, the parties to the consolidated action moved
to dismiss the complaint. Although Apollo cannot predict the
ultimate outcome of the consolidated action, and therefore no
reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at this
time, Apollo believes that such action is without merit.

Founded in 1990, Apollo is a leading global alternative investment
manager.


APOLLO GLOBAL: Bids to Transfer, Dismiss "Silva" Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that motions to
transfer the lawsuit filed by Rachel Silva and Don Hudson to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, or
to dismiss the case remain pending.

On June 12, 2015, a putative class action was commenced in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California by Rachel Silva and Don Hudson, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, against Aviva plc; Athene
Annuity and Life Company f/k/a Aviva Life and Annuity Company
("Aviva"); Athene USA Corporation f/k/a Aviva USA Corporation;
Athene Holding; Athene Life Re Ltd.; Athene Asset Management; and
AGM. The complaint in this action alleges violations of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C.
Sections 1962(c) and (d). The plaintiffs allege that commencing in
2007 and continuing thereafter, Aviva and its then management
engaged in a scheme to, among other things, falsely represent the
financial strength of and hide the true financial condition of
Aviva by, among other things, allegedly ceding risky liabilities
to Aviva's undercapitalized subsidiaries and affiliates,
misvaluing assets, and failing to make required disclosures to
purchasers of policies, and that after Athene Holding purchased
all of the outstanding stock of Aviva's parent effective October
2, 2013 the scheme was unwound and rewound so as to continue, and
that as a result thereof some of the purchasers of annuity
products issued by Aviva were charged an excessive price and were
damaged as a result thereof.

All defendants (except Aviva plc) have (a) moved to transfer this
action to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Iowa and (b) moved to dismiss this action. Aviva plc
separately moved to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction
over it.

All of these motions were heard by the Court on December 15, 2015,
and the Court reserved decisions.

In connection with these motions, the plaintiffs served discovery
requests limited to the motion to transfer and Aviva plc's motion
to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. If the action is not
dismissed, Athene Asset Management and AGM (and the other
defendants) will deny the material allegations of the complaint
and will vigorously defend themselves against these claims.

Although neither Athene Asset Management nor AGM can predict the
ultimate outcome of this action, each believes that it is without
merit, and because this action is in its early stages, no
reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at this
time.

Founded in 1990, Apollo is a leading global alternative investment
manager.


APOLLO GLOBAL: Continues to Defend OM Group Stockholders Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a district court
has not yet set a schedule for resolving the case, In re OM Group
Inc. Stockholders Litigation, Consol. Case No. 11216-VCN, on the
merits.

Following the June 1, 2015 announcement that OM Group, Inc. ("OM
Group") had entered into a merger agreement (the "OM Group Merger
Agreement") with certain entities affiliated with AGM and an
entity affiliated with Platform Specialty Products Corporation
("PSP"), six putative class actions were filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware on behalf of purported OM Group
stockholders against certain current and former OM Group
directors, the merger entities affiliated with AGM, which include
Duke Acquisition Holdings, LLC and Duke Acquisition, Inc.
(together with AGM, the "Apollo Parties"), and, except in one
action, the merger entity affiliated with PSP, MacDermid Americas
Acquisitions Inc. (together with PSP, the "PSP Parties"). AGM,
PSP, and OM Group were also named as defendants in some of these
putative class actions.

On July 16, 2015, these six actions were consolidated into a
putative class action captioned In re OM Group Inc. Stockholders
Litigation, Consol. Case No. 11216-VCN (the "Consolidated
Action"). The plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action subsequently
designated the complaint previously filed in the action captioned
City of Sarasota Firefighters' Pension Fund v. Apollo Global
Management, LLC, Case No. 11249-VCN as the Consolidated Action's
operative complaint. That complaint challenges, among other
things, the OM Group Merger Agreement and the transactions
contemplated thereby, alleging, among other things, that OM
Group's directors breached their fiduciary duties to OM Group
stockholders by engaging in a flawed sales process, agreeing to a
price that does not adequately compensate OM Group stockholders,
agreeing to certain unfair deal protection terms in the OM Group
Merger Agreement and by failing to disclose material information
to OM Group stockholders. The complaint also alleges that the
Apollo Parties and the PSP Parties aided and abetted these alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint seeks various remedies,
including declaratory relief and preliminary and permanent
injunctive relief.

While plaintiffs had declared their intent to pursue preliminary
injunctive relief, and a hearing had been scheduled for August 6,
plaintiffs dropped that request on August 2, 2015. The court has
not yet set a schedule for resolving the case on the merits.

Because this action is in its early stages, no reasonable estimate
of possible loss, if any, can be made. Apollo believes that the
allegations in the complaint are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend the Consolidated Action.

Founded in 1990, Apollo is a leading global alternative investment
manager.


ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW ORLEANS: Faces "Yi" Suit in D. Md., Greenbelt
----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Archdiocese of New Orleans. The
case is captioned Chong Su Yi, and people similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Archdiocese of New Orleans, the Defendant, Case No.
8:16-cv-01073-TDC (D. Md., Greenbelt, April 11, 2016). The
assigned Judge is Hon. Theodore D. Chuang.

The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New Orleans, officially in Latin
Archidioecesis Novae Aureliae, is an ecclesiastical division of
the Roman Catholic Church administered from New Orleans,
Louisiana. It is the second-oldest diocese in the present-day
United States, having been elevated to the rank of diocese on
April 25, 1793, by Pope Pius VI during Spanish colonial rule. Our
Lady of Prompt Succor and St. Louis, King of France are the patron
saints of the Archdiocese and Cathedral Basilica of Saint Louis is
its mother church as St. Patrick's Church serves as the Pro-
Cathedral of the Archdiocese.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


AUSNET: Maurice Blackburn Urged to Make Settlement Payments
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Australian reports that law firm Maurice Blackburn has been
flayed by both sides of politics over delays in the distribution
of class action proceeds to Black Saturday survivors, with a
Victorian government MP calling on Premier Daniel Andrews to force
the company to make immediate payments.

It comes as state opposition justice spokesman John Pesutto said
it was "appalling" that survivors had not received their share of
the $1 billion in proceeds from the two major class actions over
the 2009 fires.

Controversy has erupted over revelations that while nothing has
been paid to the survivors, Maurice Blackburn equity partners have
received $16 million in dividends.

Mr. Pesutto joined ALP backbencher Adem Somyurek in calling for Mr
Andrews to intervene in the standoff between the plaintiff law
firm and its wealthy partners and the bushfire survivors that make
up the plaintiff group.

"After nearly $1bn was spent settling the two significant class
actions in 2014 and 2015, it is appalling that survivors have not
received their compensation and may have to wait another year,"
Mr. Pesutto said.

"If Maurice Blackburn are really serious about social justice,
they will make sure survivors urgently get their compensation.

"If they can't guarantee immediate payment, then given a
substantial amount of compensation came from taxpayers, Daniel
Andrews must intervene to make sure compensation is quickly
distributed."

The government refused to buy into the controversy surrounding the
Labor aligned law firm on April 11, with a government spokeswoman
saying only "our thoughts are with people and communities affected
by the Black Saturday bushfires".

Mr. Somyurek described the firm's partners as "multi-millionaire
professional parasites on misery" in an attack in parliament
recently.

Mr. Somyurek, who has been critical of the firm over its role in
representing a factional opponent of his who made disputed
bullying claims against him, said he was shocked to learn of the
delay in payment to survivors and it should outrage the public.

"The payments of $500 million have been sitting in the Maurice
Blackburn trust account since late last year, yet Maurice
Blackburn has distressed the poor, unfortunate victims all over
again by telling them not to expect their money until next year,"
he told the Victorian parliament.

"Maurice Blackburn cannot sit on this pile of money, which is
accruing interest every day, enabling it to bill ever-increasing
amounts against the case, without incurring the justified anger of
all Victorians.

"I hereby call on the Premier to remind Maurice Blackburn of its
ethical and moral responsibility to make immediate payments to the
bushfire victims it claimed to represent and investigate any
sanction that can be applied to this greedy and parasitic law firm
should it fail to pay up."

Maurice Blackburn spokesman Cameron Scott said the judge who
presided over the Kilmore East-Kilmore class action, Jack Forrest,
had endorsed the firm's work and progress in the settlement.  "In
an environment where no one else was willing to step into the
breach and take the huge risks required to stand up for bushfire
survivors and represent their interests, Maurice Blackburn did.
We remain committed to helping them by getting the distribution
done correctly, in as quick a time as possible."


BANK OF AMERICA: "Paneque" Sues Over Illegal Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ignacio Paneque, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Bank of America, N.A. and Frenkel Lambert
Weiss Weisman & Gordon LLP, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-21212-DPG
(S.D. Fla., April 6, 2016), sues over illegal collection practices
under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Bank of America, N.A. through Frenkel Lambert Weiss Weisman and
Gordon LLP, allegedly employed illegal collection means to collect
a debt from the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher W. Legg, Esq.
      CHRISTOPHER LEGG, P.A.
      3837 Hollywood Blvd., Ste. B
      Hollywood, FL 33021
      Tel: (954) 962-2333
      Fax: (954) 927-2451
      Email: ChrisLeggLaw@gmail.com

           - and -

      Darren R. Newhart, Esq.
      HICKS, MOTTO, EHRLICH, P.A.
      3399 PGA Blvd., Suite 300
      Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
      Tel: (561) 683-2300

           - and -

      Jack Dennis Card, Jr., Esq.
      HICKS, MOTTO & EHRLICH, P.A.
      3399 PGA Blvd., Suite 300
      Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
      Tel: (561) 683-2300
      Fax: (561) 697-3852
      Email: Dcard@Consumerlaworg.com

           - and -

      James Lawrence Kauffman, Esq.
      BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
      1054 31st Street, NW, Suite 230
      Washington, DC 20007
      Tel: (202) 463-2101
      Fax: (202) 463-2103
      Email: jkauffman@baileyglasser.com


BED BATH & BEYOND: "Sweeney" Sues over Breach of Contract
---------------------------------------------------------
Edward Sweeney, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bed Bath & Beyond Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01927-KSH-CLW (D.N.J., April 7, 2016),
sues over breach of contract.

Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. is a chain of domestic merchandise retail
stores in the United States, Puerto Rico, Canada and Mexico
selling bedroom and bathroom, as well as kitchen and dining room
items.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Avi Aaron Naveh, Esq.
      32-02 Norwood Drive
      Fair Lawn, NJ 07410
      Tel: (646) 881-4471
      Fax: (661) 430-4471
      Email: avi@navehlaw.com


BLOUNT INT'L: June 10 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who held shares of Blount
International, Inc. ("Blount International") at the close of
business on March 4, 2016. You are hereby notified that a
securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the USDC for
the District of Oregon, Portland Division.  To get more
information go to:

     http://www.zlk.com/pslra/blount-international-inc

or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com
or by telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972.
There is no cost or obligation to you.

The complaint alleges that Blount International violated
securities laws by issuing materials in connection with the sale
of the Company to P2 Capital Partners LLC and American Securities
LLC which contained material misrepresentations and omitted
material information.  In particular, the complaint alleges that
the Proxy Statement filed in relation to the merger fails to
disclose information about the Company's financial projections as
they existed earlier in the process leading up to the Buyout, thus
misrepresenting and omitting information which Blount shareholders
are legally entitled to in order to make a sufficiently informed
vote regarding the proposed merger.

If you suffered a loss in Blount International you have until June
10, 2016 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.
Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York,
New Jersey, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C.  The
firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience
representing investors in securities litigation, and have
recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved
shareholders.


BLUE CROSS: Faces "Aschenbrenner" Anti-trust Action in Kansas
-------------------------------------------------------------
Juanita and Tom Aschenbrenner, Plaintiffs, v. Blue Cross Blue
Shield Group and Affiliates, Defendants, Case No. 6:16-cv-01089,
D. Kan., April 6, 2016), seeks treble damages, relief and
attorneys' fees and costs for unjust enrichment, and for anti-
trust violations of the Sherman Act, Section 1 and 2 and Kan.
Stat. Ann. Sec. 50-101 et seq.

Plaintiffs accuse the Defendants of allocating markets among
themselves, thereby controlling the prices of premium for their
Blue Plans.

The Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, based in Chicago,
Illinois, is composed of 36 health insurance plans that operate
under the Blue Cross and Blue Shield trademarks and trade names.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael J. Fleming, Esq.
      Quentin M. Templeton, Esq.
      FORBES LAW GROUP
      6900 College Boulevard, Ste. 840
      Overland Park, KS 66211
      Tel: (913) 341-8600
      Fax: (913) 341-8606
      Email: mfleming@forbeslawgroup.com
             fforbes@forbeslawgroup.com
             qtempleton@forbeslawgroup.com

           - and -

      Patrick W. Pendley, Esq.
      PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFIN
      24110 Eden Street
      Plaquemine, LA 70765
      Tel: (888) 725-2477
      Fax: (225) 687-6398
      Email: pwpendley@pbclawfirm.com

           - and -

      Benjamin L. Barnes, Esq.
      BENJAMIN L. BARNES, ATTORNEY & COUNSELOR AT LAW
      Centennial Plaza
      2575 Kelley Pointe Parkway, Ste. 100
      Edmond, OK 73013
      Tel: (405) 330-9860
      Fax: (405) 231-4701
      Email: bb@bbarneslaw.com


BLUESTEM BRANDS: "Arce" Suit Goes to District of Minnesota
----------------------------------------------------------
SARA ARCE, ANNE BOWERS, and NENA OSORIO on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BLUESTEM BRANDS,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-08068-DSF-GJS (C.D. Cal.,
October 14, 2015), alleges that the retail prices of Fingerhut, a
Bluestem brand, for items are actually hidden finance charges,
even though customers pay exactly the same price for an item
regardless of whether they use cash or credit.  Plaintiffs claim
that Bluestem violated various state lending and deceptive-
practices laws and the federal Truth in Lending Act. Plaintiff
Arce also claims that Bluestem violated California state law
regulating auto-renewal charges with the Safeline(R) Account
Protection Plus Plan.

The Defendant have asked the California court to dismiss the case
and send the dispute to arbitration because all of the plaintiffs'
claims are subject to an arbitration agreement.

On March 10, 2016, C.D. California Judge Dale S. Fischer granted
Defendant's motion to transfer venue to the District of Minnesota.

The Minnesota case is assigned Case No. 0:16-cv-00624-PAM-SER
before Senior Judge Paul A. Magnuson.

Bluestem Brands Inc., is a Delaware Corporation engaged in
consumer retail business.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
      Kristen Llaw Sagafi, Esq.
      TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
      1828 L Street N.W., Suite 1000
      Washington, DC 20036
      T: (202)973-0900
      F: (202)973-0950
      E-mail: jkaliel@tzlegal.com
              ksagafi@tzlegal.com

           - and -

      Clayton D. Halunen, Esq.
      Melissa Wolchansky, Esq.
      Charles D. Moore, Esq.
      HALUNEN LAW
      1650 IDS Center
      80 S 8th Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      T: (612)605-4098
      F: (612)605-4099
      E-mail: Halunen@halunenlaw.com
              Wolchansky@halunen.com
              Moore@halunen.com


BONSOY: Consumers Still Waiting for Compensation Payouts
--------------------------------------------------------
The Australian reports that almost 600 drinkers of contaminated
Bonsoy products are still waiting on payments to compensate them
for serious health problems after class action law firm Maurice
Blackburn settled the case for $25 million in late 2014.

The law firm received $7m last May for its role in running the
case, and it estimated that its ongoing administration of the
unpaid claims would chalk up another $1.6m to $1.8m.

Maurice Blackburn proposed that its lead plaintiff, Erin Downie, a
music teacher who was used in marketing for the class action and
in multiple conferences, would receive $13,470 for her time and
efforts, on top of the confidential sum assessed as her share of
the settlement.

A Supreme Court judge who approved the $25m settlement said "a
combination of legal fees and administration costs will reduce the
pool available to group members to about $16.5m clear" and added
"whether the ongoing administration costs are ultimately justified
is another issue''.

Legal letters provided to The Australian on April 11 highlight
delays in this relatively small matter of 569 claimants, with the
law firm writing to its Bonsoy clients to explain the work was
time-consuming and there were still about 115 clients to be
assessed.

"We continue to apply our best efforts to finalise the assessment
process and distribute funds as soon as practicable, but cannot
give a precise estimate as to when you will receive the
distribution," the firm told its clients in the Bonsoy class
action.

The Bonsoy delays follow Maurice Blackburn telling survivors of
Victoria's devastating Black Saturday bushfires in 2009 that they
would be waiting until next year to be paid for their suffering
despite a record settlement announced in July 2014.  While the
survivors have been put on hold, the firm has received a lump sum
of $80m and its equity-owning senior partners took out a record
windfall of more than $16m in personal dividends in the last
financial year.

Former Victorian government frontbencher Adem Somyurek recently
described the firm's partners as "multi-millionaire professional
parasites on misery" in an extraordinary attack in state
parliament.

In the Bonsoy matter, one of the clients told The Australian she
was struck down with a potentially life threatening thyroid
condition as a result of extreme iodine levels in the Bonsoy
drinks.

Star footballer Will Minson of the AFL Western Bulldogs was among
those severely affected by the drinks.

The client, a former senior police officer, said the firm had
neither met nor interviewed her, and all communication had been by
email or letter.  The latest correspondence advised her she was
likely to get $9000, a sum she could appeal against if she paid
$1000 to the firm.

"I'm gobsmacked at the process because it has taken this long and
I don't know how they come up with the sum of $9000, given that
I've never had a hearing with the firm or been assessed by an
expert or asked to describe the pain and suffering," she said.  "I
do not know if $9000 for me is fair because it is a closed and
secretive process."

The client in the Bonsoy class action said it was relatively small
by comparison with the bushfires class action and nowhere near as
complex, yet it was still taking too long.

In March 2011 the firm wrote to clients in the class action to
advise:  "We will shortly begin assessing individual claims of
group members who are our clients to estimate the range of
compensation each client may become entitled to if the class
action is successful."

The firm wrote again to advise a $25m settlement had been agreed
in November 2014 for "alleged loss and damage suffered as a result
of consuming Bonsoy soy milk" between July 2004 and December 2009.

Costs were reduced significantly because there was no trial.
Maurice Blackburn was tasked with running the "settlement
distribution fund".

After settlement was formally approved last May the firm advised
"we are currently engaged in the process of preparing to assess
the approximately 500 separate claims registered as part of this
class action" and added "only after all claims have been assessed
will we be able to divide the settlement and distribute
compensation".

"The logistics involved in an assessment process are complex and
we ask for your patience and assistance as we attend to the task
with our best endeavors," the firm told its Bonsoy clients.

A Maurice Blackburn spokesman said: "Running, winning and
finalizing Australia's biggest food safety case is something we're
proud of and the administration of that case is on track to be
finalized soon.

"The complexity of class actions demonstrates why only very few
firms are capable of running and winning litigation that often
takes years."


BPH BILLITON: Class Actions Pile Up Over Deadly Samarco Dam Burst
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Dagge, writing for The Daily Telegraph, reports that the
legal toll from the deadly Samarco dam burst continues to mount
for BHP Billiton, which has been hit with a fresh class action in
the US.

The mining titan is also facing at least three other class actions
from aggressive US legal firms claiming investors unfairly lost
out in the disaster which killed at least 17 people in Brazil in
November.

New York law firm Pomerantz lodged a class action against BHP's
chairman Jac Nasser and chief executive Andrew Mackenzie in the US
District Court in Manhattan, US court documents show.

BHP finance director Peter Beaven and his predecessor Graham Kerr,
who now heads spin-off miner South 32, are also named in the
lawsuit.

The complaint alleges BHP made "materially false and misleading
statements and omissions" over its ability to safely manage the
Samarco iron ore operation that it jointly runs with Brazilian
mining major Vale.

Pomerantz specializes in securities and corporate governance
litigation and says it champions "the rights of defrauded
investors and consumers".

Its class action mirrors one lodged in February on behalf of a
group of investors led by US public pension fund the Jackson
County Employees' Retirement System.

Fellow US legal firms Levi & Korsinsky, Vincent Wong Law Office
and Robbins Arroyo are also working to enrol disgruntled US
investors in separate class actions.

These actions are likely to be so-called claims farming, where
legal firms sign up potential victims before selling them to a
firm that prosecutes a single class action.

Law firms in the US have until April 25 to file an application to
be the lead plaintiff of any class action.

BHP told Business Daily it was aware of public statements by a
number of US law firms and intended to vigorously defend the
complaints.

"We dispute the allegations of these complaints and intend to
vigorously defend these matters," the company said in a statement.

A class action by US investors has been lodged against Vale.

At the same time, Brazilian authorities are weighing up whether to
bring criminal charges against a string of Samarco executives.

In March, Samarco agreed to pay up to $3.2 billion in the first
phase of an uncapped 15-year settlement with the Brazilian
government to cover rehabilitation costs.

The deal, which is underwritten by BHP and Vale, can be extended
annually beyond 15 years if restoration work is not completed in
time.

Nearly $5M settlement in class-action suit over Highway 25 bridge
fee dispute

The settlement must now be approved by the Quebec Superior Court.
A hearing will be held May 20.


BROOKFIELD ASSET: George Leon Family Trust Files Suit in Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The George Leon Family Trust and Dr. Robert A. Corwin on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. Andrew Silberfein, Michael Hegarty, Christopher
Haley, David Kruth, Michael Mullen, Brookfield Asset Management
Inc., Brookfield Property Partners L.P., BSREP II Retail Pooling
LLC, BSREP Ii Retail Holdings Corp., Brookfield Strategic Real
Estate Partners II-A L.P., Brookfield Strategic Real Estate
Partners II-A (ER) L.P., Brookfield Strategic Real Estate Partners
II-B L.P., Brookfield Strategic Real Estate Partners II-C L.P.,
Brookfield Strategic Real Estate Partners II-C (ER) L.P., and
Brookfield Strategic Real Estate Partners II BPY Borrower L.P.,
the Defendants, Case No. 12194 (Del. Ct of Chancery, April 11,
2016), enjoins Defendants and their agents, counsel, employees,
and all persons acting in concert with them from consummating a
proposed transaction, and awarding rescissionary damages in the
event the Proposed Transaction is consummated, including pre- and
post-judgment interest, attorneys' and experts' fees, under.

Plaintiffs allege breaches of fiduciary duties and aiding and
abetting in connection with the Brookfield Parties' attempt to
acquire Rouse Properties Inc. in a transaction announced February
25, 2016 (Proposed Transaction) at an unfair price and to the
detriment of the Company's public stockholders.

Brookfield Asset Management LLC operates as a subsidiary of
Brookfield Asset Management Inc. The Company is based in Houston,
Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Lebovitch, Esq.
          Jeroen van Kwawegen, Esq.
          John Vielandi, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ
          BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 554 1400
          Facsimile: (212) 554 1444

               - and -

          Jason M. Leviton, Esq.
          Joel A. Fleming, Esq.
          Bradley Vettraino, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          155 Federal Street, Suite 400
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 398 5600
          Facsimile: (617) 507 6020

               - and -

          Cynthia A. Calder, Esq.
          Stuart M. Grant (#2526)
          Cynthia A. Calder (#2978)
          Michael T. Manuel (#6055)
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          123 Justison Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 622 7000
          Facsimile: (302) 622 7100


CAL-TEX COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Pay OT, "Carter" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marcus Carter, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. Cal-Tex Communications, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-00697-D
(N.D. Tex., March 11, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Cal-Tex Communications, Inc., is a Texas-based communications
company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

       J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
       Jay Forester, Esq.
       LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P.
       1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
       Dallas, TX 75202
       Tel: (214)749-1400
       Fax: (214)749-1010
       Website: www.overtimelayer.com


CANADA: Court Orders Crawford to Repay $874,000 in Legal Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fraser, writing for Edmonton Journal, reports that a B.C.
judge has ordered an Ontario company to repay the federal
government more than $800,000 in unnecessary and unreasonable
legal fees and costs.

The fees were billed in connection with an investigation into a
law firm's participation in a settlement agreement to compensate
Indian residential school survivors.

The company, Crawford Class Action Service, was appointed by the
courts to monitor the class action settlement approved by nine
superior courts across Canada.  Crawford ended up investigating
the conduct of a law firm that represented more than 1,400
claimants.

Following a two-year investigation, Crawford argued the conduct of
the law firm, Bronstein and Company of Vancouver, fell below the
standard expected of legal professionals, and recommended it be
barred from further legal work on the case.

B.C. Supreme Court Justice Brenda Brown, appointed as an
administrative judge to help oversee the settlement agreement,
found Bronstein had met the minimum legal standard and declined to
bar it from further work.

But in a ruling released in October last year, she ordered
Bronstein to reimburse the government in the amount of $1.25
million in what she deemed to be reasonable costs associated with
the investigation.

The judge also found that in the course of the investigation,
Crawford, a company that assists in the administration of class
action settlements, had charged the Canadian government
unreasonable and unnecessary amounts.  In a ruling released on
April 11, she ordered Crawford to repay a total of $874,700.

That figure included $180,000 in "internal" costs charged by
Crawford, with the judge being concerned that the monitor had
spent a disproportionate amount of time on activities that
appeared to be redundant and duplicative.

The remaining $694,000 had been charged by Crawford's "external"
legal counsel.  Those fees were charged by McMillan LLP, a
national law firm with offices in Vancouver that worked with
Crawford on the investigation.

In the October ruling, the judge focused on the legal fees charged
by Howard Drabinsky, a senior legal counsel for McMillan in
Ontario.

McMillan had charged a total of $1.77 million in connection with
the Bronstein matter.  In comparison, Bronstein retained Fasken
Martineau DuMoulin, another national law firm, for $764,000.

The difference of more than $1 million in legal fees was
"notable," and the source of the difference was Mr. Drabinsky,
said the judge.

The judge noted in the October ruling that Mr. Drabinsky charged
between $775 and $835 an hour, billing more than 1,500 hours for a
total of $1,244,000.

Mr. Drabinsky, a commercial solicitor, was not a litigator and did
not have a speaking role in any of the court appearances, the
October ruling said.  Nor did Mr. Drabinsky, from the court's
understanding, draft any court documents, conduct the examination
of Bronstein or assist in obtaining evidence for the hearings.

But despite this, Mr. Drabinsky attended the examination,
interlocutory applications and substantive hearings, the judge
noted, adding: "It is not clear to this court why these
appearances would have been reasonably necessary."

Crawford claimed Mr. Drabinsky was uniquely qualified and that
there were no B.C. lawyers with his experience as a class action
settlement administration lawyer, but the judge said that was not
a skill set necessary in the Bronstein investigation.

"It was an investigation of a lawyer's practice.  Nothing in
Mr. Drabinsky's background suggests he had the necessary
investigative experience to be of assistance in this regard."

Mr. Drabinsky brought some skills to bear on the Bronstein matter,
but given that his hourly rate was $200 an hour more than that of
other counsel, his role should have been strictly limited, said
Brown.

The judge added that she couldn't fault Crawford for its handling
of the investigation and found the investigation was worthwhile
and benefited Bronstein's clients and the public.


CANADA: Court Upholds Reformulated G20 Class Actions v. TPS
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Henderson, Esq. -- nicole.henderson@blakes.com -- and Jeff
Hernaez, Esq. -- jeffrey.hernaez@blakes.com -- of Blake Cassels &
Graydon LLP, in an article for Lexology, report that on April 6,
2016, the Ontario Court of Appeal (OCA) released its decision in
Good v. Toronto (Police Services Board) (Good).  In upholding the
certification of two class actions against the Toronto Police
Service (TPS), the OCA has again permitted a class action
plaintiff to substantially reformulate her case on appeal from an
unsuccessful certification motion, with little countervailing
consequence in terms of costs.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

These class proceedings arise out of police conduct during the G20
summit held in Toronto in 2010.  In the course of responding to
protests and demonstrations surrounding the summit, police
detained groups of people inside police cordons ("kettling") in
various locations around Toronto.  Many other individuals were
held in a makeshift detention centre.  Approximately 1,000 people
were reportedly arrested or detained during the summit, most of
who were reportedly released without charge.

At certification, the plaintiff's claim named the Attorney General
of Canada, the Ontario Crown, and the Peel Police Services Board
as defendants in addition to TPS.  The plaintiff pleaded multiple
causes of action at common law and under the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms.  She proposed a class proceeding with
numerous subclasses: one for each location where individuals were
"kettled," one for individuals detained or arrested in the
vicinity of the Ontario legislature, a "residual" subclass for
individuals arrested at other locations and later released without
charge, and one for individuals imprisoned at the makeshift
detention centre.

The motions judge dismissed the certification motion, holding
that: only some of the plaintiff's claims disclosed a cause of
action (and then only as against TPS), the proposed subclasses had
no substantial common link, the proposed class definition was
vague and overly broad, the plaintiff's claims did not raise
common issues, and that a class proceeding would not be the
preferable procedure.

The plaintiff significantly reformulated her claim on her appeal
to the Divisional Court.  She narrowed the proposed class,
abandoned her claims against all defendants except TPS, and
dropped a number of the causes of action asserted before the
motion judge.  The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and
certified two class actions with two representative plaintiffs:
one for the five kettling locations and one for the detention
centre. It also awarded the plaintiff her costs of the
certification motion, although in a reduced amount to reflect
TPS's wasted time and expense in responding to aspects of the
plaintiff's claim that were later abandoned.

TPS appealed the Divisional Court's certification decision, and
the plaintiff cross-appealed the costs order.

CERTIFICATION APPEAL

The OCA rejected TPS's argument that the Divisional Court
improperly conducted a de novo (fresh) review of the certification
decision by reversing determinations made by the certification
judge that were not directly related to aspects of the claim that
were reformulated on appeal.  While recognizing that a
certification judge's decision is entitled to substantial
deference, the OCA also held that when a plaintiff narrows its
proposed class proceeding on appeal, the appellate court is
entitled to "some latitude" in reviewing the reformulated claim.

Applying these principles, the OCA held that the Divisional Court
was justified in reversing determinations made by the motion
judge, due to the narrowed scope of the proposed class proceeding.
In doing so, it found that the certification judge had made errors
in principle that had only "become significant" in the context of
the case as reframed on appeal.  On the remaining issues on TPS's
appeal, the OCA agreed with the Divisional Court that the
plaintiff's reformulated claims met all of the criteria for
certification of a class proceeding.

COSTS APPEAL

At the Divisional Court, TPS unsuccessfully argued that the
plaintiff should be denied costs despite its success in having the
action certified.  The Divisional Court awarded costs to the
plaintiff, but in a much lower quantum than requested, "to reflect
the time that was spent on the unsuccessful aspects of the claim
as originally advanced." The plaintiff had sought nearly C$750,000
in costs of the certification motion; the Divisional Court awarded
her approximately C$125,000 for the original certification motion
(and C$55,000 for the appeal to the Divisional Court).

On appeal, the OCA agreed that some reduction in the costs awarded
to the plaintiff was appropriate to address the significant
evolution of the claim from the original certification motion but
found that the Divisional Court had erred in ordering such a deep
discount.  Among other things, the OCA found that the Divisional
Court had given insufficient consideration to the public interest
and access to justice concerns, and expressed concerns that the
Divisional Court's costs award could have a chilling effect on
class proceedings brought in the public interest.

While recognizing that the plaintiff's claim was much different
than it had been before the motions judge, the OCA was also of the
view that the plaintiff's "central claims" against TPS remained
intact throughout the appeal process.  In the result, the OCA
varied the costs award and awarded the plaintiff C$315,000 in
costs for the certification motion (more than double the
Divisional Court's award). The plaintiff was also awarded costs of
C$65,000 for her appeal to the OCA.

