CAR_Public/160422.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, April 22, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 81



                            Headlines


56 THIRD: "Eslava" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Pay, OT Under FLSA
ALLIANCE RESOURCE: Faces "Guill" Suit Over Termination Notice
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Court Ruling Addresses Campbell-Ewald Issue
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Loses Bid to Dismiss Class Action
AMERICAN MEDIA: Sued Over Subscribers' Information Disclosure

ANDERSON, IN: Housing Authority Faces Class Action
ASHLEY MADISON: Judge Wants Plaintiffs to Use Real Name in Suit
ASTRAZENECA: Del. Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Class Action
AUSTRALIA: Oberon to Join Class Action Against Forced Mergers
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Sued Over Alleged Silver Price Manipulation

BAYER INC: Xarelto Blood Thinner Drug Class Action Piles Up
BIG TEN: May 3 Trial Scheduled in Tenants' Project Class Action
BELL MOBILITY: Wins Bid to Dismiss Prepaid Wireless Class Action
BOFI HOLDING: Amendment Filed to Securities Class Action
BON SECOURS: Faces "Miller" ERISA Class Action in Maryland

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Recalls Fetch(TM) 2 Aspiration Catheters
CANADA: Church Off Hook for Residential Schools Compensation
CARNIVAL CORP: Allows Cuban-Americans to Sail Following Lawsuit
CERTIFIED RECOVERY: Faces "Herrmann" Suit in W.D. Wisconsin
CHARLESTON MEDICAL: Sued Over Medical Record Overcharges

CHEMOURS COMPANY: Sued Over Failure to Pay Employees Benefits
CONNECTICUT: Settlement Leads to Improved Children's Oral Health
DENTAL EQUITIES: Has Sent Unsolicited Fax Ads, Action Claims
DIAGEO PLC: Court Dismisses Red Stripe Labeling Class Action
EOS RENTALS: "Gruver" Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Damages

EVER-GREEN EXPRESS: "Rhodes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
FAIR COLLECTIONS: "Simon" Suit Seeks Damages Over FDCPA Breach
FLINT, MI: Wants Water Crisis Suit Dismissed on Immunity Grounds
FLINT, MI: Plaintiffs' Lawyers Face Challenge in Water Suits
FLINT, MI: Judge Dismisses $150MM Water Crisis Class Action

FLORIDIAN HOTEL: "Mejia" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA
G. WILLI: Faces Class Action, April 29 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
GENERAL MOTORS: Two Ignition-Switch Cases Settled
GOPRO: Investors Mull Class Action Over Misrepresentations
GOOD CHOWS: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Chan" Suit Claims

GOOGLE INC: Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Book Scanning Case
GRANNA'S LLC: Recalls French Toast Products Due to Milk
GVC HOLDINGS: Faces Class Action Over Failed Joint Venture
HARRIS TEETER: Faces "Hanson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ILLINOIS: Governor Faces Class Action Over Health Insurance

INNOVAK INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Bohannan" Suit in M.D. Alabama
INVISIBLU INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Continuum Labs LGD-Xtreme
KAUFMAN ENGLETT: Faces "Cadwell" Suit in Middle Dist. of Florida
KOUROS RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Diaz" Suit Claims
LENDINGCLUB: Faces Class Action Over Usury Law Violations

M-I LLC: Hearing on Class Cert. Bid in "Syed" Moved to Dec. 6
MARRIOTT HOTEL: "McCarthy" Suit Seeks Damages Under Labor Code
MCCORMICK: Sued Over Too Much Empty Space in Pepper Tin
MIAMI BEACH: Faces "Brush" Suit in Southern District of Florida
MICHEL ET AUGUSTIN: Recalls Butter Cookies Due to Hazelnut

MIDLAND CREDIT: "Digiacomo" Class Suit Moved to E.D.N.Y.
MISSOURI: April 25 Class Action Status Report Hearing Set
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Appeals Court Affirms Concussion Settlement
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Ruling Paves Way for Personal Injury Class Suits
NETSOL TECHNOLOGIES: June 27 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

NESHAMINY ELECTRICAL: Faces "Roth" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
NII HOLDINGS: Labaton Recovers $41.5MM in Securities Class Action
NIKE: Faces Class Action Over False "Suggested Retail Price"
PF CHANG: 7th Cir. Reverses Data Breach Class Action Dismissal
PJT PARTNERS: June 14 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set

PREMIER NUTRITION: Judge Certifies Class in Supplement Suit
PRIME AID: Faces "Reyes" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
PROGRESSIVE GOURMET: Recalls Frozen Edamame Due to Shellfish
R.J. REYNOLDS: Fee Dispute Hampers $3.5MM Award Distribution
ROBERT HALF: Supreme Court to Decide on Legal Team's Compensation

S. CARTER ENTERPRISES: Sued in N.D. Cal. Over Tidal Subscription
SAFEWAY INC: Finkelstein Named as Interim Class Counsel
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Falsely Marketed LED TVs, "Nance" Suit Says
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Antitrust Class Action Settlement Challenged
SANTA FE NATURAL: "Sproule" Suit Transferred to D. New Mexico

SCANDRILL INC: Faces "Jones" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SELECT ONE: Embezzler at Center of Class Action
SERVERGY INC: SEC Files Securities Fraud Suit v. Texas AG
SOCAL GAS: Save Porter Ranch and 24 Residents File Class Action
SONY PICTURES: Court Approves $2.5MM in Attorneys Fees

SPROUTS FARMERS: Faces Class Action Over Data Breach
SPROUTS FARMERS: Faces "Price" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
STATE FARM: "Madison" Suit Seeks OT & Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
SYNTHES USA: Employees' Labor Suit Can Proceed as Class Action
TD BANK: Faces Class Action Over Coin-Counting Machines

TIDAL: Faces Class Action Over "The Life of Pablo" Exclusivity
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Steve Wozniak Denounces Labor Practices
UBS AG: July 8 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY: Discrimination Class Action Mulled v. Tutor
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Says Cold-FX Suit Lawyer-Driven Action

VASCULAR SOLUTIONS: Recalls Guardian II Hemostasis Valves
WD IMPORT: Recalls Dried Yellow Fish Products Due to Clostridium
YOUNGSTOWN, OH: Seeks Dismissal of Water Funds Class Action

* Abolishing Tips Won't Benefit Restaurants, Owners, Servers
* Garden City Recognized as Top Securities Claims Administrator
* Judges More Vocal in Scrutinizing Class Action Settlement
* Accounting-Related Securities Class Action Filings Up in 2015


                    Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: CNA Fin'l Loss Portfolio Transfer $2.6-Bil.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AO Smith Continues to Defend Asbestos Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntington Still Faces PI Cases at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colgate Settled 15 Talc Cases as of Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: DCLLC Had 25K Active PI Claims at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Still Faces PI Suits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Had 13 Cases at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AT&T Unit Subject to Inquiry Over Removal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Probes Dumping from Mill West Building
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Council Leader Wants EPA Probe of Music Hall

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ind. High Court Ruling Opens Door to More Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Victim Helps Lobby for Funding
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Electrician Dies After Asbestos Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: W. Va. DEP Satisfied with City's Response
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Criminal Probe Possible at Brady Sullivan Site

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Fined $24,000 for Unsafe Removal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Victim's Family Appeals for Info
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Client Fined Over Pre-Construction Info
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Says Saleman Wasn't "Sophisticated User"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dying Kiwi Wins Payouts for Exposure

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Grants 24 Unopposed Bids to Dismiss Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sonoma State University Focus of Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Tied to Colon Cancer Diagnosis
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Agrees To Create $480MM Trust
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Suit Filed Against Amchem, et al.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Massachusetts Case vs. Rapid-American Stayed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trane Wins Summary Judgment in "Moss"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Three Cos. Win Summary Judgment in "Holland"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Consolidates 9 Cases for Trial
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rowan Loses Bid to Sever in "Garza"

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5 Cos. Win Summary Judgment in "Pace"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Grants DuPont's Bid to Dismiss "Dean"




                            *********


56 THIRD: "Eslava" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Pay, OT Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Maldonado Eslava and Felipe Meza, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. 56 Third Food
Corp. (d/b/a Sherwood To Go), Sher Third Food Corp. (d/b/a
Sherwood To Go), Basilex Food Corp. (d/b/a Fresh Basil Trattoria),
Nick Katos, Kassiam Katos and Chris Katos, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:16-cv-02879 (S.D.N.Y., April 18, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum pay, overtime wages, liquidated damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 (FLSA) and N.Y. Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs worked for Defendants
as delivery workers, rendering in excess of 40 hours per week,
without appropriate minimum wage or overtime compensation for the
hours that they worked. Defendants allegedly failed to maintain
accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay
Plaintiffs for any hours worked over 40 hours.

Defendants own, operate, or control two sandwich shops/catering
services located at 930 Third Ave., Second floor, New York, New
York 10022 under the names Sherwood To Go and Fresh Basil
Trattoria respectively.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317 1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317 1620
          E-mail: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com


ALLIANCE RESOURCE: Faces "Guill" Suit Over Termination Notice
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hulett Guill, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Alliance Resource Partners, L.P., Hamilton
County Coal, LLC, and Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 3:16-cv-00424
(S.D. Ill., April 14, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to provide their workers with the 60-day advance
notification of termination.

The Defendants own and operate a mining company with its principal
place of business at 1717 South Boulder Avenue, Tulsa, Oklahoma
74119.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Emily J. Kirk, Esq.
      McCUNEWRIGHT LLP
      2068 Orange Tree Lane, Suite 216
      Redlands, CA 92374
      Telephone: (909) 557-1250
      Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
      E-mail: ejk@mccunewright.com

         - and -

      Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
      Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq.
      Joseph B. Kenney, Esq.
      McCUNEWRIGHT LLP
      1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
      Berwyn, PA 19312
      Telephone: (610) 200-0580
      E-mail: jgs@mccunewright.com
              mds@mccunewright.com
              jbk@mccunerwright.com

         - and -

      Katrina Carroll, Esq.
      Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq.
      LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
      Chicago Office
      211 West Wacker Drive Suite 500
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Telephone: (312) 750-1265
      E-mail: kcarroll@litedepalma.com
              kshamberg@litedepalma.com


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Court Ruling Addresses Campbell-Ewald Issue
---------------------------------------------------------------
ACA International on April 18 disclosed that the Ninth Circuit
addressed an issue the U.S. Supreme Court left unresolved in
Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez.

On April 12, 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected
Allstate Insurance Company's attempt to end a Telephone Consumer
Protection Act class action by depositing in a bank escrow account
$20,000 -- an amount Allstate asserted would moot the named
plaintiff's individual monetary and injunctive relief claims.  In
the case Chen, et al. v. Allstate Insurance Company, No. 13-16816,
2016 WL 1425869 (9th Cir., April 12, 2016), the Ninth Circuit
affirmed the district court's denial of the defendant's motion to
dismiss the case, ruling that a class action is not moot even
where the defendant deposits full settlement funds into an escrow
account for the plaintiff's benefit.

The Ninth Circuit also held that even if the plaintiff's
individual claim was mooted, a class action cannot be dismissed
until the plaintiff has an opportunity to obtain class
certification.

The decision represents an early response by a federal court of
appeals to a question the United States Supreme Court left open in
January's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 2016 WL 228345
(U.S. Jan. 20, 2016) -- which is whether a defendant may moot a
case by actually providing, rather than merely offering, complete
relief to a plaintiff.

The Chen case was filed as a proposed class action seeking
statutory damages for alleged violations of the TCPA, which amount
to $500 per unlawful call, or up to $1,500 per unlawful call for
knowing/willful violations.  The complaint claimed that Allstate
Insurance Company engaged in unlawful activities by contacting
Richard Chen, Florencio Pacleb and the members of the proposed
class on their cell phones using an "automatic telephone dialing
system" without their consent in an attempt to solicit the
purchase of insurance policies.  Allstate made an offer of
judgment to Chen and Pacleb pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 68. Chen accepted the offer, but Mr. Pacleb did not.

Then, shortly after the Supreme Court issued the Campbell-Ewald
decision, while the Chen appeal was pending before the Ninth
Circuit, Allstate deposited $20,000 in escrow "pending entry of a
final District Court order or judgment directing the escrow agent
to pay the tendered funds to Mr. Pacleb, requiring Allstate to
stop sending non-emergency telephone calls and short message
service messages to Mr. Pacleb in the future and dismissing this
action as moot."

In Campbell-Ewald, the Supreme Court ruled that the named
plaintiff's proposed class action is not rendered moot when the
defendant makes a settlement offer or a Rule 68 offer of judgment
that would satisfy the plaintiff's individual claim but the
plaintiff refuses to accept the offer.  Justice Ginsburg's
majority opinion specifically noted, however, that the Court was
not deciding whether a case would be mooted if a defendant goes
one step further and actually "deposits the full amount of the
plaintiff's individual claim in an account payable to the
plaintiff, and the court then enters judgment for the plaintiff in
that amount" -- because that had not happened in the Campbell-
Ewald case.

In Chen, Allstate took that extra step.   From the various
opinions in Campbell-Ewald, it appeared that at least three
justices had already expressed their views on the question the
majority reserved for a future case.  Chief Justice Robert's
dissent, joined by Justices Scalia and Alito, would have held an
unaccepted offer sufficient, suggesting" the majority's analysis
may have come out differently if Campbell had deposited the
offered funds with the District Court."  And while Justice Thomas
concurred in the judgment that an unaccepted offer was not enough,
he wrote that he would construe Article III's case-or-controversy
requirement by looking to the common-law rules of tender -- which
he concluded required that a defendant actually produce the sum of
money being offered.

In Chen, the Ninth Circuit appellate panel gave two reasons for
hold that the case was not moot.   First, the panel explained that
even if the district court entered judgment affording the
plaintiff complete relief on his individual claims for damages and
injunctive relief, mooting those claims, he would still be able to
seek class certification.  Second, the panel pointed out that even
if the defendant could moot the entire action by mooting the
plaintiff's individual claims, the individual claims were not yet
moot because the plaintiff had not yet actually received relief.
Therefore, the panel ruled that it would not direct the district
court to enter judgment, over the plaintiff's objections, on his
individual claims, because he had not yet had fair opportunity to
move for class certification.

It seems clear that the Supreme Court's decision has spawned
"round two" of Gomez-like litigation.  Ultimately, it looks like
the Supreme Court will have to address the situation where a
defendant actually deposits the funds into an account payable to
the plaintiff or sends the plaintiff a cashier's check and then
asks the court to enter judgment accordingly.


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Loses Bid to Dismiss Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
federal appeals court ruled that defendant Allstate Insurance
Company cannot put an end to a class action lawsuit by depositing
$20,000 in a court-controlled, bank escrow account.

Allstate argued the amount would moot the named plaintiff's
claims.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed an order
by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
denying Allstate's motion to dismiss.

"Under Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit case law, a claim becomes
moot when a plaintiff actually receives complete relief on that
claim, not merely when that relief is offered or tendered,"
Circuit Judge Raymond C. Fisher wrote in the panel's 27-page
ruling.  Judges Barry G. Silverman and Richard C. Tallman joined
in the April 12 opinion.