CONCLUSION

The practice of plaintiffs reformulating their claims on appeal
threatens to undermine the goal of judicial economy, the appeal
court is essentially called upon to perform a fresh review of the
certification criteria rather than apply the more limited
standards of review ordinarily applicable to appeals.  And
unfortunately, as exemplified in Good, costs have generally not
proven an effective tool to compensate the defendants for the
wasted time and expense of responding to the original
certification motion.

Good affirms that there is "some latitude" for a reviewing court
to consider reformulated claims on appeal from an unsuccessful
certification motion.  However, the OCA accepted that there are
limits to an appeal court's consideration of issues not raised
below.  The defendant must be afforded procedural fairness in
responding to a reformulated claim, and a fresh certification
motion may be necessary where the plaintiff's amendments
"significantly change the underpinning of the class action."


CANADIAN PACIFIC: Lac Megantic Victims Contest Settlement Payouts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that about 400 people are contesting
the amount of money they have received from the $460-million Lac-
Megantic settlement fund for victims and creditors of the 2013
rail disaster, the man overseeing the cash distribution said on
April 11.

Andrew Adessky said his firm, Richter, will begin responding to
creditors within the next couple of weeks, adding that some of the
challenges are valid and others are not.

Roughly 10 per cent of the 4,200 people who received cheques were
not satisfied with their portion, said the court-appointed
Mr. Adessky.

Victims have so far received half their expected payment for moral
damages, Mr. Adessky explained, almost three years after a runaway
train carrying crude oil derailed and exploded in
Lac-Megantic, Que., killing 47 people.

The second half will be distributed at a later date, he said.

"We are reviewing the contestations," Mr. Adessky said.  "In some
cases we agree with them, in others we need more information, and
we will also go back to other folks and say we disagree.  People
have the right to appeal our (final) decision."

About 25 companies accused of wrongdoing in the derailment agreed
to pay into a settlement for victims and creditors.  In turn, they
received legal immunity against future claims related to the crash
and explosion.

Of the $460 million in the fund, roughly $50 million was set aside
for moral damages, which include claims related to post-traumatic
stress disorder, bodily injury and inconveniences such as having
to be evacuated from the explosion site.

Another $113 million has already been paid out for wrongful death
claims, with little disagreement from victims.

Roughly $300 million has not yet been distributed and is destined
for economic and insurance claims from people who lost businesses
and jobs and from the federal, provincial and municipal
governments.

Jeff Orenstein, a class action lawyer representing the victims,
said he is still in discussions with Richter regarding the
distribution of money for economic claims.

"We are still working those numbers out," he said.  "We're having
good, positive discussions.''

Canadian Pacific Railway is the only company accused of
responsibility in the derailment that has not paid into the
settlement fund.

It maintains it had nothing to do with the disaster.

Mr. Orenstein has filed a class action lawsuit against CP, on
behalf of victims, and he said the next step is to have a notice
of the suit published in newspapers.

The Quebec government has also filed a suit against CP, claiming
$409 million in damages from the railway company.


CERTEGY CHECK: "Alexander" Suit Moved to M.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Alexander, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. Certegy Check Services, Inc., the Defendant, Case No.
1:15-cv-02108, was transferred from U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida (Tampa). The Middle District assigned Case No.
8:16-cv-00859-RAL-JSS to the proceeding.

Certegy Check Services, Inc. provides check risk management,
authorization, and loss prevention and credit card processing
services to retailers, supermarkets, e-commerce, gaming, and check
cashing establishments. It develops a check management system that
accepts checks in the United States or Canada, as well as accepts
personal and business checks. The company was formerly known as
Equifax Check Services, Inc. and it changed its name to Certegy
Check Services, Inc. in July 2001. The company was incorporated in
1981 and is based in Tampa, Florida. As of February 1, 2006,
Certegy Check Services, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Fidelity
National Information Services, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Allen Yanchunis, Sr., Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
          201 N Franklin St., Fl. 7
          Tampa, FL 33602-5157
          Telephone: (813) 223 5505
          Facsimile: (813) 223 5402
          E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Steven William Teppler, Esq.
          ABBOTT LAW GROUP, PA
          2929 Plummer Cove Rd
          Jacksonville, FL 32223-6672
          Telephone: (904) 292 1111
          Facsimile: (904) 292 1220
          E-mail: steppler@abbottlawpa.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Syed M. Reza, Esq.
          TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
          1850 Towers Crescent Plaza, Suite 500
          Tysons Corner, VA 22182
          Telephone: (703) 734 4351
          Facsimile: (703) 448 6510
          E-mail: mohsin.reza@troutmansanders.com


CLOVIS ONCOLOGY: Bernstein Litowitz to Lead Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Clovis Oncology, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Arkin Plaintiffs and
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman have been named as lead
plaintiff and counsel for the putative class in a securities class
action lawsuit.

On November 19, 2015, Steve Kimbro, a purported shareholder of
Clovis, filed a purported class action complaint (the "Kimbro
Complaint") against Clovis and certain of its officers in the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The
Kimbro Complaint purports to be asserted on behalf of a class of
persons who purchased Clovis stock between October 31, 2013 and
November 15, 2015. The Kimbro Complaint generally alleges that
Clovis and certain of its officers violated federal securities
laws by making allegedly false and misleading statements regarding
the progress toward FDA approval and the potential for market
success of rociletinib. The Kimbro Complaint seeks unspecified
damages.

Also on November 19, 2015, a second purported shareholder class
action complaint was filed by Sonny P. Medina, another purported
Clovis shareholder, containing similar allegations to those set
forth in the Kimbro Complaint, also in the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado (the "Medina Complaint"). The
Medina Complaint purports to be asserted on behalf of a class of
persons who purchased Clovis stock between May 20, 2014 and
November 13, 2015.

On November 20, 2015, a third complaint was filed by John Moran in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California (the "Moran Complaint"). The Moran Complaint contains
similar allegations to those asserted in the Kimbro and Medina
Complaints and purports to be asserted on behalf of a plaintiff
class who purchased Clovis stock between October 31, 2013 and
November 13, 2015.

On December 14, 2015, Ralph P. Rocco, a fourth purported
shareholder of Clovis, filed a complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado (the "Rocco
Complaint"). The Rocco Complaint contains similar allegations to
those set forth in the previous complaints and purports to be
asserted on behalf of a plaintiff class who purchased Clovis stock
between October 31, 2013 and November 15, 2015.

On January 19, 2016, a number of motions were filed in both the
District of Colorado and the Northern District of California
seeking to consolidate the shareholder class actions into one
matter and for appointment of a lead plaintiff. All lead plaintiff
movants other than M.Arkin (1999) LTD and Arkin Communications LTD
(the "Arkin Plaintiffs") subsequently filed notices of non-
opposition to the Arkin Plaintiffs' application.

On February 2, 2016, the Arkin Plaintiffs filed a motion to
transfer the Moran Complaint to the District of Colorado (the
"Motion to Transfer"). Also on February 2, 2016, the defendants
filed a statement in the Northern District of California
supporting the consolidation of all actions in a single court, the
District of Colorado. On February 3, 2016, the Northern District
of California court denied without prejudice the lead plaintiff
motions filed in that court pending a decision on the Motion to
Transfer.

On February 16, 2016, the defendants filed a memorandum in support
of the Motion to Transfer, and plaintiff Moran filed a notice of
non-opposition to the Motion to Transfer. On February 17, 2016,
the Northern District of California court granted the Motion to
Transfer.

On February 18, 2016, the Medina court issued an opinion and order
addressing the various motions for consolidation and appointment
of lead plaintiff and lead counsel in the District of Colorado
actions. By this ruling, the court consolidated the Medina, Kimbro
and Rocco actions into a single proceeding. The court also
appointed the Arkin Plaintiffs as the lead plaintiffs and
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman as lead counsel for the
putative class.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against the allegations
contained in the Kimbro, Medina, Moran and Rocco Complaints, but
there can be no assurance that the defense will be successful.

Clovis is a biopharmaceutical company focused on acquiring,
developing and commercializing innovative anti-cancer agents in
the United States, Europe and other international markets.


CLOVIS ONCOLOGY: Pension Fund Suit Goes to Colorado
---------------------------------------------------
Clovis Oncology, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that lawsuit by the
Electrical Workers Local #357 Pension and Health & Welfare Trusts
has been transferred to the District Court in Colorado.

On January 22, 2016, the Electrical Workers Local #357 Pension and
Health & Welfare Trusts, a purported shareholder of Clovis, filed
a purported class action complaint (the "Electrical Workers
Complaint") against Clovis and certain of its officers, directors,
investors and underwriters in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Mateo. The Electrical Workers Complaint
purports to be asserted on behalf of a class of persons who
purchased stock in Clovis' July 8, 2015 follow-on offering. The
Electrical Workers Complaint generally alleges that the defendants
violated the Securities Act because the offering documents for the
July 8, 2015 follow-on offering contained allegedly false and
misleading statements regarding the progress toward FDA approval
and the potential for market success of rociletinib. The
Electrical Workers Complaint seeks unspecified damages.

On February 25, 2016, the defendants removed the case to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California and thereafter moved to transfer the case to the
District of Colorado. The Company intends to vigorously defend
against the allegations contained in the Electrical Workers
Complaint, but there can be no assurance that the defense will be
successful.


CNX GAS: Westmoreland Water Authority Suit Moved to W.D. Penn.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Municipal Water Authority of Westmoreland County, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, v. CNX Gas Company,
L.L.C. and Noble Energy, Inc., Case No. 928 of 2016, was removed
from Common Pleas of Westmoreland County, to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh).
The Western District Court assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-00422-AJS to
the proceeding. The Assigned Judge is Hon. Arthur J. Schwab.

CNX Gas Company produces, markets, and sells coal bed methane and
gas. The company produces and distributes pipeline natural gas. It
also offers drilling services. The company is based in Waynesburg,
Pennsylvania and operates as a subsidiary of Consol Energy Inc.
Noble Energy formerly Noble Affiliates, Inc., is a Houston, Texas
oil and natural gas exploration and production company with almost
US$3 billion in revenue at #660 on the 2007 Fortune 1000 list of
the largest American companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David A. McGowan, Esq.
          John W. McTiernan, Esq.
          CAROSELLI, BEACHLER, MCTIERNAN & COLEMAN
          20 Stanwix Street, Seventh Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 391 9860
          E-mail: dmcgowan@cbmclaw.com
                  jmctiernan@cbmclaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Nicolle R. Snyder Bagnell, Esq.
          REED SMITH
          Reed Smith Centre
          225 Fifth Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222-2716
          Telephone: (412) 288 3131
          Facsimile: (412) 288 3063
          E-mail: nbagnell@reedsmith.com


CONSORTIUM CONCESSION: Settles Highway 25 Bridge Fee Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Presse Canadienne, writing for Montreal Gazette, reports that a
settlement of $4.8 million has been reached in a class action suit
over fees related to Highway 25's Olivier-Charbonneau Bridge,
which connects eastern Laval with Montreal.

In February, the Union des consommateurs concluded a settlement
agreement with consortium Concession A25 and the Quebec Attorney
General, said lawyers from Kugler Kandestin representing the
consumer protection group.

The action initiated in 2011 benefits all those who used the
Highway 25 bridge and paid administrative fees in addition to the
bridge toll.

According to the Union des consommateurs, the signs leading to the
bridge did not mention the extra fees, making them misleading.

The group asked for a full refund of the fees for all clients
whose vehicles did not have transponders installed, plus punitive
damages.

The settlement must now be approved by the Quebec Superior Court.
A hearing will be held May 20.

Another class action, on behalf of drivers who had a transponder
installed, is still in progress.


COOPER AEROBICS: "Cardona" Files Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Socorro Cardona, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Cooper Aerobics Enterprises, Inc., Metroplex Banquet Staffing LLC,
Staff Pro LLC, David Carpenter, Juan Mena and Miriam Gallardo,
Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00954-L (N.D. Tex., April 6, 2016),
seeks double damages and reasonable attorney fees pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act for all overtime wages still owing.

Metroplex Banquet Staffing, VIP Hotel Services and Staff Pro were
contracted by Cooper to provide staffing services at the hotel
where Plaintiff worked. David Carpenter, Juan Mena and
Miriam Gallardo owns and/or manages VIP Hotel Services, LLC,
Metroplex Banquet Staffing LLC and Staff Pro LLC respectively.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert Manteuffel, Esq.
      J.H. Zidell, Esq.
      Joshua A. Petersen, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.C.
      6310 LBJ Freeway, Ste. 112
      Dallas, TX 75240
      Tel: (972) 233-2264
      Fax: (972) 386-7610
      Email: zabogado@aol.com
             rlmanteuffel@sbcglobal.net
             josh.a.petersen@gmail.com


DEFALCO'S HEAVY DUTY: Violated PTPA, "Walker" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Arthur Walker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Defalco's Heavy Duty Towing & Recovery,
LLC, Cheryl Defalco, and XYZ Corporations 1-10, the Defendants,
Case No. L-002145-16 (N.J. Middlesex Super. Ct., April 11, 2015),
seeks to recover damages due to Defendants' overcharging of towing
and storage fees, and charging towing and storage fees for
services not actually performed under agreements with the Monroe
Township, pursuant to the Predatory Towing Prevention Act (PTPA),
the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (NJCFA), and the New Jersey
Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act (TCCWNA).

Defendants operate a towing company and are registered and
authorized to tow and store motor vehicles upon request of the
Monroe Township Police Department.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David C. Ricci, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DAVID C. RICCI, LLC
          51 JFK Parkway, First Floor West
          Short Hills, NJ 07078
          Telephone: (973) 218 2627
          Facsimile: (973) 206 6955


DENVER, CO: Hiring Discrimination Class Action Goes to Trial
------------------------------------------------------------
According to The Associated Press, a class-action discrimination
lawsuit against the City and County of Denver is set to go to
trial on April 11.

KCNC-TV reports that 912 plaintiffs say the city used a
discriminatory writing test during the hiring process around 2007
and 2008.

According to the lawsuit, more than 40 percent of black and
Hispanic applicants applying for jobs with Denver failed the test
while only 25 percent of white applicants failed.

In 2008 the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
determined discrimination had taken place.

The city argues that passing the test would not have guaranteed
employment or promotion for the plaintiffs.

City Attorney Scott Martinez said he could not comment on pending
litigation.


DOW CHEMICAL: Settles Remaining Polyurethane Price Fixing Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Trager, writing for Chemistry World, reports that
Dow Chemical will pay another $400 million (GBP280 million) to
settle claims that it conspired to fix prices for polyurethane
products.  The money will go to customers who elected not to be
part of a previously settled class action lawsuit on the matter.

Companies included in this settlement claim the alleged price-
fixing by Dow and its competitors extended beyond the 1999-2003
window covered by the class action suit.

Dow agreed to pay $835 million to settle the class action suit in
March.  The company dropped its supreme court appeal after the
death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February.

Although it has now settled this additional litigation, Dow
reiterated its position that it "never agreed with competitors to
fix polyurethane prices at any time".


EASY CASH: Head Faces Racketeering Charges Over Loan Interest
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maryclaire Dale, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
the head of a payday lending enterprise accused of charging more
than 700 percent interest on short-term loans was indicted on
April 7 on federal racketeering charges.

Charles M. Hallinan, 75, led a group that preyed on customers
while taking in nearly $700 million from 2008 to 2013, according
to the indictment.

Mr. Hallinan operated under a string of business names that
included Easy Cash, My Payday Advance and Instant Cash USA, and
defrauded at least 1,400 customers.

He was released on $500,000 bail after pleading not guilty at a
brief court hearing on April 7 in Philadelphia. His lawyers
declined comment on the case.

According to prosecutors, he tried to evade state consumer
protection laws by looping in Native American tribes as the
supposed lenders so they could claim tribal immunity from state
regulations and deflect class-action lawsuits.

Mr. Hallinan's companies charged customers about $30 for every
$100 they borrowed, costing customers 700 percent interest on an
annualized basis, the indictment said.

In Pennsylvania, the law typically caps interest to 6 percent on
personal loans, though banks can charge up to 24 percent interest
on loans below $25,000, federal authorities said.

They said Mr. Hallinan, of Villanova, paid a tribal leader in
British Columbia $10,000 a month to pretend that he owned the
payday lending enterprise and, amid a class-action lawsuit, to say
it had no assets.

Mr. Hallinan and co-defendant Wheeler K. Neff also steered at
least one other payday lender into a similar tribal agreement, the
indictment said.  And Mr. Hallinan's companies took control of
various aspects of the payday lending business, owning firms that
also generated leads and performed credit checks, authorities
said.

Mr. Neff was released on $250,000 bail after his not guilty plea.
His lawyers voiced surprise the government would prosecute what
they called his legitimate use of the "tribal lending model."

"There are literally dozens of federal and state court cases that
support the validity of such a model, including U.S. Supreme Court
cases," lawyer Christopher Warren said in a statement.


ENCORE ENTERPRISES: Faces "Bell" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Tatian Bell, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. Encore Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-00754-L
(N.D. Tex., March 17, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Encore Enterprises, Inc., is a commercial real estate investment
company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jennifer J. Spencer, Esq.
      Mary L. Scott, Esq.
      James E. Hunnicutt
      Spencer Scott pllc
      Two Lincoln Center
      5420 LBJ Freeway, Suite 300
      Dallas, Texas 75240-6271
      Telephone: (972)458-5319
      Fax: (972)770-2156
      E-mail: jspencer@spencerscottlaw.com
              mscott@spencerscottlaw.com
              jhunnicutt@spencerscottlaw.com


ENHANCED RECOVERY: "Williams" Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 3:16-cv-00545-VAB (D. Conn., April 10, 2016), sues over
illegal collection practices under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Enhanced Recovery Company LLC provides business process
outsourcing services that include recovery, outsourcing, and
market research primarily for its clients, specifically accounts
receivable management services. It allegedly employed illegal
collection means to collect a debt from the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Action Over Cancer-Related Website Ads
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kerry Flynn, writing for International Business Times, Facebook
has an unparalleled view of its users' interests, in part because
of the ubiquitous "like" button, which allows it to track its 1.5
billion users around the web when they're logged in, which is
pretty much all the time.

That feature also allows Facebook to target advertising based on
those interests with unnerving detail.  That's what the plaintiffs
in a new class-action discovered when they started getting very
specific ads addressing certain types of cancer after visiting
websites like cancer.org, cancer.net, melanoma.org,
shawneemission.org, barnesjewish.org, clevelandclinic.org and
MDAnderson.org.

The case, filed in federal court in San Jose, California, alleges
that Facebook is capturing medical information via online searches
performed on those sites, and that that information was then used
to target those users based on a condition, breaking the Federal
Wiretap Act, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability
Act as well as several state privacy laws.

"Facebook is capturing users' searches for medical information
from medical websites without users ever knowing this sensitive
data is being shared with Facebook, for marketing and other
purposes," Paul Kiesel, the lead attorney for the case, told
International Business Times.

Kiesel has been a thorn in Facebook's side before. Named one of
"America's 12 Techiest Lawyers" by the American Bar Association
Journal in 2015, Mr. Kiesel sued Facebook back in 2012 for its
advertising targeting practices.  That suit was dismissed by U.S.
District Judge Edward J. Davila in San Jose, who ruled last year
that the plaintiffs failed to "adequately connect" the value of
the data "to a realistic economic harm or loss," according to
Bloomberg.

Mr. Kiesel amended that case after the dismissal and refiled it to
the court.  "Much like the Monty Python skit, we aren't dead yet,"
Mr. Kiesel told International Business Times.

While this case is similar, he says the data breached is more
private and the impact to Facebook users more serious.  "This is a
far more dangerous case as it relates to the individual side of
privacy," he said.

The suit has drawn the notice of some big privacy advocates, who
say this case could put the whole ad targeting industry on trial,
especially the use of health-related data.  It's a case that some
privacy advocates have been "waiting for," Deborah Peel, founder
of nonprofit Patient Privacy Rights, said.  "We'll do everything
we can to help promote it."

Facebook said the company plans to dispute the claims and declared
that the basis of the case is not valid.  "This lawsuit is without
merit and we will defend ourselves vigorously," a Facebook
representative told IBT.

Part of the reason privacy advocates say this suit is explosive is
the allegation that medical data was transferred, a violation of
the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA.
The HIPAA violation comes from capturing medical information
without gaining the person's permission.  The websites Adventist,
Barnes Jewish, Cleveland Clinic and MD Anderson are "covered
entities" governed by HIPAA, the case claims.

But there's a gray area in the proof of that transmission.  The
websites do not explicitly state that there is a Facebook plug-in
on their website and that they transmit tracking information to
Facebook, Mr. Kiesel notes in his case.  And that's part of the
problem, he alleges; the defendants do not fully disclose their
data practices.

"The new complaint is likely not going to get thrown out like the
last ones.  They have a HIPAA violation that could stick," Pam
Dixon, executive director of World Privacy Forum, a public
interest research group, wrote in an email.  For someone to pull
this information, they must "express consent, and it can't be
passive consent."

Two of the medical facilities named in the suit responded to
queries from IBT.  A representative for the University of Texas MD
Anderson Cancer Center said "we do not knowingly or intentionally
transmit protected health information to Facebook or other social
media platforms in contradiction of our Privacy Policy."

The Melanoma Research Foundation said it "takes privacy very
seriously and is confident this suit is without merit."

Not all medical information is protected under HIPAA.  It must be
personally identifiable. For instance, sending a Christmas card to
a doctor would be personal health information.  But what you
search for on the internet is not necessarily equivalent to your
medical history.  And yet if the data is transmitted back to
Facebook and matched with an identity, then it is identifiable, at
least to Facebook.

The claims can also make a compelling story before a jury.  "HIPAA
does add an interesting element and kind of a new element. There's
the addition of sensationalized events, and the tales he's able to
tell that are going to be very compelling," said Kate Klonick, a
Ph.D. candidate at Yale Law School and a resident fellow at the
Information Society Project.

The lawsuit claims that Facebook places more than 225 million
users into 154 medical categories for direct marketing.  Facebook
declined to comment on its ad categories or if these 154 medical
categories exist.


FELTEX: Ex-Chair's Lawyer Says Investment Prospectus Not Material
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hamish Rutherford, writing for Stuff.co.nz, reports that
investment prospectus are not like a "reality show" in which had
to disclose information just because it might be "interesting", a
lawyer for Feltex's former chairman says.

The Court of Appeal in Wellington is hearing a class action suit
against the directors, shareholders and promoters of the failed
carpet manufacturer, which collapsed little over two years after
its $250 million initial public offering in 2004.  The case is on
behalf of more than 3600 former shareholders.

Colin Carruthers, representing lead plaintiff Eric Houghton,
earlier told the court that Feltex's prospectus was more marketing
material than one containing the types of disclosures a "prudent,
but non-expert investor" would be able to use to assess the
suitability of the company for investment.

This included the company omitting the fact that the company
elected to raise the amount raised in the initial public offering
by $10m shortly before the sale, because otherwise it would not be
able to afford to pay a $9 million dividend shortly afterward.

But Alan Galbraith QC, representing former Feltex chairman
Tim Saunders said omissions from the prospectus would only be a
breach of the Securities Act if they were of information which was
a statutory requirement or if it was material to the decision to
invest.

"If the statement contains only an immaterial error then an
investor can't have suffered loss because of that statement,
because it was immaterial," Mr. Galbraith, adding that it could
not be the case that investors "get all the money back if you get
the registration date wrong, or whatever it might be."

On April 12, Mr. Carruthers told the court that the prospectus
made it appear that directors in the company had bought shares in
the IPO, where in fact some cashed in options instead of buying
shares, with Mr. Saunders receiving close to $200,000 in cash as a
result of the sale.  This meant some directors were both buyers
and sellers.

Although the prospectus said managers and directors would be
acquiring shares "for consideration equal to the retail price" in
the IPO, in fact the directors effectively only paid 16.25 cents
per shares, Mr. Carruthers said.

Mr. Galbraith told the court that while the directors maintained
that the statement on the equity investment statement was an
accurate statement of what occurred, it was not material to the
decision on whether to invest, or a statutory requirement.

"It's got nothing whatever to do with a risk to the company or a
materially adverse circumstance, or anything at all.  You don't
have to disclose that sort of thing," Mr. Galbraith said.

The company was also under no obligation to outline each stage of
planning leading up to the prospectus, as he dismissed the idea
that it should have disclosed its late increase in its float price
in order to pay a dividend.

"You don't have to come out and explain all the too-ings and fro-
ings that went on in trying to determine how you got to the end
point," Mr. Galbraith said.

"It's only if it's something that you've said makes something
positively misleading, which you've got to correct, obviously, or
if it's something that is materially adverse.

"But not just because it would be jolly interesting if you had a
reality show sort of prospectus that went through every step in
the process."


FELTEX: Dividend Payments Used to Boost IPO Size, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stuff.co.nz reports that Feltex shareholders had a right to know
their own money was being used to fund dividend payments, a class
action against the failed carpet company claims.

In the second day of a Court of Appeal hearings in Wellington on
April 12, Colin Carruthers QC said the board of the failed carpet
manufacturer planned to pay no dividend in 2004.

No dividend was proposed in the first draft of the prospectus
submitted for regulatory approval, he said.

However, following a meeting between chairman Tim Saunders,
shareholder Credit Suisse and the representatives of the
investment banks leading the float on April 27, 2004, the position
changed.

Mr. Saunders wrote to fellow board members explaining that he had
been convinced of the merit of paying of a $9 million dividend.

However, because of the "firm position by Feltex that it would not
be possible or appropriate to increase debt, it was agreed that
the size of the primary offering would be increased from $40
million to $50 million".

The decision needed to be made immediately, so Mr. Saunders could
not consult the full board, he wrote.

Because of the added fees associated with raising the added funds
-- $1.75m -- the decision meant Feltex's debt would be $750,000
higher than it would otherwise be, Mr. Saunders' email stated.

Mr. Carruthers told the court that investors should have been told
of the acknowledgement that Feltex could not afford to pay a
dividend unless the float was increased.

"It was because the company did not have the funds, could not
borrow, that the amount was increased," Mr. Carruthers said on
April 12.

The decision to increase the float was not mentioned in the
investment prospectus, but Mr. Carruthers said it should have
been.

"Surely investors would want to know, would be entitled to know,
that their own funds would be used to fund the dividend."

The matters were covered in an earlier High Court trial, in which
Justice Robert Dobson found that failings in the prospectus did
not trigger liability under the Securities Act.

Mr. Carruthers said the 2014 decision did not recognize "that
Mr. Saunders recognized that there was no ability to pay a $9m
dividend unless the IPO figure was increased."

The class action is claiming that the prospectus misled investors
about the risks of putting money into the company.

On April 11 Mr. Carruthers described the prospectus as a marketing
document which failed to note factors which would could affect the
company, which were known by the board prior to the flotation.

Mr. Saunders was in the court on April 12 observing proceedings
from the public gallery.

The Court of Appeal hearing, which began on April 11, is being led
by Eric Houghton, in a class action on behalf of about 3600 people
who invested in the carpet maker.

Little over two years after its 2004 initial public offering, the
company collapsed, wiping out the $250m which thousands of
shareholders injected into the company.

The hearings were expected to continue until at least April 14.


FIRSTMERIT CORP: June 13 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased shares of FirstMerit
Corporation ("FirstMerit") prior to the January 26, 2016 merger
announcement.  You are hereby notified that a securities class
action lawsuit has been commenced in the USDC for the Northern
District of Ohio, Eastern Division.  To get more information go
to: http://zlk.9nl.com/firstmerit-fmer

or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com
or by telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972.
There is no cost or obligation to you.

On January 26, 2016, FirstMerit announced it had entered a merger
agreement wherein Huntington Bancshares, Inc. would acquire all
the outstanding shares of FirstMerit for 1.72 shares of Huntington
common stock and $5.00 in cash per share of FirstMerit common
stock.  The complaint alleges that the Board of Directors of
FirstMerit breached its fiduciary duties and violated securities
laws by undervaluing FirstMerit, entering into deal protection
provisions that unreasonably deter third party bidders from
offering topping bids, and issuing materially incomplete and
misleading information in documents related to the proposed
transaction.

If you suffered a loss in FirstMerit you have until June 13, 2016
to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, New
Jersey, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation, and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders.


FITBIT INC: Hearing Held on Bid to Disimss Sleep Tracking Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fitbit, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a hearing was scheduled
for March 16, 2016, on the company's motion to dismiss a class
action lawsuit related to the sleep tracking functionality of its
devices.

On May 8, 2015, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, alleging that the sleep tracking function available
in certain trackers does not perform as advertised. Plaintiffs
seek class certification, restitution, an award of unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages, an award of reasonable costs
and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and other further relief
as the Court may deem just and proper. Plaintiffs have amended
their complaint four times, and on January 15, 2016, the Company
moved to dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint. A hearing on the
motion to dismiss was scheduled for March 16, 2016.

The Company believes that the plaintiffs' allegations are without
merit, and intend to vigorously defend against the claims. Because
the Company is in the early stages of this litigation matter, the
Company is unable to estimate a reasonably possible range of loss,
if any, that may result from this matter.


FITBIT INC: Defending Suit Over Heart Rate Monitoring
-----------------------------------------------------
Fitbit, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that two purported class
action lawsuits were filed on January 6, 2016 and February 16,
2016, against the Company in the U.S. District for the Northern
District of California, alleging that the PurePulse heart rate
monitoring technology in the Fitbit Charge HR and Fitbit Surge do
not consistently and accurately record users' heart rates.
Plaintiffs allege common law claims as well as violations of
various states' false advertising and unfair competition statutes
based on our sale and marketing of the Fitbit Charge HR and Fitbit
Surge. Plaintiffs seek class certification, injunctive and
declaratory relief, restitution, an award of unspecified
compensatory damages, exemplary damages, punitive damages, and
statutory penalties and damages, an award of reasonable costs and
expenses, including attorneys' fees, and other further relief as
the Court may deem just and proper.

The Company believes that the plaintiffs' allegations are without
merit, and intend to vigorously defend against the claims. Because
the Company is in the early stages of this litigation matter, the
Company is unable to estimate a reasonably possible range of loss,
if any, that may result from this matter.


FITBIT INC: Defending Against Securities Action in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------
Fitbit, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a putative class action
lawsuit alleging violations of federal securities laws was filed
on January 11, 2016, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, naming as defendants the Company and
certain of its officers. The lawsuit alleges violations of the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
the Company and the officers for allegedly making materially false
and misleading statements regarding its business and operations
between June 18, 2015 and November 13, 2015. Plaintiff seeks to
represent a class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
the Company's securities (i) on the open market between June 18,
2015 and January 6, 2016; and/or (ii) pursuant to or traceable to
the IPO. Plaintiff seeks class certification, an award of
unspecified compensatory damages, an award of reasonable costs and
expenses, including attorneys' fees, and other further relief as
the Court may deem just and proper.

The Company believes that the plaintiff's allegations are without
merit, and intend to vigorously defend against the claims. Because
the Company is in the early stages of this litigation matter, the
Company is unable to estimate a reasonably possible range of loss,
if any, that may result from this matter.