"Where, as here, injunctive relief has been offered, and funds
have been deposited in an escrow account, relief has been offered,
but it has not been received."

Judge Fisher said plaintiff Florencio Pacleb's individual claims
are not now moot.  The appeals court, in its opinion, also
declined to direct the district court to moot them.

"Because Pacleb has not yet had a fair opportunity to move for
class certification, we will not direct the district court to
enter judgment, over Pacleb's objections, on his individual
claims," Fisher wrote for the panel.

In 2013, Mr. Pacleb and Richard Chen filed a class action
complaint against Allstate, alleging they received unsolicited
automated telephone calls to their cell phones in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The TCPA restricts telephone solicitations, i.e. telemarketing,
and the use of automated telephone equipment.

In particular, the law limits the use of automatic dialing
systems, artificial or prerecorded voice messages, SMS text
messages and fax machines.  It also specifies several technical
requirements for fax machines, autodialers and voice messaging
systems -- principally with provisions requiring identification
and contact information of the entity using the device to be
contained in the message.

Generally, the act makes it unlawful "to initiate any telephone
call to any residential telephone line using an artificial or
prerecorded voice to deliver a message without the prior express
consent of the called party" except in emergencies or in
circumstances exempted by the Federal Communications Commission.

The law permits any "person or entity" to bring an action to
enjoin violations of the statute and/or recover actual damages or
statutory damages ranging from $500 to $1,500 per violation.

In this case, Mr. Chen alleged he received eight calls from
Allstate, while Mr. Pacleb alleged he received five such calls.
In Mr. Pacleb's case, the automated calls asked for an individual
named Frank Arnold.

Before any motion for class certification had been made, Allstate,
in April 2013, made an offer of judgment to both
Mr. Chen and Mr. Pacleb: the company offered to allow judgment to
be taken against it by Messrs. Chen and Pacleb on their individual
claims in the amount of $15,000 and $10,000, respectively,
together with reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

Messrs. Chen and Pacleb declined the offer.  At that time,
Allstate sent plaintiffs' counsel a letter extending the offer of
judgment "until such time as it is accepted by plaintiffs or
Allstate withdraws the offer in writing."  The next day, the
company moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.  It argued the plaintiffs' claims are moot because
it made an offer of judgment "more than sufficient" to satisfy the
plaintiffs' damages and requests for relief.

While the motion to dismiss was pending, Mr. Chen accepted
Allstate's offer; Mr. Pacleb did not.

The district court denied Allstate's motion to dismiss, and then
granted the company's motion to certify an order for interlocutory
appeal.  The court said it "would welcome" an opinion from the
Ninth Circuit on the matter.

While the appeal was pending, the U.S. Supreme Court decided
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez.  The high court, in its January
ruling, confirmed that an unaccepted settlement offer has no
force.

The court, in a 6-3 ruling, upheld the Ninth Circuit's 2014
decision in Gomez v. Campbell-Ewald Co.  The Ninth Circuit vacated
and remanded a summary judgment ruling in favor of the defendant
in a case brought under the TCPA.

However, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in the majority decision,
noted that the court would not decide whether the result would be
different if a defendant deposits the full amount of the
plaintiff's individual claim in an account payable to the
plaintiff, and the court then enters judgment for the plaintiff in
that amount -- as in Mr. Pacleb's case.

"That question is appropriately reserved for a case in which it is
not hypothetical," Ginsburg wrote in the Jan. 20 opinion.

Shortly after the Supreme Court issued its decision in Gomez -- no
doubt taking a cue from the Supreme Court case -- Allstate
deposited $20,000 in escrow "pending entry of a final district
court order or judgment directing the escrow agent to pay the
tendered funds to Pacleb, requiring Allstate to stop sending non-
emergency telephone calls and short message service messages to
Pacleb in the future and dismissing this action as moot."

The company, pointing to their actions, argued the Ninth Circuit
should reverse the denial of its motion to dismiss and remand the
case to the district court to order disbursement of the tendered
funds to Mr. Pacleb, the entry of judgment in favor of Mr. Pacleb
and the dismissal of the class action as moot.

The Ninth Circuit disagreed.

"In Allstate's view, if it is able to fully satisfy Pacleb's
individual claims, the action as a whole will also be moot," Judge
Fisher wrote.  "We disagree.

"Even if, as Allstate proposes, the district court were to enter
judgment providing complete relief on Pacleb's individual claims
for damages and injunctive relief before class certification,
fully satisfying those individual claims, Pacleb still would be
entitled to seek certification."

Among those representing the plaintiffs: national public interest
law firm Public Justice and the Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman
PC. Friedman, a Beverly Hills-based consumer protection attorney,
is known for frequently filing lawsuits over unwanted telephone
solicitations.

Attorneys with Ballard Spahr LLP represented Allstate.  They
declined to comment on the Ninth Circuit's ruling or plans for an
appeal.


AMERICAN MEDIA: Sued Over Subscribers' Information Disclosure
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Moeller and Nicole Brisson, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. American Media, Inc., and
Odyssey Magazine Publishing Group, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-11367-
JEL-EAS (E.D. Mich., April 14, 2016), arises out of the
Defendants' intentional and unlawful disclosure of their
subscribers' Personal Reading Information.

The Defendants operate an International media company that
publishes some of the most widely circulated magazines in the
United States, including National Enquirer, Star, Muscle &
Fitness, and Flex.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ari J. Scharg, Esq.
      Benjamin S. Thomassen, Esq.
      EDELSON PC
      350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor
      Chicago, IL 60654
      Telephone: (312) 589-6370
      Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
      E-mail: ascharg@edelson.com
              bthomassen@edelson.com

         - and -

      Henry M. Scharg, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF HENRY M. SCHARG
      718 Ford Building
      Detroit, MI 48226
      Telephone: (248) 596-1111
      Facsimile: (248) 671-0335
      E-mail: hmsattyatlaw@aol.com

         - and -

      Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
      Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
      Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
      BURSOR & FISHER, PA
      888 Seventh Avenue
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (646) 837-7150
      Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
      E-mail: scott@bursor.com
              jmarchese@bursor.com
              pfraietta@bursor.com


ANDERSON, IN: Housing Authority Faces Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Ken de la Bastide, writing for The Herald Bulletin, reports that
the city of Anderson is willing to provide $42,000 immediately to
the Anderson Housing Authority if certain conditions are complied
with, Mayor Thomas Broderick Jr. said.

The Housing Authority was named in a class-action lawsuit filed
April 11 by the Fair Housing Center of Central Indiana and two
tenants, alleging sexual harassment, racial discrimination and
health problems related to conditions that the management of the
government-subsidized complex failed to address.

Among the common complaints, according to the lawsuit: Water
leaks, mold, pests and inadequate maintenance of the apartments.

Mr. Broderick said on April 15 that in 2014 the Anderson Housing
Authority (AHA) requested $60,000 in Community Development Block
Grant funds for repairs to Westvale Manor.

"There is a cover letter and an application, but no award letter,"
Mr. Broderick said of the 2014 request.

He said there is a Block Grant ledger entry in the amount of
$42,000 for rehabilitation and repairs but no indication as to
what agency was to receive the funding.

"We believe the $42,000 was set aside for the Housing Authority,"
Mr. Broderick said.  "There is no award letter."

Charles Weatherly Jr., executive director of the agency, said on
April 15 he has not been in communication with the mayor since the
lawsuit was filed.

"Any help from the city would be greatly appreciated," he said.

Mr. Weatherly said the six-member AHA Board of Commissioners has
scheduled an executive session meeting on April 19 to discuss the
lawsuit and to develop a plan of action.

"I didn't know about it until now," he said of the $42,000.  "We
would probably use the money at Westvale Manor, but it will depend
on what the city will require."

Mr. Broderick said the Community Development Block Grant files
from the previous administration were not well maintained.

He said the Anderson Community Development Department, which is
currently reviewing applications for $834,555 in CDBG money for
2016 from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,
makes the decision on the grant awards.

Mr. Broderick said the Housing Authority has to receive an award
letter from the Community Development Department and sign a
contract on how the funds are to be used.

The city monitors how the funds are spent and AHA will be required
to pay the costs and then seek reimbursement from the city.

"From our viewpoint, the money has been set aside," Mr. Broderick
said.  "I will discuss the funding with the AHA board."

He didn't know if the agency was in the financial position to
spend the money for repairs and then seek reimbursement.

Weatherly said AHA would be willing to approach the city about the
available funding and would be willing to sign a contract.

"We will have the funds available once we get our money from HUD,"
he said.

The Housing Authority is slated to receive $163,101 grant from the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for repairs and
maintenance of the 134 units it manages.

Weatherly said those funds have not been received.

"We get approximately $160,000 per year," he said.  "Most of the
money has been spent on roof repairs at Westvale."

Concerning the lawsuit, Weatherly said there are a lot of lies and
misinformation.

"They want to compare Westvale Manor with Lynwood Village,"
Mr. Weatherly said.  "There is no comparison.  Lynwood Village is
three-bedroom apartments and Westvale Manor is one- and two-
bedroom apartments."

In practical terms, the Housing Authority is considered the
landlord of Westvale.  The local authority operates both single-
family and multifamily dwellings. Multifamily complexes are at
Lynwood Village and Westvale Manor.


ASHLEY MADISON: Judge Wants Plaintiffs to Use Real Name in Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Kravets, writing for arstechnica, reports that we all
remember last year's hype surrounding the Ashley Madison dating
site's data breach.  Hackers exposed identifying information about
millions of users of the site that has the tagline, "Life is
short. Have an affair."

Then came the lawyers smelling blood in the water -- filing
proposed class-action suits targeting the cheating site's not-so-
perfect "Full Delete" option that was supposed to, and didn't,
remove all identifying information from the service for a $19 fee
per user. Then it surfaced that the site perhaps made phony
profiles of women to attract more men to the site.

The massive litigation has been co-mingled in Missouri, and there
are some interesting elements at play.  For starters, the judge
presiding over the case says that if you want to be a named
plaintiff in the litigation, you can't use a pseudonym like "John
Doe," and instead you have to use your real name.  The judge, in
agreeing with Ashley Madison's owners, ruled that only in
extraordinary circumstances may civil litigation proceed under
fake names, like in cases such as sex crimes and suits about
juveniles.

"The disclosure of Plaintiffs' identities could expose their
sensitive personal and financial information -- information stolen
from Avid when its computer systems were hacked -- to public
scrutiny and exacerbate the privacy violations underlying their
lawsuit," US District Judge John Ross ruled (PDF) earlier this
month.  "At the same time, there is a compelling public interest
in open court proceedings, particularly in the context of a class
action, where a plaintiff seeks to represent a class of consumers
who have a personal stake in the case and a heightened interest in
knowing who purports to represent their interests in the
litigation."  Days ago, a "John Doe" plaintiff removed (PDF)
himself from the case.

The judge has given the class, so far using unnamed plaintiffs,
until June 3 to lodge their official class-action complaint and to
allow those suing to determine whether they wish to be named
plaintiffs or drop out.  The advantages of being a named plaintiff
are largely monetary.  Those named in class-action cases are
usually rewarded with tens of thousands of dollars in a
settlement.  However, data breach cases traditionally bring little
financial reward to class members, yet they give large payouts to
prevailing plaintiffs' attorneys.

There's also a big wrinkle that could affect the upcoming class-
action filing.  Attorneys want to use confidential communications
between Ashley Madison executives and their attorneys as part of
their lawsuit in a bid to establish that the company made fake
female profiles to induce people to become one of the site's 39
million members.  Obviously, Avid Life Media, the site's operator,
is opposed.  Plaintiffs' lawyers say the data is not protected by
attorney-client privilege and can be part of the case because of
the "crime-fraud" exception.  That exception means that a client
and their attorney's back-and-forth communications are not
protected if the communications were made "with the intention of
committing or covering up a crime or fraud."  The plaintiffs'
lawyers noted a story in Gizmodo citing the hacked data in which
Avid Life attorneys are discussing "fictitious" profiles on the
Ashley Madison site.

Judge Ross has not ruled on the request but is expected to do so
before the June 3 filing deadline.


ASTRAZENECA: Del. Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McParland, writing for Delaware Law Weekly, reports that the
Delaware Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of a 12-year-old class
action accusing AstraZeneca of consumer fraud, saying the group of
third-party payor health insurers could not claim injury under
applicable state laws.

In Teamsters Local 237 Welfare Fund v. AstraZeneca
Pharmaceuticals, the class of union health care funds alleged that
AstraZeneca falsely advertised its prescription heartburn drug
Nexium as superior to the less-expensive generic Prilosec, causing
them to overpay for Nexium when the less-costly generic would have
sufficed.

However, the third-party payors -- or TPPs -- continued to list
Nexium on their formularies, and they reimbursed members for the
drug, even as the case sat pending in Delaware court and a similar
class action unsuccessfully worked its way through federal court.

The Superior Court dismissed the case, with prejudice, in 2015 for
failure to allege sufficient causation under New York's consumer
fraud statute.  The plaintiffs appealed to the state's high court,
contesting the Superior Court's causation analysis and arguing
that Delaware law governed the claims.

In a 17-page opinion issued April 12, the state Supreme Court
eschewed the specific issues the TPPs raised on appeal, and
focused instead on the "common sense notion" that the appellants'
conduct precluded them from pleading injury, a necessity under
both states' laws.

"Under any reasonable interpretation of the statutes, TPPs who
continue to pay or reimburse for Nexium, while claiming they were
harmed by allegedly false advertising, are neither 'victims' of
the allegedly false advertising nor were they injured by reason of
or as a result of it," Justice Collins J. Seitz Jr. wrote for a
three-member panel of the court.  "They were injured by their own
conduct."

The roots of the dispute can be traced back to 2001, when
AstraZeneca introduced Nexium to combat generic competition with
its top-selling Prilosec drug.  Nexium was therapeutically
identical to the Prilosec's chemical compound but contained twice
the amount of the active ingredient, according to court documents.

Yet, AstraZeneca launched an aggressive marketing campaign,
touting Nexium as the better drug in the hope that it would
replace Prilosec in the market.  As a result of the "false
marketing campaign," the TPPs said, AstraZeneca gained "unlimited
access to TPPs' treasuries, who paid billions of dollars for
Nexium rather than the cheaper and therapeutically equivalent
generic Prilosec."

The plaintiffs filed the Superior Court action in 2004 on behalf
of themselves and a putative nationwide class of TPPs, but the
class action languished under a stipulated stay while a
substantially identical consolidated class action proceeded in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

The federal court applied New York's consumer fraud law over the
Delaware statute, finding that state had the more significant
connection to the claims.  But the court found the plaintiffs
failed to plead requisite awareness of the supposed false
representations prior to purchasing Nexium, and dismissed the case
with leave to amend.

The plaintiffs instead chose to proceed in Delaware Superior
Court, and after an administrative error further delayed the case,
the court finally lifted its stay in February 2014.

The TPPs, in their second amended complaint, alleged violations of
the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act and breaches of similar laws in 14
other states, along with claims of unjust enrichment and negligent
misrepresentation.

Just as in the federal court, Superior Court Judge Vivian L.
Medinilla applied the New York law and dismissed the case for
failure to state a claim.

According to Judge Medinilla, the "purported chain of causation
that runs from the allegedly deceptive advertisements that may
have influenced the decisions of individual doctors to prescribe a
drug to their patients to causally affect the payer unions in this
case is simply too attenuated."


AUSTRALIA: Oberon to Join Class Action Against Forced Mergers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Oberon Review reports that the Oberon Council will take its
opposition to forced amalgamations all the way to the Land and
Environment Court after joining a legal battle to fight the state
government's plans.

A proposal handed down by Local Government Minister Paul Toole
late last year would see Oberon Council forced to merge with
Bathurst Regional Council as part of a program of forced
amalgamations being rolled out across the state.

Oberon residents -- and councillors -- have vehemently opposed the
plan, which is now being considered by the state's Boundaries
Commission.

In the meantime, Oberon Council has accepted an offer to join a
class action against forced mergers being led by Sydney's
Woollahra Council in the Land and Environment Court.

Oberon mayor Kathy Sajowitz said an approach had come from Walcha
Council for Oberon and other small councils, including Cabonne, to
support Woollahra's action.

Cr Sajowitz said the challenge, which is scheduled to be heard on
April 21, was based around the claim that the Minister for Local
Government misused Sections 218F of the Local Government Act to
implement proposed forced amalgamations and that the subsequent
Boundaries Commission process was procedurally unfair.

"Eminent Sydney barrister Peter King has offered to act for Walcha
and associated rural councils, an extremely generous commitment,"
Cr Sajowitz said.

"As a result, legal costs for Oberon to join will be minimal.
Should other rural councils decide to also join the action costs
could be further reduced.

"After seeking our own legal advice a recommendation was put to an
extraordinary council meeting held on April 13 that Oberon Council
join with the Walcha Council action.  This recommendation was
passed unanimously by council."

Cr Sajowitz said Mr. Toole had been reluctant to speak to council
or visit Oberon to discuss why he thinks a merger with Bathurst
Regional Council would have any benefit for Oberon, leaving
council with few options.

"The concerns of the Oberon community are neither being heard nor
acknowledged, to be treated with such disdain by our elected
representatives is demeaning," she said.

"Our community has overwhelmingly and consistently indicated its
opposition to a merger with Bathurst Regional Council and, as
such, council feels comfortable with endorsing this course of
action.

"Walcha has the support of its Federal Member Barnaby Joyce and
Local Member Kevin Anderson in this action.

"Although this is a NSW State Government issue, many Federal MPs
are realising that the fallout has the real potential to impact
strongly in the upcoming federal election.

"This was apparent to me while chatting with the Federal MPs that
were part of the Pollie Pedal Group who visited Oberon recently."

Meanwhile, the deadline for councillors and mayors to express an
interest in joining an interim council in their areas if forced
amalgamations go ahead was on April 7.


BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Sued Over Alleged Silver Price Manipulation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Shecter, writing for Financial Post, reports that a trio
of Canadian law firms is seeking to certify a second class action
lawsuit involving alleged manipulation of precious metals pricing
over 15 years by large financial institutions including Bank of
Nova Scotia.

Lawyers at Sotos LLP, Koskie Minsky LLP and Camp Fiorante Matthews
Mogerman, who filed a lawsuit in Ontario Superior Court of Justice
in December alleging manipulation of the gold price, filed a
similar action alleging that Scotia and the other banks "conspired
to manipulate prices in the silver market under the guise of the
benchmark fixing process, known as the London Silver Fixing."

At this point, neither Canadian lawsuit, each of which is seeking
up to $1 billion in damages or compensation on behalf of
investors, has been certified to move forward.

The Canadian lawsuits mirror actions filed earlier in the United
States.  The U.S. suits, which name Scotia and a handful of
international banks including HSBC Holdings PLC and UBS AG, allege
manipulation of key benchmarks based on the prices of gold and
silver.

There was a development in one of those cases.  According to media
reports, Deutsche Bank AG is attempting to settle U.S. litigation
in exchange for a monetary payment and potential aid to the
plaintiffs in pursuing other claims.

A spokesperson at Bank of Nova Scotia declined to comment on the
development south of the border, citing the fact that the cases
against Scotia remain before the courts.

The U.S. and Canadian cases are distinct from one another.

The most recent Canadian lawsuit was filed on behalf of anyone in
Canada who transacted in a silver market instrument, either
directly or indirectly, between Jan. 1, 1999 and Aug. 14, 2014.

The filing says this includes investors who participated in an
investment or equity fund, mutual fund, hedge fund, pension fund
or any other investment vehicle that transacted in a silver market
instrument.

Among the claims in the recent filing is an allegation that the
defendants, including Bank of Nova Scotia, "manipulated the bid-
ask spreads of silver market instruments throughout the trading
day in order to enhance their profits at the expense of the
class."

As a result, the lawsuit claims, the alleged conduct affected both
investors who bought and sold physical gold, and those who bought
and sold silver-related financial instruments.

According to the firms behind the lawsuits filed in Canada, law
enforcement and regulatory authorities in the United States,
Switzerland, and the United Kingdom, are investigating conduct in
the precious metal market.


BAYER INC: Xarelto Blood Thinner Drug Class Action Piles Up
-----------------------------------------------------------
BloodThinnerHelp.com comments on recent reports from a Calgary Sun
article which note the formation of a class action lawsuit in
Calgary, Canada which has been filed against Bayer Inc., in
relation to the new-generation blood thinner they manufacture,
Xarelto.  The lead plaintiff in this Canada class action lawsuit
alleges that the anticoagulant drug caused her to suffer from an
uncontrollable bleeding event which nearly led her to cardiac
arrest.

This Canadian class action lawsuit closely follows the formation
of Multidistrict Litigation number 2592 in the United States by
the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.  This MDL
consolidated and transferred over 2,800 lawsuits filed in
reference to Xarelto by plaintiffs who allege much the same. These
lawsuits are additionally joined by another group of 620 Xarelto
lawsuits which have been formed into a mass tort program by the
Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Lawsuits in
these groupings have been filed against defendant Bayer AG as well
as Janssen Pharmaceuticals, a subdivision of Johnson & Johnson
corporation.

According to reports published in the Calgary Sun, as of March
2015, Health Canada had received an estimated 1,100 adverse event
reports from patients taking Xarelto.  The article indicates that,
according to a lawyer from Toronto, if the class action is
successful, ". . . it would be in the millions of dollars."  The
Calgary Sun report also discussed the likely formation of another
class action suit in Ontario at this time.

In America, Xarelto gained approval from the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration in 2011.  The anticoagulant was approved to treat
patients suffering from a pulmonary embolism, deep vein
thrombosis, and atrial fibrillation, as well as those recovering
from knee or hip replacement surgeries, who may be at heightened
risk for the development of blood clots.

In just five year's time, Xarelto has become the topic of
increasing controversies and mounting lawsuits, which continue to
grow in number today.  The FDA has also given the blood thinner
two "black box" warnings, which are the most strict warnings a
product can receive before it is removed from the market for
public sale.

In the thousands of lawsuits now surrounding the drug, plaintiffs
commonly report experiencing side effects such as pulmonary
embolisms (blood clots in the lung), epidural hematoma, rectal
bleeding, stroke, heart attack, internal bleeding episodes, eye
bleeds, gastrointestinal bleeding, and brain hemorrhages, some of
which have proven fatal.

As thousands of Xarelto lawsuit plaintiffs await early 2017
bellwether trials, and other complaints continue to be filed,
Attorney Joseph Osborne is working to help others who have used
the blood thinner and who feel that it has negatively impacted
their health. He wants to help ensure that affected patients will
be provided with the important opportunity to investigate their
legal rights in full.  These individuals could be entitled to
substantial compensation gained through legal action.


BIG TEN: May 3 Trial Scheduled in Tenants' Project Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Davis, writing for Iowa City Press-Citizen, reports that less
than a month after filing a joint proposed settlement with
Apartments Downtown, a class-action tenant lawsuit brought by the
Iowa City Tenants' Project against landlord Tracy Barkalow has
been cleared for trial.

The case challenges illegal provisions in leases used by TSB and
Big Ten Property Management -- Mr. Barkalow's property ownership
and management companies -- over two lease terms from 2010 to
2012.  A March 22 ruling by 6th District Court Judge Mitchell
Turner sets the trial for May 3 and names Brooke Staley and Tyler
Lammer, who were student renters, as class representatives.

Chris Warnock, the attorney with the Iowa City Tenants' Project
who represents the tenants, said the trial will determine what
damages are owed to the tenants.

"This is really significant, because this is the first of any of
these class actions that have gone to trial," Mr. Warnock said.
"All these lease clauses have been found to be illegal, so now we
have to figure out what the actual and punitive damages are."

In March 2014, Judge Douglas Russell granted the tenants' group
class-action certification and ruled that several provisions in
Mr. Barkalow's lease, including one that imposed an automatic fee
for carpet cleaning when a tenant moved out, were illegal.  Other
illegal provisions included fees, fines, penalties and charges
that go beyond actual, proven damages, and provisions that removed
the landlord's liability in a number of areas, including for
injuries and loss of property related to theft, fire or other
circumstances.

Mr. Barkalow on April 18 said he had no comment on the recent
ruling.

Warnock said the lease used by Mr. Barkalow was identical to
leases used by Apartments Downtown and Apartments Near Campus
during lease terms from 2010 to 2014.

"You can see how provisions will pop up in other leases, like
carpet cleaning  --  that was all over the place.  And the
Apartments Downtown lease became sort of a popular model, but (Mr.
Barkalow) was actually using the whole lease," Warnock said. "In
this case, you've really got two faces.  Apartments Downtown wants
to settle this and work it out, and Mr. Barkalow is not willing to
do that."

Mr. Warnock said he estimates that fewer than 200 tenants were
affected by the illegal leases but that damages could include up
to $200 for wrongful withholding and up to three months of rent
per tenant.

As with the Apartments Downtown case, Mr. Warnock said tenants who
rented from 2010 to 2012 can find more information and register to
collect repayment online.

Mr. Warnock said the aim of the class-action cases is not to
receive large payments from landlords, but to ensure that renters
have a right to legal leases and to defend themselves in court.

"I think it really sends the message out to landlords that this is
serious.  So far, no one's had any consequences," Mr. Warnock
said.  "There have been all these illegal lease provisions, and
nothing has happened. We'll see if there are consequences now."


BELL MOBILITY: Wins Bid to Dismiss Prepaid Wireless Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bonny Murray, Esq., and Thomas Lipton, Esq., of Blake Cassels &
Graydon LLP, in an article for Lexology, report that in Sankar v.
Bell Mobility Inc., the Ontario Court of Appeal (Court) granted
summary judgment dismissing a certified class action against Bell
Mobility Inc. (Bell) related to prepaid wireless services credits.
The Court found the plain meaning of the interrelated documents
that formed each customer's prepaid phone contract with Bell was
that unused prepaid funds expired at the end of the credits'
active period.  Any claims based on post-contractual statements
Bell made to customers were essentially claims for
misrepresentation or promissory estoppel, neither of which could
be determined as a common issue.  In addition, while the Court
explicitly did not decide whether Ontario has legislative
jurisdiction over prepaid phone cards, it held that, in any event,
the prepaid contracts at issue would not have violated Ontario's
regulations on gift cards because a customer's right to activate
prepaid credits did not expire.

PREPAID WIRELESS SERVICES CREDITS EXPIRE ON THE ACTIVE PERIOD'S
LAST DAY

Bell, through each of its brands, sold a variety of prepaid
wireless services credits with active periods ranging from 30 days
to a year.  The relevant part of the Bell Mobility and Solo Mobile
terms of service stated: "Value deposited into your prepaid
account . . . will expire after a specified time period." The
equivalent part of the Virgin Mobile terms of service stated: "Any
Top Up balance on your account after the expiry date is forfeited
and non-refundable."  In addition to the terms of service, the
prepaid cards some customers received and receipts given to some
customers contained statements such as "$15 valid for 30 days" or
"Funds expire, $15 - 30 days after activation."

The key issue was whether the prepaid credits expired at the end
of the last day of their active periods, or the day after.  The
Court agreed with Bell that the credits expired on the last day of
their active periods.  In reaching this conclusion, it looked not
only at each customer's initial agreement, but also at other
documents that formed part of the contractual relationship between
the parties, including the terms on the phone cards and certain
receipts some customers received.  The Court held that modern
contracts are often found in several documents, including both
paper and internet documents.  These interrelated documents must
be read together to interpret the parties' contract.

These interrelated documents did not form part of the factual
matrix around each contract, but rather contained the contractual
terms themselves that were common to all class members.  The Court
further found the factual matrix applicable to each individual
customer's dealings with Bell played no role in the interpretation
of the contracts at issue.  The Court stated that if the factual
matrix played a role, then contractual interpretation would not be
a suitable common issue because individual facts could vary the
Court's interpretation.

The Court rejected the plaintiff's attempt to rely on text
messages and other communications Bell made to its customers after
the prepaid credits were purchased and prior to the expiry of the
credits' active periods.  These communications were made after the
contracts were formed and so were not part of the contracts'
factual matrixes.  Instead, they were post-contractual
communications.  This issue could not be resolved commonly because
it involved claims for misrepresentation or promissory estoppel,
both of which require individual determination.

ONTARIO GIFT CARD REGULATIONS NOT VIOLATED

The Court stated it was not deciding whether Ontario has
legislative jurisdiction over prepaid phone cards or whether such
cards are subject to Ontario's regulations on gift cards (the
regulations).  Nonetheless, it found that if the regulations
applied to the prepaid phone contracts, the regulations did not
invalidate the time limit on Bell's prepaid wireless services
credits.  The regulations, made under the Consumer Protection Act,
state in part that "[n]o supplier shall enter into a gift card
agreement that has an expiry date on the future performance of the
agreement."

Bell's prepaid wireless credits did not violate the regulations
for two reasons.  First, the regulations prohibit only an expiry
date on the future performance of gift card agreements; they do
not generally prohibit agreements with a limited duration. Here,
the prepaid credits could be activated whenever the customer chose
and so there was no expiry date in violation of the regulations.
Once the credits were activated, they became legally permissible
time-limited contracts. Second, once the prepaid credits were
activated, Bell had fully performed its obligations under these
agreements by providing customers with access to its wireless
services for the agreed time-limited period.  Thus, there was no
longer any future performance that could expire.

CONTRACTS FORMED FROM GROUP OF DOCUMENTS

Companies should be aware that courts will look to multiple
sources that constitute a contract, even if some of those sources
are found in different places and in different types of media.
Careful consideration should be given to the content of each
document in a contract and how they interrelate.  This ruling also
affirms that class action contract claims can still be decided on
summary judgment despite courts' ability to consider the factual
matrix surrounding individual contracts where appropriate.