FORD MOTOR: Faces "Bolt" Suit Over Defective Vehicle
----------------------------------------------------
Michael Bolt v. Ford Motor Company, Case No. 1:16-cv-00447-SGC
(N.D. Ala., March 17, 2016), alleges that the automaker sells
defective and unreasonably dangerous vehicle.  Mr. Bolt said his
2002 Ford Taurus suddenly and without warning began to accelerate,
even when the accelerator pedal was released

Ford Motor Company is an auto maker company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      George A. Monk, Esq.
      P.O. Box 2569
      Anniston, AL 36202
      Telephone: (256)238-8668
      Facsimile: (256)238-8368
      E-mail: monklaw@cableone.net

             - and -

      Thomas P. Willingham, Esq.
      Mary Leah Miller, Esq.
      POPE, McGLAMRY, KILPATRICK, MORRISON & NORWOOD, P.C.
      3800 Colonnade Parkway, Suite 330
      Birminghan, AL 35243
      Telephone: (205)298-1011
      Facsimile: (205)298-1012
      E-mail: tom@tpwpc.com
              maryleah@tpwpc.com


GENERAL CHEMICAL: City of Milwaukee Suit Transferred to N.J.
------------------------------------------------------------
City of Milwaukee, individually and all others similarly situated
v. Frank A. Reichl, Vincent J. Opalewski, Brian C. Stepping,
General Chemical Corporation, General Chemical Performance
Products, LLC, GenTek, Inc., Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund,
Chemtrade Logistics, Inc., GEO Specialty Chemicals, Inc., C&S
Chemicals, Inc., USALCO, LLC, Kemira Chemicals, Inc., and John
Does 1-50, Case No. Case 2:16-cv-00212 (E.D. Wis., February 23,
2016), seeks to recover damages incurred due to Defendants' and
their co-conspirators' violation of the Sherman Act by conspiring
to increase price of alum.

The case was transferred on March 8, 2016, to the District of New
Jersey, and assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-01386.

Defendants are manufacturers and distributors of Alum used by
municipalities to treat potable water and wastewater, by pulp and
paper manufacturers as part of their manufacturing processes, and
in lake treatment to reduce phosphorous levels contributing to
degraded water quality.  Alum is also used to fix dyes to fabrics
and textiles and by poultry houses as a litter amendment to
control ammonia.

General Chemical Corporation and Chemical Performance Products
LLC, GemTek Inc., Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund, Chemtrade
Logistics Inc., GEO Specialty Chemicals, Inc., C&S Chemicals,
Inc., USALCO, LLC, and Kemira Chemicals, Inc., are specialty
chemical producing companies.

John Does 1-50 are corporations and/or entities whose names and
capacities are unknown to plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        Charles N.Nauen, Esq.
        W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
        Heidi M. Silton, Esq.
        Elizabeth R. Odette, Esq.
        Brian D. Clark, Esq.
        Rachel Kitze Collins, Esq.
        LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P
        100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
        Minneapolis, MN 55401
        Tel: (612)339-6900
        Fax: (612)339-0981
        E-mail: wjbruckner@locklaw.com
                cnnauen@locklaw.com
                hmsilton@locklaw.com
                erodette@locklaw.com
                bdclark@locklaw.com
                rakitzecollins@locklaw.com


HONEST COMPANY: "Alhadeff" Sues over False Advertising
------------------------------------------------------
Alvaro Alhadeff, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The Honest Company, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-02361 (C.D. Cal., April 6, 2016),
seeks injunctive and equitable monetary relief, enjoinment,
punitive and actual damages, restitution, and disgorgement of all
money or property wrongfully obtained, reasonable attorneys' fees,
costs and expenses, pre-judgment and post judgment interest
resulting from unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation and
breach of express warranty and violation of the California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California False Advertising Law,
California Unfair Competition Law.

Defendant advertises its products as natural and free of harmful
chemicals, specifically, sodium lauryl sulfate, a known skin
irritant.  However, the Plaintiff alleges that the products
contain as much as 14% of sodium lauryl sulfate.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Tina Wolfson, Esq.
      Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
      Theodore Maya, Esq.
      Meredith Lierz, Esq.
      AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
      1016 Palm Avenue
      West Hollywood, CA 90069
      Tel: (310) 474-9111
      Fax: (310) 474-8585
      Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
             rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
             tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com
             mlierz@ahdootwolfson.com

           - and -

      Erica Mirabella, Esq.
      MIRABELLA LAW, LLC
      132 Boylston Street, 5th Floor
      Boston, MA 02116
      Tel: (617) 580-8270
      Fax: (617) 583-1905
      Email: erica@mirabellallc.com


INTERMOUNTAIN HEALTH: Faces "Weinstein" Suit in Utah Dist. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Weinstein, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Intermountain Health Care
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00280-EJF (D. Utah, April 7,
2016), asserts violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Intermountain Healthcare is a non-profit health system based in
Salt Lake City, Utah, with 22 hospitals, a broad range of clinics
and services, about 1,400 employed primary care and secondary care
physicians at more than 185 clinics in the Intermountain Medical
Group, and health insurance plans from SelectHealt.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Elizabeth M. Peck, Esq.
      Jaqualin Friend Peterson, Esq.
      PECK PETERSON LLP
      7-21 Plaza
      675 E 2100 S Ste. 350
      Salt Lake City, UT 84106
      Tel: (801) 521-0844
      Email: lisa@peckpeterson.com


JACOBSEN MANUFACTURING: "Perez" Breach Suit Removed to M.D. Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tomas Perez, as attorney-in-fact for his parents Eligio and Dalia
Perez, and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Jacobsen Manufacturing, Inc. and Plant City Housing, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-00830-JSM-EAJ (M.D. Fla., April 6,
2016), has been removed from the 13th Judicial Circuit,
Hillsborough County, Florida, Case number 15-CA-11462 filed
December 18, 2015, to the U.S. District Court of the Middle
District of Florida, Case No. 8:16-cv-00830-JSM-EAJ.

Jacobsen Manufacturing, Inc. operating under Jacobsen Homes, and
Plant City Housing, LLC are modular home manufacturers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David M. Caldevilla, Esq.
     10812 Gandy Blvd N Ste. A
     St Petersburg, FL 33702-1425
     Tel: (813) 229-2775
     Fax: (813) 229-2712
     Email: dcaldevilla@dgfirm.com

- and -

     Donald Christopher Greiwe, Esq.
     DE LA PARTE & GILBERT, PA, Suite 2000
     101 E Kennedy Blvd
     Tampa, FL 33602
     Tel: (813) 229-2775
     Fax: (813) 229-2712
     Email: dgreiwe@dgfirm.com

           - and -

     James Dan Clark, Esq.
     CLARK & MARTINO, PA
     3407 W Kennedy Blvd
     Tampa, FL 33609-2905
     Tel: (813) 879-0700
     Fax: (813) 879-5498
     Email: dclark@clarkmartino.com

The Defendants are represented by:

     Daniel Ari Shapiro, Esq.
     4301 W Boy Scout Blvd., Suite 400
     Tampa, FL 33607-5712
     Tel: (813) 289-9333
     Fax: (813) 286-2900
     Email: shapiro@csklegal.com

            - and -

     Stephen Wayne Stukey, Esq.
     COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, PA, Suite 1400
     9150 S Dadeland Blvd.
     Miami, FL 33156
     Tel: (786) 268-6803
     Fax: (305) 373-2294
     Email: stephen.stukey@csklegal.com


KRISHNA SCHAUMBURG: Sued for Storing Client Fingerprints
--------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland, writing for CookCountyRecord.com, reports that
while already pursuing a class action complaint against nationwide
tanning salon franchiser L.A. Tan, an Illinois woman has lodged a
second complaint against its Schaumburg franchisee, alleging the
franchise business owner should be made to pay, as well, for
collecting, storing and sharing customers' fingerprints when
enrolling them in L.A. Tan's customer rewards program.

On Nov. 13, 2015, Klaudia Sekura had filed a complaint in Cook
County Circuit Court against L.A. Tan Enterprises.  On April 7,
she followed that up with a class action complaint in Cook County
court against one of L.A. Tan's Chicago area franchisees,
identified as Krishna Schaumburg Tan.

While conceding many facts in both cases overlap, Ms. Sekura's
complaint against Krishna Tan insists Krishna's liability to
Ms. Sekura should be separate and distinct from the liability
asserted against L.A. Tan in general.  The complaint, however,
does not elaborate on the differences.

The issue in both lawsuits is L.A. Tan's national membership
database, which uses fingerprint scans to identify its customers
and allow them to use their memberships at any franchise location,
ostensibly to make it easier for customers to check in when they
return.  Ms. Sekura argued the keeping of fingerprint data
violates Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act because
Krishna Tan discloses fingerprint data to SunLync, an out-of-
state, third-party vendor.

Further, she alleged Krishna Tan fails to provide BIPA-compliant
written notification to customers about the data collection, as
well as a retention schedule and guidelines for permanent
destruction of fingerprint data should the business fail.  The
chain also does not obtain written releases from customers
consenting to collection, capture and use of fingerprints,
Ms. Sekura alleged.

Ms. Sekura opened her L.A. Tan membership in April 2005.
Ms. Sekura's complaint noted the Illinois BIPA law was spurred by
the 2007 bankruptcy of Pay By Touch, a biometrics firm that
provided fingerprint scanners to retailers throughout Illinois,
saying the bankruptcy served as evidence of the dangers of
unregulated biometric collection.  With more than 65 percent of
L.A. Tan salons in foreclosure -- a figure attributed to a 2013
WilliamBruce.org report -- she said the future of the biometric
information collected by L.A. Tan and its franchisees is in peril.

"Sekura experiences mental anguish and injury when thinking about
what would happen to her biometric data if Krishna Tan goes
bankrupt,"or if L.A. Tan goes bankrupt, the complaint noted, and
"whether Krishna Tan will ever delete her biometric data, and
whether (and to whom) Krishna Tan shares her biometric data."

The class would include any Illinois resident who supplied a
fingerprint to Krishna Tan.  In addition to class certification
and a jury trial, Ms. Sekura seeks an injunction requiring Krishna
Tan to fully comply with BIPA regulations, statutory damages of
$1,000 for each BIPA violation, plus attorney fees. Arguing unjust
enrichment, she also asked the court to order restitution be
calculated at trial.  She also argued the company's conduct
constituted negligence entitling class members to restitution.

While Krishna Schaubmurg Tan is the sole named defendant, the suit
also names as respondents in discovery about two dozen other
suburban L.A. Tan franchise operators.

Representing Ms. Sekura and putative class members are attorneys
Jay Edelson and David I. Mindell, of Edelson PC, Chicago; and Todd
Logan, of the firm's San Francisco office.


LOS PORTALES BOLIVAR: "Gallardo" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
Cesar Gallardo, and all others similarly situated v. Los Portales
Bolivar LLC, Los Portales Henderson LLC and Tomas Leon and Roy
Salvador, Case No. 1:16-cv-01055-JDB-egb (W.D. Tenn., March 17,
2016) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

       GILBERT RUSSELL MCWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT PLC
       Michael L. Russell, Esq.
       Emily S.Emmons, Esq.
       341 Cool Springs Boulevard, Suite 230
       Franklin, Tennessee, 37067
       Telephone: 615-354-1144
       Facsimile: 731-664-1540
       E-mail: mrussell@gilbertfirm.com
               eemmons@gilbertfirm.com

           - and -

       Clinton H. Scott, Esq.
       101 North Highland
       Jackson, Tennessee 38301
       Telephone: (731)664-1340
       Facsimile: (731)664-1540
       E-mail: cscott@gilbertfirm.com


MANAGEMENT TEAM VALET: Faces "Fazeli" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Peyman Fazeli, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. Management Team Valet, LLC d/b/a RP Valet, Ambassador
Valet Group,LLC, RP Managing Partners,LLC, R.P. Valet-Parking.,
Inc., and Roozbeh "RP" Payrevand, Reza Saleh, Robert Wilhite,
Scott Bennett, Scott Cox, Charles R. Chastain, Jose Huerta, James
Hefner, Gustavo Schleig, Case No. 3:16-cv-00749-B (N.D. Tex.,
March 17, 2016) is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Management Team Valet, LLC d/b/a RP Valet, Ambassador Valet Group,
LLC, R.P. Valet-Parking., Inc., specializes in providing valet
services for various business and individuals.

RP Managing Partners LLC., is a domestic Limited Liability Company
in Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael O'Keefe Cowles, Esq.
      Equal Justice Center
      1801 N. Lamar St.Suite 325
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Tel: (469)203-2150
      Fax: (469)629-5045

           - and -

      J. Dereck Braziel, Esq.
      J. Forester, Esq.
      LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P.
      1801 N. Lamar St. Suite 325
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Tel: (214)749-1400
      Fax: (214) 749-1010
      E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com
              forester@l-b-law.com


MASSACHUSETTS: Bridgewater Hospital Probed Over Inmate's Death
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jan Ransom and John R. Ellement, writing for Boston Globe, reports
that authorities are investigating the death of a
43-year-old Lawrence man in his cell at Bridgewater State Hospital
on April 8, the state Department of Correction said.

Correction officials found Leo Marino unresponsive at 7:35 p.m.
and "immediately initiated full emergency response beginning with
CPR," spokesman Darren Duarte said in a statement on April 11.

Mr. Marino was taken by Bridgewater firefighters to Morton
Hospital in Taunton, where he was pronounced dead at 8:33 p.m.,
Duarte said.  He said the state medical examiner's office will
determine a cause of death.

No further information was released about Mr. Marino's death,
which is not considered suspicious. State Police assigned to the
Plymouth district attorney's office are investigating, according
to DA spokeswoman Beth Stone, who declined further comment.

The Lawrence man was admitted to Bridgewater State Hospital on
Oct. 13 from the Essex County Correctional Facility in Middleton
for observation, according to the Correction Department.

He was facing charges out of Newburyport District Court for
allegedly operating under the influence of drugs and possession of
a controlled substance.  He was also charged in Lawrence District
Court with assault and battery with a dangerous weapon and
strangulation and suffocation.

Mr. Marino was civilly committed on Jan. 28 to the facility after
he was found incompetent to stand trial in Essex Superior Court on
the charges out of Lawrence.

Roderick MacLeish Jr., the attorney who filed a class action
lawsuit on behalf of Bridgewater inmates in 2014, said Marino had
"significant mental illness" but did not elaborate.

Bridgewater State Hospital is a medium-security facility whose
population is made up of men civilly committed because of a mental
health issue, prison inmates sent to the hospital because of
mental health issues, and pretrial detainees who are undergoing a
mental health evaluation.

According to Mr. MacLeish, Mr. Marino spent more than 250 hours in
seclusion in March. The Department of Correction was unable to
confirm that, but Mr. MacLeish said the length of time he spent in
seclusion "raises troubling concerns."

"Given the level of monitoring there is supposed to be, it's
difficult to see how this happened," he said.  "Was he being
watched?"

Officials at Correction Department did not say whether Mr. Marino
was supervised in the moments leading up to his death.

"The Department of Correction is undergoing a root cause analysis
of this case as we do in any unexpected occurrence involving death
or serious physical or psychological injury at Bridgewater State
Hospital," Mr. Duarte said.  "We hope to have all questions
answered as soon as possible."

Mr. MacLeish said Mr. Marino was in the Intensive Treatment Unit,
which consists of 12 rooms behind locked steel doors where
patients have limited privileges.

The area is monitored with surveillance cameras and staff check
patients every 15 minutes.

Mr. Marino's death follows that of at least three others at the
embattled facility in which the patients died after the alleged
improper use of physical restraints.

The family of one patient, Joshua K. Messier, who died in 2009,
received a $3 million settlement from the state and a private
mental health company.

A settlement reached in 2014 following the class action lawsuit
called for a drastic reduction in the use of physical restraints
and solitary confinement at Bridgewater, restricting such measures
for emergencies only.

Leslie Walker, a lawyer and executive director of Prisoners' Legal
Services Massachusetts, said Bridgewater has long been
understaffed and does not have enough mental health clinicians.


MID WILSHIRE: Made Unsolicited Ad, Alliance Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
Alliance Environmental System, Inc., individually and all others
similarly situated v. Mid Wilshire Consulting, Inc. d/b/a Social
Wellness and John Does 1-10, Case No. 2:16-cv-01252 (E.D. Pa.,
March 17, 2016), seeks to stop Defendant's practice of sending
unsolicited advertisement by fax.

Mid Wilshire Consulting, Inc., is a marketing consultants company.

John Does 1-10 are any persons or entities, other than Social
Wellness, who actively participated in the transmission of the
fax.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

       Ann M. Cadwell, Esq.
       CADWELL LAW OFFICE, LLC
       108 W. Willow Grove Ave., Suite 300
       Philadelphia, PA 19118
       Telephone: (215)248-2030
       Fax: (215)248-2031
       E-mail: acadwell@classactlaw.com

               - and -

       Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
       ANDERSON+WANCA
       3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
       Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
       Telephone: 847-368-1500
       E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com


MINNESOTA: Appeals Court to Review Sex Offender Treatment Program
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Aeikens, writing for KSTP-TV, reports that a federal appeals
court will review the constitutionality of Minnesota's Sex
Offender Treatment Program.  It follows a ruling last summer in
which a judge found the program unconstitutional after a class-
action suit filed on behalf of more than 700 offenders.


MISSISSIPPI: AG Disputes Kickback Scheme Allegations
----------------------------------------------------
Mollie Bryant, writing for The Clarion-Ledger, reports that in a
recently unsealed lawsuit alleging a kickback scheme with a
New York firm, an official in the Mississippi attorney general's
office said the state was following policy to use local counsel
and "minority attorneys."

The now-settled 2014 lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York claimed that Public Employees'
Retirement System of Mississippi selected the firm, Bernstein,
Litowitz, Berger and Grossman LLP, as counsel in a securities
lawsuit, and in exchange, attorneys with connections to attorney
general's office employees received legal fees for unnecessary
work.

Before New York attorney Bruce Bernstein filed his lawsuit over
compensation in a case involving the Mississippi Public Employees
Retirement System, Special Assistant Attorney General George
Neville wrote several letters to his counsel suggesting the
litigation would violate the firm's confidentiality with PERS and
that the state has a policy to use local firms and "in particular,
a policy to provide work to qualified minority attorneys."

"For Bruce to make such claims in public court papers for his
personal profit over an employment dispute could subject
Mississippi and its agency MPERS in a negative light," Neville
wrote.

In a statement, Attorney General Jim Hood said, "The allegations
concerning the Office of Attorney General are untrue and we give
them no merit.  In fact, Mr. Bernstein recanted his allegations in
a statement dated Feb. 19, 2015.  Even the judge in the case
emphasized that 'the facts alleged are exactly that -- simply
allegations, the truth of which has not been proven.'"

In 2014, Mr. Bernstein filed the lawsuit under seal against the
law firm, alleging he was forced to resign for trying to expose
the use of kickbacks while representing PERS in a class action
lawsuit.  After the case was settled a month later, the parties
requested the file remained sealed.  A federal judge has ordered
the suit be unsealed in the interest of the public, court records
show.  Following an unsuccessful appeal of the judge's ruling, the
case was unsealed in February.

In 2010, the firm assigned Mr. Bernstein to PERS' class action
lawsuit against Satyam Computer Services Securities, and a former
partner in the firm told him a Mississippi attorney, Vaterria
Martin, would check for updates on the case.  After settling the
lawsuit a year later, Ms. Martin, who is married to an attorney
general's office employee, sent the firm a legal document and
timesheet detailing 207 hours of work on the case, the complaint
said.

Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger and Grossman and another lead firm in
the case, Grant and Eisenhofer, gave Martin a total of $225,000,
which the lawsuit alleged was for unnecessary work in the case.

Depending on the total number of hours she reported to both firms,
Ms. Martin received between $550 and $1,000 an hour, "well above"
the average rate for Mississippi attorneys, according to court
records.  An attorney with 20 years of experience in commercial
litigation earns an average of $250 to $450 per hour.

In a PERS lawsuit against Merck, Mr. Bernstein's complaint alleged
Neville asked the firm to assign work in the case to a family
friend.  The complaint also said two additional Mississippi
attorneys who lacked securities experience worked on the case, but
the suit doesn't name the three attorneys and their law firms.

In 2011, Mr. Bernstein reported the alleged kickback scheme to the
U.S. attorney's office, and he resigned the next year.

After the case was settled, Mr. Bernstein and the law firm filed a
joint request that the lawsuit remained sealed, arguing it
contained confidential client information, could result in
litigation with Mississippi and could damage the reputations of
the firm and state.

Mr. Bernstein, who has worked for two law firms where three
partners were indicted on various charges that include paying
kickbacks to plaintiffs, would not comment.  He currently works
for the U.S. Department of Justice's civil division as a trial
lawyer.


MODESTO IRRIGATION: Faces Class Action Over Electricity Charges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Garth Stapley, writing for Modesto Bee, reports that more than
100,000 families and businesses buying electricity from the
Modesto Irrigation District eventually could be represented in a
class-action lawsuit filed against the nonprofit utility.

The lawsuit says it's illegal to overcharge electricity customers
in order to subsidize farmers' water rates.  If a judge grants
class status and plaintiffs prevail, electricity customers in
Modesto and surrounding areas served by MID could receive
unspecified refunds and pay lower power prices in the future.

"Each month, MID imposes . . . an illegal tax which is embedded in
its electric utility fee and charges," reads the lawsuit, filed on
April 11 in Stanislaus Superior Court.

The San Diego law firm Krause Kalfayan Benink & Slavens is
bringing the lawsuit on behalf of Modesto resident Dave Thomas and
"all similarly situated customers" except farmers buying
irrigation water and MID employees.  Mr. Thomas has been a member
of the Stanislaus Taxpayers Association many years, and the law
firm has won several judgments against government agencies in fee-
related cases.

The lawsuit had not been served on MID as of April 12, district
spokeswoman Melissa Williams said in an email.  "As with any
pending litigation, at this stage we unfortunately can't provide
any further details," she said.

MID leaders for years have sought to right the imbalance, but
critics say they're moving at a snail's pace.

A Modesto Bee analysis of bond documents in June showed that MID
saw a $106 million profit selling electricity in 2014, while
farmers paid less than 17 percent of what it costs MID to deliver
water, even after a series of irrigation rate bumps in recent
years.

Overcharging for electricity might not be illegal if MID were to
ask voters to approve power rates, the lawsuit says, but MID
leaders have not done so.  Neither have they raised power prices
since an attorney advised them nearly four years ago that doing so
without a customer vote might be illegal.

In 2012, then-MID board member Tom Van Groningen said the district
expected a lawsuit challenging the inequity.  Upon leaving office
the next year, he said he regretted not being able to correct the
imbalance, and former board member Glen Wild, who also left in
2013, said it's "clearly wrong" for customers in an area known for
low income and high unemployment to subsidize wealthy farmers.

A string of critics joined the chorus, including previous insiders
such as Lee Delano, a former MID assistant general manager who
gives slideshow presentations on the subsidy, and Dale Bosowski, a
retired MID senior resource manager.
Steve Mohasci, who worked for an investor-owned utility in Iowa,
has produced numerous charts and papers blasting the inequity.
Ross Campbell, a retired Modesto public works director, and Paul
Baxter, a retired Modesto deputy city manager, have roundly
criticized MID's refusal to produce transparent accounting.

The district says its water service deserves but gets no credit
for replenishing groundwater aquifers and for canals that support
power poles and that carry stormwater from Modesto streets.  But
MID has resisted calls to separate its water and power
bookkeeping, the components of which have mingled since the
utility began producing retail electricity in 1923.

MID has about 3,100 farm accounts; the actual number of growers is
less because many farms have several accounts each.

The MID board, dominated by growers since its inception, last year
rejected the idea of radically accelerating its goal of erasing
the imbalance, opting for smaller steps.  On April 12, board
members will decide whether to raise water rates.  If that
happens, the district's water revenue would bump up 20 percent to
$3.82 million -- only 18 percent of MID's true cost, $21.2
million, for delivering water.

The April 12 MID board meeting was set to begin at 9 a.m. in the
chamber at 1231 11th St., Modesto.

Balancing costs of service with revenue from what is charged to
customers has been the standard since California voters embraced
Proposition 218 in 1996, and Proposition 26 in 2010 closed a
loophole used by some utilities.  Modestans may recall a Prop.
218-based lawsuit brought against City Hall in 1998 by the
Stanislaus Taxpayers Association, challenging the city's practice
of overcharging people $3.5 million yearly on water and sewer
bills and transferring the windfall to Modesto's general fund --
an amount that pales next to MID's electricity profit.

In addition to subsidizing farmers, the extra money repays MID's
debt and builds its reserves.

The class-action lawsuit asks Superior Court Judge John Freeland
to declare that MID is charging an illegal tax, and to prevent the
district from continuing to collect it "unless (MID) first obtains
voter approval."

If the judge grants class status, MID power customers since
Feb. 19, 2015 -- a year prior to Thomas submitting a pre-lawsuit
complaint to MID -- could be eligible to join the lawsuit.  They
would be notified by mail, email or published notice, the lawsuit
says, and could receive refunds if Thomas' lawyers win in court.

Krause Kalfayan, the law firm, has won more than $200 million for
clients, its website says.  Victories came in 2014 against
Pasadena and in 2015 against Chino; both had been transferring
excess water revenue to each city's general fund in violation of
Prop. 218.

The MID complaint is more similar to one the firm is pursuing
against Los Angeles.  Both claim violations of Prop. 26; the Los
Angeles case involves an 8 percent transfer of water and power
charges paid by 6.8 million customers, or about a quarter-billion
dollars a year, to the city's general fund.  The firm is bringing
at least seven additional class-action claims against various
other agencies and conglomerates, its website says.


MONSTER WORLDWIDE: Must Face Discrimination Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
A New York state court ruled that the parent companies of three
major job search websites will stay as defendants in a class
action lawsuit alleging that employers use them to illegally post
job listings in New York City with blanket bans on applicants with
felony convictions, Outten & Golden LLP and co-counsel said on
April 12.

Filed in June 2015, the class action brought by 14 New York
metropolitan area branches of the National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People, Inc. (NAACP) targets employers that
post allegedly illegal job listings and their "enablers," such as
defendant Monster Worldwide, Inc., which owns Monster.com,
ZipRecruiter, Inc., which owns ZipRecruiter.com, and Indeed, Inc.,
which owns Indeed.com.

New York state and city laws forbid employers from denying
employment to job applicants with criminal records without
evaluating eight factors set forth in Article 23-A of the
New York State Corrections Law.  The lawsuit seeks an injunction
forbidding the defendant employers from posting and disseminating
the illegal listings on job search websites.

In his ruling, the Hon. Manuel J. Mendez wrote that the NAACP's
legal standing on behalf of African American residents of the City
of New York that are banned from employment by the defendant class
because they have felony convictions is "relevant and germane to
its purpose," and thus it was a proper plaintiff to bring suit.
Judge Mendez also held that at this stage the job search websites
were necessary for complete relief because employers' alleged
discriminatory ads were viewed through their websites.

The NAACP is represented by Outten & Golden LLP, Lawyers'
Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and James I. Meyerson, of
New York.

Outten & Golden partner Ossai Miazad said, "The court's ruling
against the 'enablers' of the employers' alleged illegal
activities moves us a step closer to obtaining the relief sought
and to ensuring an effectively enforced injunction.  Because of
the stand the NAACP is taking, we hope to eliminate these
practices by New York City-area employers who use these recruiting
sites to blatantly violate the New York City Human Rights Law and
the Fair Chance Act."

The lawsuit is "NAACP New York State Conference Metropolitan
Council of Branches v. Philips Electronics North America Corp., et
al.," Index No. 156382/2015 in the Supreme Court of the State of
New York, New York County.

To view the complaint and Judge Mendez's opinion, please click
here.  Job applicants who wish to report their experiences with
blanket felony bans in employment applications can email
convictionjustice@outtengolden.com

Contacts: Ossai Miazad and Christopher M. McNerney, Outten &
Golden LLP, 212.245.1000, convictionjustice@outtengolden.com.


NATIONAL RAILROAD: Sued in Conn. Over Health Insurance Plan
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pauline Danko and Mark Danko, individually and on behalf of those
similarly situated v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation,
Case No. 2:16-cv-01235-CMR (E.D. Pa., March 17, 2016), is brought
against the Defendant for alleged violation of the subrogation
terms of an employee health insurance plan.

National Railroad Passenger Corporation is a partially government-
funded American passenger railroad service.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

       Michael R. Cuker, Esq.
       Michael J. Quirk, Esq.
       WILLIAMS CUKER BEREZOFSKY, LLC
       1515 Market Street, Suite 1300
       Philadelphia, PA 19102-1929
       Tel: (215) 557-0099
       Fax: (215) 557-0673
       E-mail: mcuker@weblegal.com
               mquirk@weblegal.com

            - and -

       GILLMAN & YOCKEY, P.C.
       Steven Gillman, Esq.
       Six Neshaminy Interplex, Suite 208
       Trevose, PA 19053
       Tel.: (215)925-9900
       Fax:  (215)240-7983
       E-mail: sg@gillmanyockey.com


NEW YORK: Educ. Dept. Faces Suit over Civil Rights Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
John and Jane Does 1-11, all minors represented by Parents 1-11,
Plaintiffs, v. New York City Department of Education and Carmen
Farina in her official capacity as Chancellor of the New York City
Department of Education, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01684 (E.D.
N.Y., April 6, 2016), sues over civil right violations.

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


NEW YORK: Law Firm Withdraws Class Action v. Education Department
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Adrienne Sanders, writing for The Journal News, reports that the
public-interest law firm that filed a class-action lawsuit against
several private religious schools, the state Education Department
and the East Ramapo school district, withdrew its complaint on
April 11 but plans to refile the suit within a month.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in White Plains in November by
Advocates for Justice, accused education officials of failing to
provide boys at several Hasidic yeshivas with a sound, basic
secular education.

It sought to compel the state to enforce laws that guarantee
private schools provide an education equal to that of public
schools. But it had not served any defendants within the legally
required four months of filing.

"We weren't ready to," said Advocates for Justice lawyer
Laura Barbieri, who filed the lawsuit and the notice of voluntary
dismissal. "We moved to voluntarily dismiss the case without
prejudice, which means we can refile. We plan to refile within the
month."

Ms. Barbieri said another plaintiff was being added to the suit.

U.S. District Judge Vincent Briccetti threatened to dismiss the
case April 6.

In the original suit, seven plaintiffs charged the state, the
school district and four yeshivas with failing to offer adequate
secular coursework for boys, and sought to require them to do so
as soon as the next school year.  It also sought unspecified money
damages for former students who, the suit contends, were failed by
the state and local administrators entrusted with their education.


NEW YORK: State Assembly Approves Bill to End Tampon Sales Tax
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mike McAndrew, writing for Syracuse.com, reports that New York
will no longer charge sales tax on tampons if Gov. Andrew Cuomo
signs into law a bill passed on April 11 by the state Senate.

The state Assembly unanimously approved the bill to end sales
taxes on feminine hygiene products, which can add .88 cents to an
$11 pack of 50 tampons in New York.

The Senate voted 58 to 0 to approve the bill sponsored by
Sen. Sue Serino, R-Hyde Park, which was co-sponsored by female
senators from both parties, including Sen. Patty Ritchie,
R-Oswegatchie.

"To consider that we exempt cupcakes and circus performances from
the sales tax in New York state, but not sanitary napkins and
tampons -- products women depend on -- is beyond comprehension,"
Sen. Serino said.  "The Senate took a significant step forward in
finally applying common sense to our out-of-touch tax laws."

In March, five women filed a class action lawsuit against the
state tax department, saying the sales tax on tampons and sanitary
napkins "violates the Equal Protection Clauses of the United
States and New York Constitutions." Their suit alleges the state
collects around $14 million in taxes by imposing a four percent
sales tax on those products.  Municipalities across the state also
add a local sales tax.


NORDSTROM INC: Faces "Aghdasy" Suit Over Rolex Watches
------------------------------------------------------
Vahdat Aghdasy, and all others similarly situated v. Nordstrom,
Inc., and HauteLook, Inc., Case No.2:16-cv-01829 (C.D. Cal.,
March, 17, 2016), seeks damages against the Defendant for false
and misleading advertising in violation of California Business &
Professional Code.  Defendants have offered authentic vintage
Rolex brand watches for sale to the general public, which watches
are damaged, in poor condition, contain non-Rolex and inferior
parts.