BOFI HOLDING: Amendment Filed to Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
BofI Holding, Inc. provided comments on recent volatility in its
stock price.  The Company continues to be the target of anonymous
short-seller hit pieces designed to manipulate the market in a
veiled effort to benefit themselves at the expense of BofI's
shareholders. Upon a closer examination, these anonymous pieces
are based on s peculation, innuendo, and outright
misrepresentations.  The latest hit piece, posted on a blog,
claims that a "recent" lawsuit raised new allegations against
BofI.  In fact, this lawsuit is old news.  Back on October 15,
2015, known "repeat player" strike suit attorneys filed a
securities class action against BofI. An amendment to this old
lawsuit has now been filed.  After months of harassing our ex-
employees, the lawyers' amendment fails to raise any credible or
systemic problems at BofI.

The amendment adds some unsubstantiated stories from
"confidential" ex-employees mostly criticizing and complaining
about the alleged lack of manners of their managers.  The amended
complaint also incorporates the anonymous blog posts of admitted
short sellers, referring to them as "articles", as if they were
factual and unbiased.  Just like the initial complaint, the
amended complaint is riddled with numerous and material factual
inaccuracies, erroneous conclusions, and mistaken applications of
legal standards, which will be addressed in court.

What the anonymous short-sellers and the strike suit attorneys
fail to highlight is that BofI, like other banks, is regularly
examined by its federal regulators, external auditors, and
internal auditors.  The absence of public enforcement actions
highlight how disconnected these allegations are from the reality
of BofI's highly compliant and top-performing business.

Additionally, the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors
engaged one of the largest law firms in the world to conduct an
independent investigation to determine whether there is support
for the factual allegations and the conclusions contained in the
employment action that formed the basis for the initial class
action.  After an extensive investigation, the outside law firm
advised the Audit Committee that, based on its investigation, it
found no support for the conclusions in the employment complaint
that the Bank or management engaged in wrongdoing or acts of fraud
or impropriety.

Moreover, BofI's continued best-in-class asset quality metrics,
including industry leading charge-off ratios, and low non-accrual
loans are indicative of BofI's strong underwriting standards.

BofI will vigorously defend itself and will continue to focus on
delivering positive earnings growth and maintaining our strong
regulatory relationships and risk-focused culture.


BON SECOURS: Faces "Miller" ERISA Class Action in Maryland
----------------------------------------------------------
Carolyn Miller, 1333 North Woodyear Street Baltimore, Maryland
21217, individually and on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Bon Secours Health System,
Inc., 1505 Marriottsville Road, Marriottsville, Maryland 21104,
and John Does 1-20, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01150-JKB (D.
Md., April 18, 2016), seeks to require Defendants to comply with
all of the requirements, and to pay damages and penalties as a
result of their past failures in managing/administering the
Employees' Retirement Plan of Bon Secours Baltimore Health
Corporation (the Bon Secours Plan) and all the other defined
benefit pension plans established and/or maintained by Bon
Secours.

According to the complaint, as of August 31, 2013, August 31, 2014
and August 31, 2015, the Plans were underfunded by $290.227
million, $314.225 million, and $390.094 million respectively. The
Defendants allegedly excuse the severe underfunding on the grounds
that the Plans are "church plans" and therefore are exempt from
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). To
the contrary, as described, the Plans do not meet ERISA's
requirements for the "church plan" exemption, because they were
not "established", and not "maintained" by a church. Rather, the
Plans were established and are maintained by Bon Secours Health
System, Inc., which is a business -- not a church or a convention
or association of churches.

Bon Secours based in Marriottsville, Maryland, is a $3 billion
dollar not-for-profit Catholic health system that owns, manages or
joint ventures 18 acute care, 5 long term care, 4 assisted living,
6 retirement communities/senior housing, 14 home care and hospice
services, and other facilities, primarily on the East Coast.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert K. Jenner, Esq.
          Justin A. Browne, Esq.
          Kimberly A. Dougherty
          JANET, JENNER & SUGGS, LLC
          1777 Reisterstown Road, Suite 165
          Baltimore, MD 21208
          Telephone: (410) 653 3200
          Facsimile: (410) 653 9030
          E-mail: rjenner@myadvocates.com
                  Jbrowne@Myadvocates.com

               - and -

          Edward W. Ciolko, Esq.
          Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
          Julie Siebert-Johnson, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667 7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667 7056
          E-mail: eciolko@ktmc.com
                  mgyandoh@ktmc.com
                  jsjohnson@ktmc.com

               - and -

          Robert A. Izard, Esq.
          Mark P. Kindall, Esq.
          IZARD NOBEL LLP
          29 South Main Street, Suite 305
          West Hartford, CT 06107
          Telephone: (860) 493 6292
          Facsimile: (860) 493 6290
          E-mail: rizard@izardnoble.com
                  mkindall@izardnoble.com


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Recalls Fetch(TM) 2 Aspiration Catheters
-----------------------------------------------------------
Boston Scientific (NYSE: BSX) has initiated a global, voluntary
recall of all models of its Fetch(TM) 2 Aspiration Catheter, a
thrombectomy catheter used during procedures to remove small blood
clots from coronary arteries. The Fetch 2 catheters were recalled
on March 22, 2016, due to complaints of shaft breakage. The U.S.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) classified the action as a
Class 1 recall. This recall designation means that the use of the
device exposes the patient to a reasonable chance of a serious
adverse health consequence or death.

There have been no reports of patient injury or death, and there
is no risk to patients who previously underwent a thrombectomy
procedure with the Fetch 2 catheter. All reports of shaft breakage
happened during the procedure, and the broken section was either
removed while still partially attached to the catheter shaft or
retrieved with a snare, without further patient complications.
While unreported, the most severe potential outcome of this
breakage is embolism of device fragments, which could lead to
obstruction of blood flow or additional intervention to remove a
device fragment surgically.

As part of the recall, all affected healthcare facilities were
advised to discontinue use of all Fetch 2 catheters immediately
and return unused product to Boston Scientific. Because Boston
Scientific acquired the Fetch 2 catheter product line from Bayer
Medical Care Inc., all recalled inventory is packaged and labeled
as Bayer product. This device was manufactured between June 11,
2014 and February 19, 2016. There are currently 21,155 devices on
the market subject to this recall.

Fetch 2 Catheter UPNs:

  --- FETCH2 US
      109400-001
  --- FETCH2 OUS
      109400-002
  --- FETCH2 Canada
      109400-003
  --- FETCH2 Japan
      109400-004
  --- FETCH2 EU
      109400-005

Physicians and healthcare facilities can direct questions to their
Boston Scientific representative or, call 1-800-811-3211. Adverse
reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of this
product may be reported to the FDA MedWatch Adverse Event
Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax.

Complete and submit the report Online:
www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm
Regular Mail or Fax: Download form
www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1-800-332-1088 to
request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address
on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178
or
Health care professionals and consumers may report serious adverse
events or product quality problems with the use of this product to
Boston Scientific by calling 1-800-811-3211 and to the FDA's
MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program either online, by regular
mail, fax or phone.


CANADA: Church Off Hook for Residential Schools Compensation
------------------------------------------------------------
Glora Galloway, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that a
miscommunication by a federal lawyer allowed the Catholic Church
to renege on its obligation to try to raise $25-million to pay for
healing programs for the survivors of Indian residential schools.

Of that amount, the Church raised only $3.7-million, and a
financial statement suggests less than $2.2-million of that was
actually donated to help former students cope with the trauma
inflicted by the residential schools.

The legal misstep occurred when Ottawa was pressing the Church to
pay the entirety of a related cash settlement stemming from the
Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, the largest
class-action deal in Canadian history.

The failing fundraising effort by the Church, which represented
almost a third of its obligation under the settlement, was playing
out as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was travelling the
country hearing gut-wrenching stories about what occurred behind
the walls of the institutions that operated in Canada for more
than 100 years.

The landmark settlement agreement required 50 Catholic groups that
ran the schools, known in court documents as the Catholic
entities, to pay a combined $79-million for their role in the
abuse.

Of that, $29-million was to be paid in cash, most of which was to
flow to a now-closed Aboriginal Healing Foundation.  Another $25-
million was to be donated in unspecified "in kind" services.  And
an additional $25-million was to be raised for healing programs
through the "best efforts" that the entities could make at
fundraising.

In an attempt to make the Catholic Church pay the full amount of
the $29-million cash settlement, the government inadvertently
released it from any obligation it might have had to continue with
a dismal fundraising campaign.

"When you have a deal, it needs to be implemented," said
Bill Erasmus, the National Chief of the Dene Nation who handles
the residential schools file for the Assembly of First Nations.
"So the Church should be paying up.  The church agreed there were
harms. That's why people were to be compensated."

But, as of last summer, the Catholic entities were legally off the
hook.

In a March 19 letter to Ron Kidd, a concerned citizen from British
Columbia who has been following this case,
Andrew Saranchuk, an assistant deputy minister within the
Indigenous Affairs department, explained that a court settlement
reached on July 16, 2015 "released the Catholic entities from all
three of their financial obligations under the settlement
agreement, including the 'best efforts' fundraising campaign, in
exchange for a repayment of $1.2-million in administrative fees."

This result, Mr. Saranchuk went on to explain, "was due to
miscommunications between counsel regarding the nature and extent
of the settlement being discussed."

The problem arose when the government took the Catholic entities
to court in late 2013 for coming up $1.6-million short on the
millions they were required to pay to the Aboriginal Healing
Foundation.  Negotiations ensued between Gordon Kuski, the lawyer
for the Catholic entities, and Alexander Gay, the lawyer for the
government.

According to court documents, Mr. Kuski wrote to Mr. Gay in
June, 2014 and proposed that the Catholic entities pay $1.2-
million in return for being released from "all matters between the
parties" -- meaning all of the financial obligations in the
residential schools settlement agreement that had yet to be met,
including fundraising.  The groups realized their fundraising was
falling far short of the $25-million goal and they wanted to be
freed from that responsibility.

The court documents suggest there was some dispute over how that
offer was received, but it appears that Mr. Gay's responses led
Mr. Kuski to believe they had a deal, even though the government
had no intention of allowing the Church to walk away from the
fundraising obligations.

In reviewing the matter, Neil Gabrielson, a judge with the Court
of Queen's Bench for Saskatchewan, determined that Mr. Kuski had
reason to believe that the proposal had been accepted and that it
therefore was binding.

A spokesman for the Indigenous Affairs department said in an
e-mail that the government pressed the matter when it was clear
that a mistake had occurred but ultimately it respects the court's
decision.

Pierre Baribeau, a lawyer for the Catholic entities, says his
clients did all they could to meet their fundraising commitments
under the residential schools settlement agreement.

But, in the end, said Mr. Baribeau, it was "a fiasco." Although
much money was spent on the campaign, he said, corporations could
not be persuaded to donate because it was a religious matter and
many parishes were not in a financial position to hand over large
sums.

"So we were not successful," said Mr. Baribeau.  "We did our best
efforts, that's for sure."

But Charlie Angus, the indigenous affairs critic for the New
Democrats, said the residential schools settlement agreement was
supposed to provide justice for the survivors.

"Instead, we see time and time again that it has been a travesty
of injustice by the defendants for the benefit of the defendants,"
said Mr. Angus.  "I am looking at communities where we have people
dying because of a lack of mental-health services and we have the
Catholic Church trying to sneak out of its obligations."


CARNIVAL CORP: Allows Cuban-Americans to Sail Following Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Curt Anderson and Michael Weissenstein, writing for The Associated
Press, report that faced with protests, political pressure and a
lawsuit, Carnival Corp. announced on April 18 it will allow Cuban-
born passengers to book cruises to the island but will delay the
trips if Cuba does not change its policy barring nationals from
returning by sea.

Carnival CEO Arnold Donald said in a written statement that the
cruise line is continuing negotiations with Cuba aimed at
resolving the issue prior to a scheduled May 1 cruise by its
Fathom brand from Miami to Cuba -- the first such sail in more
than 50 years that is part of the ongoing thaw in U.S.-Cuba
relations.

The 704-passenger Adonia plans to sail every other week to three
Cuban ports: Havana, Cienfuegos and Santiago de Cuba.

"We want everyone to be able to go to Cuba with us," Mr. Donald
said.  "We remain excited about this historic opportunity to give
our guests an extraordinary vacation experience in Cuba."

The decision follows protests by Cuban-Americans outside
Carnival's headquarters in the suburb of Doral.  Miami-Dade County
Mayor Carlos Gimenez -- who was born in Cuba -- also suggested in
a letter that Carnival might be violating the county's human
rights ordinance by discriminating against a specific class of
people.

In addition, two Cuban-Americans who were prevented from buying
tickets on the May 1 cruise because they were born in Cuba filed a
potential class-action civil rights lawsuit in Miami federal
court.  And Secretary of State John Kerry said during a visit to
Miami on April 15 that Cuba should change its policy and that
Carnival nevertheless should allow anyone to travel on its ships.

U.S. cruise ships stopped sailing to Cuba shortly after its 1959
revolution.  Restarting them was an important element of the Obama
administration's attempt to increase tourism to Cuba after the
Dec. 17, 2014, decision to restore diplomatic relations and move
toward normalization.  Cruises were seen by Cuban authorities as
an easy way of bringing American visitors to spend badly needed
dollars in Cuba without further straining the island's overbooked
often decrepit hotels.

However, the idea of massive, gleaming cruise ships discharging
thousands of Americans into the streets of Havana has provoked
negative reactions from some Cuban officials who fear that the
U.S. is trying to re-exert control of the island through a new
strategy of building closer economic ties.

The idea of Cubans moving back and forth between the two countries
by sea also is particularly charged, given Cuban exiles' history
of returning to attack the government, and Cubans crossing the
Florida Straits in the other direction on rafts to emigrate to the
U.S.

Cuba does permit Cuban-born people to arrive by air to the island.
Mr. Donald said Carnival was continuing discussions so that travel
on its ships would "be on a level playing field" with airlines and
air charters.

"Again, we remain confident that we will reach a positive outcome
and we continue to work full speed ahead in preparing for our
every-other-week sailings from PortMiami to Cuba," he said.

Carnival, the world's largest cruise line, operates 10 cruise
brands around the world with 100 ships that visit some 700 ports,
according to the company statement.


CERTIFIED RECOVERY: Faces "Herrmann" Suit in W.D. Wisconsin
----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Certified Recovery, Inc. The case
is captioned Paul Herrmann and Kelsey Herrmann, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
Certified Recovery, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00247
(W.D. Wisc., April 18, 2016).

Certified Recovery is a collection agency which engages in
providing financial and insurance service.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James Davidson, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 826 5477
          E-mail: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Matthew Curtiss Lein, Esq.
          LEIN LAW OFFICES
          15692 US Hwy. 63
          P.O. Box 761
          Hayward, WI 54843
          Telephone: (715) 634 4273
          Facsimile: (715) 634 5051
          E-mail: mlein@leinlawoffices.com


CHARLESTON MEDICAL: Sued Over Medical Record Overcharges
--------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for West Virginia Record, reports that a man
is suing Charleston Area Medical Center after he claims it
overcharged him for a copy of his medical records.

Healthport Technologies LLC was also named as a defendant in the
suit.

On Sept. 28, Basil Crookshanks sent a letter to CAMC requesting
copies of his medical records and medical bills, according to a
complaint filed Oct. 28 in Kanawha Circuit Court and removed to
federal court April 8.

Mr. Crookshanks claims CAMC responded via letter on Oct. 20,
stating that payment of $4,463.43 would be required before copies
of his medical records and bills would be provided.

The defendant demanded 55 cents per page to produce
Mr. Crookshanks' medical records, which consisted of 7,518 pages,
plus additional amounts for taxes and shipping, according to the
suit.

Mr. Crookshanks claims he was forced to pay the full $4,463.43 to
obtain copies of the medical records and that by demanding this,
the defendants violated West Virginia code.

The plaintiff and other similarly-situated individuals suffered
damages by being forced to pay more than the amount permitted by
statute to obtain their medical records, according to the suit.

Mr. Crookshanks claims the defendants violated public policy of
the state by overcharging him and others to obtain copies of their
personal medical records.

The defendants' actions constitute fraud and violations of the
West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act, according to the
suit.

Mr. Crookshanks is seeking compensatory damages.  He is being
represented by David E. Goddard and Edmund L. Wagoner of Goddard &
Wagoner PLLC.

The defendants are represented by Jeffrey A. Holmstrand of Grove,
Holmstrang & Delk PLLC.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
case number: 2:16-cv-03508


CHEMOURS COMPANY: Sued Over Failure to Pay Employees Benefits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Girardot, Gerhard R. Wittreich, and Peter Butler, on behalf
of themselves and others similarly situated v. The Chemours
Company, Case No. 1:16-cv-00263-UNA (D. Del., April 14, 2016), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay former employees
a lump sum severance benefit of one week of base pay for each full
year of service, with both a minimum benefit of two weeks of base
pay and a cap of 26 weeks base pay, and additional sum payment
equal to the costs of 3 months of COBRA medical coverage.

The Chemours Company operates a chemical company headquartered in
Wilmington, Delaware.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert K. Beste Jr., Esq.
      COHEN SEGLIAS PALLAS GREENHILL & FURMAN PC
      Nemours Building, Suite 1130
      1007 North Orange Street
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Telephone: (302) 425-5089
      E-mail: rbeste@cohenseglias.com


CONNECTICUT: Settlement Leads to Improved Children's Oral Health
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arielle Levin Becker, writing for the ctmirror, reports that
Connecticut leads the nation in the percentage of kids covered by
Medicaid who go to the dentist -- a dramatic change from a decade
ago, when the state ranked near the bottom, according to a
national report.  Other studies have found significant
improvements in poor children's oral health over that time.

But dentists and advocates say that progress could be set back
under a proposal by Gov. Dannel P. Malloy to cut by 10 percent the
Medicaid payment rates for children's dental care.

"It's going to have a huge impact, I think," said Patricia Baker,
president and CEO of the Connecticut Health Foundation, which has
funded studies on access to dental care.  "This can erode
fundamental building blocks for kids."

"This is a pretty significant step backward," said Mary Alice Lee,
a senior policy fellow at Connecticut Voices for Children who has
been monitoring Medicaid oral health data for more than a decade.

Dr. William Nash, president of the Connecticut State Dental
Association, said the cut PROBABLY would mean the difference
between dentists making a marginal profit from treating children
covered by Medicaid and taking a loss.  He predicted that if the
cut takes effect, fewer dentists will treat Medicaid patients.

"The whole thing's going to break down," Dr. Nash said.

But a spokesman for the state Department of Social Services said
the administration doesn't think that will happen.

"When surveyed in 2015, nearly all of our provider reimbursement
rate schedule for children was significantly higher than other New
England states, New York and Pennsylvania," DSS spokesman David
Dearborn said.  "We don't believe this rate adjustment would
affect continued access by children to excellent care by the many
dedicated practitioners enrolled in the program."

Between 2005 and 2013, the percentage of Connecticut children
covered by Medicaid who visited a dentist in the previous year
more than doubled, from 31.9 percent to 64.3 percent, according to
a report by the American Dental Association's Health Policy
Institute.

The turnaround followed a 2008 settlement to a class-action
lawsuit that led to significant increases in the rates
Connecticut's Medicaid program paid for the 60 most common
children's dental services.  That coincided with outreach work to
get more dentists to take Medicaid patients and efforts to
streamline the program.

Multiple studies found that those changes were followed by
improvements in both access to care and children's oral health,
including a drop in the percentage of poor children with dental
decay.

After the settlement, Medicaid rates for pediatric dental care
were set at the 70th percentile of private insurance fees paid in
2005.  The rate for a periodic oral evaluation is now $35, up from
$18.80 before the settlement, while payment for a comprehensive
oral evaluation is $65, up from $24.58 before 2008. The rates have
not changed since then.

A 10 percent cut would save $5.3 million, according to
Gov. Malloy's budget proposal.

Gov. Malloy suggested the cut as part of a plan to address a
projected $930 million deficit in the upcoming fiscal year,
something the governor has said reflects a "new economic reality"
that demands changes in how the state spends its money.

Gov. Malloy's initial budget plan, proposed in February, largely
avoided cuts to Medicaid, which, at close to $2.5 billion,
represents one of the largest line items in the state budget.  The
administration exempted Medicaid from a proposed across-the-board
5.75 percent cut to most areas of the budget.  But the governor's
revised proposal, issued to address more recent growth in deficit
projections, included more cuts to the program, including scaling
back eligibility for parents of minor children, reducing rates
paid for ambulance transportation and a larger cut to hospital
funding.

A major turnaround

The 2008 settlement followed a 2000 lawsuit on behalf of children
covered by the state's Medicaid program -- known as HUSKY -- who
struggled to get dental care.

It was followed by a surge in the number of dentists accepting
HUSKY, from 349 in 2008 to 1,855 at the end of 2013.

The rate hike wasn't the only change.  The state switched from
having the dental program handled by multiple managed care
companies -- each had a separate claims process and procedures for
becoming part of the network -- to one run by a single
administrative organization.   There was also a significant effort
to recruit more dentists to the program.

"Raising reimbursement rates is necessary but not sufficient for
increasing dental care access for kids in the Medicaid program,"
Ms. Lee said.

Similarly, the Health Policy Institute's report linked
Connecticut's gains to "comprehensive, multi-pronged reforms,"
including outreach to providers and clients, payment increases and
streamlined administrative procedures.

And data indicate the changes have been significant.

A 2010-2011 study by the state Department of Public Health that
examined 750 low-income children aged 3 to 5 in Head Start
programs found that 19 percent had experienced dental decay, down
from 31 percent in a study four years earlier.  The rate of
untreated decay fell from 20 percent to 10 percent in that time,
while the rate of young children with rampant decay -- five or
more decayed teeth -- fell from 14 percent to 6 percent.  Seven
percent of the Head Start children needed oral health treatment,
compared to 18 percent four years earlier.


DENTAL EQUITIES: Has Sent Unsolicited Fax Ads, Action Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Econo-Med Pharmacy, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. Dental Equities, LLC; PeerUnited, LLC; and
Peer Equities, LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-02579 (C.D. Cal., April 14,
2016), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of sending
unsolicited advertisements via fax without providing detailed
information in the margins of the fax.

The Defendants operate a company that sells credit card
memberships, among other things, to medical professionals
nationwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher P. Ridout, Esq.
      Hannah Belknap, Esq.
      ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
      2381 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 328
      Manhattan Beach, CA 90245
      Telephone: (877) 500-8780
      E-mail: Christopher.Ridout@zimmreed.com
              Hannah.Belknap@zimmreed.com

         - and -

     Randy K. Pulliam, Esq.
     CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
     2800 Cantrell Rd., Suite 510
      Little Rock, AR 72202
      Telephone: (501) 312-8500
      Facsimile: (501) 312-8505
      E-mail: rpulliam@cbplaw.com


DIAGEO PLC: Court Dismisses Red Stripe Labeling Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Sorini, Esq., of McDermott Will & Emery, in an article for
The National Law Review, reports that a decision has been made in
the ongoing Red Stripe false advertising/labeling class actions.

This case involves allegations that the labeling and marketing of
Red Stripe Beer misleads consumers into thinking they are
purchasing beer made in Jamaica from Jamaican ingredients.  In
fact, production of Red Stripe for the US market moved to the US
in 2012.  The Southern District of California's Dumas v. Diageo
PLC decision to dismiss the plaintiffs' case gives hope that
companies with alcohol beverage brands originating overseas can
produce those brands in the US without facing significant
litigation risk.

The plaintiffs brought their case under several California statues
and also alleged negligent and intentional misrepresentation.
Central to the plaintiffs' allegations were statements on Red
Stripe's secondary packaging and labeling that the beer was a
"Jamaican Style Lager" and contained "The Taste of Jamaica."  The
plaintiffs also pointed to the labeling and packaging's continued
display of the original Jamaican brewer's logo as evidence of
deception.  Finally, the plaintiffs pointed to the label's
statement that the beer "embodied the spirit, rhythm and pulse of
Jamaica and its people."  Of course, the labels and secondary
packaging did disclose that the US market beer was brewed and
bottled in Latrobe, Pennsylvania.

Looking only at the complaint and before any discovery, the court
dismissed the case, concluding that "no reasonable consumer would
be misled into thinking that Red Stripe is made in Jamaica with
Jamaican ingredients based on the wording of the packaging and
labeling."  More specifically:

The mere fact that the words "Jamaica" and Jamaican" appear on the
packaging does not support a conclusion that consumers would be
confused about the origin and ingredients of the beer.

The statements on Red Stripe were similar to those made with
respect to a "Swiss Army knife" -- just as "Swiss" modified
"Army," in this case "Jamaican" modifies "Style" and does not
connote the actual place of production.

Red Stripe's display of "Jamaican Style" and similar claims are
similar to Blue Moon making a "Belgian-Style Wheat Ale" and
Harpoon making a "Belgian Style Pale Ale."

"Taste of Jamaica" is too vague and meaningless to form the basis
of a false advertising claim.

Red Stripe presents different facts from the facts that give rise
to the false advertising case involving Beck's Beer, where the
labeling and packaging stated "Originating in Germany," "brewed
under the German Purity Law of 1516," and "German quality."

Even though consumers may have already held an expectation that
Red Stripe is brewed in Jamaica based on past production on the
island, no legal authority places a duty on marketers to counter
such pre-conceived notions.

On the basis of this reasoning, the court dismissed the
plaintiffs' complaint as a matter of law.  It did, however,
dismiss the case "without prejudice," which will give the
plaintiffs 15 days (until April 21, 2016) to assert new claims
that might survive dismissal.

The Dumas opinion represents merely one battle won (at least
temporarily) in what will no doubt prove a long war over alcohol
beverage labeling in the United States.  Nevertheless, it provides
helpful reasoning that may eventually influence other courts and
provide guidance to marketers in the future.


EOS RENTALS: "Gruver" Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Gruver, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. E.O.S. Rentals, LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-00298-GJF-SM
(D.N.M., April 14, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

E.O.S. Rentals, LLC is an oil and gas service company providing
services for the hydraulic fracturing process of oil and gas
operations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin R. Kaufman, Esq.
      Rosalind B. Bienvenu, Esq.
      HEARD ROBINS CLOUD, LLP
      505 Cerrillos Road, Suite A209
      Santa Fe, NM 87501
      Telephone: (505) 986-0600
      Facsimile: (505) 986-0632
      E-mail: jkaufman@heardrobins.com
              rbienvenu@heardrobins.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

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


EVER-GREEN EXPRESS: "Rhodes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Rhodes, on his own behalf and others similarly situated v.
Ever-Green Express Service, Inc., Case No. 8:16-cv-00895-VMC-EAJ
(M.D. Fla., April 14, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Ever-Green Express Service, Inc. owns and operates a Trucking
Company located at 9449 Benford Rd, Orlando, FL 32827.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William John Gadd, Esq.
      W. JOHN GADD, ATTORNEY AT LAW
      Suite 250, 2727 Ulmerton Rd
      Clearwater, FL 33762
      Telephone: (727) 524-6300
      Facsimile: (727) 524-6330
      E-mail: wjg@mazgadd.com


FAIR COLLECTIONS: "Simon" Suit Seeks Damages Over FDCPA Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Simon, individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Fair Collections & Outsourcing, Inc.
(FCO), and CPF Mondial, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2016-CH-
05402 (Cook Cty. Cir. Ct, Ill., April 18, 2016), seeks to recover
actual damages, statutory damages, and costs and attorney's fees
as a result of Defendants' violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA).

The Defendants contacted persons other than the consumer who
allegedly owed a debt more than once and stated the consumer owed
a debt; made false, deceptive and misleading representations in
connection with the alleged debt; continued to contact the
consumer and others by telephone about the debt after receiving
notice from the consumer that the debt was disputed; failed to
send the consumer a written notice validating the debt within 5
days of Defendant's initial communication with the consumer; and
failed to identify the current creditor or owner of the alleged
debt.

FCO is a collector agency in the multi housing industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel Shelist, Esq.
          SHELIST LAW FIRM LLC
          29 E. Madison Street, Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone (312) 644-3900
          E-mail: www.shelistlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey S Sobek, Esq.
          JS LAW
          29 E. Madison Street, Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 756 1330
          E-mail: jeffs@jsslawoffices.com


FLINT, MI: Wants Water Crisis Suit Dismissed on Immunity Grounds
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tresa Baldas, writing for Detroit Free Press, reports that a group
of Flint residents suing over the water crisis is dealing with the
immunity argument again, this time in a challenge from local
officials.

In a court filing on April 18, the City of Flint asked a federal
judge to dismiss a class-action against it on immunity grounds.
The State of Michigan did the same thing two weeks ago in the same
lawsuit.

Flint residents are seeking to hold the city and state liable for
allegedly exposing them to toxic water and causing a host of
health issues.  They want money and the water problem fixed --
though both defendants claim they're immune from liability under
the U.S. Constitution.

"The city is entitled to sovereign immunity under the 11th
Amendment because it was an 'arm of the state' during the relevant
times,'" attorneys for Flint argued in the April 18 filing.

Moreover, the city said that it already is trying to fix the
problem, as required by an emergency order that was issued under
the federal Safe Drinking Water Act. That should be sufficient,
the city argued, claiming the plaintiffs have no standing to
challenge a government-mandated process that is already in the
works.

"Since these emergency declarations, the city, its state and
federal partners . . . have dedicated significant resources toward
addressing this crisis.  Bottled water and water filters are
distributed at multiple sites in the city, accelerated efforts to
repair and/or replace damaged service lines are in motion and
multiple investigations are ongoing.  The city is committed to
solving this crisis and preventing re-occurrence," Flint's lawyers
wrote in the filing in U.S. District Court.

The plaintiffs disagreed, claiming the defendants are just trying
to get out of paying them for the wrong they caused.

"We're trying to move them in the right direction.  Lawsuits are
like cattle-prods -- they move people in the right direction,"
said Michael Pitt, one of the attorneys who filed the lawsuit.

Mr. Pitt also accused the defendants of misinterpreting the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA) to "try to deflect their
responsibility."

"Congress, in enacting the SDWA, did not intend to deprive injured
water users of their right to obtain fair compensation for the
egregious acts of these government employees responsible for the
poisoning of an entire community," Mr. Pitt said.  "Phony legal
arguments will not protect them, and they will be held
accountable."