Nordstrom is an American upscale fashion retailer.

Hautelook is a member-only shopping website offering flash sales
and limited-time sale events with top brands in women's and men's
fashion. HauteLook is owned and operated by Nordstrom.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roland C. Colton, Esq.
      COLTON LAW GROUP
      28202 Cabot Road
      Third Floor
      Laguna Niguel, CA 92677
      Telephone: (949)365-5660
      Facsimile: (949)365-5662
      E-mail: rcc7@msn.com

        - and -

      Alexander Escandari, Esq.
      L.A. TRIAL LAWYERS, INC.
      8730 Wilshire Boulevard
      Fifth Floor
      Beverly Hils, CA 90211
      Telephone: (310)492-2000
      Facsimile: (310)492-2001


PACKERS PLUS ENERGY: Faces "Crumb" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Crumb, and all others similarly situated v. Packers Plus
Energy Services (USA), Inc., Case No. 4:16-cv-00662 (S.D. Tex.,
March 11, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Packers Plus Energy Services (USA), Inc., is a privately held
focusing on research and development to create technological
advances in completions for the oil and gas industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        Ricahrd J. Burch, Esq.
        BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
        8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
        Houston, Texas 77046
        Telephone: 713-877-8788
        Facsimile: 713-877-8065
        rburch@brucknerburch.com

              - and -

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


PEANUT CORP: Exec Won't Have to Compensate Salmonella Victims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Russ Bynum, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
former peanut company executive serving a 28-year prison sentence
won't have to pay money to victims of a deadly salmonella outbreak
linked to his Georgia plant, a federal judge ruled.

Former Peanut Corporation of America owner Stewart Parnell and
three co-defendants were spared by the judge's order on April 6
from paying restitution to corporate customers and the families of
hundreds who got sick after eating tainted peanut butter in 2008
and 2009.  The outbreak was blamed for nine deaths and 714
illnesses.

Convicted of knowingly shipping tainted peanut butter and faking
results of lab tests for salmonella, Mr. Parnell received the
harshest criminal penalty ever for a U.S. producer in a food-borne
illness case when he was sentenced to prison in September. His
brother, food broker Michael Parnell, got 20 years in prison.

But the question of whether the Parnell brothers and two former
managers of Peanut Corporation's plant in rural Blakely, Georgia,
should compensate victims for financial losses dragged the case
out for six more months.

Ultimately, U.S. District Court Judge W. Louis Sands ruled victim
loss estimates provided by prosecutors were invalid because they
were based on civil claims and included costs -- such as attorney
fees -- that can't be recovered in a criminal case.

Mr. Parnell's attorney, Tom Bondurant, said the same financial
loss estimates the judge deemed too flawed for calculating
restitution had played a big role in determining Parnell's long
prison sentence.

"In the big scheme of things, there seems to be a disconnect where
you can find loss and send somebody to jail for the rest of their
life but not order restitution," Mr. Bondurant said.

The judge also noted an insurance policy held by Peanut
Corporation paid out more than $12 million to victims.  And he
concluded that ordering the Parnell brothers to pay money "would
ultimately be for naught or close-to-naught" given their lengthy
prison sentences.  Peanut Corporation declared bankruptcy and shut
down after the outbreak.

"We kind of knew it was a shot in the dark," said Randy Napier,
whose 80-year-old mother in Ohio was among the nine people who
died.

Mr. Napier had written the judge to suggest a restitution amount
of $500,000 total.  Mr. Napier said he and other victims' families
wanted the money to go to groups such as Safe Tables Our Priority,
or STOP, that help victims of food-borne illnesses.

"With all the agony and stress they put us through over the years,
we thought: Why not kick them while they're down?"
Mr. Napier said.  "They kept kicking us while we were down."

The ruling also means two former plant managers, Sammy Lightsey
and Danny Kilgore, don't owe victims any money.  They pleaded
guilty to helping ship salmonella-tainted peanuts, peanut butter
and peanut paste to customers who used them in products from snack
crackers to pet food.

Three deaths linked to the outbreak occurred in Minnesota, two in
Ohio, two in Virginia, one in Idaho and one in North Carolina.


PENNSYLVANIA: TCPA Class Action Against PHEAA Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------
Tim Bauer, writing for insideARM, reports that Neil Silver had
obtained federally funded student loans.  The loans were serviced
by the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency (PHEAA).

Mr. Silver claims that in January 2014, in an effort to collect on
student debt, PHEAA used an automated telephone dialing system
(ATDS) to auto-dial him on his cell phone regarding debts he did
not owe.  Mr. Silver also claimed that these calls were made
without his consent, and therefore violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA).

In February 2014, Silver filed a putative class action lawsuit
against PHEAA in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California (Silver v. Pennsylvania Higher Education
Assistance Agency, Case No. 14-cv-0652) seeking to represent all
of those called via an ATDS over the preceding four years.

In November of 2015, more than a year after Silver filed his
lawsuit, the United States Congress passed the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 2016.  That statute amended the TCPA to
provide an exemption for calls made solely to collect a debt owed
to or guaranteed by the United States.  insideARM wrote about that
amendment on November 15, 2015.

On December 2, 2015, approximately one month after Congress
amended the TCPA, PHEAA filed a motion for summary judgment. Among
the arguments raised in that motion, PHEAA argued that the new law
barred Silver's claim.

In his response to the motion, Silver disagreed with PHEAA,
arguing that would be an unfair retroactive application of a
statute.

In an Order dated March 31, 2016, the Honorable Phyllis J.
Hamilton rejected Silver's argument and granted summary judgment
in favor of PHEAA.

Judge Hamilton outlined PHEAA's arguments:

The TCPA was recently amended to exempt phone calls related to the
collection of federally funded student loan accounts,
Plaintiff consented to the telephone calls at issue, and
The calls at issue were not placed using an automated telephone
dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice, as required
by the statute.

Judge Hamilton never addressed the last two arguments.  She ruled
that the TCPA amendment did apply to PHEAA and the loans in
question, and, more importantly, that the amendment should be
applied retroactively.

Judge Hamilton wrote,

"Accordingly, the court finds that the TCPA amendment does indeed
exempt the calls allegedly placed by defendant, and as a result,
defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.  Because the
retroactivity issue is dispositive, the court need not reach the
other two issues raised in defendant's motion."

insideARM Perspective

The Silver case is important to the entire ARM industry for a
number of reasons.  Any positive decision in a TCPA case is a good
decision and should be reviewed.  However, the case is especially
important to that segment of the ARM industry that collects on
federal government-backed student loans.

The Silver Order is likely to be used as precedential authority in
any TCPA case filed against a United States-backed, student loan
collector, even if the calls at issue were made before the statute
passed.

Second, even though Congress directed the Federal Communications
Commission to issue regulations regarding the new statute, the new
regulations have not yet been finalized. (On March 14, 2016
insideARM wrote about draft rules being circulated by FCC Chairman
Wheeler, but complete versions of  drafts have not yet been made
public.) From this case, attorneys could argue that the statute
applies now even though the FCC regulations have not yet issued.

Finally, it should be noted that the plaintiff, Mr. Silver, did
not have a very good two weeks in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California.  When researching this
case insideARM came across a second case and a second Summary
Judgment Order, this one dated April 8, 2016.

The second case involved Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(FDCPA) claims.  That case also named PHEAA as the defendant.  The
case, (Silver v. Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency,
Case No. 14-cv-4317) was also decided by Judge Hamilton.

In that Order Granting Summary Judgment in favor of PHEAA Judge
Hamilton determined that the evidence showed that PHEAA was not a
"debt collector" within the meaning of the FDCPA since the debt
involved was "not in default at the time it was obtained" by
PHEAA.  Judge Hamilton determined that Silver had not raised a
"triable issue of fact" on the issue and that plaintiff's own
testimony enabled the court to determine that PHEAA was not a
"debt collector" within the meaning of the statute.


PHILIP MORRIS: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Tobacco Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that jurors in civil court on April 7
swiftly cleared Philip Morris of a billion dollar claim that it
deceived smokers into buying Marlboro Light cigarettes.

They deliberated 73 minutes, following a class action trial that
lasted 33 days.

Plaintiff Deborah Larsen claimed Philip Morris didn't deliver on a
promise that Lights and cigarettes with low tar labels would
reduce nicotine and tar.

She represented a class of 400,000 smokers who bought Lights from
1995 to 2003.

The suit started in 2000, amid claims in many courts that smokers
compensated for lower nicotine by smoking more cigarettes.

Twelve jurors who heard Larsen's claim in 2011 deliberated for
days without reaching the nine votes Missouri requires for success
in civil trials.

The claim didn't change between trials, but the cast changed.

District Judge Michael David presided at the first trial, and
District Judge Steven Ohmer presided at the second.

Stephen Swedlow -- stephenswedlow@quinnemanuel.com -- of Korein
Tillery in St. Louis, represented Larsen at the first.

Mark Bronson -- mbronson@newmanbronson.com -- and Lauren Bronson,
of Newman Bronson and Wallis in Maryland Heights, Mo., represented
her at the second.

The Chicago firm of Winston Strawn represented Philip Morris at
the first.

Booker Shaw -- bshaw@thompsoncoburn.com -- of Thompson Coburn in
St. Louis, represented it at the second.

At the outset, Mr. Bronson and Ms. Bronson told jurors the trial
would show that Lights were more dangerous than Reds.

The trial's cross examinations chipped away at the theory.

On March 15, former Philip Morris research director
William Farone agreed on cross examination that in a 1982 study,
Light smokers got 15 milligrams of tar and Red smokers got 21.7
milligrams.

Mr. Farone agreed that Light smokers got 1.1 milligrams of
nicotine and Red smokers got 1.4 milligrams.

He agreed that Lights had longer filters than Reds, increased
ventilation, greater resistance to draw, and less tobacco.

He further agreed that in 1976, Consumer Reports discussed that
people who switched from high tar to low tar often took in more
tar and nicotine than a smoking machine showed they would.

On March 17, professor David Burns of the University of California
at San Diego took the stand for Larsen.

He testified that more likely than not, Lights were more harmful
than Reds.

Mr. Ohmer, finding he needed a higher degree of certainty,
excluded the opinion.

On March 21, American Cancer Society vice president emeritus
Michael Thun confirmed on cross examination that he couldn't
quantify a difference in risk between Lights and Reds.

On March 22, University of Chicago professor Michael Dennis
confirmed on cross examination that the target population for a
valuation survey he conducted was not the same as the population
in the class definition.

On March 28, professor Joel Steckel of New York University's Stern
School of Business confirmed on cross examination that he had no
idea what smokers would be willing to pay for a Marlboro Light
that truly delivered low tar and nicotine.

Mr. Steckel said it was correct that he couldn't testify that the
number he came up with was correct for everyone in the class.

"It's a number that best represents the class as a whole,"
Mr. Steckel said.

He said it was correct that he couldn't testify that his numbers
were right for any individual in the class, and that it might be
true that they weren't correct for anyone in the class.

He also said he couldn't prove that the difference in value was
due to the terms, lower tar and nicotine.

"I can't prove causality there either," Mr. Steckel said.

The term "health risks" had different meanings for survey
respondents, he said.

"That's the person's own individual subjective view," he said.

On March 29, professor Peter Shields of Georgetown University's
cancer center confirmed on cross examination that three tests on
nicotine equivalents between Lights and Reds were statistically
significant.

"Yes, showing Marlboro Lights smokers took less from the
cigarettes than the regular smokers," Mr. Shields said.

On March 30, he said the danger depends on how people smoke the
cigarette.

He confirmed that he couldn't quantify how much more harmful
Lights were.

On April 4, Philip Morris called to the stand Nancy Mathiowetz,
professor emerita at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee.

She told jurors she was worried about the survey sample.

"There are people excluded," Mr. Mathiowetz said.  "There were
people screened out from their survey that are members of the
class.

"We do not have a sample that is fully representative of the class
and therefore does not provide a reliable estimate of injury or
damages for the class as a whole.

"We see a questionnaire that has confusing instructions, complex
text in the asking of the questions, and we see clear evidence
that people raced through this questionnaire."

For Philip Morris, Shaw moved for directed verdict a day later.

Shaw wrote that Larsen's experts could not identify studies
concluding that compensation was universal and complete for all
smokers.

He also wrote that Larsen failed to meet her burden of
demonstrating that all class members failed to receive less tar
and nicotine, that she did not offer evidence that class members
understood Light to mean less harmful and that she didn't offer
evidence of ascertainable loss because Lights always cost the same
as Reds.

"The record that has been offered at trial establishes that some
class members received less tar and nicotine from each Marlboro
Lights cigarette and not all class members received a more harmful
cigarette," Shaw wrote.

Further, Larsen's failure to offer evidence on any difference in
fair market value warranted directed verdict, he wrote.

Shaw also picked apart the survey.  He wrote that it did not
replicate the marketplace, rather it measured a hypothetical
cigarette in an artificial environment.  It also measured value in
2010 - and Larsen offered no evidence of market value in the class
period from 1995 to 2003.

"Plaintiff's experts admit that they do not know what percentage
of the class were excluded from the survey population," he wrote.


PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces "Colley" Suit Over Old Spice Product
------------------------------------------------------------
Rodney Colley, and all others similarly situated v. Procter &
Gamble Co. and John Does 1-10, Case No. 2:16-cv-00225-MHW-KAJ
(S.D. Ohio, March 11, 2016), alleges that the Company's Old Spice
deodorant regularly and routinely causes rashes, irritation,
burning and other injury to unsuspecting customers.

Procter & Gamble is a multinational company that manufactures and
sells consumer goods, including cleaning agents and personal care
products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

       Thomas J. Connick, Esq.
       Edward A. Proctor, Esq.
       CONNCIK LAW, LLC
       25550 Chagrin Blvd., Suite 101
       Cleveland, OH 44122
       Tel: (216)364-0512
       Fax: (216)609-3446
       E-mail: tconnick@connicklawllc.com
               eproctor@connicklawllc.com

           - and -

       Edward W. Cochran, Esq.
       LAW OFFICES OF EDWARD W. COCHRAN
       20030 Marchmont Road
       Cleveland, Ohio 44122
       Tel: (216)751-5546
       E-mail: edwardcochran@wowway.com


PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Installment Fees Are Excessive, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Audra Boring, and all others similarly situated v. Progressive
Direct Insurance Company, Progressive American Insurance Company,
Progressive Select Insurance Company, Progressive Casualty
Insurance Company, Progressive Specialty Insurance Company,
Progressive Advanced Insurance Company, Progressive Preferred
Insurance Company, Progressive Northwestern Insurance Company,
Progressive Mountain Insurance Company, Case No. CV16860266 (Court
of Common Pleas Cuyahoga County, March 11, 2016) is brought
against the Defendants for refusal to refund policy fees
wrongfully overcharged in direct violation of the Defendants rate
policy.

Progressive Direct Insurance Company, Progressive American
Insurance Company, Progressive Select Insurance Company,
Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, Progressive Specialty
Insurance Company, Progressive Advanced Insurance Company,
Progressive Preferred Insurance Company, Progressive Northwestern
Insurance Company and Progressive Mountain Insurance Company are
insurance provider company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      W. Craig Bashien, Esq.
      BASHEIN & BASHEIN CO., L.P.A.
      Terminal Tower, 35th Floor
      50 Public Square
      Cleveland, Ohio 44113
      Phone: (216) 771-3239
      Fax: (216)781-5876
      E-mail: cbashein@basheinlaw.com

          - and -

      John P. Hurst, Esq.
      BASHEIN & BASHEIN CO., L.P.A.
      Terminal Tower, 39th Floor
      50 Public Square
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Phone: (216) 771-3239
      Fax: (216)781-5876
      E-mail: johnhurst@adelphia.net

          - and -

      Paul W. Flores, Esq.
      PAUL W. FLORES CO., L.P.A.
      Terminal Tower, Suite 1910
      50 Public Square
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Phone: (216)344-9393
      Fax: (216)344-9395
      E-mail: pwf@pwfco.com


PTC INC: May 6 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of PTC Inc. ("PTC") between November 24, 2011 and July
29, 2015. You are hereby notified that a securities class action
lawsuit has been commenced in the USDC for the District of
Massachusetts.  To get more information go to:
http://www.zlk.com/pslra/ptc-inc

or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com
or by telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972.
There is no cost or obligation to you.

Throughout the Class Period defendants issued false and misleading
statements to investors and/or failed to disclose that: (1) PTC
did not disclose to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
and the U.S. Department of Justice the full results of its
investigation into whether PTC China improperly provided
recreational travel to Chinese government officials in violation
of The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ("FCPA"); (2) PTC was not
cooperating with the SEC and the DOJ in connection with their
investigations into whether PTC China improperly provided
recreational travel to Chinese government officials in violation
of FCPA; (3) PTC's books and records were inaccurate and PTC
failed to maintain adequate internal accounting controls; and (4)
as a result, PTC's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

If you suffered a loss in PTC you have until May 6, 2016 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky -- http://www.zlk.com-- is a national firm with
offices in New York, New Jersey, California, Connecticut, and
Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and
experience representing investors in securities litigation, and
have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved
shareholders.


QUAKER OATS: Faces "Aliano" Suit Over Misbranding for Product
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mario Aliano, individually and all others similarly situated v.
The Quaker Oats Company, Case No. Case: 1:16-cv-03087 (N.D. Ill.,
March 11, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant from misrepresenting
its food products.

The Quaker Oats Company is a New Jersey Company that manufactures,
markets, distributes, and sells a variety of Oatmeal products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

       Thomas Zimmerman,Jr., Esq.
       Amelia S. Newton, Esq.
       Jordan M. Rudnick, Esq.
       Matthew C. De Re, Esq.
       Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq.
       Maebetty Kirby, Esq.
       ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
       77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220
       Chicago, IL 60602
       Telephone: (312) 440-0020
       Facsimile: (312) 440-4180
       Website: attorneyzim.com
       E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com
               amy@attorneyzim.com
               jordan@attorneyzim.com
               matt@attorneyzim.com
               nick@attorneyzim.com
               maebetty@attorneyzim.com


RICHMOND ORGANIZATION: Sued Over "We Shall Overcome" Copyright
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Riley, writing for Newsday, reports that the makers of a
documentary film filed a class-action suit in federal court in
Manhattan on April 12 challenging the claimed copyright for the
song "We Shall Overcome," claiming that it is in the public
domain.

Lawyers for the group, the We Shall Overcome Foundation, said the
song had its roots in old African-American spirituals and the
American labor movement, and was adopted as an anthem by the civil
rights movement in the 1960s.

The lawsuit alleges that two Manhattan companies, The Richmond
Organization and Ludlow Music, have unlawfully collected millions
of dollars in fees since registering a copyright on the song in
1960.

The foundation said it wanted the copyright declared invalid
because it was refused permission to use the song in its
documentary, and risked a large financial penalty if it used "We
Shall Overcome" without permission.


ROD'S PRODUCTION: "Ainsworth" FLSA Suit Transferred to W.D. Okla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sonny Ainsworth, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Rod's Production Services LLC,
Defendant, Defendant, Case No. 5:15-cv-00767 (W.D. Tex., April 6,
2016), has been be transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma for the purpose of consolidation with
Cause No: 5:14-CV-593.

Ainsworth seeks recovery of overtime wages for hours rendered in
excess of 40 hours per week under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29
U.S.C. Sec. 216(b).

Defendant provides oil and gas services to energy companies
nationwide where Plaintiff was employed as a welder.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

     Philip R. Bruce, Esq.
     Samuel R. Fulkerson, Esq.
     Tony G. Puckett, Esq.
     MCAFEE & TAFT-OKC
     211 N Robinson Ave
     10th Floor
     Oklahoma City, OK 73102
     Tel: (405) 228-7390
     Fax: (405) 235-0439
     Email: philip.bruce@mcafeetaft.com
            tony.puckett@mcafeetaft.com

         - and -

     Tracy L. McCreight, Esq.
     MUNSCH HARDT KOPF & HARR, P.C.
     303 Colorado Street, Suite 2600
     Austin, TX 78701-3924
     Tel: (512) 391-6100
     Fax: (512) 391-6149


SEAS & ASSOCIATES: "Crawford" Sues Over Illegal Collection
----------------------------------------------------------
Gregory W. Crawford, individually, and on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. Seas & Associates, LLC,
John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01928-KSH-CLW
(D.N.J., April 7, 2016), sues over illegal collection practices
under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Seas & Associates provides collection services to clients in the
health and fitness industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SETERUS INC: Faces "Blake" Suit in Miami, Florida
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Seterus, Inc.  The
case is captioned, Geoffrey Blake, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Seterus, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:16-cv-21225-JLK (S.D. Fla., April 6, 2016).

Senior Judge James Lawrence King oversees the case.

Seterus, Inc. -- https://www.seterus.com/ -- is a specialty loan
servicing company.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Darren R. Newhart, Esq.
     Jack Dennis Card, Jr., Esq.
     Hicks, Motto, Ehrlich, P.A.
     3399 PGA Blvd., Suite 300
     Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
     Tel: (561) 683-2300
     Fax: (561) 697-3852
     E-mail: Dcard@Consumerlaworg.com

          - and -

     James Lawrence Kauffman, Esq.
     Bailey & Glasser, LLP
     1054 31st Street, NW, Suite 230
     Washington, DC 20007
     Tel: (202) 463-2101
     Fax: (202) 463-2103
     E-mail: jkauffman@baileyglasser.com


SIMPLE PAYMENTS: "Youssofi" Sues Over TCPA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------
Rabi Youssofi, an individual, on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated people, Plaintiff, v. Simple Payments Corp.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00828-BAS-WVG (S.D. Cal., April 7,
2016), sues over violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act of 1991.

Simple Payments Corp. is a financial solutions provider intended
for dental services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Asil Mashiri, Esq.
      MASHIRI LAW FIRM
      11251 Rancho Carmel Drive, Suite 500694
      San Diego, CA 92150
      Tel: (858) 348-4938
      Fax: (858) 348-4939
      Email: alexmashiri@yahoo.com


SKYWAY CHILI: Faces "Como" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Emirjoni Como, and all others similarly situated v. Skyway Chili,
LLC d/b/a Skyline Chili, Case No. 8:16-cv-00635-JSM-TBM (M.D.
Fla., March 17, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Skyway Chili, LLC, is a Florida corporation and operates a
restaurant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Donna V. Smith, Esq.
      WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
      1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Telephone: 813-224-0431
      Facsimile: 813-229-8712
      E-mail: dsmith@wfclaw.com
              mcambronero@wfclaw.com


SONY PICTURES: Judge OKs $8MM Data Breach Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel R. Stoller, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that a
federal judge gave final approval April 6 to a $8 million class
action settlement to settle allegation by ex-employees of Sony
Pictures Entertainment, Inc. whose personal information was stolen
during a computer hack linked to the 2014 release of the movie
"The Interview".

Judge R. Gary Klausner of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California approved the class settlement which will
extend identity protection services for class members through
December 2017.  In addition, Sony will "establish a $2 million
non-reversionary fund to reimburse" class members for preventative
measures taken to prevent identity theft related to the
cybersecurity attack and $2.5 million to class members who
"experience actual" losses from identity theft related to the
hack.

The settlement also includes $3.49 million in attorney's fees.

U.S. officials blamed North Korean hackers angered over the
satirical comedy which was about a fictional plot to assassinate
North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-Un.  The cyberattack destroyed
company data and caused the movie studio to initially cancel the
release of the movie.

Keller Rohrback LLP, Girard Gibbs LLP and Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein LLP represented the class plaintiffs.  Wilmer Cutler
Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP represented Sony.


ST. JOSEPH HEALTH: Data Breach Plaintiffs Get Settlement Payouts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vita Reed, writing for Orange County Business Journal, reports
that Plaintiffs in a recently settled class-action data breach
lawsuit against Irvine-based St. Joseph Health have started to
receive their payouts.

The $28 million settlement deal was reached in August and approved
in February by Orange County Superior Court Judge Kim Dunning.  It
calls for each class member to receive a minimum of $241 and other
proposed benefits, according to the Daily Journal legal trade
newspaper.

St. Joseph was sued in 2012 on allegations it failed to secure
confidential medical information of 31,802 patients from February
2011 to February 2012. The data included histories of diagnoses,
prescriptions and other confidential information.

The complaint was eventually consolidated into one at the end of
2012.


SUNTRUST MORTGAGE: Sued Over Post-Payment Interest Charges
----------------------------------------------------------
Steven Corhern, Esq. -- scorhern@balch.com -- of Balch & Bingham
LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that a class action filed
in the Northern District of Georgia disputes the ability of a
lender to charge post-payment interest for certain home mortgage
loans when the lender has not provided a very specific disclosure
form.  In Felix v. SunTrust Mortgage, Inc., No. 16-66, Sarah Felix
alleges the she took out an FHA-insured loan in in 2009.  When she
sold her home in 2015, she requested a payoff statement from the
lender.  According to Ms. Felix, the lender sent the payoff
statement on April 6 and included interest for the entire month of
April in the total payoff amount.  Though Ms. Felix paid off the
loan on April 8, she alleges that she was still charged interest
for the entire month of April.

The interest Ms. Felix was allegedly charged from April 8 to April
30 is commonly referred to as post-payment interest -- that is,
interest which accrues after the principal balance has been paid
in full.  Ms. Felix's complaint acknowledges that FHA regulations
allow lenders to collect post-payment interest.  She contends,
however, that a lender must first send a specific disclosure
mandated by 24 C.F.R. Sec 203.558 and that the disclosure must
take a very particular form.  Ms. Felix contends that she did not
receive the required disclosure and that the disclosures she did
receive were confusing and inadequate.

Ms. Felix does not allege that she would have acted differently
had the proper disclosure been used.  Instead, she points to a
standard FHA mortgage provision which provides that a lender shall
only charge interest as permitted by FHA regulations. Because her
lender did not use the required disclosure, Ms. Felix contends,
the lender breached the terms of the mortgage by collecting post-
payment interest.

While the lawsuit names only one lender, Ms. Felix alleges that
mortgagors paid over $449 million in post-payment interest in 2012
alone.  It seems likely, therefore, that additional lawsuits
against other lenders could be forthcoming.  In fact, it appears
that the same plaintiffs' counsel filed contemporaneously with Ms.
Felix's action similar actions in the Southern District of Florida
against different lenders.  Thus, lenders should consider these
allegations and whether they should alter any practices to
insulate themselves from such lawsuits.


TARGET CORP: Fails to Provide Rest Period, "Craft" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Craft, individually and all others similarly situated v.
Target Corporations and Does 1-100, Case No. BC613268 (Cal.
Super., March 11, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to provide rest period in violation of California Labor
Code.

Target Corporations is a retailer that sells everyday essentials
-- from toiletries to electronics -- to consumers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

       KHORSHIDI LAW FIRM, APC
       Omid Khorshidi, Esq.
       Roxana Sadighim, Esq.
       8822 W. Olympic Boulevard
       Beverly Hills, California 90211
       Telephone: (310)273-2211
       Facsimile: (310)2732240
       E-mail: omid@khorshidilaw.com


TEXAS: Class Action Mulled Against SRA Over Flooding Damage
-----------------------------------------------------------
Emma Gallimore, writing for SETexasRecord.com, reports that two
lawyers are organizing a class action against the Sabine River
Authority for flooding damage caused when the floodgates at the
Toledo Bend Reservoir were opened, spilling water at a rate faster
than that of Niagara Falls.

Attorneys John Werner and Adam Nichos from the Reaud, Morgan &
Quinn Law Firm in Beaumont held a meeting on March 23 to inform
residents of their eligibility to join the suit. The attorneys
told the attendees of the meeting that they were eligible to
recoup damages under eminent domain.

Eminent domain gives the government and its agents the right to
seize property for public use, so long as the owner is given a
fair market price for the property.  The lawyers did not return
requests for comment on the class action, but said during the
meeting that the flood was caused by human action and that those
people knew what would happen when the choice was made to open the
gates.

"It rained more than it ever has and created a new flood of
record," Ann Galassi, Assistant General Manager of Administration
at the Sabine River Authority told the Southeast Texas Record.

There was only one thing the Toledo Bend Reservoir was qualified
to do to prevent the dam from collapsing, and that was open the
flood gates.

"We are not a flood control facility, so we have no flood pool,"
Mr. Galassi said.

As a result 207,640 feet of water per second was released when all
nine of the dam's gates were raised to 22 feet out of a possible
26.  The water damaged homes and businesses near the river in both
Texas and Louisiana.

More than 100 caskets were unearthed in Louisiana and had to be
retrieved from the water. The remains will need to be identified
before they can be returned to families and reburied.

Mr. Galassi said that the Sabine River Authority operated
according to federal guidelines when deciding when and by how much
to open the flood gates.  The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
directs changes to the capacity of the reservoir under the Toledo
Bend Project license based on economic and public interest
considerations.

When asked if residents were notified of the potential flooding,
Mr. Galassi said that emergency management offices in the parishes
and in the counties are notified through an advisory.

"This flood event we sent out 26 of them," Mr. Galassi said.  "We
send them out every single time that we change the gates."

Home and business owners affected by the flooding may be eligible
for help from FEMA and private insurance; however, Mr. Werner told
meeting attendees that even residents who receive money from these
sources may still be eligible to join the class action.

The Sabine River Authority declined to comment on the possible
lawsuit, but has declared that there is a possibility the FERC
guidelines could change.  Concerned residents are encouraged to
email or call the FERC to express their views on possible changes.

Even if changes to the policies are approved, it could take years
for them to be implemented.


TRANS-CONTINENTAL: "Glidden" Sues over Illegal Collection
---------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Glidden, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Trans-Continental Credit & Collection
Corp., Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-01919-FLW-LHG (D.N.J., April
6, 2016), sues over illegal collection practices under the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

Trans-Continental Credit and Collection Corp., a debt collector
located at 44 South Broadway Suite 401 White Plains, NY 10601, is
trying to collect a debt from the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TRAVELERS INDEMNITY: 4th Cir. Tackles CGL Cyber Coverage Issue
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott L. Schmookler, Esq., of Gordon & Rees LLP, in an article for
Lexology, reports that the increasing market for cyber insurance
policies combined with the addition of cyber exclusions has cooled
litigation over whether a cyber breach triggers coverage under a
commercial general liability (CGL) policy and whether a CGL
insurer owes a duty to defend litigation arising from a cyber
breach.  However, the expansion of cyber insurance and integration
of cyber exclusions has not the stemmed litigation under older CGL
policies, many of which do not include cyber exclusions.  Earlier
on April 11, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed cyber
coverage under a traditional CGL policy in Portal Healthcare v.
Travelers Indemnity Company, Case No. 14-1944.

Portal arose after plaintiffs filed a putative class action,
alleging that Portal negligently failed to secure a server
containing confidential records for patients at a hospital,
thereby making the records available for anyone to view online
without a password.  The insured argued that Travelers owed a duty
to defend that class action because the medical records company
published, and therefore disclosed, confidential information,
triggering the personal and advertising injury coverage provision
in the CGL policy.  Travelers disagreed, arguing that the failure
to secure a server is not a publication. Publication, Travelers
argued, requires the deliberate step of disseminating the records
-- which was not alleged.

The Fourth Circuit accepted the insured's argument, with little
explanation or analysis.  Commending the district court for
limiting its analysis to the complaint and policy, the court
concluded that "the class-action complaint 'at least potentially
or arguably' alleges a 'publication' of private medical
information by Portal that constitutes conduct covered under the
Policies."  The court did not explain why a failure to secure a
private server satisfies the plain meaning of the word
publication, but instead accepted the conclusion that the
possibility of public access constitutes publication: "Such
conduct, if proven, would have given 'unreasonable publicity to,
and disclose[d] information about, patients' private lives,'
because any member of the public with an internet connection could
have viewed the plaintiffs' private medical records during the
time the records were available online."

Portal should have limited impact on modern CGL policies because
the cyber exclusions therein resolve the question of whether there
is a duty to defend cyber breach litigation.  However, within the
Fourth Circuit, Portal suggests that a CGL insurer should
carefully review cyber-related claims.  Portal should be limited
to the unique facts underlying the claim (in that records were
made publicly available), but the Court's failure to provide a
definition of publication leaves the scope of this decision open
to discussion.


TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Faces Guardrail Class Action in Missouri
------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Messenger, writing for St. Louis Post-Dispatch, reports that
When a federal judge in Texas handed down a $663 million fraud
verdict last summer against the Dallas-based maker of guardrails
used on highways all over the country, a lot of people started
seeing dollar signs, including a few in Missouri.

Since that June verdict, which stemmed from a whistle-blower
complaint, Trinity Industries Inc. has faced a slew of lawsuits
from states, cities and counties, as well as several wrongful
death actions filed by individuals.

At issue is whether Trinity improperly changed the design of the
end-terminals on guardrails that are supposed to absorb impact to
protect accident victims from harm.  The company is fighting
allegations that the changes made to the design create a
possibility that shards of metal will break off and cause physical
harm or death to drivers or passengers.

In Missouri, one lawsuit in particular bears watching.

Filed in November by Jackson County, the lawsuit seeks class
action status in alleging negligence by Trinity in designing the
"ET-Plus" guardrail end terminals that are found throughout the
state.  The lawsuit alleges the terminals are "defective, unsafe
and unreasonably dangerous."

The proposed members of the class -- which would have to be
approved by the judge -- include the city of St. Louis, St. Louis
County and the Missouri Department of Transportation, or MoDOT.

Missouri has been at the forefront of the national debate over the
Trinity guardrail end terminals.

In 2014, Missouri was one of the first states in the nation to
stop using the Trinity ET-Plus end terminals.  That decision came
after a University of Alabama study paid for by the nonprofit
Safety Institute and the Missouri transportation commission found
the Trinity terminals were nearly four times more likely to be
involved in a fatal wreck.

Now Jackson County -- with the state potentially riding along --
is suing Trinity for potentially hundreds of millions of dollars.

The lawsuit was filed by John Schirger of the Kansas City law firm
Miller Schirger.

The "Miller" in Miller Schirger is Stephen R. Miller, who happens
to be the vice chairman of the Missouri Highways and
Transportation Commission, which oversees the transportation
department.  Mr. Miller was the chairman of the commission at the
time the lawsuit was filed.

It would seem quite a potential conflict of interest for
Mr. Miller's six-attorney firm to file a lawsuit with such a
direct connection to the transportation commission.  While MoDOT
is not yet a member of the class, and the commission would have to
approve such a move in a future vote, the potential for Miller to
profit from his public service is obvious.

So how did Mr. Miller's firm get the Jackson County business?

Jackson County counselor W. Stephen Nixon didn't return calls for
comment.  He has been criticized lately for the county's habit of
issuing no-bid contracts, including a consulting contract recently
to former county executive Mike Sanders.

Asked about the lawsuit and the potential for conflict of
interest, Mr. Miller said, "I can't comment on that."

The commission's ethics policy requires any attorney who believes
their firm is handling a case that might be "adverse" to the
commission or MoDOT to file a disclosure.

When asked for any disclosures Miller made to the commission
regarding a lawsuit against Trinity Industries, the commission
produced only minutes from a closed meeting in February 2015.

In that meeting, held Feb. 3-4, MoDOT director Dave Nichols
addressed the commission regarding "guard rail end treatments
legal issues." After discussion began about the "possible
procurement of counsel," Miller recused himself.

Here's where it gets even more curious.

In its letter to me, signed by Pamela J. Harlan, the secretary to
the commission, the state asserts that Miller's recusal in a
closed meeting is "attorney client privilege and exempt from
disclosure under the Missouri Sunshine Act."

In other words, even if Miller did disclose a potential conflict
of interest, the commission believes it could keep that from the
public.

It didn't -- at least once I asked about it -- but what happens
the next time some member of the public seeks accountability from
the state's transportation commission? What good is disclosing a
conflict of interest involving public money if the public isn't
allowed to know about it?


UNITED STATES: ICE Sued for Illegally Detaining Immigrants
----------------------------------------------------------
The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, the University of
Minnesota Law School's Center for New Americans, and Dorsey &
Whitney on April 12 disclosed that it filed a class action lawsuit
(CASE 0:16-cv-00941) challenging the U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) practice of continuing to detain immigrants for
months, even after an immigration judge has ruled they cannot be
deported to their home countries.  The petition argues this
practice is unconstitutional.

Rushinga Muzaliwa is a petitioner in the case who is currently in
ICE custody.  He has filed a habeas corpus action and seeks to
represent the larger group of immigrants like him who would face
persecution or torture if deported, but whom ICE nonetheless
continues to detain at county jails across Minnesota.  The
petition seeks to represent any future ICE detainees facing
similar violations of their constitutional rights.

"The arbitrary detention of our clients violates their fundamental
constitutional right to liberty," said Becky Cassler, a third-year
law student the University of Minnesota Law School. "The ICE
office in Minnesota has been unlawfully detaining similarly
situated people for years."

ICE detains and seeks to deport many noncitizens each year.  Those
who fear persecution if deported to their home country can ask an
immigration judge to block deportation by applying for Withholding
of Removal or protection under the United Nations Convention
Against Torture (CAT).  An immigration judge can only grant these
forms of relief where the immigrant proves he or she most likely
will be persecuted or tortured at home.  If the petitioner is
granted deportation protection, ICE's own written policies say he
or she should be released immediately, except in rare instances
where deportation is possible to a third country, such as where
the immigrant has dual citizenship in two foreign countries.
However, the ICE office in Minnesota continues to jail these
immigrants for months after an immigration judge blocks their
deportation, and routinely does so when there is no expectation of
deportation to any country.  The lawsuit explains the typical
period of unjustified detention is 90 days.

"ICE has continued this practice for too long because the
immigrants they detain are mostly indigent," said
Kirsten Schubert -- schubert.kirsten@dorsey.com -- a partner at
Dorsey & Whitney.  "As individuals they simply don't have the
resources to sue ICE in a federal court, so we're coming together
as volunteers to vindicate their rights as a group."

The class action habeas argues that continuing to hold immigrants
after an immigration judge grants Withholding of Removal or CAT
protection violates the U.S. Constitution, Supreme Court
precedent, and decisions from this District Court, as well as
national ICE policy.

"The government is spending millions of dollars locking up people
whose detentions serve no purpose," said Charles Samuelson,
executive director of the ACLU-MN.  "This practice is unnecessary
and violates the constitutional rights of the immigrants being
held."

The ACLU-MN, the Center for New Americans, and Dorsey are asking
that all immigrants currently in this situation be immediately
released and that in the future no immigrant be held for an
additional 90 days when there is no likelihood that the immigrant
can be deported.

     About University of Minnesota Law School's Center
                       for New Americans

The University of Minnesota Law School's Center for New Americans
is the first clinical program of its kind, designed in formal
partnership with several of Minnesota's preeminent law firms --
Faegre Baker Daniels, Robins Kaplan, and Dorsey & Whitney -- and
three leading nonprofit immigration legal service providers -- The
Advocates for Human Rights, the Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota,
and Mid-Minnesota Legal Aid.  Founded with generous support from
the Robina Foundation, the Center is home to three integrated
immigration clinics and an outreach program that offers law
students unparalleled educational opportunities in public service
to noncitizens.

                About American Civil Liberties Union

The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota is a nonprofit
organization dedicated to protecting the civil liberties of all
Minnesotans.

                     About Dorsey & Whitney

Clients have relied on Dorsey since 1912 as a valued business
partner.  With locations across the United States and in Canada,
Europe and the Asia-Pacific region, Dorsey provides an integrated,
proactive approach to its clients' legal and business needs.
Dorsey represents a number of the world's most successful
companies from a wide range of industries, including leaders in
the banking, energy, food and agribusiness, health care, mining
and natural resources, and public-private project development
sectors, as well as major non-profit and government entities.


UNITED STATES: Baby in Terrorist Watch List, Class Action Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Lazare, writing for Alternet, reports that "Baby Doe" was
just seven months old when he was designated a potential terrorist
by the U.S. government.

A U.S. citizen born to a Muslim-American family, the infant was at
an airport when his "boarding pass was first stamped with the
'SSSS' designation," indicating that he had been targeted for
extra surveillance, according to a class-action lawsuit filed by
the Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations
(CAIR), a civil rights organization.

"While passing through airport security, he was subjected to
extensive searches, pat downs and chemical testing," continues the
class action, which was submitted alongside a separate injunctive
suit, both filed by CAIR-MI with the Law Office of Gadeir Abbas
and the firm Akeel & Valentine.  "Every item in his mother's baby
bag was searched, including every one of his diapers."

Now that baby -- whose identity is being protected -- is a
four-year-old toddler living in Alameda County, California.  He is
among 18 plaintiffs seeking redress for "an injustice of historic
proportions" allegedly committed against them -- and thousands of
nameless others -- by the U.S. government's overreaching terrorist
watchlisting system.

"Through extra-judicial and secret means, the federal government
is ensnaring individuals into an invisible web of consequences
that are imposed indefinitely and without recourse as a result of
the shockingly large federal watchlist that now include hundreds
of thousands of individuals," states the class action.

The class action takes aim at the Selectee and No-Fly lists, as
well as at the Terrorist Screening Database, which is housed under
the "Terrorist Screen Center" of the FBI and operates as the U.S.
government's central terrorist watchlist.  Numerous current and
former employees of the Terrorist Screening Center were named and
are being sued as individuals.

Despite civil rights outcry, the federal watchlisting system has
been steadily growing in recent years.

Jeremy Scahill and Ryan Devereaux of the Intercept reported in
2014 that the Obama administration "has quietly approved a
substantial expansion of the terrorist watchlist system,
authorizing a secret process that requires neither 'concrete
facts' nor 'irrefutable' evidence' to designate an American or
foreigner as a terrorist."  According to their reporting on leaked
government materials, of the 680,000 people on the watchlist at
the time, "more than 40 percent are described by the government
has having 'no recognized terrorist group affiliation.'"

The class action lawsuit, meanwhile, claims that there have been
more than 1.5 million nominations to the federal watchlist since
2009 and that, in 2013 for example, the Terrorist Screening Center
converted 98.96 percent of those nominations into watchlist
placements."

While the Department of Homeland Security was forced last year to
make limited reforms to its No-Fly list policies, the class action
charges that the federal watchlist remains "accountability free.
People placed on the federal watchlist have no means of removing
themselves or challenging the basis for their inclusion."

Many Americans, including children, wind up on the watchlist based
on "mere guesses, hunches, and conjecture and even simply based on
matters of race, ethnicity, national origin, religion or the
exercise of their constitutional rights," the suit states.

Inclusion can have drastic and harmful consequences, from
inability to travel to forced closures of bank accounts to public
humiliation and degradation. Numerous individuals have testified
to CAIR-MI that federal authorities have sought to use the list to
pressure them into becoming informants against their own
communities.

One plaintiff, Gulet Mohamed, charged in the suit that, while in
Kuwait in 2010, he was abducted and then tortured and beaten for
more than a week while blindfolded and handcuffed, with his
interrogators directly citing his inclusion on the federal
watchlist.

As for Baby Doe, his mother has already filed for redress with the
Department of Homeland Security and submitted a civil rights
complaint with the TSA.  Neither the baby, nor his parents, have
ever received an explanation for why he was placed on the federal
watchlist and "at no time was he or his parents offered a
meaningful opportunity to contest his designation," the suit
states.

Lena Masri, a senior staff attorney for CAIR-MI, declared, "The
terrorism watchlists are premised on the false notion that the
government can somehow accurately predict whether an innocent
American citizen will commit a crime in the future based on
religious affiliation or First Amendment activities."


VEDANTA RESOURCES: Hearing to Address Jurisdiction Issue Begins
---------------------------------------------------------------
Miningweekly.com reports that UK-headquartered Vedanta Resources,
its Zambian subsidiary Konkola Copper Mines (KCM) and law firm
Leigh Day were set to argue the jurisdiction of an upcoming legal
battle between the miner and villagers living near KCM's
operations over alleged pollution in the areas surrounding KCM in
Zambia.  In a statement to the media, Leigh Day, which was
representing 1 826 Zambian villagers, said a three-day hearing
would start on April 5 in the London High Court to set the scene
for the court action.  Leigh Day said the villagers accused the
companies of contaminating nearby water sources and farming land
since 2004 through copper processing, ageing infrastructure and an
allegedly at-capacity and overflowing pollution control dam.

"The claimants are seeking compensation for loss and damage to
their land and their health suffered as a result of the pollution.
They are also seeking remediation of the land and the provision of
clean water," Leigh Day senior partner Martyn Day --
mday@leighday.co.uk -- said in a statement on April 11.  Judge
Justice Coulson would hear arguments on behalf of Vedanta and its
subsidiary KCM, as well as Leigh Day, against or for the UK as a
jurisdiction to try the claims.  Vedanta would not comment,
stating that the matter was sub judice.  "Lawyers for the mining
companies will argue that the claims should be tried in Zambia
because the claimants are Zambian and the damage occurred in
Zambia," Day believed.

However, Leigh Day planned to argue that the claims should be
tried in the UK, as Vedanta "should bear equal legal
responsibility", owing to its control over its mining subsidiary.
Leigh Day issued proceedings on behalf of the villagers against
Vedanta and KCM at the High Court in London in July 2015.


VISALUS INC: Sommers Schwartz Files Class Action in Michigan
------------------------------------------------------------
Sommers Schwartz, P.C. on April 11 disclosed that it has filed a
lawsuit seeking class action status in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (docket no. Case No.
2:14-cv-12693) on behalf of all persons or entities (the "Class")
that entered into an agreement with ViSalus, Inc., and purchased
the right to become an Individual Promoter ("IP") under the
ViSalus Compensation Plan, and suffered a financial loss, for the
period of July 9, 2009 through the present (the "Class Period").

A copy of the Second Amended Complaint may be obtained from the
Court, or you can call our offices at (877) 957-6272 to speak with
an attorney regarding this matter and we will send you a copy of
the Second Amended Complaint.

Among other claims, the Second Amended Complaint alleges that
under federal securities law Sections 10b-5(b) and 12(2), ViSalus,
Inc., made certain misrepresentations and omissions in connection
with the sale of the IP "business opportunity" or interests to
individual purchasers. The Second Amended Complaint also alleges
that under Section 10b-5(a) and (c), ViSalus Inc., and Robert
Goergen, Sr., Todd Goergen, Nick Sarnicola, Blake Mallen, and Ryan
Blair (the "Securities Defendants") participated in a scheme to
defraud the Class.  The allegations under both Section 10b-5 and
12(2) are, generally, that the named defendants falsely
represented and/or engaged in a scheme to defraud that it/they
were conveying as a legal business opportunity to a participant-
purchaser of an IP interest, when, in fact, they and each of them
knew or recklessly ignored that the putative Class members were
purchasing an interest in an illegal pyramid scheme. In the
alternative, the complaint alleges that defendants' actions
omitted material facts, i.e., that they were selling an interest
in a pyramid scheme, in connection with the sale of
distributorships in ViSalus.

The Second Amended Complaint also alleges that some or all of
these defendants, along with various others specifically named in
the Second Amended Complaint, were engaged in violations of the
Racketeering and Corrupt Organizations Act, Sections 1962 (c) and
(d).  Generally, the Second Amended Complaint alleges that ViSalus
and various individual defendants, participated in an illegal
pyramid scheme selling distribution rights to individuals
primarily for the right to recruit others.  Beginning in 2009, and
continuing until the market became saturated the company, its
promoters and professional recruiters recruited hundreds of
thousands of people to become IP promoters of the ViSalus
"business opportunity."  The Second Amended Complaint alleges that
the defendants engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity under
federal mail and wire fraud statutes causing a loss to the vast
majority of the people who were recruited into the scheme.

The Second Amended Complaint also alleges that the Securities
Defendants and others violated various provisions of the Michigan
Consumer Protection Act, the Michigan Franchise Investment Law,
and common law of civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment, and
conversion.

A full description of the allegations and legal theories is also
available by review of orders issued by the Court prior to the
filing of the Second Amended Complaint.  These orders may also be
obtained from the Court or from our offices.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired an IP interest in ViSalus
between July 9, 2009 and the present, you may qualify to serve as
lead plaintiff on behalf of the Class.  All motions for
appointment as lead plaintiff must be filed with the Court no
later than sixty days from April 11, 2016.  Any member of the
proposed Class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in
this action through counsel of his or her choice, or may remain an
absent class member. There are certain legal requirements to serve
as lead plaintiff, which we would be pleased to discuss with you.
Please contact Andrew Kochanowski by email at
akochanowski@sommerspc.com or telephone at (877) 957-6272 if you
would like to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
this notice or your rights.

Sommers Schwartz, P.C. -- http://www.sommerspc.com-- is a law
firm located in Southfield, Michigan, represents individuals in
Michigan and across the country who have been harmed as a result
of fraud, medical errors, defective products, employment disputes,
and other forms of negligence or intentional injury, as well as
businesses involved in complex litigation matters that jeopardize
their existence.


VIZIO HOLDINGS: Emerson Scott Files Privacy Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Emerson Scott, LLP on April 12 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, William Lara, et al v. Vizio Holdings,
Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 8:16-cv-00679, on behalf of a
nationwide class of purchasers of VIZIO televisions that were
equipped with, or thereafter updated to include, Smart
Interactivity data collection software.  A number of cases
involving this matter have been filed and centralized before the
Honorable Josephine L. Staton in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California.

There are approximately ten million VIZIO smart TV's equipped with
the company's VIZIO Internet Apps (VIA or VIA Plus) smart
platform, with its tracking algorithm called "Smart
Interactivity."  This allows VIZIO to keep track of the users'
viewing habits without their knowledge. VIZIO may share that data
with advertisers, sometimes without camouflaging a user's Internet
Protocol (IP) address, and advertisers can then connect those
habits to a particular user's other electronic devices.  The
tracking is turned on by default and the user who wants to escape
being tracked has to opt-out.

Plaintiffs allege that this class action brought against VIZIO and
Cognitive Media, arises due to the aforementioned collection of
the private information of users and purchasers of these "smart"
TVs which began no later than October, 2015.  Plaintiffs also
allege that this information, based on the viewing habits of users
and purchasers in the privacy of their own homes and collected
without the knowledge and agreement of consumers, is sold by the
defendants to third parties, again without the consent or
knowledge of consumers.  Plaintiffs further allege that
Defendants' collection, dissemination and profiteering from this
unauthorized collection of personal information violated federal
and state laws and the privacy rights of consumers.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages and injunctive relief on behalf
of all purchasers of VIZIO televisions that were equipped with, or
thereafter updated to include, Smart Interactivity data collection
software.  The plaintiffs are represented by the Houston-based
firm of Emerson Scott, LLP with offices in Houston, Texas and
Little Rock, Arkansas.  Emerson Scott, LLP is a boutique law firm
specializing in results, integrity, and personal service. Emerson
Scott, LLP has devoted their practice to consumer privacy and data
breach class actions.  It is deeply involved in data breach cases
such as the Anthem, MIE, OPM, and Experian data breach cases.

If you purchased one of the affected VIZIO televisions and are
concerned about your privacy rights, please contact plaintiff's
counsel, Emerson Scott, LLP, at the following toll-free number:
800-663-9817, or via e-mail to John G. Emerson --
jemerson@emersonfirm.com -- or David G. Scott
(dscott@emersonfirm.com).  A copy of the complaint is available
from the Court or from Emerson Scott, LLP.


VIZIO INC: "Altman" Sues Over Illegal Data Gathering
----------------------------------------------------
Isaac Altman, Plaintiff, v. Vizio, Inc., Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-02565 (S.D. N.Y., April 6, 2016), seeks monetary, actual,
statutory and punitive damages, injunctive, legal and equitable
relief and reasonable attorneys' fees resulting from unjust
enrichment, and violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act, 18
U.S.C. 2710 and New York General Business Law Se. 349 (Deceptive
Acts and Practices).

Plaintiff purchased an E-Series Vizio Smart TV, model number
E500i-B1. It is connected to the Internet and has been allegedly
collecting and selling viewing data without consent.

Vizio, Inc. is a corporation duly organized and existing under the
laws of the State of California with its headquarters and
principal place of business located at 39 Tesla, Irvine,
California 92618.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph Henry Bates, Esq.
      CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
      2800 Cantrell, Suite 510
      Little Rock, AR 72202
      Telephone: (501) 312-8500
      Facsimile: (501) 312-8505
      Email: hbates@cbplaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Chauncey" Emmission Suit Goes to N.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Margot Chauncey, and on behalf of those similarly situated v.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-01320-CRB
(S.D.N.Y., February 2, 2016), alleges that Defendant breached the
laws of the United States and the rules and regulations of the EPA
by selling in the United States vehicles manufactured by its
affiliates Volkswagen AG and Audi AG that purposefully evaded
federal and state laws.

On March 11, 2016, the case was transferred to the Northern
District of California, Case No. 1:16-cv-01320.

The Plaintiff is Represented by:

      Gregory A. Frank, Esq.
      Marvin L. Frank, Esq.
      FRANK LLP
      275 Madison Avenue, Suite 705
      New York, New York 10016
      Tel: (212)682-1853
      Fax: (212)682-1892
      E-mail: gfrank@frankllp.com
              mfrank@frankllp.com

            - and -

      Alan J. Harris, Esq.
      ALAN J. HARRIS, P.C.
      427 Manville Road
      Pleasantville, NY 10570
      Tel: (914)747-9393
      Fax: (914)747-9394


WELLS FARGO: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------
Deborah Elkins, writing for Virginia Lawyers Weekly, reports that
a Richmond U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge approves a class
action settlement in this suit alleging defendant Wells Fargo Bank
willfully failing to comply with the Fair Credit Reporting Act
before taking an adverse employment action against plaintiffs and
with the Act's disclosure and authorization requirements before
obtaining a consumer report.


WISCONSIN: WEA Trust Settles Class Action for $4.9 Million
----------------------------------------------------------
Annysa Johnson, writing for the Journal Sentinel, reports that
more than 30 school districts across southeastern Wisconsin will
share about $2 million of a $7.5 million settlement of a class-
action lawsuit against the Wisconsin Education Association
Insurance Trust approved by a Dane County judge, the law firm
representing the schools announced on April 12.

The 141 school districts involved in the lawsuit will share $4.9
million after legal fees and court costs.  The local payouts range
from $658 for a handful of small districts in Waukesha and Kenosha
counties to $216,629 for the Kettle Moraine School District in
Waukesha County.

Elsewhere, the Oshkosh School District received the largest
settlement, of $367,766.

The settlements resolve a 2012 class-action lawsuit filed by the
Hartland-Lakeside, Oconomowoc, and Arrowhead school districts. The
suit sought the recovery of federal funds distributed under a
program enacted as part of the Affordable Care Act.

The schools argued that WEA Trust had obtained several million
dollars in the disputed funds by using health care claims data for
early retirees of the class member school districts and then
refused to pay the funds to school districts that moved their
insurance business to WEA Trust's competitors. The WEA Trust
argued that it was entitled to keep those funds.

Under the terms of the settlement, the schools received between
60% and 65% of the disputed funds, an attorney for the districts
said.

Districts in six southeastern Wisconsin counties will share about
$2 million of the $4.9 million. They are:

Milwaukee County: Brown Deer, $1,675; Franklin, $16,617;
Greendale, $1,068; and Shorewood, $47,286.

Waukesha County: Kettle Moraine, $216,629; Mukwonago, $182,737;
Muskego-Norway, $165,415; Oconomowoc, $160,599; Menomonee Falls,
$135,508; Hartland-Lakeside, $96,391; Arrowhead Union, $79,704;
Palmyra-Eagle, $23,539; Lake Country, $23,187; Stone Bank,
$11,350; North Lake, $8,461; and Merton, Richmond and Swallow
Elementary, $658 each.

Ozaukee County: Cedarburg, $46,834; Grafton, $40,859; Mequon-
Thiensville, $78,730; Northern Ozaukee, $39,377.

Washington County: Hartford Joint 1, $51,784; Hartford Union,
$48,796; Kewaskum, $103,448; and Slinger, $87,001.

Racine County: Burlington Area, $61,138; and Waterford Graded 1,
$31,315.

Kenosha County: Bristol 1, $36,976; Central Westosha, $45,201;
Paris Joint 1, $2,232; Randall Joint 1, $658; Salem, $39,640;
Silver Lake Joint 1, $6,475; Trevor Wilmot Consolidated, $3,470;
Twin Lakes 4, $15,543; Wheatland Joint 1, $10,262; Wilmot Union
High School, $27,734.


WISCONSIN: Oshkosh Schools to Get Highest Settlement Payout
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sharon Roznik, writing for Fond du Lac Reporter, reports that the
Oshkosh Area School District will receive the highest payout to
state school districts as part of a $4.9 million class-action
settlement with the Wisconsin Education Association (WEA)
Insurance Trust.

Oshkosh schools will receive $367,766.

Other Wisconsin schools districts receiving payments are Kewaskum,
$103,448; Campbellsport, $1,788.05; Slinger, $87,001; Hartford
Joint 1, $51,784; and Hartford Union High School, $48,796.

The settlement, approved in Dane County Circuit Court and
involving 141 Wisconsin school districts, comes more than four
years after the class action was filed by the Hartland-Lakeside
School District and Arrowhead Union School District, according to
a news release from Foley & Lardner, the Milwaukee firm handling
the class-action lawsuit.

The suit sought the recovery of federal funds distributed under a
program enacted as part of the Affordable Care Act.  WEA Trust had
obtained several million dollars in the disputed funds by using
healthcare claims data for early retirees of the class member
school districts.  WEA then refused to pay the funds to school
districts that changed their insurance company to a WEA
competitor.

"I think they got it right and we are pleased that we prevailed,"
said Michael Nault, executive director of human resources for the
Oshkosh School District. He said the money will be used to help
offset the district's 10-year capital facility maintenance plan.

"School districts in Wisconsin are making the most of every penny
these days," said Glenn Schilling, superintendent of the Hartland-
Lakeside School District.  "This settlement is a great victory for
us and for the rest of the school districts who stood firm in
believing those funds should be returned to the districts and put
to work on behalf of the students and taxpayers."

The case was complex, having been heard in several different state
and federal trial and appellate courts since it was filed in early
2012, attorney Tom Schriner said in a news release.

Settlement amounts differed widely, depending on the amount of
early retiree health claims each district incurred.

The School District of Kettle Moraine will receive $216,629, while
the Howard-Suamico School District will receive $185,215. Nine
other school districts will receive individual payments of more
than $100,000.

Foley & Lardner was appointed by the court to represent the school
districts on a contingency basis.


WWE: Goguen Voluntarily Dismisses Streaming Royalties Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Megan Spicer, writing for The Connecticut Law Tribune, reports
that the world of professional wrestling seemed like an odd place
for a cutting-edge dispute over intellectual property.  But for a
few days, a federal lawsuit filed in Connecticut by a former WWE
wrestler appeared likely to become part of an ongoing debate over
the rights of performers of all types to collect royalties from
streaming video services.

However, on April 11, attorneys for Rene Goguen, who wrestles
under the name Rene Dupree, filed a notice of voluntary dismissal
for a lawsuit that recently made national headlines.  Although Mr.
Goguen's lawyers did not explain why they were withdrawing the
lawsuit, a WWE attorney had indicated in previous interviews that
Goguen had signed a royalty waiver that appeared to negate the
claims he made in the lawsuit.

Mr. Goguen began performing with the Stamford-based WWE in 2003.
His contract entitled him to royalties for any profits made
through the use of his likeness through media such as
videocassettes, videodiscs and CD-ROMs.  He claimed he was also
supposed to receive royalties from any "new intellectual property"
as well, even from "other technology, including technology not yet
created."

Mr. Goguen's lawsuit, filed April 6, sought more than $5 million
in damages, as well as class action status.  It claimed that the
WWE, which had estimated revenues of $660 million in 2015,
continued to profit from Mr. Goguen's time with the company but
that he was not receiving royalties.

Mr. Goguen, who debuted at age 19, hasn't wrestled with the WWE
since 2007. But it's not hard to find his matches.  The WWE has
sold video content to Netflix and its own WWE Network.  According
to the lawsuit, the WWE Network is a subscription-based streaming
video service created in 2010, and that wrestling fans watched 256
million hours of content last year.  Mr. Goguen claimed he
received no royalties from any of that content and, therefore, his
booking contract with WWE was broken.

"Because streaming video content and videos on demand on the WWE
Network was 'other technology and/or technology not yet created'
at the time plaintiff signed the booking contract, streaming
videos on the WWE Network is within the definition of WWE Video
Products [in] plaintiff's booking contract," according to the
suit.  Mr. Goguen is represented by Brendan Leydon of Tooher Wocl
& Leydon in Stamford, and Clinton Krislov and Matthew Peterson of
Chicago-based Krislov & Associates.

The WWE's lawyer is Jerry McDevitt of Pittsburgh-based K&L Gates.
K&L Gates told the Hollywood Reporter entertainment website that
Mr. Goguen signed a contract in 2011 that bars this type of claim.
Mr.  McDevitt further told Yahoo that Mr. Goguen "signed a buyout
agreement" in 2011.

The lawsuit claimed breach of contract, fiduciary duty and a
violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.  The suit
stated that it was filed on behalf of any wrestler who has signed
with WWE since 1980, when the company was created, or any
wrestling company bought by WWE.  The suit had incideated that the
size of the class would be determined during the discovery phase.

"[The] plaintiff believes that the class and subclasses
encompasses hundreds, possibly thousands, of individuals whose
identities and royalties owed can be readily ascertained from
defendant's books and records," according to the suit.

Other former wrestlers, such as former Minnesota Gov. Jesse
Ventura, have filed similar cases. In 1990, Ventura sued WWE for
using his likeness on VHS tapes and not giving him the royalties.
He prevailed in his claim and, as a result, it became common
practice to pay current and former wrestlers royalties when there
performances were put on video.


XEROX CORP: Faces "Brown" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
Richetta Brown, Maya Hall and Tonya McClarty v. Xerox Corporation
and Xerox HR Solutions, LLC, and Affiliated Computer Services,
Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00123-HCM-RJK (E.D. Va., March 17, 2016) is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Xerox Corporation, New York corporation, is a global enterprise
for business process and document management.

Xerox HR Solutions a subsidiary of Xerox, offers human resource
services.