The lawsuit, which was filed in November, seeks to hold state and
local authorities liable for allegedly endangering the health of
Flint residents by exposing them to toxic water when Flint
switched its drinking water from the Detroit system to the Flint
River.  It alleges that local and state officials unnecessarily
exposed them to toxic public water for more than 18 months,
resulting in physical and psychological injuries, including high
levels of lead in their bloodstreams; skin lesions and hair loss;
chemically induced hypertension; autoimmune disorders; seizure-
like convulsions; depression, and chronic anxiety.  The lawsuit
seeks compensation for Flint residents' physical injuries and
property damages and asks that the State of Michigan undertake
future corrective action, including lifetime medical monitoring
for all the children injured by the tainted water.


FLINT, MI: Plaintiffs' Lawyers Face Challenge in Water Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
David Bailey, writing for Reuters, reports that Luke Waid drives
20 miles each day to shower at a relative's place, hauls bottled
water back to his Flint, Michigan, home and worries about his 2-
year-old daughter's irritability.

"I don't know if that is a product of her being exposed to high
lead levels, or her just being a child," he said.  "I'm not sure."

That uncertainty also presents a challenge to the lawyers who have
enlisted as many as 1,800 residents, including Mr. Waid, as
plaintiffs in lawsuits over contamination in the Flint's water
supply.

The problem began in April 2014 when the city, then under the
control of a state-appointed emergency manager, switched its water
source to the Flint River from Lake Huron as a cost-saving
measure, and corrosive river water caused lead to leach into the
water supply.  Flint switched back in October after tests showing
elevated lead levels in the blood of some children became public.

In spite of the international outcry and the well-known toxic
effects of lead, proving Flint's contaminated water actually
caused any particular injury will be far from straightforward,
lawyers with expertise in lead litigation said.

The difficulty in showing a causal link adds to other legal
hurdles.  State and city officials are challenging the cases,
arguing they are protected by sovereign immunity, a legal doctrine
that shields most government officials and agencies from liability
for their official actions.  That powerful defense already has
kept many major plaintiffs firms away from Flint, since the water
supply is government-run.

In an effort to overcome these potential obstacles, plaintiffs'
lawyers are pursuing several strategies to seek redress for
victims: individual lawsuits, class actions and a victims'
compensation fund.

Plaintiffs' lawyers claim that the alleged government misconduct
rose to the level of gross negligence or violated residents'
constitutional rights, two exceptions to immunity.  Some lawsuits
also target private companies that performed work or tests on
Flint's water system. The companies have denied responsibility.

It should be relatively easy to show in court that residents were
exposed to lead, in part because government officials have
publicly acknowledged the water is tainted, said Delaware Law
School Professor Jean Eggen.

But exposure is not enough to prove damages, Ms. Eggen said.  Lead
injuries may not be apparent for years.  In addition, injuries
associated with lead poisoning -- such as impaired brain
development, reduced attention span and lower IQ -- all have many
causes.

New York law firm Napoli & Shkolnik said it has hired a Washington
lobbyist to persuade Congress to create a compensation fund for
Flint.  Such funds may be set up to allow injured parties to
receive compensation with a lower burden of proof than applicants
would face in court.  Napoli partner Hunter Shkolnik envisions
such a fund paying for medical monitoring immediately, and
possibly leaving the question of damages for later, putting money
into people's pockets relatively quickly.

But Ken Feinberg, who oversaw victim compensation funds for
victims of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and the 2010 BP Deep Horizon
oil spill, is skeptical such an approach would work with Flint
residents.

"How long do you monitor them?" asked Mr. Feinberg.  "If they are
deemed injured, are they injured by the water or by other means,
other sources?"

The Napoli firm also is pursuing a class action in Michigan
federal court.  It said it has signed up some 800 clients and
represents Mr. Waid in an individual lawsuit.

Corey Stern, a plaintiffs lawyer at New York's Levy & Konigsberg,
said that he had filed individual cases in state court in Michigan
on behalf of more than 100 children.  He said the complexity of
proving lead exposure caused specific injuries makes these cases
better suited to individual lawsuits than class actions.

In 2013, a judge in Washington, D.C. ruled that a case over
alleged lead contamination in the district's water supply would be
unmanageable as a class action and should proceed as an individual
lawsuit.  The case is still pending.

Lead litigation in the U.S. to date has mostly involved children
who have eaten chips of lead-based paint, or inhaled lead dust in
the air or soil.  The main defendants have been paint and lead
manufacturers as well as landlords of properties containing lead
paint.

The most clearcut cases involve children who develop serious
learning disabilities or a measured drop in IQ within a few years
of lead exposure.

In 2008, for example, Mr. Stern's firm won an $8.5 million verdict
against New York building owners on behalf of a 15-year-old boy
who was first exposed to lead paint and dust eight years earlier.
His lawyers showed that he subsequently began failing all of his
subjects and was classified as learning disabled, even though he
had performed satisfactorily in kindergarten and first grade.

While the courts sort out the claims, residents like Mr. Waid and
his daughter live with uncertainty.  Though blood tests have shown
she had elevated lead levels, the girl so far has no clear signs
of injury -- cold comfort for her father.

"If we knew that this was just her being a child and she was never
exposed to lead, I wouldn't be worried at all," Mr. Waid said.


FLINT, MI: Judge Dismisses $150MM Water Crisis Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Julia Jacobo, writing for ABC News, reports that a federal judge
in Detroit has dismissed a $150 million class-action lawsuit filed
by Flint residents and one Flint business, suggesting the
plaintiffs refile in a Michigan state court due to lack of
jurisdiction.

In a decision issued on April 19, Judge John Corbett O'Meara said
because the plaintiffs didn't file a claim under the federal Safe
Drinking Water Act, the case should be tried in state court.

The case sought $150 million in damages for all Flint residents
who paid water bills between April 2014 and November 2015.  It
also sought compensation to replace all waterlines damaged in
every Flint home, according to a complaint filed on Jan. 31.

The lawsuit was filed against the city of Flint, the state of
Michigan and several key players in the Flint water crisis,
including former Mayor Dayne Walling, Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder,
former Emergency Managers Darnell Earley and Gerald Ambrose, the
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality and the Michigan
Department of Health and Human Services.

"This was a procedural dismissal by the judge," the plaintiffs'
lawyer, Valdemar L. Washington, told ABC News.  "We think he's
wrong in his decision, obviously, because the Safe Drinking Water
Act does not contain pre-emption language" that would allow for
damages to be awarded to those affected in the water crisis.

The reason why the plaintiffs didn't file under the Safe Drinking
Water Act is because the only relief it provides is prospective
injunctive relief, Washington said, which would mean the
plaintiffs would only get an injunction to stop the city of Flint
from supplying contaminated waster to its residents.  You can not
be awarded damages under the act.

The complaint alleged that the defendants deprived Flint residents
of safe and potable water, failed to act for the welfare of the
general public and acted in gross negligence by failing to address
a dangerous environmental hazard -- the lead leaching from
corroded pipes into the water supply.

In addition, the complaint said the city "actively" discriminated
against ordinary citizens and showed "preferential treatment"
toward certain state employees, "who were specifically aware of
the degradation of water quality" and were provided with safe,
potable drinking water alternatives "not available to the general
public."

Complaints made by Flint residents regarding the health hazards in
the water were ignored, according to the complaint, which also
alleged the city of Flint misled residents on the dangers of the
drinking water.

"Instead, citizens were simply expected to pay their monthly
public utility water bills, while being delivered lead-poisoned
and Legionella-[infected] water by the public officials and
entities named on the caption above," the complaint stated.

On April 18, Gov. Snyder announced he would drink Flint's water
for one month in an effort to show residents it is now safe, the
Associated Press reported. The city is currently under a state of
emergency.

The lead contamination started when Flint switched its water
source from the Detroit River and began drawing its drinking water
from the Flint River in April 2014.


FLORIDIAN HOTEL: "Mejia" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------
Juan J. Mejia, and other similarly-situated individuals,
Plaintiff(s), v. Floridian Hotel, Inc., Richard Groh and Donald
Groh, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-21380-JLK
(S.D. Fla., April 18, 2016), seeks to recover money damages for
unpaid overtime wages, half-time overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, and the costs and reasonably attorney's fees pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

According to the complaint, Plaintiff worked in excess of 40
hours, and was entitled to be paid for overtime hours at the rate
of time and a half his regular rate. However, Plaintiff was
allegedly paid for overtime hours at his regular rate.

Floridian provides hotel/hospitality services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 446 1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446 1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


G. WILLI: Faces Class Action, April 29 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Goldberg Law PC on April 19 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against G. Willi Food-International Ltd. ("G.
Willi" or the "Company").  Investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired shares between April 30, 2014 and February 18, 2016, (the
"Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm in advance of
the April 29, 2016, lead plaintiff motion deadline.

In addition, we advise you to contact Michael Goldberg or Brian
Schall, of Goldberg Law PC, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100,
Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 800-977-7401, to discuss your rights
without cost to you. You can also reach us through the firm's
website at http://www.Goldberglawpc.comor by email at
info@goldberglawpc.com

The class in this case has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the complaint, the Company failed to disclose that
Gregory Gurtovoy, along with others, is being investigated by the
Israel Security Authority for illegally transferring money out of
G. Willi-Food.

Goldberg Law PC represents shareholders around the world and
specializes in securities class actions and shareholder rights
litigation.


GENERAL MOTORS: Two Ignition-Switch Cases Settled
-------------------------------------------------
Mark Hamblett, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that
bellwether cases in the multi-district litigation over defective
General Motors ignition switches are being cleared faster than
trials can be held.

On April 7 and April 8, two cases were resolved by plaintiffs'
attorneys seeking a finding of liability -- and damages -- for
ignition switches that can be bumped or jostled into the
"accessory" or "off" position, cause cars to lose power brakes and
steering, and prevent air bags from deploying,

After agreeing on April 7 to settle the wrongful death case
involving the 2013 fatality of motorist James Yingling in
Pennsylvania (NYLJ, April 8), attorneys for the fourth plaintiff,
Robert James Reid, an Alabama man who suffered injuries in a 2013
accident, filed a notice of voluntary dismissal on April 8.

Mr. Reid and his attorneys were preparing for a July trial when
the attorneys wrote Southern District Judge Jesse Furman that they
were dropping In re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch
Litigation, 14-MD-2543.

Of the six cases selected for bellwether status, three have been
disposed of in GM's favor, one was settled and two are still
pending.

In all, there are some 235 cases remaining before Judge Furman.
The company also is defending a scattered number of state cases
and a much smaller multi-district litigation in Texas.

GM is aggressively fighting the cases before Judge Furman, having
already paid out some $2 billion in the controversy.

The company paid $900 million as part of a deferred prosecution
agreement with the Department of Justice and another $35 million
to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.  It paid
$300 million to settle a securities class action for the drop in
GM's stock price engendered by the scandal and, to date, it has
paid another $275 million to settle 1,400 some cases in the MDL
pool.

The company also established the GM Ignition Compensation Claims
Resolution Facility, run by Kenneth Feinberg, which has paid out
some $595 million.  Importantly, some of the cases now before
Judge Furman were by plaintiffs who were rejected by Feinberg for
compensation.

GM spokesman James Cain said on April 11 the company "has
acknowledged its mistakes" in dealing with the recall, and "part
of our effort to do the right thing was to create settlement
facility for people who suffered personal injury and to make it
fair, to make it generous and to make it nonadversarial -- and
we're very pleased with the way the program worked."

He continued: "With respect to the bellwether process, it's a very
efficient and helpful mechanism for settlement, and we believe the
cases that were selected as bellwether candidates were broadly
representative of the claims that remain in the bellwether pool."

The first trial, chosen by the plaintiffs, fell apart when it was
revealed plaintiffs Robert and Lisa Scheuer may have lied about
the accident and Robert Scheuer's injuries (NYLJ, Jan. 25).

The second, chosen by GM, ended with a jury finding there was a
defective ignition switch but that it was not the cause of the
accident in which plaintiffs Dionne Spain and Lawrence Bartelemy
suffered minor injuries.  GM lawyers, led by Mike Brock of
Kirkland & Ellis, successfully argued to the jury that it was
black ice that caused Spain's car to crash on a New Orleans bridge
in 2014 (NYLJ, March 30).

Both the Scheuer and Spain accidents happened after GM had issued
a recall notice, but the third and fourth bellwether accidents
occurred prior to the recall.


GOPRO: Investors Mull Class Action Over Misrepresentations
----------------------------------------------------------
Seeking Alpha reports that another Wall Street darling turned
disaster, GoPro has become the new definition of how not to be a
savvy technology investor.  The company brings new meaning to the
phrase bamboozled according to investors who are currently in the
process of filing a class action lawsuit against GoPro for
materially mispresenting the business and its guidance.  Aside
from its legal woes, the company's revenues are in the process of
plateauing and the lack of competitive advantage is starting to
whittle away at the company's future prospects.  Despite
announcements of several new products and initiatives designed to
alleviate pressure on shares, the future looks awfully bleak for
the company even with recent news of high profile hires and
endorsement deals that sent shares surging.

Technology Stocks Losing Favor Amongst Investors

2016 is undoubtedly turning out to be the worst year for
technology stocks since the 2008-2009 financial crisis.  In the
first quarter, there was not a single initial public offering for
a technology company despite 22 companies filing, the first such
instance since after the failure of Lehman Brothers.  Troublesome
volatility was named the culprit, but many investors are starting
to believe the music has stopped.  After countless IPO investors
were burned over the last two years buying into the hype and sleek
marketing of these companies that are not fundamentally sound,
scrutiny has only increased.  Since its IPO in 2014, GoPro has
been a similar cautionary tale, especially now that its growth
story is behind it and investors are placing increased emphasis on
the fundamentals of the business.

One of the earliest flashing warning signs for investors was
clearly ignored, after the company reported the drop in
year-over-year revenues before GoPro was listed.  This was first
noticed in the original SEC registration statement, with
production delays related to deliveries of Hero 3 devices
attributed to a substantial downshift in revenues and EBTIDA.
After reporting $255 million in revenues in the first quarter of
2013, 2014 revenues for the same period slipped by -7.50%, with
EBITDA plunging over -30% during the same period. Even though
financial results were able to recover as evidenced by the 41.44%
year-over-year sales growth over the course of 2014, revenue
expansion continues to taper, potentially approaching a plateau
after falling to 16.19% year-over-year growth in 2015.  Aside from
the ability to take a GoPro anywhere, whether attached to a jet
airplane or traveling to deep sea depths, the camera market is
saturated with a number of competitors that offer more
sophisticated or cost effective solutions.


GOOD CHOWS: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Chan" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chuk On Chan, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated v. Good Chows Inc. d/b/a "Land of Plenty",
Cheng Tao Li, Michael Ngai, Xiao Feng Liao, Richard Qun Yao, "John
Doe" and "Jane Doe" # 110, Case No. 2:16-cv-02794 (S.D.N.Y., April
14, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek.