Affiliated Computer Services, Inc., a subsidiary of Xerox,
provides diversified business process outsourcing and information
technology services and solutions to commercial and governmental
clients worldwide.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

       James H. Shoemaker, Jr., Esq.
       Jason E. Messersmith, Esq.
       Andrew J. Dean, Esq.
       Patten, Wornom, Hatten & Diamonstein, L.C.
       12350 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 300
       Newport News, VA 23602
       Telephone: (757)223-4580
       Facsimile: (757)223-4518
       E-mail: jshoemaker@pwhd.com
               jmessersmith@pwhd.com
               adean@pwhd.com

            - and -

       Cindra Dowd, Esq.
       Richard J. Serpe, Esq.
       LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD J. SEPRE, P.C.
       Crown Center, Suite 310
       580 East Main Street
       Norfolk, VA 23510-2322
       Telephone: (757)233-0009
       Facsimile: (757)233-0455
       E-mail: rserpe@serpefirm.com
               cdowd@serpefirm.com


XPO LOGISTICS: Faces "Carter" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------
Ron Carter, Juan Estrada, Jerry Green, Burl Malmgren, Bill
Mcdonald, and Joel Morales and all others similarly situated v.
XPO Logistics, Inc. and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
3:16-cv-01231 (N.D. Cal., March 11, 2016), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

XPO Logistics, Inc., is a Connecticut corporation that provides
delivery services to retail merchants.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

       Beth Ross, Esq.
       Jennifer Keating, Esq.
       Amy Endo, Esq.
       LEONARD CARDER, LLP
       1330 Broadway, Suite 1450
       Oakland, CA 94612
       Telephone: (512)272-0169
       Facsimile: (502)272-0174
       E-mail: bross@leonardcarder.com
               jkeating@leonardcarder.com
               aendo@leonardcarder.com


* CFPB's New Regulations May Spur Consumer Finance Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Miriam Rozen, writing for Financial Planning, reports that when
clients enter their financial advisors' offices and express
frustrations about a retail bank's mistakes or overcharges, the
damages are usually too small to merit any individual legal
action.

"It's $24 here and $45 there, and often there is very little you
can do," says Debra Brennan Tagg, managing director of Brennan
Financial Services in Addison, Texas.

But, it is expected that when the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau issues its new regulations, the rules will allow for more
class-action lawsuits targeting consumer finance companies'
misdeeds.

And Brennan Tagg and other financial advisors recognize that
class-actions against retail banks may help some clients.

"I do think that class action is probably useful in egregious
situations, where people have been harmed," Brennan Tagg said.

NO MORE BANS?

Specifically, CFPB regulations are expected to prevent retail
banks and other consumer finance companies from including
mandatory arbitration in agreements that bar class-action
lawsuits.  Customers would still be expected to sign mandatory
arbitration agreements, but those agreements would no longer bar
class-action lawsuits.

Class-action plaintiffs frequently won big money against consumer
finance companies before mandatory arbitration agreements barring
such suits became de rigueur.  After 2008, financial institutions
began requiring customers sign such agreements.  Subsequent U.S.
Supreme Court decisions strengthened the enforcement of mandatory
arbitration agreements and made it harder for consumers to file
suit.

The Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 required the CFPB to study arbitration
clauses in contracts for consumer financial products and report
back.  The CFPB's regulations will be based on that 700-page
report, issued in March 2015.

The report analyzed more than 1,800 consumer arbitration disputes
from 2010 to 2012 and compared the relief won by consumers in
individual arbitrations to that obtained by class-action members.

CFPB researchers were able to determine the outcome in 341
arbitration cases filed in 2010 and 2011.  In those cases,
arbitrators awarded a total of $172,433 for affirmative relief and
$189,107 for debt forbearance.  In class-action settlements for
those same years, the CFPB researchers calculated the annual
aggregate settlement amount on average was $540 million.

CFPB spokesman David Mayorga said the agency will soon publish a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and seek public comment from all
stakeholders; the first step in the rulemaking process.  The
agency said in October that it was considering rules that would
require retail banks to submit arbitration claims and awards to
the CFPB for approval.  CFPB officials stressed no new rules have
been finalized.

DRAWING FIRE

The report drew fire from consumer finance companies shortly after
its release.  The International Bank of Commerce sponsored a study
by two law professors who found the report erroneously concluded
that class-action settlements trumped arbitrations for supplying
consumers with adequate damage awards.

The report did "not address the public policy question of whether,
by resolving disputes more accurately on the merits, arbitration
may prevent class action settlements induced solely by defendants'
incentive to avoid massive discovery costs," the law professors
said.

Moreover, the CFPB study's aggregated average numbers reflect the
results in "a very small number of massive class action
settlements."  The report also failed to note when attorney fees
in class-action settlements were larger than the payouts to
plaintiffs, the professors said.

Still, some financial advisors are hopeful that settlements may
help some clients, including one advisor who did not want his name
used because his employer is owned by a parent company with retail
banking operations.


* Class Action Tourism Trend Emerges, Law Firm Says
---------------------------------------------------
Herbert Smith Freehills LLP reports that "Class Action Tourism" is
a trend for litigation that we are seeing becomingly increasingly
prevalent.  It involves a claim by a number of individuals against
the entity in a group (often the parent company) in a litigant-
friendly jurisdiction (usually where there is funding available
for litigants) and where the defendant has a presence sufficient
to establish the jurisdiction of the courts.

There have already been a number of high-profile claims in this
area before the English Courts.  A recent example was the claim
brought in the London courts against Shell on behalf of the Bodo
Community relating to environmental damage in Nigeria, which
settled in February 2015 for US$50 million.  Other companies
targeted include Anglo-American in relation to workers who
contracted silicosis and silico-tuberculosis at a mine in South
Africa; Trafigura in relation to 30,000 locals affected by toxic
waste dumping in the Ivory Coast; and Africa Barrick Gold in
relation to deaths and injuries of villagers allegedly caused by
use of excessive force by mine security and police at a mine in
Tanzania.

The law firm is seeing NGOs and class action law firms (such as
Leigh Day in the UK) encouraging and facilitating these claims.
They are often threatened, using the prospect of adverse
publicity, with a view to extracting a high-value settlement at an
early stage.

Often the claims relate to events which have taken place elsewhere
(e.g. Africa, Asia) and involve allegations of environmental
damage or injury to the claimants and their property/the local
area.

Energy and mining companies are a particular target for these
claims, because they are often structured with a holding company
(such as a UK listed plc) and a local operating subsidiary.
Despite the fact that parent companies may have no involvement in
the day-to-day operations or the events which give rise to the
claims, they are being targeted on the basis of their involvement
in setting group policies and procedures in areas such as health,
safety and environment.

Claims are also being made for infringement of Claimants' human
rights, either as one aspect of a civil class action and/or as a
complaint made to the National Contact Point regarding breaches of
international human rights standards (the 2011 OECD Guidelines for
Multinational Enterprises).

It is important that companies are aware of the prospect of these
claims in order to seek to reduce the risk. For instance,
statements are often made in annual reports and other public
documents about the way in which a group and its health, safety
and environment policies are managed.  These are then later used
to support a claim against the parent company by those allegedly
affected by events in the jurisdiction in which a subsidiary
operates.  It is also important to have robust internal monitoring
and reporting requirements on human rights compliance in place.


* Data Privacy Class Actions Expected to Grow, Survey Says
----------------------------------------------------------
David Munkittrick, Esq. -- dmunkittrick@proskauer.com -- of
Proskauer disclosed that the recently released Carlton Fields 2016
Class Action Survey reports that class actions are up for the
first time in four years.  While data privacy class actions still
make up a relatively small portion of class action filings, their
growth is expected to continue.

As class actions increase, arbitration clauses remain a popular
first line of defense.  The Carlton Survey reported that nearly 50
percent of companies employ arbitration clauses that address class
actions.  Still, enforcing such arbitration clauses often
generates mini-litigations in their own right.  Two recent
decisions from the Fourth Circuit are of interest in this regard.


Dell Webb Communities, Inc. v. Carlson (4th Cir., March 28, 2016):
The Fourth Circuit addressed the question of who decides whether
an arbitration agreement provides for class arbitration
-- a question, the Fourth Circuit noted, "the Supreme Court has
not conclusively" answered.  What is clear is that procedural
questions may be determined by the arbitrator, while questions of
arbitrability are for the courts.  Still, the line between
procedure and arbitrability is not always clear.  In reaching its
decision, the Fourth Circuit noted the differences between
bilateral and class arbitration.  Often, parties agree to
arbitrate to, among other things, lower the costs of dispute
resolution, maintain confidentiality, and reach finality more
expeditiously.  Class arbitration, however, upends many of those
benefits.  The risks are higher for defendants, and the
multilayered appellate review of judicial class certification
decisions (both interlocutory and after a final judgment) is
unavailable in review of an arbitration award.  Accordingly, in
the absence of clear direction that the arbitrator is to decide
whether the agreement authorizes class arbitration, the Fourth
Circuit held the issue is not simply procedural but goes to the
arbitrator's underlying power.  It must be decided in court.

Dillon v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A. (M.D.N.C., March 23, 2016): In
Dillon, the question of arbitrability was front and center.  The
defendant bank moved to compel arbitration based on click-wrap
(online) loan agreements between the plaintiff and non-party
lenders.  While there is a presumption in favor of arbitrability,
the court found the defendant failed to meet its evidentiary
burden to show a valid arbitration agreement.

The court's opinion is a reminder of proper authentication under
Federal Rule of Evidence 901.  It noted that "these are not
abstract, unimportant concerns [because] click-wrap contracts like
the one at issue here pose special risks of fraud and error."  As
evidence of the arbitration agreement, the defendant submitted
copies of electronic agreements through an employee declaration.
But the submitted copies did not have the plaintiff's signature or
any indication that the plaintiff actually viewed them when
completing the online loan application.  The declarant did not
explain how the electronic documents were created or preserved,
declined to sit for a deposition, and consequently, the court
found, failed to authenticate the documents as the arbitration
agreement with plaintiff.  The plaintiff's deposition testimony
could not authenticate the agreement either because it did not
establish that he "had the personal knowledge necessary."

Dillon thus demonstrates the importance of carefully constructing
online click-wrap agreements, as well as diligent record-keeping
and meticulous presentation of evidence.


* Excessive FHA Loan Interest Payments Subject of Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth R. Haney, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that for
years it was widely considered a massive, government-sanctioned
rip-off of home mortgage borrowers.  Then it was banned by the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.  And now it's the subject of
class-action suits that accuse four large banks of illegally
collecting millions of dollars in excess mortgage interest
payments from their customers.

The source of all the controversy: The Federal Housing
Administration's longtime policy of allowing banks to charge
homeowners a full month's worth of interest when they went to pay
off their FHA-insured loans -- even after they had paid back all
the principal they owed.

To illustrate: Say you were preparing to pay off your mortgage
balance in full on May 3. Under the government's policy, lenders
were permitted to charge you interest on the paid balance though
May 31, collecting it at the closing May 3.  It was the equivalent
of being charged for a full tank of gas, even though all you
pumped was 3 gallons.

The official rationale for the controversial policy was that
mortgage bond investors expected full months' worth of interest
payments on FHA loans, not partial payments.  Unless borrowers
paid off their loans on the first of the month, the lender could
charge them interest for the full month.  But FHA was alone in its
stance on this. Neither of the two giant mortgage players, Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac, forced consumers to make extra interest
payments on loans to please Wall Street.  Nor did the Department
of Veterans Affairs do so on its home mortgages.  FHA officials
also argued that because of the opportunity lenders have to charge
additional interest, they typically quote more favorable interest
rates on FHA loans -- 0.10 percent to 0.15 percent lower --
compared with non-FHA loans.

In 2015, after the financial protection bureau ruled that FHA's
policy amounted to a prepayment penalty prohibited by federal law,
FHA rescinded the policy for new borrowers taking out loans on or
after Jan. 21, 2015, but kept it in place for an estimated 7.8
million homeowners who had FHA loans dating to previous years.  At
the same time, the agency conceded that the savings FHA borrowers
supposedly received from its policy were illusory, and that "in
most cases" the extra interest payments exceeded any small
interest rate break upfront.

In a series of legal moves, attorneys representing FHA borrowers
sued Bank of America, Wells Fargo Mortgage, U.S. Bank and SunTrust
Mortgage for allegedly failing to properly disclose the extra-
interest policy to clients paying off loans originated before the
deadline.  All four banks, according to complaints filed in
federal district courts in Florida and Georgia, violated FHA's own
rules by using payoff disclosure forms that were not approved by
FHA and did not adequately advise borrowers on how to limit or
avoid extra-interest charges.  The approved FHA disclosure
expressly informs borrowers that "it is to your advantage" to
schedule closings either at the end of the month or by the first
business day of the month.

The net effect of the allegedly improper disclosures, the suits
charge, is that large numbers of borrowers paid more in interest
than they could have, and that the four banks collected
substantial sums in post-payment interest illegally on FHA
mortgages.

Real estate industry estimates of excess FHA interest charges over
the past decade and a half have ranged into the hundreds of
millions of dollars per year.  In 2003 alone, according to one
estimate from the National Association of Realtors, FHA borrowers
paid nearly $587.4 million in excess interest.

One of the plaintiffs in the class-action suits, a homeowner in
Florida who allegedly was overcharged by Wells Fargo, claimed in
her suit that the bank informed her in a loan payoff statement
that she would owe $1,227.68 in interest.  Yet her typical monthly
interest charge was just $613.84.  Wells Fargo's payoff statement
was not in the format approved by FHA, she said, and was "both
misleading and confusing" and did not properly advise her of her
options.


* UK Class Action Market Expected to Heat Up in 2016
----------------------------------------------------
Herbert Smith Freehills LLP reports that the next 12 to 18 months
is likely to be a turning point in the UK class action market
driven by some key trends and developments:

   -- litigation funding on the rise with new players entering the
market and existing funders raising significant funds,
growing enthusiasm to pursue class actions, including major
shareholder claims,

   -- the introduction of a new collective action procedures for
competition claims (effective since October 2015), and

   -- the emergence of class action tourism as claimants go in
search of the litigant-friendly jurisdictions.
Continued growth in the UK litigation funding market

Over the last 12 to 18 months, we have seen growth in both the
level of funding available and the interest of new funders in the
UK market.  This has been brought on by:

New entrants: Bentham Europe is now a player in the market and
Balance Legal Capital has been launched, and significant capital
raisings by existing funders, such as Therium's announcement of a
œ200 million fundraising in May 2015.

Not only have funders continued to enter the market and raise new
funds; they have also shown a marked increase in their enthusiasm
for pursuing class actions, including major securities actions --
as demonstrated for example by Bentham Europe's conditional
funding of the widely publicized shareholder class action against
Tesco.  That same enthusiasm did not exist in the early years of
UK litigation funding, when the focus was on more traditional
commercial claims, but we have seen a steady increase in the
involvement of litigation funders in group actions in recent
years.

It will also be interesting to see how keen funders are to fund
claims under the new collective action procedures for competition
claims from 1 October 2015 (discussed below).

"Not only have funders continued to enter the market and raise new
funds, they have also shown a marked increase in enthusiasm for
pursuing class actions."

The rise of securities class actions in the UK

The number of shareholder securities cases commenced in the UK is
continuing to grow.

There are currently a number of significant cases before the
English courts, including claims brought by thousands of retail
and institutional shareholders in RBS and Lloyds in relation to
their 2008 Rights Issue and takeover of HBoS respectively.  Most
recently, it has been announced that Tesco is likely to face a
claim from its shareholders to recover losses suffered following
its recent accounting scandal.

Traditionally the United States was seen by claimants as the
premier forum in which to bring a securities action against a
publicly traded company.  However, since the United States Supreme
Court dramatically limited the extraterritorial application of US
securities laws in 2012, the filing of such claims has
increasingly shifted to other favorable jurisdictions, including
the UK.

Another significant factor in the increase in claims is the
involvement of litigation funders.  The litigation funding
industry in the UK has developed considerably and continues to
evolve, with a number of funders already active in the market and
further funders from other jurisdictions joining the market.
Whilst such funding is not yet as common as in other
jurisdictions, such as Australia, its use is increasing and the
upwards trend is expected to continue.

Further shareholder activism more generally has been on the rise.

Following the financial crisis, shareholders have recognized the
need to engage more closely with the companies in which they
invest, leading to them taking a more active stance where they are
not happy with a company's strategy or decisions.  Hedge funds and
other alternative investors are usually considered to be the
principal players in the activist community in the UK, but
institutional investors have in recent years shown an increased
willingness to voice their concerns.

In addition, where issues are regulator-driven, there are often
well publicized key findings on broad issues at an early stage
that can be used by plaintiff law firms as a hook to hang claims
on. For example, the RBS rights issue litigation commenced after
the FSA report into the collapse of RBS.  The greater levels of
enforcement action and investigatory activity undertaken by UK
regulators, particularly the FCA, and the subsequent public
disclosure of such action and activity are expected to continue.

"Whilst the level of take-up of the new collective action will
depend on how the certification process is carried out in
practice, an increase in claims is likely."

The new competition law class action

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 has now come into force in the UK.
The Act introduces a collective action regime for competition law
claims in the specialist Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT),
together with a process for collective settlements (whether or not
a claim has been brought).  Importantly, the new regime applies to
causes of action arising before commencement.  As a result,
claimants may seek to bring collective actions in relation to
cartels and other competition law infringements which have already
been identified and sanctioned by the UK and EU competition
authorities.

"Traditionally the US was seen by claimants as the premier forum
to bring a securities action against a publicly traded company.
However . . . the filing of such claims has increasingly shifted
to other favorable jurisdictions, including the UK."

Controversially, the new collective action can be brought on
either an opt-in or an opt-out basis, subject to certification by
the CAT.  This increases the opportunities for claimants and
burdens for defendants.  We expect the opt-out process (or the
threat of this) to be utilized in particular in relation to those
cartel and other cases where market-wide harm is large, but
individual losses are relatively small and dispersed. Such claims
will be facilitated by the fact that the CAT will be able to make
a damages award without assessing quantum for each class members'
claim.

Actions can be brought (by a class member or a representative
body) on behalf of both individuals and businesses.  They can
relate to either "follow-on" competition claims (claims based on a
competition authority's infringement decision) or 'stand-alone'
claims (where the claimants will need to establish competition law
liability).  The opt-out aspect will apply to UK domiciled
claimants only, but non-UK claimants can opt in to proceedings. In
opt-out cases unclaimed damages will be paid to a prescribed
charity, increasing incentives on defendants to settle such claims
(for example on the basis that unclaimed funds revert to the
defendant -- such unclaimed funds often amount to the majority of
the total claimed damages).

The certification process has the stated aim of avoiding frivolous
and unmeritorious claims, and will include consideration of a
number of factors. These include the strength of the claim, the
availability of alternative dispute resolution and whether:

The claims raise the same, similar or related issues of fact and
law.

The claims are suitable for collective proceedings and whether
proceedings should be on an opt-in or opt-out basis (e.g. taking
into account the size of the class, the ease of determining class
members, the strength of the claims, and the estimated level of
individual damages).

It is just and reasonable for the representative to bring the
claim (contrary to initial proposals, there will now be no
outright bar on law firms, funders and SPVs doing so).

Other safeguards include a prohibition on exemplary damages and on
the use of damages based agreements/contingency fees.  However, in
opt-out cases the CAT may order unclaimed damages to be paid to
the representative in respect of costs incurred.

Whilst the level of take-up of the new collective action will
depend on how the certification process is carried out in
practice, an increase in claims is likely.  This is in particular
the case given the active claimant bar in the UK and its
willingness to pursue group claims and offer attractive funding
solutions.



                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: EMC Strengthens Asbestos Reserves by $2.3MM
------------------------------------------------------------
EMC Insurance Group Inc. strengthened its asbestos reserves by
approximately $2.3 million during the fourth quarter of 2015,
according to the Company's February 12, 2016, Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company stated, "Estimating loss and settlement expense
reserves for asbestos claims is very difficult due to the many
uncertainties surrounding these types of claims. While the Company
does not have a significant amount of exposure to asbestos claims,
management has been proactive in strengthening the reserves
carried for these exposures when deemed necessary. During the
fourth quarter of 2015, the Company strengthened asbestos reserves
by approximately $2.3 million ($0.07 per share after taxes). For
the year, asbestos reserves were strengthened by approximately
$4.1 million ($0.13 per share after taxes)."

EMC Insurance Group Inc. is an insurance holding company. The
Company, through its subsidiaries, conducts operations in property
and casualty insurance and reinsurance. The Company primarily
focuses on the sale of commercial lines of property and casualty
insurance to small and medium-sized businesses. The Company
conducts its business in two segments: Property and casualty
insurance and Reinsurance segment. The Company markets its
insurance products in 40 states in the United States.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Students, Teachers Risk Exposure in Chicago
------------------------------------------------------------
Beth Swantek, writing for Asbestos.com, reported that hundreds of
students and teachers in nearly 200 Chicago public schools risk
exposure to deadly asbestos, a new report shows.

The EWG Action Fund study shows Chicago Public School (CPS)
officials in 2013 hired inspectors who advised them of the
asbestos problems in the schools. Of the 184 elementary, middle
and high schools identified as possible exposure risks, only 11
schools had complied with the recommendations, according to a 2015
CPS asbestos surveillance update.

That surveillance report shows some schools still had damaged
asbestos-containing pipe insulation that "appears to be separating
at some places," and plaster that was "falling behind door stage
left."

In a statement to WGN-TV, CPS spokeswoman Emily Bittner said the
district has "spent roughly $54 million on environmental
remediation work (including asbestos) throughout the district" in
the past five years.

CPS officials told WGN-TV an updated report on the state of
asbestos at the district's schools will be issued at the end of
June.

Asbestos Found in Classrooms, Hallways and Teachers' Lounges

The 2013 inspection identified 1,174 locations containing asbestos
products throughout Chicago's public schools.

The common, at-risk areas accessible to students, teachers and
staff included:

   -- Classrooms
   -- Auditoriums
   -- Teachers' lounges
   -- School corridors
   -- Restrooms
   -- Storage rooms
   -- Boiler rooms

More than half of those locations contain friable (easily
crumbled) asbestos that is damaged or has the potential to become
damaged, which increases the risk for harmful exposures.

"Friable asbestos fibers can quickly become airborne from a touch
of the hands or feet, not to mention the wear and tear resulting
from students running, jumping, throwing balls or dropping heavy
objects," the EWG Action Fund report shows.

Schools cited in the report include Helen M. Hefferan Elementary
School, Northwest Middle School and Lincoln Park High School,
among others.

Inspectors at these schools identified asbestos-containing
materials they considered "damaged or significantly damaged" in
classroom floor tiles and insulation.

Asbestos Abatement Policy Not Followed in Chicago Public Schools

Chicago Public Schools not only failed to follow the
recommendations of its contracted inspectors, but it also violated
the asbestos policy described in the district's Facility
Performance Standards.

According to the 2012 district document, one of the minimum
standards for managing asbestos hazards is to "repair, fully
encapsulate, or abate all friable asbestos-containing materials,
including removal of asbestos-containing floor tiles, in areas
occupied by students and staff."

A Prevailing National Problem

The asbestos crisis uncovered at Chicago schools is not an
isolated issue.

As school buildings across the nation age and deteriorate, many
other school districts will face similar problems.

For example, three Huntington Beach, California, elementary
schools closed in 2014 after officials discovered contractors had
removed asbestos unsafely. Students at those schools were bussed
to out-of-area schools while officials cleaned the facilities.
While most returned to their own schools this year, some students
are still waiting for abatement to end.

Since early 1980, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
has investigated the hazards asbestos in school buildings pose to
public health. The EPA conducted a nationwide survey in 1984 to
gauge the extent of the danger.

Results from that survey, which included responses from nearly
35,000 public and private school officials, revealed 15 million
students and 1.4 million faculty and staff faced possible exposure
to carcinogenic asbestos fibers.

More than 30 years later, the EPA has yet to perform a similar
survey, meaning there is no accurate, up-to-date assessment of
asbestos risks in our nation's schools.

Cost of Asbestos Removal Is Prohibitive for School Districts

Meanwhile, school districts in all 50 states are struggling to
find ways to cover the monumental costs associated with asbestos
remediation.

In 1986, the EPA introduced the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response
Act (AHERA), which requires school districts to inspect for
asbestos every three years and continually monitor and manage its
presence in buildings, abating when necessary.

The 1984 Asbestos School Hazard Abatement Act offered financial
assistance to U.S. schools, authorizing $600 million in grants and
loans for asbestos removal. And from 1984 to 1993, congress
appropriated $382 million to aid schools in asbestos cleanup.

But that funding dried up 23 years ago, forcing school officials
in every state today to raise necessary funds for asbestos
abatement on their own.

"The ongoing problem of asbestos in schools in Chicago and
nationwide is not likely to be resolved soon," the EWG Action Fund
report shows. "Until there is increased openness around the
presence of asbestos in schools and additional accountability and
support for school districts to take the necessary steps for
abatement, America's students, teachers and school staff will
remain at risk."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Contractors Fined for Asbestos Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Needs, writing for Legal Reader, reported that contractors
fined for asbestos violations and have been sued $27,200 for
violating asbestos rules during remodeling of a commercial
building in Albany.

The Albany-based company Conser Design and Construction was the
general contractor on the project beginning in March 2015 at 1245
Clay St.

The company was fined $12,800 by the state Department of
Environmental Quality for mishandling vinyl flooring by failing to
have it properly removed by a licensed asbestos abatement contract
prior to being renovated.

Because the company had an asbestos survey that showed the
flooring contained asbestos, the company knew it was violating the
law. It also created the potential for public exposure by allowing
the waste to be accumulated openly at the site.

A subcontractor, Master Craft Restoration and Maintenance of
Corvallis, was hired by Conser.

The company's workers removed about 225 square feet of sheet vinyl
flooring as part of the renovation.

Master Craft Restoration and Maintenance was fined $14,400 for
performing an asbestos abatement project without a license.
Neither the company nor its workers are licensed to perform this
work.

The company likely caused release of asbestos fibers into the
atmosphere by not complying with asbestos regulations, DEQ said in
its order.

DEQ said in a news release that asbestos fibers are a respiratory
hazard proven to cause lung cancer and mesothelioma. Asbestos is
categorized as a hazardous air contaminant and there is no safe
level of exposure.

Both companies have appealed the penalty and neither responded to
requests for an interview.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Mechanic Alleges Exposure Led to Cancer
---------------------------------------------------------------
Molly English-Bowers, writing for Madison Record, reported that a
former mechanic is suing over his alleged exposure to asbestos
fibers. Negligence and conspiracy are among the five counts.

Robert Bennett filed the suit March 21 in St. Clair County Circuit
Court against American Optical Corporation, Buffalo Air Handling,
Hercules Inc., Warren Pumps LLC and many other listed defendants.
Singled out is Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.

At many times during the course of the plaintiff's work, he
allegedly was exposed to and inhaled, ingested or absorbed larges
amounts of asbestos fibers emanating from certain products. Those
products were manufactured, sold, distributed or installed by the
defendants, the suit alleges.

The conspiracy count in this suit relates to defendant
Metropolitan Life, which allegedly knew about the dangers of
asbestos decades ago. The defendant squelched the research,
according to the complaint.

The plaintiff discovered on Sept. 25, 2015 that he had developed
lung cancer, an asbestos-induced disease, the suit says.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages in an amount to be proven
in trial but believed to exceed $50,000, punitive damages to deter
similarly situated parties from committing similar acts in the
future and other relief the court deems appropriate. He is
represented by Randy L. Gori and Barry Julian of Gori, Julian &
Associates PC in Edwardsville.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 16-L-152


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Belfast Company Fined for Asbestos Breaches
------------------------------------------------------------
The Irish News reported that a Belfast company has been fined
GBP9,000 after admitting a series of health and safety breaches
linked to asbestos being disturbed whilst renovating a bar.

The family-run JDM Property Limited, based on Belfast's Lisburn
Road, was contracted to carry out construction work on the
Devenish Complex on Finaghy Road North in February 2014.

However, the company failed to carry out a 'refurnishment asbestos
survey' prior to the commencement of the refurbishment, and during
the renovation work asbestos was disturbed in two separate areas
of the premises.

JDM Property Limited admitted a total of three Health and Safety
breaches -- namely failing to protect non-employees, failing to
identify risks and also carrying out work which exposed employees
to asbestos.

Fining the company GBP9,000 and ordering it to pay Prosecution
costs of GBP1,700, Judge Sandra Crawford spoke of the dangers
associated with asbestos, and said that whilst it is now banned,
it was still present in older buildings.

Defence barrister Eugene Grant QC, who represented JDM Property
Limited, said the company -- which comprised of three brothers --
"somewhat naively thought they were capable ... of carrying out
the refurbishment themselves" as opposed to bringing in sub-
contractors.

The defence barrister also revealed JDM Property Limited believed
an previous asbestos management survey done by the previous
leasees was a sufficient safety measure but "unfortunately they
utterly misread the original report."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chelsmford Dad May Have Died Due to Asbestos
-------------------------------------------------------------
Essex Chronicle reported that a security guard may have died after
being exposed to asbestos in the wake of an IRA bomb attack.

Stuart Packard, who lived in Broomfield with his wife and two
children, was deployed as part of the clean-up operation near
Manchester's Arndale Centre shopping complex following the attack
in June 1996.

He died last year, at the age of 40, from mesothelioma, a cancer
caused by asbestos.

In a short documentary inquest held at Essex Coroner's Court in
Chelmsford on Monday, senior coroner Caroline Beasley-Murray heard
Mr Packard was admitted to hospital in June with shortness of
breath and weight loss.

He was referred to Basildon Hospital where he was diagnosed with
mesothelioma, eventually dying at Farleigh Hospice on October 30,
2015.

Mr Packard, who was married to Julie, was father to Kian, 10, and
Isla, 5.

Julie said: "We miss him very much, more than words can ever say;
he was a fantastic, loving, caring husband and father.

"We have had fantastic friendships and support which are
continuing to give us strength in the future.

"This disease just came back to get him so many years later.

"We all live with the threat of terrorism now every day -- and it
was terrorism all those years ago that caused his tragic death."

The bombing injured more than 200 people and caused GBP1.5 billion
worth of damage.

Mrs Beasley-Murray said: "He worked as a security guard in the
Arndale Centre, and after the IRA explosion in 1996 he was exposed
to asbestos because of the building work going on around him."

Buildings within a half-mile radius of the Manchester blast were
destroyed, while the clean-up was made more complicated by the
asbestos present in a number of damaged buildings.

Solicitors at Fieldfisher in London are dealing with a potential
civil claim for compensation after concerns were raised that Mr
Packard may not have been given appropriate protective clothing.

Specialist mesothelioma and asbestos solicitor Peter Williams
said: "His doctor performed a lung biopsy and was shocked to
discover he was suffering from the disease so young.

"Mesothelioma usually attacks people at retirement age, but Mr
Packard was only 40 when he died, which makes this case even more
tragic."

After leaving Manchester to return to his native Essex in 1997, Mr
Packard met wife Julie, with her proposing to him live on TV
during a leap-year challenge in 2004.

He went on to work as a health and safety officer for the Ministry
of Defence for a decade, while Julie worked as a paediatric nurse.

A fundraising campaign set up in the wake of his diagnosis has
gone on to raise more than GBP4,000.

Stuart's dad Keith, 71, said: "He was a super bloke and a great
son and brother. We all loved him to bits and I have been
struggling for the last few days as it was his birthday on March
31."

Mrs Beasley-Murray ruled that he died of an industrial disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Some NY Dems Lend Support to Transparency Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that
Democratic members of the New York State Assembly have introduced
a bill that aims to improve the transparency of asbestos trust
claims and prevent duplicative recoveries through the tort system.

In March, a group of lawmakers, led by Buffalo-area Democrat Robin
Schimminger, introduced an act to amend rules in asbestos-related
actions, A5978. The bill's design is to prevent asbestos victims
from blaming some companies in their civil lawsuits while blaming
others when they submit claims to bankruptcy trusts.

In previous years, such a measure was unlikely to move through the
legislature due to the presence of former Assembly Speaker Sheldon
Silver, who worked at a major New York City asbestos firm but was
convicted of corruption last year.

"This is an important bill that I am sponsoring to improve the
transparency of asbestos trust claims and prevent duplicative
recoveries through the tort system," said Schimminger, one of
eight Assembly Democrats who is sponsoring the bill.

"I am pushing for this bill, and I am hopeful that it will get
signed into law."

Similar legislation has been passed in other states, including
Ohio, Wisconsin, West Virginia and Oklahoma. The U.S. House of
Representatives has also approved the Furthering Asbestos Claims
Transparency Act, though President Barack Obama has promised a
veto if the Senate sends it to his desk.

"It is in the interest of justice that there be transparency with,
respect to claims made in the bankruptcy system and in civil
asbestos litigation to address the potential for fraud and
duplicate payments (whether by trusts or solvent companies),"
states a memorandum in support attached to the bill. "Presentation
of inconsistent or fraudulent claims data may deprive injured
claimants of compensation in favor of those who have not been
injured by asbestos products.

"The current lack of transparency in the tort system may result in
businesses in this state being unfairly penalized and deprived of
their right to set-off and other equitable and legal rights."

Silver, a once-powerful politician who worked at one of the most
prominent asbestos law firms in the country, Weitz & Luxenberg PC,
was found guilty of corruption by a federal jury in November.

Silver, a Democrat, was convicted on seven counts of honest
services fraud, extortion and money laundering.

He was accused of steering state funding to a doctor whose
asbestos research center referred patients to Weitz, resulting in
millions in fees for Silver.

That physician, Dr. Robert Taub, headed a mesothelioma research
facility at Columbia University until Silver's arrest in January
2015.

Silver was "of counsel" at Weitz & Luxenberg, which denied
knowledge of the scheme.

The American Tort Reform Association has been among those critical
of Silver's efforts to prevent legal reform in the state.

In 2014, the group named New York City's asbestos court the No. 1
"Judicial Hellhole" in the country. In 2015, the New York City
Asbestos Litigation, or NYCAL, ranked as the second most unfair in
the nation for its handling of civil litigation

The Lawsuit Reform Alliance of New York, pointing to the kickback
allegations against Silver, says the legislature is "rightfully
interested" in overhauling New York's asbestos courts.

"Asbestos was at the heart of New York's recent corruption scandal
involving former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver," said Tom
Stebbins, LRANY's executive director. "The intricate kickback
scheme uncovered by the U.S. Attorney illustrates the need for
comprehensive asbestos litigation reform in New York.

"This bill, which has growing bipartisan support in both houses,
would open claims up to transparency to root out fraud and
misrepresentation in the system. The measure will protect both
future funds for the injured and solvent businesses from becoming
the next target of this dangerous double dipping strategy."

Assembly Judiciary Committee members Phil Steck and Jo Anne Simon,
both Democrats, are among those lawmakers who have recently signed
on as co-sponsors for the bill. The legislation has been referred
to their committee.

Others who have signed on as co-sponsors include members Walter
Mosley, Sandy Galef, William Magee, John T. McDonald III and Frank
Skartados, all Democrats.

According to the bill's memorandum, asbestos litigation has forced
an estimated 85 employers into bankruptcy. And between 2000 and
2004, there were more asbestos-related bankruptcy filings than in
either of the prior two decades.

"Asbestos claimants often seek compensation for alleged asbestos-
related conditions from both civil defendants that remain solvent
and from trusts or claims facilities formed in asbestos bankruptcy
proceedings," the memorandum states. "There is limited
coordination and transparency between these two paths to recovery.

"This lack of transparency raises a strong potential for fraud and
abuse, as plaintiffs may allege facts intended to maximize
recoveries against trusts created through the bankruptcy system
and differing or even conflicting facts to maximize recoveries
against tort system defendants."

An example can be found in Garlock Sealing Technologies' landmark
bankruptcy case.

In January 2014, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge George Hodges ruled that
plaintiffs' attorneys had been withholding evidence that could
have been submitted to trusts while pursuing lawsuits against
Garlock.

They did so in order to maximize recovery in both systems, he
ruled.

Garlock, based in western New York, had been permitted full
discovery into the claims of 15 individuals and eventually filed
racketeering lawsuits against the law firms that represented them,
including New York City-based Belluck & Fox.

Those cases appear to be settled, as does Garlock's bankruptcy
case.

"It appears certain that more extensive discovery would show more
extensive abuse," Hodges wrote in his decision. "But that is not
necessary because the startling pattern of misrepresentation that
has been shown is sufficiently persuasive."

Ultimately, Hodges ordered Garlock to put $125 million in its
trust -- more than $1 billion less than plaintiffs attorneys had
requested. Hodges ruled that Garlock's past record of verdicts and
settlements was not an indicator of future liabilities because of
the actions of plaintiffs' attorneys.

Garlock eventually agreed to put $480 million in its trust.

New York's version of the bill, among other things:

-Requires the disclosure of all pending and anticipated asbestos
trust claims by a plaintiff within 30 days of commencing an
action, and not later than 180 days prior to trial;

-Requires a plaintiff to produce supporting documents related to
prior and current trust claims;

-Allows a defendant, by order to show cause, or OSC, to request
the court compel the plaintiff to attempt recovery from
appropriate trusts. The plaintiff must attempt recovery or prove
affirmatively that recovery is not possible, and the plaintiff's
claim is stayed until the OSC is complied with;

-Requires that liability be determined prior to damages in
asbestos tort actions;

-Allows the court to consolidate asbestos claims with the consent
of all parties; and

-Provides for sanctions by the court for non-compliance.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.C. Denies Post-Trial Motion in Asbestos Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a North Carolina federal
court has allowed a defense verdict to standing in an asbestos
case, denying the plaintiffs' motion for a new trial after
determining that the separation of proximate cause and intervening
cause -- the alleged error identified by the plaintiffs -- was an
instruction the plaintiffs sought prior to trial.

In the April 4 order, the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina opined that the "plaintiffs cannot now
complain that they received precisely what they sought."

Erik Ross Phillips and Tina Landers brought the action.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a New York federal judge has
denied cross-motions for summary judgment in a dispute over
whether Fireman Fund Insurance Co. properly allocated underlying
asbestos losses, explaining that more briefing on the issue is
required before a decision can be made.

On March 31, Judge Paul G. Gardephe of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York explained that the briefing
before the court does not adequately address the cases addressing
the allocation issue.

FFIC issued three one-year excess umbrella liability policies to
ASARCO Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in South-Doyle Highschool Library
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Local8Now.com reported that administrators said that the South-
Doyle High School's library will be closed the rest of the school
year after Knox County School's environmental management
department said they found asbestos.

Interim principal Sherry Smith said asbestos material is "located
between the library ceiling and the roof," according to a letter
sent to parents and staff.

"The material is only contained in this area, and has not been
found in any other areas of the building," Smith said in the
letter. "Additionally, air testing has confirmed that there is no
asbestos within the usable space of the library -- only between
the ceiling and the roof."

The letter said work to remove asbestos will start after the
school year concludes in May.

Smith said as a precaution staff and resources are going to be
placed in other parts of the school.

South-Doyle plans to hold a forum to address the community's
concerns and questions on Monday, April 11 at 6 p.m. in the
school's auditorium.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: More Info on Death of Former Bus Driver Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robbie Gordon, writing for The Hinckley Times, reported that the
widow of a former Hinckley bus driver who died of a cancer linked
to asbestos exposure is appealing for his ex-colleagues to come
forward.

Kenneth Perry died aged 88 on May 13 last year after being
diagnosed with mesothelioma a month before.

The terminal cancer is linked to asbestos exposure and
investigations into the cause were still ongoing when he died.

But a post-mortem examination confirmed his death was due to
asbestos.

His family and second wife Patricia are now trying to trace his
former colleagues to shed some light on his working conditions.

Mr Perry worked for the British Shoe Company in Hinckley as a bus
driver transporting employees to and from work throughout the day.

He also worked for Midland Red Buses as a driver at its Leicester
depot and as a lorry driver for BMW in Coventry.

Patricia, along with Mr Perry's son, have instructed specialist
asbestos lawyers at Hugh James to investigate how he came into
contact with the hazardous material.

Charlotte Perkins, a specialist solicitor in asbestos related
injuries at Hugh James, said: "We are hoping people who might have
worked alongside Mr Perry during his career -- whether they worked
directly or indirectly with him -- will come forward and help shed
some light on the conditions he was exposed to.

"As both his wife and son have little knowledge of Kenneth's
employment history, it really is vital for us to speak to as many
people as possible across the Midlands to see if we can learn more
about his potential asbestos exposure."

Patricia met her late husband close to retirement age. They
enjoyed making the most of their free time by caravanning with
friends and travelling to different parts of the country.

Patricia said: "Kenneth was a fairly quiet man, but he had lots of
friends who we both met along our travels.

"I know he was well liked by his colleagues at the British Shoe
Company and had many friends during his employment there. He would
have been a popular character wherever he worked."

She added: "Losing anyone you love is extremely difficult but not
to know the why and how is worse. We hope that this action will
help us get some closure as well as any other families who might
have been affected in the same way."

Former colleagues who knew Kenneth Perry can get in touch with law
firm Hugh James by calling Charlotte Perkins or Richard Green on
080823 16604.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Banned in Construction at Federal Sites
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Ireton, writing for CBC News, reported that it has learned a
federal government department has banned asbestos use in new
construction and renovation projects at buildings it operates --
the new policy took effect on April 1.

In February, CBC revealed that building products containing the
toxic material were still being used in new construction of
federal buildings in Canada.

The minister of public services and procurement said the
government is now taking steps to end the practice.

"We have heard the concerns expressed by Canadians over the
continued use of asbestos. We listened and took action," wrote
Minister of Public Services Judy Foote in an email to CBC. "As of
April 1, 2016, PSPC no longer uses asbestos in PSPC new
construction and major renovation projects. . . . Furthermore we
are developing an inventory of owned and leased buildings to
identify those that contain asbestos."

The minister said that building registry will be publicly
available, online in this coming summer.

Public Services and Procurement Canada, formerly referred to as
Public Works, serves as the central purchasing agent and property
manager for government departments and operates buildings used by
265,000 federal workers. It's not clear whether the department's
asbestos ban will extend to the entire government, as some federal
property is managed by other departments.

'Best news we've had in many years'

"It basically means that all new federal buildings that are still
in the planning stages will be built asbestos free," said Denis
St-Jean, the national health and safety officer at the Public
Service Alliance of Canada who attended the meeting.

"For many of our health and safety activists across Canada, this
is the best news we've had in many years."

There are several minerals commonly known as asbestos, the federal
government's website notes.

Health and labour groups are calling for a full ban on asbestos
use in Canada. The country still imports cement pipes and
automotive brake parts containing asbestos.

By contrast, Australia, New Zealand and all 28 members of the
European Union have bans in place.

Every year, thousands of Canadians die of asbestos-related
diseases, which can include mesothelioma (cancer of the chest
lining or abdominal cavity) and lung cancer.

In February, New Democrat MP Sheri Benson called the fibre "the
greatest industrial killer the world has ever known."

'Clear tone that this is not acceptable'

Hassan Yussuff, president of the Canadian Labour Congress, said
the new federal policy is a step in the right direction for
Canada.

"Asbestos is a carcinogen and given that we're spending tons money
on our infrastructure, if you don't set a clear tone that this is
not acceptable anymore, knowing what we know about asbestos, it
would have been really remiss of the government to allow this to
continue."

Yussuff himself was exposed to asbestos during his years working
in a General Motors plant.

He said he hopes this policy affects the rules around the billions
of dollars of construction projects the federal government is
planning to help fund across Canada.

"I think the federal government can say, without any
contradiction, 'We'll not fund projects that are using asbestos
products, as we're trying to renew our infrastructure.' I think
they can insist on that."

But Infrastructure Canada said in an email: "The use of asbestos
as it relates to health and safety is governed by provincial and
territorial standards, which our project proponents are required
to meet."

Public Services and Procurement Canada is also developing a
national inventory of both owned and leased buildings containing
asbestos.

Hundreds of properties

The department operates hundreds of properties, many containing
asbestos.

"Hopefully they're going to establish a public registry of all
Crown-owned buildings across Canada," said St. Jean.

He said for the past decade, the union has campaigned for such a
registry.

Asbestos registry needed says cancer patient

Registry needed for all federal buildings with asbestos
"We had a Canadian food inspection agency worker, his name was
Howard Willem, who actually passed away Nov. 8, 2012. Even on his
dying bed, he was still trying to have a public registry of all
asbestos-containing buildings," said St-Jean.

Federal government workers -- especially those who work in the
trades -- have long complained they weren't made aware their
workplaces contained asbestos until they had already been exposed.

CBC investigation reveals IT workers didn't know about asbestos
Yussuff agrees the registry is needed, but said there's much more
the federal government should do.

"There is a big gap though, in terms of their policy which we have
to address. The importation of asbestos products in our country is
simply unacceptable and the federal government can bring in a
comprehensive ban to stop those products from coming into Canada
and that has to be part of this."

David Boyd, an environmental lawyer and adjunct professor at Simon
Fraser University in B.C., said several federal departments need
to be part of new policies concerning asbestos, not just Public
Services and Procurement Canada.

"I keep saying to people in Ottawa this isn't something you can
dither about. This is something that has to be done as soon as
humanly possible to save lives and to prevent terrible diseases."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Ewing Community Center
---------------------------------------------------------
Cristina Rojas, writing for NJ.com, reported that Ewing's
Hollowbrook Community Center will close for a six-month renovation
at the end of May after asbestos was discovered in floor tiles,
window caulking and popcorn ceilings.

None of the asbestos has been found to pose an immediate health
hazard to the public, Mayor Bert Steinmann said Monday, but it
could pose a problem in the future, prompting officials to decide
to remediate the asbestos and renovate the building.

The township became aware of the possible presence of asbestos-
containing material on March 8 when a worker was repairing the
boiler and found exposed asbestos on a pipe, Steinmann said.

The asbestos was encapsulated, but the mayor ordered the rest of
the building to be tested.

"Basically 80 percent of the center has asbestos-related
material," he said.

The high levels were detected at Morgan Elementary on Stamford
Road and Greenwood Avenue on Greenwood Avenue.

Hollowbrook was built in the early 1970s when the carcinogen was
still a material of choice for fireproofing, soundproofing and
insulating buildings.

It has rooms the public can rent and is also home to Concerned
Citizens of Ewing, the CYO of Mercer County's day care program,
the Head Start program, the Mercer County Library's Hollowbrook
branch, a senior nutrition program and a pool.

"We took every step imaginable to make the conditions safe,"
Steinmann said. "If the air quality had not come back down
properly, we would have shut it down right away. I'm not taking
any chances with kids and the general public.

"Every precaution has been taken," he continued. "Where we needed
to take immediate action, that was taken."

A storage room was sealed off after it tested slightly higher for
air particulates and the library branch was closed because the
paint had started to bubble from a prior roof leak, Steinmann
said. The township already had plans to replace the roof this
year, he said.

Townwide letters were not sent out, but the leasees and frequent
visitors were notified. Flyers were also left at both Hollowbrook
and the Ewing Senior and Community Center.

The center will close May 31 and work is expected to get underway
June 1. The asbestos abatement will cost about $300,000 and bids
are going out for the renovations.

"Right now, it's all contained," Steinmann said. "Nobody is in
danger of anything. We're doing this very responsibly and we're
going to get the job done."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Settles with Eagle Ski Park Developer
----------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Sewell, writing for Idaho Statesman, reported that Gateway
Parks LLC, a Boise ski and snowboard park developer, will pay a
$10,000 fine to settle a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
claim that it violated federal asbestos regulations.

The EPA alleged the company violated asbestos rules when it failed
to notify the agency before asbestos-containing buildings were
demolished at the former Lazy J Tavern near Eagle on Horseshoe
Bend Road. Notification is required to give EPA inspectors an
opportunity to check on buildings before demolition to make sure
asbestos has been removed and to protect the public from exposure
to harmful asbestos dust.

"EPA's asbestos rules require building owners and contractors to
notify the EPA in advance of demolition projects and to use
certified professionals to remove asbestos before demolition,"
said Ed Kowalski, director of EPA's Pacific Northwest Office of
Compliance and Enforcement, in a news release. "When you fail to
follow those procedures, your job site can become contaminated and
put public health at risk from asbestos exposure. In a misguided
effort to save money, Gateway Parks cut corners and unfortunately
turned a $14,000 demolition into a $75,000 mess. In the end, we
know it's far less expensive, and much safer, to do this work the
right way the first time."

Gateway Parks owner Ryan Neptune told the Statesman, "Although we
completely disagree with the EPA in the case, it was simply
cheaper to settle than to continue to argue with an albatross like
the EPA. At the end of the day we are happy that the property is
now certified, cleaned, clear and ready for development."

Gateway bought the two-acre site adjacent to Eagle Sports Complex
in January 2014. It planned to operate a snowboard and tubing park
there. The site, abandoned and dilapidated, included nearly a
dozen junked vehicles and piles of debris strewn among ramshackle
buildings.

Gateway hired a consultant to inspect eight buildings for asbestos
and to prepare for demolition. The consultant found asbestos in
six of the buildings and submitted a bid for abatement. Gateway
Parks did not accept the bid and demolished the buildings without
first notifying the EPA. Because asbestos materials were left in
the buildings during demolition, the resulting debris piles were
contaminated with an unknown amount of asbestos, according to the
EPA.

In response to a public complaint, the EPA began investigating and
in April 2015 ordered Gateway to clean up asbestos-contaminated
debris from buildings already demolished and to follow federal
regulations for all pending building demolitions.

The company hired an asbestos abatement contractor, and the site
was cleaned up May. About 27 truckloads containing 945 cubic yards
of debris were hauled to the landfill where the EPA said it was
properly discarded. The cleanup and disposal cost Gateway Parks
more than $65,000, in addition to the federal penalty.

"This property had been a nuisance and a danger to the community
for decades," said Neptune, who has since relocated his snow park
to Eagle Island State Park. "We thank the EPA and DEQ [Idaho
Department of Environmental Quality] for working with Gateway to
help clean up this public nuisance and see that it can become a
wonderful new reconditioned property with spectacular views of the
Foothills and Bogus Basin."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Canberra Dump Contains Asbestos Insulation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kirsten Lawson, writing for The Canberaa Times, reported that the
former Fluffy asbestos dump site in near Palmerston and Crace
Gungahlin is believed to contain about 5550 drums, 1700 crates,
shipping containers and a range of other contaminated materials
buried when the loose-fill asbestos was removed from the ceilings
of homes 25 years ago.

The northern part of the block, block 789 Gungahlin, is the site
of the planned extension of Nudurr Drive, which runs between Crace
and Palmerston, linking Gundaroo Drive and Gungahlin Drive.

The ACT government commissioned Robson Environmental to test the
site for contamination before the road is built, and tabled the
findings.

Robson said the site was used to dump the asbestos insulation
removed from more than 1000 Canberra homes between 1985 and the
early 1990s. The loose asbestos was placed in steel drums and
shipping containers, to be buried three metres below ground.

Planning directorate records showed there were about 122
containers, 5544 drums, 1681 crates, 187 pallets, 100 plastic
bags, 76 doors, 49 packages, 22 poly bundles, 14 boxes, 13 air-
conditioning ducts, seven plastic containers, six pantek loads of
tiles, five pieces of equipment, four telecom drums, four city
crates, three tanks, one boiler and fire doors, according to the
Robson report.

The site was believed not to have any special leachate controls in
place, with officials at the time considering the ground had a
high clay content and low permeability.

Robson found no evidence that the loose Mr Fluffy asbestos had
contaminated the site.

But it said the three to four metres of clean fill that was
supposed to have capped the site probably was not as thick or as
clean as claimed.

There were discrepancies in reports of how high the asbestos cells
extended, the capping layer might have been compromised by
subsequent filling, and it appeared that some of the capping
material was in fact other landfill waste.

Robson found general waste at the surface across the site,
indicating there was only a shallow cap on top of household waste.

The company said its soil and groundwater tests indicated the site
was "unlikely to present a significant risk to current users of
the site and adjacent residents".

"However, the current capping layer over the landfill material and
asbestos within the landfill is inadequate and asbestos may
potentially be exposed at the surface of the landfill in the
future due to soil and wind erosion," it said, recommending proper
capping and a management plan.

The landfill area had also not been fully delineated to the south,
east and northwest of the site, Robson found, also recommending
more work be done to determine the extent of the dumping area.

Robson dug 48 test pits down as deep as four metres below ground.
It found metal, brick, concrete and glass at the surface or near
the surface in numerous locations. It found fragments of bonded
asbestos sheeting and friable asbestos, probably due to the bonded
sheeting degrading, in 10 of the test pits. The asbestos was found
at 90cm or lower.

Soil samples recorded concentrations of asbestos above the site
limits in eight test pits, at depths of 1.9m or more below ground.
But it found no evidence of Mr Fluffy asbestos in the top three
metres of landfill material, with the contamination found believed
to be from other asbestos dumped there.

Robson concluded the northern strip was suitable for the Nudurr
Drive extension, as long as a management plan was in place, and as
long as work did not extend south of the embankment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: I-LAW Supports Legislation for Claims Oversight
----------------------------------------------------------------
April Bamburg, writing for Madison Record, reported that companies
have put billions of dollars into asbestos trust funds that are
designed to compensate victims of conditions that have been caused
by exposure to asbestos, and due to slack oversight, there are
often opportunities for fraud to occur.

Lawmakers in Utah recently passed a bill designed to inhibit
asbestos fraud and the "double-dipping" that can occur when
lawyers for individuals who have been affected by asbestos-related
disease such as mesothelioma file a claim with the asbestos trust
fund and also file a second claim in civil courts. Because there
is limited coordination between the civil court actions related to
asbestos and the trust funds established to compensate those who
are affected, particularly in Illinois, many claims are filed in
the state.

Legislators in Utah passed the Asbestos Litigation Transparency
Act (House Bill 403), which is designed to create more
transparency in asbestos bankruptcy trust claims in civil court
actions, and to limit the opportunities for fraud in asbestos-
related cases. This bill requires that in all asbestos actions
filed there, plaintiffs must disclose all claims to an asbestos
trust in relation to the civil action, whether those claims are
actually filed or could be filed.

Madison County has become known as the place to file asbestos-
related claims -- and some, like Travis Akin, executive director
of Illinois Lawsuit Abuse Watch, say that legislation to end
double-dipping into the Asbestos Trust Fund is absolutely needed.

"Madison County is ground zero for asbestos litigation, and most
of these cases have nothing to do with Madison County," Travis
Akin, executive director of Illinois Lawsuit Abuse Watch told the
Madison County Record.

"In Illinois, there have been efforts to pass similar legislation,
but the House and Senate refuse to move forward on this common
sense [type of bill]."

When bills related to lawsuit reform come before Illinois
legislators, Akin said that they don't often get hearings, because
legislators aren't interested in lawsuit reform.

"In Illinois, legislative leaders control bills that are called
for a vote or that get assigned to committee," Akin said.
"Legislative leaders are adamantly opposed to lawsuit reform. In
the recent past, they did have a hearing on legislation like this,
but when they have hearings, there's no intention to call these
bills for a vote."

Some of the lawsuit reforms that Illinois Lawsuit Abuse Watch
supports might have a chance, but Akin says it never gets a
chance. Lawsuit reform is heard in committee, for substantive
hearings, but there isn't a vote.

"It's the only option we have. From time to time, in hearings,
legislators do listen to the point of view that says we need
lawsuit reform," Akin said.

Akin said there is no denying that mesothelioma is a horrible
disease.

"But, personal injury lawyers should not be able to file a claim
to the trust and a separate claim elsewhere," he said. "They
shouldn't be able to cash in twice for the same case."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manufacturer Owes No "Take Home" Duty of Care
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Felton Eckerly, Esq. -- aeckerly@gordonrees.com -- at
Gordon & Rees LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that the
Northern District of Illinois recently ruled that under Illinois
law, an asbestos product manufacturer owed no duty of care to
household members in a "take home" or "secondary exposure"
asbestos case. Neumann v. Borg-Warner Morse Tec LLC, No. 15-10507,
N.D. Ill., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31280.

Plaintiff Doris Jane Neumann alleges that she contracted malignant
mesothelioma through exposure to asbestos-containing products as a
result of laundering the clothes of her son, who used asbestos-
containing friction paper during his work as a mechanic.
Originally filed in state court, the case was removed to federal
court on diversity grounds. Subsequently, defendant MW Custom
Papers moved for dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6), alleging that it could not be found liable for
negligence because it did not owe Doris Jane Neumann a duty of
care under Illinois law.

In ruling on the motion, the federal district court noted with
frustration that there was a split of opinion among Illinois
appellate courts on the issue. The Illinois Supreme Court had the
opportunity to decide the issue in Simpkins v. CSX Transp., Inc.,
2012 Ill. LEXIS 330, 965 N.E.2d 1092 (2012), but declined to issue
a definitive ruling. Thus, the Illinois Supreme Court never
actually answered the question as to whether a "take home" duty of
care existed in Illinois asbestos cases. As a result, the holding
in Neumann takes on a heightened significance.

Neumann analyzed the following four factors set forth in Simpkins:
(1) the reasonable foreseeability of the injury; (2) the
likelihood of the injury; (3) the magnitude of the burden of
guarding against the injury; and (4) the consequences of placing
that burden upon the defendant. At the outset, the court
determined that the foreseeability factor was sufficiently met
under the liberal notice pleading standard used in federal court.
Moreover, MW Custom Papers did not challenge the "likelihood of
injury" factor. Importantly, the court emphasized that plaintiff
completely failed to address the third and fourth policy-driven
factors in her briefs and exclusively focused her arguments on the
foreseeability factor, which "is not the only factor to be
considered." Although the court found "no precedents or other
authorities that convince us how the Illinois Supreme Court would
rule on this novel duty question," it found two Illinois appellate
decisions that addressed this issue, but came to opposite results.
Lastly, the court looked toward outside jurisdictions for
direction, where it once again found divided opinions throughout
the country. "While the majority of courts have declined to extend
a duty in this situation, that fact alone is not persuasive,
particularly because duty and negligence principles vary among
states."

Neumann gleaned some guidance from the Seventh Circuit, which
instructed that "[w]hen we are faced with two opposing and equally
plausible interpretations of state law, we generally choose the
narrower interpretation which restricts liability, rather than the
more expansive interpretation which creates substantially more
liability." Applying this reasoning, the court adopted the more
narrow view, finding that MW Custom Papers did not owe a duty to
Neumann in light of the magnitude of the burden of protecting her
and the potential ramifications of imposing that heavy a burden on
MW Custom Papers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Niagara County Violated Rules in Courthouse Job
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas J. Prohaska, writin for The Buffalo News, reported that the
state Labor Department found that Niagara County committed eight
"serious violations" pertaining to the handling of asbestos in a
carpet project in the County Clerk's Office in January.

The report by the Labor Department's Bureau of Public Employee
Safety and Health said floor tiles containing about asbestos were
removed without taking measures to protect the workers and welfare
clients who did the job in the courthouse in Lockport. Employees
were not informed of the project.

An old carpet was replaced Jan. 26-28 in the office of Clerk
Joseph A. Jastrzemski. The carpet had been glued to the floor tile
underneath, so workers removed both and put them in a dumpster
before installing the new carpet.

The tiles measured 9 inches square, a size that usually contains
asbestos, a fire-retardant material whose fibers have been shown
to cause cancer.

William Rutland, president of the county's unit of the American
Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, filed a
complaint with PESH Feb. 8, after the project was done. The tiles
were 1.09 percent to 1.13 percent asbestos; no asbestos was found
in the glue and no asbestos was in the air.

County workers were trained in asbestos recognition last year,
after Rutland blew the whistle on the unprotected removal of
asbestos from a basement crawl space in the Shaw Building.

However, PESH reported that workers weren't trained about finding
asbestos-containing tile under carpeting.

Jennifer R. Pitarresi, the county's risk and insurance director,
issued a statement blaming the workers on the carpet job for
failing to recognize potential asbestos-containing materials.

Rutland said the county gave oral reprimands to 10 members of his
union, which he called "ridiculous." He said a grievance has been
filed.

Pitarresi said, "We have undertaken surveys of all crawl spaces,
boiler rooms and other work spaces in buildings that potentially
contain asbestos. Mr. Rutland's interpretation of the PESH order
is incorrect. ."

Pitarresi added that the county has instituted a new policy
requiring asbestos testing before any construction or demolition
on county property.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Retired Carpenter Wins GBP200,00 Payout
--------------------------------------------------------
Mark Tallentire, writing for The Northern Echo, reported that a
retired carpenter who worked with asbestos in a prison has
received a six-figure compensation pay-out after being diagnosed
with lung cancer.

The pensioner, who has not been named but is from County Durham,
worked in various prisons between 1963 and 1995, carrying out
maintenance work.

In one prison, he renovated the commercial laundry room, removing
old asbestos sheets and cutting new ones, laying asbestos floor
tiles and renewing lagging on heating pipes.

He also mixed asbestos plaster, while colleagues stripped asbestos
insulation from pipes, steam presses and irons.

In September 2014, he began to feel unwell, visited a doctor and
was eventually diagnosed with lung cancer causes by exposure to
asbestos.

The ex-carpenter contacted the Prison Officers' Association (POA)
and instructed asbestos disease specialists Thompsons Solicitors
to investigate making a compensation claim.

He eventually received a pay-out of GBP220,832.

The POA member said: "I'd worked with asbestos for most of my
career but when I got diagnosed with cancer it was a huge shock.

"The support from my union and Thompsons has been faultless. It's
reassuring to know that my family are now financially secure and
we don't have to worry about the cost of any treatment."

Glyn Travis, of the POA, said: "Asbestos-related cancers are often
associated with industries like shipbuilding, but the reality is
that this disease affects workers everywhere, including prison
employees.

"The settlement will give our member and his family security
following the diagnosis of this terrible illness."

Anthony Hood, of Thompsons Solicitors, said: "We secured
compensation by working closely with our client to find exactly
when and where he was exposed to asbestos.

"We have a specialist team who deal with hundreds of asbestos-
related cases every day and are determined to obtain the maximum
compensation in the shortest possible time for our clients and
their families."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ensign Remains Subject to Exposure Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Ensign Group Inc. and its subsidiaries are still subject to
various federal, state and local environmental proceedings, as
well as personal injury claims caused by exposure or presence of
asbestos-containing materials, 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, "Our operating subsidiaries are subject to
regulations under various federal, state and local environmental
laws, primarily those relating to the handling, storage,
transportation, treatment and disposal of medical waste; the
identification and warning of the presence of asbestos-containing
materials in buildings, as well as the encapsulation or removal of
such materials; and the presence of other substances in the indoor
environment.

"Our affiliated facilities generate infectious or other hazardous
medical waste due to the illness or physical condition of the
patients. Each of our affiliated facilities has an agreement with
a waste management company for the proper disposal of all
infectious medical waste, but the use of a waste management
company does not immunize us from alleged violations of such laws
for operating subsidiaries for which we are responsible even if
carried out by a third party, nor does it immunize us from third-
party claims for the cost to cleanup disposal sites at which such
wastes have been disposed.

"Some of the affiliated facilities we lease, own or may acquire
may have asbestos-containing materials. Federal regulations
require building owners and those exercising control over a
building's management to identify and warn their employees and
other employers operating in the building of potential hazards
posed by workplace exposure to installed asbestos-containing
materials and potential asbestos-containing materials in their
buildings. Significant fines can be assessed for violation of
these regulations. Building owners and those exercising control
over a building's management may be subject to an increased risk
of personal injury lawsuits. Federal, state and local laws and
regulations also govern the removal, encapsulation, disturbance,
handling and disposal of asbestos-containing materials and
potential asbestos-containing materials when such materials are in
poor condition or in the event of construction, remodeling,
renovation or demolition of a building. Such laws may impose
liability for improper handling or a release into the environment
of asbestos containing materials and potential asbestos-containing
materials and may provide for fines to, and for third parties to
seek recovery from, owners or operators of real properties for
personal injury or improper work exposure associated with
asbestos-containing materials and potential asbestos-containing
materials. The presence of asbestos-containing materials, or the
failure to properly dispose of or remediate such materials, also
may adversely affect our ability to attract and retain patients
and staff, to borrow when using such property as collateral or to
make improvements to such property."