The Defendants own and operate Land of Plenty Restaurant located
at 204 East 58th St., New York, New York 10022.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jian Hang, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC.
      136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Telephone: (718) 353-8588
      E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


GOOGLE INC: Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Book Scanning Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that the Supreme Court on April 18 declined to
hear a challenge by a group of authors who contend that Google's
massive effort to scan millions of books for an online library
violates copyright law.

The Authors Guild and several individual writers have argued that
the project, known as Google Books, illegally deprives them of
revenue.  The high court left in place an October 2015 ruling by
the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York in favor of
Google.

A unanimous three-judge appeals court panel said the case "tests
the boundaries of fair use," but found Google's practices were
ultimately allowed under the law.

The individual plaintiffs who filed the proposed class action
against Google included former New York Yankees pitcher
Jim Bouton, who wrote the acclaimed memoir "Ball Four."

Several prominent writers, including novelist and poet Margaret
Atwood and lyricist and composer Stephen Sondheim, signed on to a
friend-of-the-court brief backing the Authors Guild.

The authors sued Google, whose parent company is Alphabet, in
2005, a year after the project was launched. A lower court
dismissed the litigation in 2013, prompting the authors' appeal.

Google argued that the effort would actually boost book sales by
making it easier for readers to find works, while introducing them
to books they might not otherwise have seen.

The company made digital copies of more than 20 million books,
according to court papers. Some publishers agreed to allow Google
to copy their works.

Google Books allows users to search the content of the books and
displays excerpts that show the relevant search results.  Google
says in court papers the service "gives readers a dramatically new
way to find books of interest" and lets people know where they can
buy them.  Users cannot read "any substantial portion of any
book," Google said.

Google had said it could have faced billions of dollars in
potential damages if the authors had prevailed.


GRANNA'S LLC: Recalls French Toast Products Due to Milk
-------------------------------------------------------
Granna's LLC is voluntarily recalling packages of item number 808
French Toast that may contain an undeclared milk allergen. People
who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk run the risk of
serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume this
product.

Product was distributed in Oklahoma through senior nutritional
sites by home delivery.

The affected product, #808 French Toast, was labeled without milk
ingredient in the ingredient statement. The issue was discovered
by a FDA investigator during an inspection of the recalling firm.

Granna's #808 French Toast with diced potatoes and mandarin
oranges is a frozen dinner packaged in a black, three compartment
heat sealed tray, with label located on top. Best by dates are
printed on each label. Only the misprinted packages of #808 French
Toast, with best by dates of 04/05/2016 to 04/05/2017, are
included in this recall. No other Granna's products are affected.

This product is a food safety concern for people who are allergic
to milk.

Consumers would have received the mislabeled product between April
2015 and April 2016. Affected packages should be discarded or
returned to the place of purchase for a refund.

There have been no illnesses as of April 5, 2016 reported in
connection with this product.

Consumers with questions on the recall may contact Granna's LLC at
1-580-337-6360.

Phone will be answered between 8 AM and 3 PM Central Standard
Time, Monday - Friday.

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


GVC HOLDINGS: Faces Class Action Over Failed Joint Venture
----------------------------------------------------------
Steven Stradbrooke, writing for Gambling News, reports that
UK-listed online gambling operator GVC Holdings is facing a
potential class action lawsuit in Canada stemming from the
collapse of an alleged joint venture involving its Sportingbet
brand.

Ontario-based law firm Findlay McCarthy PC recently launched a
website seeking submissions from Canadian sports bettors who
registered with Sportingbet between 2005 and 2015.

The firm says it is considering a class action "seeking
reimbursement on behalf of betters [sic] of all bets placed by
Canadian residents" with Sportingbet during the period in
question.  The law firm said it also intends to seek "substantial
punitive damages" against GVC should the allegations against the
company prove correct.

The action is related to a suit filed last August by
Doug Honeger, a Montreal-based sports and entertainment
consultant, who claims his 37 Entertainment Inc (37E) entered into
a joint venture with GVC to launch two Sportingbet-branded
websites serving Canadian sports bettors.

Mr. Honeger claims that he and his partner Barry Alter effectively
ran Sportingbet's Canada-facing business between 2014 and 2015,
during which time he had full access to Sportingbet customers'
betting histories, personal data and banking details.

GVC has publicly insisted that no formal agreement was ever
reached between itself and 37E. Findlay McCarthy says that if
GVC's claim is true, and Mr. Honeger's company was found to have
had access to the Sportingbet customer data, then GVC would have
broken Canadian law for not informing customers that their data
would be shared with a third party.

Findlay McCarthy is also believed to be looking into whether GVC
ever conducted any background checks on 37E, Mr. Honeger or
Mr. Alter.

Mr. Honeger claimed the JV was aborted by GVC's pursuit of rival
Bwin.party digital entertainment, which GVC paid around รบ1.1b to
acquire last September.  GVC and 37E are believed to have a
rendezvous with an arbitration hearing in London this July.  The
news didn't exactly shake GVC shareholders, who saw their shares
improve 1.5% to 532.5p on April 19.


HARRIS TEETER: Faces "Hanson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Hanson, on her own behalf and others similarly situated v.
Harris Teeter, LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-00054-LGW-RS (S.D. Ga., April
14, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Harris Teeter, LLC is a Foreign Limited Liability corporation that
is in the food chain services industry. This includes the
distributing, packing and selling of food.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Yolando A. Hewling, Esq.
      FARAH AND FARAH, P.A.
      10 West Adams St
      Jacksonville, FL 32202
      Telephone: (904) 396-5555
      Facsimile: (904) 358-2424
      E-mail: yhewling@farahandfarah.com


ILLINOIS: Governor Faces Class Action Over Health Insurance
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tamara Damante, writing for WAND, reports that Governor Bruce
Rauner is being sued by state employees, as part of a class action
lawsuit.

Carrie Weeks Kinowski, a non-union employee, at Northern Illinois
University says the on-going budget crisis has left employees
without health insurance.

The state stopped covering medical expenses, by not paying the
insurance companies the non-union employees' insurance
withholdings.

According to the suit, the state continues to dock employees'
paychecks even though they are not turning over their
withholdings.


INNOVAK INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Bohannan" Suit in M.D. Alabama
------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Innovak International, Inc. The
case is captioned Melissa Bohannan, Cherissa Hall, Jolie Hall,
Summer Lisenby, Maryellen Prophet, Jennifer Matheny, Tiffany
McCoy, Ashley McGhee, Sherrie Salem, and Crystal Shelley,
individually, and on behalf of a similarly situated class, the
Plaintiffs, v. Innovak International, Inc., the Defendant, Case
No. 1:16-cv-00272-WKW-WC (M.D. Ala., April 18, 2016). The assigned
Chief Judge is Hon. William Keith Watkins.

Innovak was founded in 1994. The company's line of business
includes schools offering data processing courses or training in
computer programming and in computer and computer peripheral
equipment operation, maintenance, and repair.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Anil Ashok Mujumdar, Esq.
          ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR & DEBROSSE
          2332 2nd Avenue North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 983 7985
          E-mail: anil@zarzaur.com

               - and -

          Diandra S. Debrosse, Esq.
          GENTLE, TURNER, SEXTON, DEBROSSE & HARBISON
          501 Riverchase Pkwy East-Ste 100
          Hoover, AL 35244
          Telephone: (205) 716 3000
          Facsimile: (205) 716 3010
          E-mail: fuli@zarzaur.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Steven Mann, Esq.
          PITTMAN DUTTON & HELLUMS, P.C.
          2001 Park Place Tower-Ste 1100
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 322 8880
          Facsimile: (205) 328 2711
          E-mail: jonm@pittmandutton.com


INVISIBLU INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Continuum Labs LGD-Xtreme
----------------------------------------------------------
Invisiblu International LLC is voluntarily recalling one lot of
Continuum Labs LGD-Xtreme, 3 mg to the retail and consumer level.
The product has been found to contain LGD-4033 Ligandrol.

Risk Statement: The risks of using this product are unknown.
Invisiblu International has not received any reports of adverse
events related to this recall.

LGD-Xtreme is marketed as a dietary supplement to promote gains of
lean muscle mass. The product is packaged in a dark amber plastic
bottle with ninety capsules. The affected LGD-Xtreme lot numbers
are 21511166 with expiration dates of 11/2018.The product can be
identified by its black label with gold trim and the Continuum
Labs logo. LGD-Xtreme was sold to select end consumers in the
United States via the Internet, and was exported to wholesalers in
Brazil.

Invisiblu International LLC is notifying its distributors and
customers by this press release and e-mail, and is asking anyone
in possessing of this product to stop using and discard any unused
capsules.

Consumers with questions regarding this recall can contact
Invisiblu International LLC by calling (954) 233-2673, extension
1, Monday through Friday, from 9 AM to 5 PM EDT, or by sending an
e-mail to: inquiry@continuum.com. Consumers should contact their
physician or healthcare provider if they have experienced any
problems that may be related to taking or using this drug product.

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event
Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax.

Online:www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm1
Regular Mail: use postage-paid, pre-addressed Form FDA 3500
available at: www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm. Mail to address
on the pre-addressed form.
Fax: 1-800-FDA-0178

This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/ATdJ6a


KAUFMAN ENGLETT: Faces "Cadwell" Suit in Middle Dist. of Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Kaufman, Englett & Lynd, PLLC.
The case is captioned Loyd P. Cadwell, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Kaufman,
Englett & Lynd, PLLC, the Defendant, Case No. 6:16-cv-00662-PGB-
KRS (M.D. Fla., April 18, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Paul
G. Byron.

Kaufman Englett is a full service, national law firm practicing in
20 states across the U.S.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bryan K. Mickler, Esq.
          MICKLER & MICKLER
          5452 Arlington Expy
          Jacksonville, FL 32211
          Telephone: (904) 725 0822
          Facsimile: (904) 725 0855
          E-mail: bkmickler@planlaw.com


KOUROS RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Diaz" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Isidoro Velazquez Diaz, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Kouros Restaurant Corp.  (d/b/a Kouros Bay
Diner), Peter Giannakouros and Estate of George Giannakouros, Case
No. 1:16-cv-01836 (E.D.N.Y., April 14, 2016), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in
excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 3861
Nostrand Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11235.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      E-mail: Michael@Faillacelaw.com


LENDINGCLUB: Faces Class Action Over Usury Law Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Alloway, Noah Buhayar and Rebecca Spalding, writing for
Bloomberg News, report that a proposed class action lawsuit
against LendingClub filed in New York earlier this month by a
borrower on the platform, alleging violations of the state's
consumer usury laws, could add to the company's legal woes on this
front.

Ronald Bethune of Yonkers, N.Y., claims LendingClub charged him a
29.97 percent interest rate on a $33,250 loan, nearly double New
York's 16 percent limit for individual lending and high enough, he
argued, to trigger a criminal usury violation, according to the
complaint.  More than 100 other borrowers are also suing the
company, many from other states, according to the complaint.

The lawsuit also cites civil provisions under the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), most famously
deployed in a criminal context by former New York Mayor Rudy
Giuliani to put away mobsters.

"Around June 2015, defendants funded a usurious loan to plaintiff
after plaintiff applied for a loan through LCC. Defendants failed
to inform plaintiff that WebBank would be a 'pass through' sham
party to the transaction for the sole purpose of charging
plaintiff an interest rate in excess of New York's usury law and
that the loan plaintiff was receiving would be at an interest rate
that was nearly double the interest rate cap for such a loan in
New York," the lawsuit, filed by Lending Club borrower
Ronald Bethune, alleges.

A spokesman for LendingClub said the company does not comment on
pending litigation.

While upstart marketplace lenders employ a number of different
methods of extending credit, LendingClub was a pioneer in the
marketplace, or "peer-to-peer," lending model.  The San Francisco-
based company essentially serves as a middleman, matching
borrowers with investors who want to fund them.

To issue loans, LendingClub and some of its competitors rely on
WebBank, a Utah-based financial services firm.  LendingClub then
buys the loan a few days later and parcels it out to investors who
pledge to fund it.  The arrangement was modified earlier this year
in response to a decision in the lawsuit known as Madden v.
Midland Funding LLC so that WebBank maintains a relationship with
borrowers and has an ongoing economic interest in the loans.
At an industry conference in San Francisco, several executives
said their companies were slowing their expansion amid recent
investor concerns.

"If you're a management team in this business right now, and
you're not considering slowing, you should exit," said
David Klein, chief executive officer of student lender CommonBond.
"Throttling growth is a tried-and-true" method to prove to the
market that you have discipline, he said.

The case is 1:16-cv-02578-NRB, U.S. District Court, Southern
District of New York (Manhattan).


M-I LLC: Hearing on Class Cert. Bid in "Syed" Moved to Dec. 6
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Dale A. Drozd gave his stamp of approval on a Joint
Stipulation for Continuance of Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend and
Motion for Rule 23 Class Action Certification Deadlines and
Hearing Dates to Allow for Mediation in the case, SARMAD SYED,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
ASHLEY BALFOUR, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. M-I, L.L.C., a Delaware Limited
Liability Company, doing business as M-I SWACO; and, DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:12-cv-01718-DAD-MJS
(E.D. Cal.).

Specifically, these class certification deadlines are continued:

     (1) the deadline for Defendant's opposition to Plaintiffs'
motion to amend is continued from April 19, 2016 to October 4,
2016;

     (2) the deadline for Plaintiffs to file a reply in support of
their motion to amend is continued from April 26, 2016 to October
11, 2016;

     (3) the hearing on Plaintiffs' motion to amend is continued
from May 3, 2016 to October 18, 2016 at 9:30 a.m.;

     (4) the deadline for Defendant's opposition to Plaintiffs'
Motion for class certification is continued from June 7, 2016 to
November 22, 2016;

     (5) the deadline for Plaintiffs to file a reply in support of
their motion for class certification is continued from June 14,
2016 to November 29, 2016; and

     (6) the hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
is continued from June 21, 2016 to December 6, 2016 at 9:30 a.m..

A copy of the Court's Order dated April 8 is available at
http://is.gd/A4tablfrom Leagle.com.


MARRIOTT HOTEL: "McCarthy" Suit Seeks Damages Under Labor Code
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gavin McCarthy, Sandra Villanueva, and Yesenia Ortiz,
individually, and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public, the Plaintiffs, v.
Marriott Hotel Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Marriott
International, Inc. a Delaware corporation, and Does 1-25,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 16CV293998 (Cal. Super Ct.,
April 18, 2016), seeks to recover all damages and/or penalties
pursuant to Labor Code, including interest, attorneys' fees, and
costs of suit under the Labor Code.

According to the complaint, Defendants knew or should have known
that Plaintiffs and the Class were entitled to timely payment of
all wages earned upon termination. The Plaintiffs and the Class
did not receive payment of all wages, including but not limited
to, meal and rest break premiums, in violation of the Labor Code.