Ensign Group, Inc., through its operating subsidiaries, is a
provider of healthcare services across the post-acute care
continuum, as well as urgent care centers and mobile ancillary
businesses located in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa,
Kansas, Nebraska, Nevada, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, Utah,
Washington and Wisconsin. The Company is incorporated in 1999 in
Delaware.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Terreno Realty May Be Subject to PI Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Terreno Realty Corp. may be subject to personal injury claims due
to asbestos exposure, 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, "The industrial properties that the Company
owns and will acquire are subject to various federal, state and
local environmental laws. Under these laws, courts and government
agencies have the authority to require the Company, as owner of a
contaminated property, to clean up the property, even if it did
not know of or was not responsible for the contamination. These
laws also apply to persons who owned a property at the time it
became contaminated, and therefore it is possible the Company
could incur these costs even after the Company sells some of the
properties it acquires. In addition to the costs of cleanup,
environmental contamination can affect the value of a property
and, therefore, an owner's ability to borrow using the property as
collateral or to sell the property. Under applicable environmental
laws, courts and government agencies also have the authority to
require that a person who sent waste to a waste disposal facility,
such as a landfill or an incinerator, pay for the clean-up of that
facility if it becomes contaminated and threatens human health or
the environment.

"Furthermore, various court decisions have established that third
parties may recover damages for injury caused by property
contamination. For instance, a person exposed to asbestos at one
of the Company's properties may seek to recover damages if he or
she suffers injury from the asbestos. Lastly, some of these
environmental laws restrict the use of a property or place
conditions on various activities. An example would be laws that
require a business using chemicals to manage them carefully and to
notify local officials that the chemicals are being used.

"The Company could be responsible for any of the costs.  The costs
to clean up a contaminated property, to defend against a claim, or
to comply with environmental laws could be material and could
adversely affect the funds available for distribution to its
stockholders. The Company generally obtains "Phase I environmental
site assessments", or ESAs, on each property prior to acquiring
it. However, these ESAs may not reveal all environmental costs
that might have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, assets, results of operations or liquidity and may not
identify all potential environmental liabilities.

"The Company utilizes local third party property managers for day-
to-day property management and will rely on these third parties to
operate its industrial properties in compliance with applicable
federal, state and local environmental laws in their daily
operation of the respective properties and to promptly notify the
Company of any environmental contaminations or similar issues.

"As a result, the Company may become subject to material
environmental liabilities of which it is unaware. The Company can
make no assurances that (1) future laws or regulations will not
impose material environmental liabilities on it, or (2) the
environmental condition of the Company's industrial properties
will not be affected by the condition of the properties in the
vicinity of its industrial properties (such as the presence of
leaking underground storage tanks) or by third parties unrelated
to the Company. The Company was not aware of any significant or
material exposures as of December 31, 2015 or 2014."

Terreno Realty Corporation engages in acquiring, owning, and
operating real estate properties in Los Angeles area, northern New
Jersey/New York City, San Francisco Bay area, Seattle area, Miami
area, and Washington D.C./Baltimore area. Terreno Realty
Corporation was founded in 2009 and is based in San Francisco,
California.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Has 2,130 Respirator Claims at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
3M Co. continues to be a defendant of approximately 2,130
individual claimants of personal injury, the vast majority coming
from alleged use of some of the Company's mask and respirator
products, 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.

As of December 31, 2015, the Company is a named defendant, with
multiple co-defendants, in numerous lawsuits in various courts
that purport to represent approximately 2,130 individual
claimants, compared to approximately 2,220 individual claimants
with actions pending at December 31, 2014.

The vast majority of the lawsuits and claims resolved by and
currently pending against the Company allege use of some of the
Company's mask and respirator products and seek damages from the
Company and other defendants for alleged personal injury from
workplace exposures to asbestos, silica, coal mine dust or other
occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other
defendants or generally in the workplace. A minority of the
lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the
Company generally allege personal injury from occupational
exposure to asbestos from products previously manufactured by the
Company, which are often unspecified, as well as products
manufactured by other defendants, or occasionally at Company
premises.

The Company's current volume of new and pending matters is
substantially lower than it experienced at the peak of filings in
2003. The Company expects that filing of claims by unimpaired
claimants in the future will continue to be at much lower levels
than in the past. Accordingly, the number of claims alleging more
serious injuries, including mesothelioma and other malignancies,
will represent a greater percentage of total claims than in the
past. The Company has prevailed in all ten cases taken to trial,
including eight of the nine cases tried to verdict (such trials
occurred in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2007, and 2015), and an
appellate reversal in 2005 of the 2001 jury verdict adverse to the
Company. The remaining case, tried in 2009, was dismissed by the
court at the close of plaintiff's evidence, based on the court's
legal finding that the plaintiff had not presented sufficient
evidence to support a jury verdict.

3M Company operates as a diversified technology company worldwide.
3M Company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in St. Paul,
Minnesota.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aearo Continues to Pay $100K Indemnification Fee
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aearo Holding Corp., a subsidiay of 3M Co., continues to make the
quarterly payment of $100,000 to Cabot Corporation as part of an
agreement to indemnify Aero against any product liability claims
involving exposure to asbestos, silica, or  silica products for
respirators sold prior to July 11, 1995, 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.

On April 1, 2008, a subsidiary of the Company purchased the stock
of Aearo Holding Corp., the parent of Aearo Technologies
("Aearo"). Aearo manufactured and sold various products, including
personal protection equipment, such as eye, ear, head, face, fall
and certain respiratory protection products.

As of December 31, 2015, Aearo and/or other companies that
previously owned and operated Aearo's respirator business
(American Optical Corporation, Warner-Lambert LLC, AO Corp. and
Cabot Corporation ("Cabot")) are named defendants, with multiple
co-defendants, including the Company, in numerous lawsuits in
various courts in which plaintiffs allege use of mask and
respirator products and seek damages from Aearo and other
defendants for alleged personal injury from workplace exposures to
asbestos, silica-related, or other occupational dusts found in
products manufactured by other defendants or generally in the
workplace.

As of December 31, 2015, the Company, through its Aearo
subsidiary, had accruals of $21 million for product liabilities
and defense costs related to current and future Aearo-related
asbestos and silica-related claims. Responsibility for legal
costs, as well as for settlements and judgments, is currently
shared in an informal arrangement among Aearo, Cabot, American
Optical Corporation and a subsidiary of Warner Lambert and their
respective insurers (the "Payor Group"). Liability is allocated
among the parties based on the number of years each company sold
respiratory products under the "AO Safety" brand and/or owned the
AO Safety Division of American Optical Corporation and the alleged
years of exposure of the individual plaintiff. Aearo's share of
the contingent liability is further limited by an agreement
entered into between Aearo and Cabot on July 11, 1995. This
agreement provides that, so long as Aearo pays to Cabot a
quarterly fee of $100,000, Cabot will retain responsibility and
liability for, and indemnify Aearo against, any product liability
claims involving exposure to asbestos, silica, or  silica products
for respirators sold prior to July 11, 1995. Because of the
difficulty in determining how long a particular respirator remains
in the stream of commerce after being sold, Aearo and Cabot have
applied the agreement to claims arising out of the alleged use of
respirators involving exposure to asbestos, silica or silica
products prior to January 1, 1997. With these arrangements in
place, Aearo's potential liability is limited to exposures alleged
to have arisen from the use of respirators involving exposure to
asbestos, silica, or silica products on or after January 1, 1997.
To date, Aearo has elected to pay the quarterly fee. Aearo could
potentially be exposed to additional claims for some part of the
pre-July 11, 1995 period covered by its agreement with Cabot if
Aearo elects to discontinue its participation in this arrangement,
or if Cabot is no longer able to meet its obligations in these
matters.

3M Company operates as a diversified technology company worldwide.
3M Company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in St. Paul,
Minnesota.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Had 10,100 Claims at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Inc. continues to face an approximately 10,100 pending
asbestos-related product liability claims, 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 "Like many other industrial companies who have
historically operated in the U.S., the Company (or parties the
Company is obligated to indemnify) continues to be named as one of
many defendants in asbestos-related personal injury actions. We
believe that the Company's involvement is limited because, in
general, these claims relate to a few types of automotive products
that were manufactured many years ago and contained encapsulated
asbestos. The nature of the fibers, the encapsulation and the
manner of use lead the Company to believe that these products are
highly unlikely to cause harm. As of December 31, 2015 and
December 31, 2014, the Company had approximately 10,100 and 13,300
pending asbestos-related product liability claims, respectively.
The decrease in the pending claims is primarily a result of the
Company's continued efforts to obtain dismissal of dormant
claims."

BorgWarner Inc. develops, manufactures, and sells engineered
automotive systems and components primarily for powertrain
applications worldwide. BorgWarner Inc. was founded in 1987 and is
headquartered in Auburn Hills, Michigan.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Resolved 5,300 Claims in 2015
---------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Inc. has approximately 5,300 asbestos-related claims
resolved, 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's policy is to vigorously defend against these
lawsuits and the Company has been successful in obtaining
dismissal of many claims without any payment. The nature of the
historical product being encapsulated and the lifecycle of the
product allow the Company to aggressively defend against these
lawsuits. The Company expects that the vast majority of the
pending asbestos-related product liability claims where it is a
defendant (or has an obligation to indemnify a defendant) will
result in no payment being made by the Company or its insurers. In
the full year of 2015, of the approximately 5,300 claims resolved,
349 (7%) resulted in payment being made to a claimant by or on
behalf of the Company. In the full year of 2014, of the
approximately 6,500 claims resolved, 397 (6%) resulted in payment
being made to a claimant by or on behalf of the Company.

BorgWarner Inc. develops, manufactures, and sells engineered
automotive systems and components primarily for powertrain
applications worldwide. BorgWarner Inc. was founded in 1987 and is
headquartered in Auburn Hills, Michigan.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Satisfies Damages in Calif. Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Inc. has satisfied the compensary damages of the $35
million jury verdict entered by the Los Angeles Superior Court in
an asbestos-related personal injury action, 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.

In August 2013, the Los Angeles Superior Court entered a jury
verdict against the Company in an asbestos-related personal injury
action with damages of $35.0 million, of which $32.5 million were
punitive and would not be recoverable through insurance. In July
2015, the Court of Appeal for the State of California issued a
decision striking the $32.5 million in punitive damages. The
plaintiffs sought to reinstate the punitive damages by petitioning
for review from the California Supreme Court. In October 2015, the
California Supreme Court denied plaintiffs' petition for review.
In December 2015, the Company satisfied the amended judgment in
full, with respect to compensatory damages only, and received the
acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment from the Los Angeles
Superior Court.

The Company said this decision did not have a material impact on
the Consolidated Financial Statements.

BorgWarner Inc. develops, manufactures, and sells engineered
automotive systems and components primarily for powertrain
applications worldwide. BorgWarner Inc. was founded in 1987 and is
headquartered in Auburn Hills, Michigan.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Paid $579MM in Claims Handling Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Travelers Companies Inc. has made a $579 million payment in
January 2015 to the plaintiffs of a consolidated asbestos action
to settle the litigation, 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.

In October 2001 and April 2002, two purported class action suits
(Wise v. Travelers and Meninger v. Travelers) were filed against
Travelers Property Casualty Corp. (TPC), a wholly-owned subsidiary
of the Company, and other insurers (not including The St. Paul
Companies, Inc. (SPC), which was acquired by TPC in 2004) in state
court in West Virginia.  These and other cases subsequently filed
in West Virginia were consolidated into a single proceeding in the
Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia. The plaintiffs
alleged that the insurer defendants engaged in unfair trade
practices in violation of state statutes by inappropriately
handling and settling asbestos claims. The plaintiffs sought to
reopen large numbers of settled asbestos claims and to impose
liability for damages, including punitive damages, directly on
insurers. Similar lawsuits alleging inappropriate handling and
settling of asbestos claims were filed in Massachusetts and Hawaii
state courts. These suits are collectively referred to as the
Statutory and Hawaii Actions.

In March 2002, the plaintiffs in consolidated asbestos actions
pending before a mass tort panel of judges in West Virginia state
court amended their complaint to include TPC as a defendant,
alleging that TPC and other insurers breached alleged duties to
certain users of asbestos products. The plaintiffs sought damages,
including punitive damages. Lawsuits seeking similar relief and
raising similar allegations, primarily violations of purported
common law duties to third parties, were also asserted in various
state courts against TPC and SPC. The claims asserted in these
suits are collectively referred to as the Common Law Claims.

In response to these claims, TPC moved to enjoin the Statutory
Actions and the Common Law Claims in the federal bankruptcy court
that had presided over the bankruptcy of TPC's former policyholder
Johns-Manville Corporation on the ground that the suits violated
injunctions entered in connection with confirmation of the Johns-
Manville bankruptcy (the 1986 Orders). The bankruptcy court issued
a temporary restraining order and referred the parties to
mediation. In November 2003, the parties reached a settlement of
the Statutory and Hawaii Actions, which included a lump-sum
payment of up to $412 million by TPC, subject to a number of
significant contingencies. In May 2004, the parties reached a
settlement resolving substantially all pending and similar future
Common Law Claims against TPC, which included a payment of up to
$90 million by TPC, subject to similar contingencies.

After the parties reached the settlements of the Statutory and
Hawaiian Actions and the Common Law Claims (collectively "the
Settlements"), numerous proceedings took place in the bankruptcy,
district and appellate courts concerning the approval of the
Settlements and their effect on other parties. As a result of
certain rulings in those proceedings, TPC concluded that it was
not obligated to go forward with the Settlements because certain
conditions precedent to the Settlements had not been met.

The plaintiffs in the Statutory and Hawaii Actions and the Common
Law Claims actions thereafter filed motions in the bankruptcy
court to compel TPC to make payment under the settlement
agreements, arguing that all conditions precedent to the
Settlements had been met. On December 16, 2010, the bankruptcy
court granted the plaintiffs' motions and ruled that TPC was
required to fund the Settlements. The court entered judgment
against TPC on January 20, 2011 in accordance with this ruling and
ordered TPC to pay the Settlements plus prejudgment interest. The
bankruptcy court's judgment was reversed by the district court on
March 1, 2012, the district court having found that the conditions
to the Settlements had not been met. The plaintiffs appealed the
district court's March 1, 2012 decision to the Second Circuit
Court of Appeals. On July 22, 2014, the Second Circuit issued an
opinion reversing the district court's decision and reinstating
the bankruptcy court's January 20, 2011 order which ordered TPC to
pay the Settlements plus prejudgment interest. On August 5, 2014,
TPC filed a Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc with the
Second Circuit, which was denied on January 5, 2015. On January
15, 2015, the bankruptcy court entered an order directing TPC to
pay $579 million to the plaintiffs, comprising the $502 million
settlement amount, plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest
totaling $77 million, and the Company made that payment in January
2015.  The payment was fully accrued in the Company's financial
statements at December 31, 2014.

The Travelers Companies, Inc. (together with its consolidated
subsidiaries, the Company) is a holding company principally
engaged, through its subsidiaries, in providing a wide range of
commercial and personal property and casualty insurance products
and services to businesses, government units, associations and
individuals. The Company is incorporated as a general business
corporation under the laws of the state of Minnesota and is one of
the oldest insurance organizations in the United States, dating
back to 1853.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aerojet Faced 83 Asbestos Cases at Nov. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------
Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc., was a defendant of 83 pending
asbestos cases in Texas and Pennsylvania, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended November 30, 2015.
The Company has been, and continues to be, named as a defendant in
lawsuits alleging personal injury or death due to exposure to
asbestos in building materials, products, or in manufacturing
operations. The majority of cases are pending in Texas and
Pennsylvania. There were 83 asbestos cases pending as of November
30, 2015.

Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures,
and sells aerospace and defense products and systems in the United
States. Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1915 and
is headquartered in Rancho Cordova, California.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial in AMEC vs. Aerojet Suit Rescheduled
-----------------------------------------------------------
Trial date for AMEC plc's amended complaint demanding Aerojet
Rocketdyne Inc. to assume the defense of 16 asbestos cases of
Barnard & Burk, Inc., was rescheduled to April 11, 2016, according
to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended November 30, 2015.

In 2011, Aerojet Rocketdyne received a letter demand from AMEC,
plc, ("AMEC") the successor entity to the 1981 purchaser of the
business assets of Barnard & Burk, Inc., a former Aerojet
Rocketdyne subsidiary, for Aerojet Rocketdyne to assume the
defense of sixteen asbestos cases, involving 271 plaintiffs,
pending in Louisiana, and reimbursement of over $1.7 million in
past legal fees and expenses. AMEC is asserting that Aerojet
Rocketdyne retained those liabilities when it sold the Barnard &
Burk assets and agreed to indemnify the purchaser therefor. Under
the relevant purchase agreement, the purchaser assumed only
certain, specified liabilities relating to the operation of
Barnard & Burk before the sale, with Barnard & Burk retaining all
unassumed pre-closing liabilities, and Aerojet Rocketdyne agreed
to indemnify the purchaser against unassumed liabilities that are
asserted against it. Based on the information provided, Aerojet
Rocketdyne declined to accept the liability and requested
additional information from AMEC pertaining to the basis of the
demand. On April 3, 2013, AMEC filed a complaint for breach of
contract against Aerojet Rocketdyne in Sacramento County Superior
Court, AMEC Construction Management, Inc. v. Aerojet-General
Corporation, Case No. 342013001424718. AMEC contends it has
incurred approximately $3.0 million in past legal fees and
expenses. Aerojet Rocketdyne filed its answer to the complaint
denying AMEC's allegations as well as a cross-complaint against
AMEC for breach of its obligations under the purchase agreement in
addition to other claims for relief. Discovery is ongoing. Aerojet
Rocketdyne's motion for summary judgment heard on August 20, 2015
was granted, but the court also granted AMEC leave to amend its
complaint. AMEC filed its amended complaint and Aerojet Rocketdyne
re-filed its motion for summary judgment which is scheduled for
hearing on March 9, 2016.  The trial date has been rescheduled to
April 11, 2016. As of November 30, 2015, the Company has accrued
$0.2 million related to this matter. None of the expenditures
related to this matter are recoverable from the U.S. government.

Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures,
and sells aerospace and defense products and systems in the United
States. Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1915 and
is headquartered in Rancho Cordova, California.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Assurant Inc. Had $30.5MM Reserve for A&E Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Assurant Inc.'s case reserve for liabilities due to asbestos and
environmental claims remains adequate, 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 "Our property and warranty line of business
includes exposure to asbestos, environmental and other general
liability claims arising from our participation in various
reinsurance pools from 1971 through 1985.  This exposure arose
from a contract that we discontinued writing many years ago. We
carry case reserves, as recommended by the various pool managers,
and IBNR reserves totaling $30,519,000 (before reinsurance) and
$27,721,000 (net of reinsurance) at December 31, 2015. We believe
the balance of case and IBNR reserves for these liabilities are
adequate. However, any estimation of these liabilities is subject
to greater than normal variation and uncertainty due to the
general lack of sufficiently detailed data, reporting delays and
absence of a generally accepted actuarial methodology for those
exposures. There are significant unresolved industry legal issues,
including such items as whether coverage exists and what
constitutes a claim. In addition, the determination of ultimate
damages and the final allocation of losses to financially
responsible parties are highly uncertain. However, based on
information currently available, and after consideration of the
reserves reflected in the consolidated financial statements, we do
not believe that changes in reserve estimates for these claims are
likely to be material."

Assurant, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides specialty
protection products and related services in North America, Latin
America, Europe, and internationally. Assurant, Inc. was founded
in 1969 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CPS 1's Bid to Preclude Evidence Denied
--------------------------------------------------------
Walter Garcia, an asbestos handler employed by third-party
defendant Nova Development Group, was removing asbestos caulking
from windows during a renovation project at the Plaza Hotel in
Manhattan.  According to the plaintiff's testimony at his
examination before trial, Garcia was standing on a scaffold when
he fell while climbing over the safety railing as he was
attempting to reach the next window.  In doing so, the plaintiff
hit a section of pipe and landed on a roof ledge, which was 2 to 3
feet below the scaffold work platform.  The scaffolding was
erected by second third-party defendant Atlantic-Heydt
Corporation. CPS 1 Realty, LP was the owner of the subject
premises and construction manager of the project. Nova was the
contractor hired to provide asbestos abatement and hazardous
material removal services. The action, originally commenced in
Supreme Court, Bronx County, was transferred to Suffolk County in
2011 on Nova's motion to change venue.

CPS 1 moved to preclude any evidence at the fault apportionment
trial that contradicted the version of the accident that formed
the basis for Justice Leis's decision granting partial summary
judgment in the plaintiff's favor.  In other words, CPS 1 sought
to preclude Nova and Atlantic-Heydt from attempting to prove that
the accident happened anywhere or in any manner other than on the
scaffold as testified to by the plaintiff at his examination
before trial. Nova cross moved for an order denying the requested
preclusion and alternatively, again sought summary judgment for
common law indemnification against Atlantic-Heydt.

In an Order dated February 29, 2016, which is available at
http://is.gd/TYX9lRfrom Leagle.com, Judge Andrew G. Tarantino,
Jr., of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, upon consideration of
the notice of motion by CPS 1 Realty, LP, for an order precluding
all parties from litigating, eliciting evidence of or otherwise
attempting to establish that the subject accident occurred,
elsewhere and in any manner other than as determined by the prior
orders of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated January 26,
2012 and May 23, 2013, vacated the order dated August 13, 2015,
disposing of motion sequences 008 through 010; denied CPS 1's
motion to preclude evidence at the apportionment trial as to the
manner and location of the subject accident; granted Nova's cross
motion seeking denial of CPS 1's motion to preclude and, denied
Nova's cross-motion seeking a judgment against Atlantic-Heydt for
common law indemnity.

The case is WALTER GARCIA, Plaintiff(s), v. CPS I REALTY, LP, CPS
1, LLC, CPS 1 REALTY GP, LLC, EL-AD PROPERTIES NY, LLC, EL-AD 52,
LLC, THE EL-AD GROUP, LTD., 49 EAST 21, LLC, FAIRMONT HOTEL
MANAGEMENT LP, AND TISHMAN CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION OF NEW YORK,
Defendant(s), Docket No. 08020/2011, Motion Seq. No. 008:

The motion is CPS 1 REALTY, LP, CPS 1, LLC, EL-AD PROPERTIES NY,
LLC, AND THE EL-AD GROUP, LTD., Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. NOVA
DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC., Third-Party Defendant, MD 009: XmotD

The cross motion is NOVA DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC., Second Third-
Party Plaintiff, v. ATLANTIC-HEYDT CORPORATION, Second Third-Party
Defendant, 010: XMotD

2016 NY Slip Op 30364(U)

Walter Garcia, Alan Shapey, Esq. for the Plaintiff.

CPS 1 Realty LP, by McGaw, Alventosa & Zajac Appellate Counsel:
Christopher Simone Shaub, Esq. Ahmuty, Citrin & Spratt for the
Defendant.

Nova Development Group Baxter, Smith & Shapiro for the Third-Party
Defendant.

Atlantic-Heydt Corp. Gladstein, Keane & Flomenhaft, for the Second
third-party Defendant.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 9th Cir. Affirms Judgment for Olin Corp.
---------------------------------------------------------
Olin Corporation and its affiliate, Pioneer Americas LLC, operate
a plant in Henderson, Nevada, that produces industrial chemicals.
Defendant-Appellant Continental Casualty Company issued an
insurance policy covering the plant's boilers and machinery.  In
late 2008, a series of incidents caused damage to the machinery.
Continental denied coverage for damage relating to Olin's
diaphragm cells, which are tanks containing, among other things,
metal cathodes covered by asbestos diaphragms.  Continental argued
that the damage to the cells was not covered because it was not
caused by an "accident" within the meaning of the policy.  At
summary judgment, the district court determined that part of the
policy was ambiguous and identified other issues of fact for the
jury.  The jury returned a verdict in favor of Olin.  The district
court entered judgment for Olin based on the verdict and a partial
settlement agreement in which the parties stipulated to the amount
of damages.

Continental appeals arguing that the district court's
interpretation of the policy was incorrect as a matter of Nevada
law and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In the
alternative, Continental argues that it is entitled to a new trial
because the court's instructions to the jury, which were based on
its erroneous interpretations of the policy, were likewise
erroneous. Continental also argues that the district court abused
its discretion in excluding certain evidence under Federal Rule of
Evidence 407.

In a Memorandum dated March 17, 2016, which is available at
http://is.gd/zgJRlpfrom Leagle.com, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the
district court.

The case is OLIN CORPORATION and PIONEER AMERICAS LLC d/b/a OLIN
CHLOR ALKALI PRODUCTS, NJK and Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant, No. 14-15017
(9th Cir.).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Allows Bankrupt Firm to Hire Counsel
-----------------------------------------------------------
In a Memorandum Opinion and Order dated March 3, 2016, which is
available at http://is.gd/Di9PfVfrom Leagle.com, Judge Frank W.
Volk of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, Charleston, granted James F. Humphreys
& Associates, L.C.'s application to employ Bowles Rice LLP as
local counsel, over the objection of Tammy Litton, as
Administrator of the Estate of Conard Litton.

Tammy Litton is the administrator of Conard Litton's estate.  The
decedent was apparently afflicted with an asbestos-related
condition and retained the the Humphreys Firm to file claims on
his behalf.  Ms. Litton asserts those claims were never filed.

Judge Volk approved the application with the expectation that the
Firm, and Mr. Humphreys personally plan appropriately and take the
steps necessary to discharge the obligations imposed upon them.

The case is IN RE: JAMES F. HUMPHREYS & ASSOCIATES, L.C., Chapter
11, Debtor, Case No. 2:16-bk-20006 (Bankr. S.D. W.Va.).

JAMES F. HUMPHREYS & ASSOCIATES, L.C, Debtor, is represented by
Julia A Chincheck, Esq. -- jchincheck@bowlesrice.com -- Bowles
Rice LLP, Daniel J Cohn, Esq. -- dcohn@bowlesrice.com -- Bowles
Rice LLP, Danielle L Dietrich, Esq. -- ddietrich@tuckerlaw.com --
Tucker Arensberg PC, Judith K. Fitzgerald, Esq. --
jfitzgerald@tuckerlaw.com -- Tucker Arensberg, P.C., Beverly Weiss
Manne, Esq. -- bmanne@tuckerlaw.com -- Tucker Arensberg, P.C.,
Jeremiah J. Vandermark, Esq. -- jvandermark@tuckerlaw.com --
Tucker Arensberg, P.C.

United States Trustee, U.S. Trustee, represented by Debra A
Wertman.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bids to Dismiss Cross-Claims in NY Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In a Decision dated March 17, 2016, which is available at
http://is.gd/AGytWffrom Leagle.com, the Appellate Division of the
Supreme Court of New York, First Department, affirmed the Order of
the Supreme Court, New York County, denying defendants Courter &
Company's and Treadwell Corporation's motions for summary judgment
dismissing defendant National Grid USA's cross claims against
them.

Courter and Treadwell failed to establish prima facie that
plaintiff Michael Koulermos was not at the facility in question
alongside their employees. Their contention rested on evidence of
plaintiff's inability to remember precisely when he worked at the
facility. However, pointing to gaps in an opponent's evidence is
insufficient to demonstrate a movant's entitlement to summary
judgment; Courter and Treadwell failed to present evidence, such
as affidavits establishing when their employees were present at
the facility and whether or not those employees used asbestos-
containing products, to "affirmatively demonstrate the merit of
their defense.

In opposition, defendant National Grid produced evidence showing
when the facility was under construction and that during the
construction Courter and Treadwell's employees were at the site
for the installation of boilers and related equipment, a process
that involved the use of asbestos-containing products and that
occurred in plaintiff's vicinity.

The case is MICHAEL KOULERMOS, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. A.O. SMITH
WATER PRODUCTS, Defendant, NATIONAL GRID USA, Defendant-
Respondent, COURTER & COMPANY, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants, 542,
190406/14, 2016 NY Slip Op 01913 (N.Y. App. Div.).

Kerryann M. Cook, Esq. -- kcook@mklaw.us.com -- McGivney & Kluger,
P.C., New York for appellants.

John J. Burbridge, Esq. -- jburbridge@cullenanddykman.com --
Cullen & Dykman LLP, New York for response.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Affirms Summary Judgment in PI Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The trial court granted summary judgment to defendant D. Zelinsky
& Sons, Inc., in an asbestos action brought by Plaintiff Melvin
Desin.  On appeal, Melvin Desin, et al., contend the court erred
by finding Zelinsky met its initial burden of production, by
finding the plaintiffs did not meet their burden, and by excluding
from evidence their expert witness declaration.

In a Decision dated March 18, 2016, which is available at
http://is.gd/KtaKRZfrom Leagle.com, the Court of Appeals of
California, First District, Division Four, affirmed the summary
judgment granted by the trial court.

In the absence of admissible evidence that Desin was exposed to
asbestos-containing products as a result of the activities of
Zelinsky employees, the plaintiffs failed to carry the burden to
show a triable issue of material fact, the Court of Appeals held.

The case is CHERYL UNTERMANN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. D.
ZELINSKY & SONS, INC., Defendant and Respondent, No. A137513.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5th Circ. Vacates Remand Order in "Savoie"
-----------------------------------------------------------
From 1952 through 1976, the great majority of ocean-going vessels
built at Avondale Shipyard in Louisiana fulfilled contracts from
the federal government. The specifications for these Navy and
Coast Guard vessels required asbestos insulation through at least
1968. In this lawsuit brought by survivors of Joseph Savoie who
allegedly contracted mesothelioma while working at the shipyard
during this time, the question is whether strict liability claims
based on the existence of asbestos at the shipyard give rise to
federal jurisdiction under the federal officer removal statute.

The Defendants Huntington Ingalls, et al., timely removed the case
under the federal officer removal statute, but the Plaintiffs
Lorita Savoie, et al sought remand. The district court construed
all of the Plaintiffs' claims as negligence claims. It then found
that federal jurisdiction did not exist because the shipyard
retained discretion in its safety policies and could have complied
with both the government's requirements for the vessels'
construction and its state law duties of care.

In a Decision dated March 22, 2016, which is available at
http://is.gd/hZBE6Gfrom Leagle.com, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's remand
order and remanded the case for resolution of the remaining
jurisdictional requirement.

The case is LORITA M. SAVOIE; MARCIA SAVOIE MEDLIN; CRAIG M.
SAVOIE; TANIA SAVOIE ALEXANDER; RODNEY A. SAVOIE; GRETA SAVOIE
BOUDOIN; DALE J. SAVOIE, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. HUNTINGTON
INGALLS, INCORPORATED, formerly known as Northrop Grumman
Shipbuilding, Incorporated, formerly known as Northrop Grumman
Ship Systems, Incorporated, formerly known as Avondale Industries,
Incorporated, formerly known as Avondale Shipyards, Incorporated,
formerly known as Avondale Marine Ways, Incorporated; ALBERT L.
BOSSIER, JR.; J. MELTON GARRETT; ONEBEACON AMERICA INSURANCE
COMPANY, as Successor to Commercial Union Insurance Company and
Employers Commercial Union Insurance Company; PENNSYLVANIA GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, formerly known as American Employers' Insurance
Company, Defendants-Appellants, No. 15-30514.


                            *********

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  * * *