Marriott Hotel provides hospitality and lodging facilities
worldwide.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David R. Markham, Esq.
          Peggy Reali, Esq.
          Maggie K. Realin, Esq.
          THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM
          750 B Street, Suite 1950
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 399 3995
          Facsimile: (619) 615 2067
          E-mail: dmarkham@markham-law.com
                  preali@markham-law.com
                  mrealin@markham-law.com

               - and -

          Debra L. Hurst, Esq.
          Kyle Van Dyke, Esq.
          Julie Corbo Ridley, Esq.
          HURST & HURST
          701 B Street, Suite 1700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 236 0016
          Facsimile: (619) 236 8569
          E-mail: dhurst@hurst-hurst.com
                  kvandyke@hurst-hurst.com
                  julie@hurst-hurst.com

               - and -

          Walter L. Haines, Esq.
          UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP, PC
          5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 201
          Huntington Beach, CA 92649
          Telephone: (562) 256 1047
          Facsimile: (562) 256 1006
          E-mail: walter@whaines.com


MCCORMICK: Sued Over Too Much Empty Space in Pepper Tin
-------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Goldstein, writing for NPR, reports that a large spice
company recently started putting less peppe r in its tins -- and
leaving empty space at the top of the tin. There's a technical
term for that empty space: "non-functional slack fill."

The McCormick spice company has made a small change to its
familiar tins of black pepper.  Consumers may not have noticed,
but some lawyers did.  That change is now the basis of a class-
action lawsuit.

Elizabeth Fegan is one of the lead lawyers for the plaintiffs.

The pepper company, McCormick, wouldn't talk to us for the story.
But they have argued in court filings, hey, we put the correct
amount of pepper right there on the front of the tin for everyone
to see.  Ms. Fegan says it doesn't matter.

Ms. Fegan says "there's a specific law that prohibits what's
called nonfunctional slack-fill".

"Nonfunctional slack-fill, which means making a large package but
only filling it with a small amount of product."

Side note, there is such a thing as functional slack-fill.  That
is air that's in the package for a reason, like to keep potato
chips from getting crushed.  But Ms. Fegan argues there is no
reason for it in the pepper case.  And millions of consumers may
be entitled to a few dollars each.

If Ms. Fegan wins the case or negotiates a settlement, fees for
her and the other lawyers involved could be over a million
dollars.  There has been a backlash to class actions. Businesses
have started including clauses in contracts to make it harder for
people to sue.  And a bunch of class action challenges have gone
to the Supreme Court, with mixed results.  One of the people who
helped create the modern class action is an NYU professor named
Arthur Miller.  And he says he understands the backlash.


MIAMI BEACH: Faces "Brush" Suit in Southern District of Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Miami Beach Healthcare Group. The
case is captioned Barbara Brush, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Miami Beach
Healthcare Group, Ltd., doing business as: Aventura Hospital and
Medical Center, a Florida limited partnership, and HCA-EmCare
Holdings, LLC, doing business as: Valesco Ventures, a Delaware
limited liability company, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-21373-
JAL (S.D. Fla., April 18, 2016). The Assigned Judge is Hon. Joan
A. Lenard.

Miami Beach Healthcare is a large-sized organization in the
general medical and surgical hospitals industry located in Miami,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven R. Jaffe, Esq.
          FARMER JAFFE WEISSING EDWARDS FISTOS & LEHRMAN PL
          425 N Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 524 2820
          Facsimile: (954) 524 2822
          E-mail: steve@pathtojustice.com


MICHEL ET AUGUSTIN: Recalls Butter Cookies Due to Hazelnut
----------------------------------------------------------
Michel et Augustin Inc. of Brooklyn, NY, is recalling
approximately 900 packages of its Petites baguettes butter cookies
Dark Chocolate, 6 packs only, because they may contain undeclared
hazelnuts. People who have an allergy to hazelnuts run the risk of
serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume this
product.

Michel et Augustin Petites baguettes butter cookies Dark Chocolate
were distributed to retail stores throughout New York City.

The product is packaged in a sealed polypropylene film inside a
cardboard box (6 cookies per box), NET WT. 1.58 oz., UPC
812668020166, with a Best before date 07 2016 (located on back of
the package).

No illnesses or complaints have been reported to date.

The recall was initiated after the firm discovered packages that
had visible pieces of nuts on top of the butter cookies.
Subsequent investigation by the firm and foreign manufacturer
revealed that a small quantity of packages of the milk chocolate
and hazelnut recipe were incorrectly packed into Dark chocolate
packages, and hazelnuts are not listed on the label.

Consumers who have purchased Michel et Augustin Petites baguettes
butter cookies Dark Chocolate, 6 packs, with Best before date 07
2016 and are allergic to hazelnuts should not consume this
product. Consumers are urged to return the product to the place of
purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions should
contact the company at 1-646-820-0935, Monday - Friday, 9 am - 6
pm, EDT.

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


MIDLAND CREDIT: "Digiacomo" Class Suit Moved to E.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------
Danielle Digiacomo, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, and Encore Capital Group, Inc., the Plaintiffs, v.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., and Midland Funding, LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 514385/2015, was removed from the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, County of Kings, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn).
The Eastern District Court assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-01875 to the
proceeding.

Midland Credit is a third-party asset recovery (debt collection)
company.

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Matthew Brady Johnson
          MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN
          Wall Street Plaza
          88 Pine Street, 21st Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 376 6433
          Facsimile: (212) 376 6490
          E-mail: mbjohnson@mdwcg.com


MISSOURI: April 25 Class Action Status Report Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------
Jesse Bogan, writing for St. Louis Post-Dispatch, reports that a
federal judge ruled in a trial in September that Missouri's
treatment of civilly committed sexually violent predators was not
constitutional.

In her opinion, U.S. District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig noted there
was a "pervasive sense of hopelessness" at the Department of
Mental Health's Sex Offender Rehabilitation and Treatment Services
program, or SORTS, which has facilities in Farmington and Fulton.

Seven months later, the remedy phase of the class-action lawsuit
slogs on.

A March 30 status report hearing didn't happen and has been
extended to April 25.

Attorneys on both sides of the case have been privately
negotiating a resolution, with agreement from the court to do so.
There are indications of a logjam between plaintiff attorneys and
those for the state, which lost at trial.

"Here are the losers at this stage telling us we are done
negotiating," Eric Selig, a lead attorney for the plaintiffs, said
March 31 in Kansas City at a Missouri Association of Defense
Lawyers awards banquet.

Nanci Gonder, a spokeswoman for the attorney general's office,
said it wouldn't comment as the case is ongoing.

The lawsuit started in 2009 as a complaint from patients who
didn't think they should be charged for care and treatment at
SORTS that they didn't want.

The Eastern District of Missouri assigned the case on a pro-bono
basis to a lead litigator at the Clayton-based law firm Armstrong
Teasdale.

The attorney, Richard Scherrer, who typically would bill clients
more than $500 an hour, broadened the case to a class action
lawsuit that accused SORTS of being a prison disguised as a mental
health hospital because nobody was being released for completing
treatment.

Before the trial ended last April, Gov. Jay Nixon, a Democrat,
supported the SORTS program as a needed public safety tool. He
said judges weighed annual reports to determine when patients
deserve to be released.

But plaintiffs' attorneys, including the American Civil Liberties
Union of Missouri, sifted through hundreds of thousands of pages
of the program's documents and found a damning memo.  The former
chief of operations wrote in 2009 that 16 patients could be moved
to the St. Louis Psychiatric Rehabilitation Center, a less
restrictive facility at 5300 Arsenal Street.  The patients weren't
moved.

Mr. Scherrer, who is no longer the lead litigator of the
plaintiff's case, said at the recent awards banquet in Kansas City
that Armstrong Teasdale intends to bill the state for its work.


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Appeals Court Affirms Concussion Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bill Chapell, writing for NPR, reports that a federal appeals
court has affirmed an NFL settlement with retired players that
could cost the league $1 billion to handle brain-injury claims
over the next 65 years, rejecting appeals from players who
disagreed with the terms of the deal.

Covering more than 20,000 retired players, the settlement promises
to end hundreds of lawsuits filed by athletes who say they
suffered chronic traumatic encephalopathy, or CTE.  In March, a
senior NFL official made headlines for acknowledging that football
has been linked to the degenerative brain disease -- something
that league officials had previously refrained from saying in
public.

But that admission didn't open the NFL to increased penalties,
according to the three judges who heard the case for the 3rd U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals.  They also refused to reject the
settlement on the basis of the appellants' other objections,
including their claim that the deal isn't generous enough to cover
all currently retired players for decades to come.

"Though not perfect, it is fair," the judges wrote of the
settlement in their opinion.  They said that those appealing the
deal "risk making the perfect the enemy of the good."

The settlement does not cover players who are currently in the
NFL.  It was approved last April by U.S. District Judge Anita B.
Brody.

One of the lead plaintiffs in the class-action case against the
NFL was Kevin Turner, who died in March at age 46.

A former star at Alabama, Mr. Turner went on to an NFL career as a
running back, playing for the Philadelphia Eagles and the
New England Patriots.  But for the last six years of his life,
Turner suffered from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS.  That
disease is covered by the settlement, along with Parkinson's,
Alzheimer's and other neurocognitive conditions.

The deal attaches a financial award to different serious
conditions diagnosed in former players. Here is the overview of
maximum payouts:

Level 1.5 neurocognitive impairment: $1.5 million
Level 2 neurocognitive impairment: $3 million
Parkinson's disease: $3.5 million
Alzheimer's disease: $3.5 million
Death with CTE: $4 million
ALS: $5 million

In an information page about the settlement, "level 1.5
neurocognitive impairment" is described as "early dementia [with]
moderate to severe cognitive decline." Level 2 is described as
"moderate dementia [with] severe cognitive decline."

In their appeal, the plaintiffs listed a range of effects of CTE,
from headaches, depression and an increased risk of suicide to
memory loss, dementia and language impairment.  They also said the
NFL sought to minimize the public's perception of the risk of head
trauma as far back as 1994, when it created the Mild Traumatic
Brain Injury Committee -- a body that the plaintiffs say was "at
the forefront of a disinformation campaign that disseminated 'junk
science,' " the appeals court notes.

News of the NFL deal's confirmation comes months after thousands
of former college athletes reached their own deal with the NCAA; a
federal judge has given preliminary approval to that deal.


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Ruling Paves Way for Personal Injury Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that the 3rd U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals opinion approving the National Football
League's $1 billion class action settlement with more than 20,000
retired players devotes a lot of words to the U.S. Supreme Court's
landmark 1997 decision in Amchem v. Windsor.  Most of those words
are intended to draw a line between Amchem and the NFL litigation,
which addresses claims that retired players had suffered traumatic
head injuries.  In one place in the April 18 3rd Circuit ruling,
Judge Thomas Ambro, who wrote the opinion for a panel that also
included Judges Thomas Hardiman and Richard Nygaard, flat-out
says, "Simply put, this case is not Amchem."

The 3rd Circuit took such pains to discuss and ultimately
distinguish Amchem because that case, along with the Supreme
Court's 1999 followup, Ortiz v. Fibreboard, pretty much killed off
the use of class actions to settle large swaths of personal injury
cases.  Amchem, as you probably remember, struck down a proposed
class action settlement that would have resolved present and
future claims against a few dozen asbestos defendants, holding
that class members who have already been injured have an inherent
conflict with absent class members who will suffer an injury in
the future. (In Ortiz, the justices said a settlement cannot bar
absent class members from opting out just because class counsel
and the defendants agree to a limited fund deal.)

Since Amchem and Ortiz, class action settlements of personal
injury claims have been as rare as a 1933 Double Eagle.  American
Home Products (now Wyeth) spent billions in the early 2000s on a
class action settlement in the fen-phen diet drug litigation. More
recently, BP settled some personal injury claims in the Deepwater
Horizon oil spill litigation through a class action. And that's
about it, at least in high-profile litigation.

Instead of class action settlements, mass torts are now resolved
through consolidated multidistrict litigation, sometimes through
piecemeal settlements between defendants and particular
plaintiffs' firms, sometimes -- as in the Vioxx case -- through a
global matrix that has many of the same features as a class
action.  The most recent statistics show 40 percent of all civil
litigation in U.S. courts takes place in an MDL. Not all of those
MDLs involve personal injuries, of course, but lots do.

We can debate forever whether class actions or global MDL
settlements are a fairer and more efficient way to resolve the
claims of thousands of people.  In MDLs, individual plaintiffs
have their own lawyers, even though court-appointed lead counsel
drive the litigation.  In class actions, class counsel have
obligations to everyone in the class and the court has oversight
powers.

But over the past 20 years, since Amchem, the personal injury
class action v. MDL dialectic has been almost entirely
hypothetical -- as, for example, in a concurrence by 3rd Circuit
Judge Anthony Scirica in the court's 2011 en banc decision in the
antitrust class action Sullivan v. DB Investments -- because
Amchem and Ortiz seemed to have made class action personal injury
settlements obsolete.

The 3rd Circuit's NFL decision may have brought them back to life.
In the NFL concussion case, as in the old Amchem case, some class
members have already experienced horrible injuries but for others,
symptoms haven't yet developed.  To comply with Amgen, the judge
overseeing the NFL case, U.S. District Judge Anita Brody of
Philadelphia, made sure these claimants of the future had their
own counsel in settlement discussions with the NFL (albeit one who
had been serving on the plaintiffs' steering committee before the
subclass was created).  She also refused to allow the NFL to cap
payouts under the settlement, although the settlement does include
a maximum payout for each plaintiff based on factors such as
diagnosis, age and years of play in the league.

Objectors to the settlement argued that Judge Brody's structural
protections hadn't adequately resolved the conflicting interests
of present and future class members.  The 3rd Circuit said they
had.

"Class counsel here took Amchem into account by using the subclass
structure to protect the sometimes divergent interests of the
retired players," the opinion said.  "Moreover, the terms of the
settlement reflect that the interests of current and future
claimants were represented in the negotiations.  The monetary
award fund will start paying out claims immediately, providing
relief to those currently living with injuries (but) the fund is
uncapped and inflation adjusted, protecting the interests of those
who worry about developing injuries in the future."

The NFL case began as an MDL before both sides decided to settle
via a class action, as the 3rd Circuit judges pointed out, so
thousands of retired players had their own lawyers to look out for
their interests and advise them whether to take the deal.  The one
percent opt-out rate, according to the 3rd Circuit, despite the
"many sets of eyes reviewing the terms of the settlement," is a
good indicator that plaintiffs' negotiators represented the
interests of all of the retirees.

The Supreme Court did not mean for Amchem to squelch all personal
injury class action settlements, the 3rd Circuit said, quoting the
Amchem court's insistence that "even mass tort cases arising from
a common cause or disaster may, depending upon the circumstances,
satisfy the predominance requirement."

New York University law professor Samuel Issacharoff, who argued
at the 3rd Circuit for plaintiffs in favor of the class action,
told Ms. Frankel on April 19 that the court's opinion should
embolden defendants and class counsel to once again use class
actions to resolve mass personal injury litigation, even with the
higher bar for class certification in the post Wal-Mart v. Dukes
era.  The panel's analysis was methodical and fact-bound,
Mr. Issacharoff said, but its message is almost revolutionary: You
can settle a mass tort via a class action.

"I emailed one of the lawyers who argued the case for objectors,
Deepak Gupta of Gupta Wessler, who passed my inquiry on to
objectors' counsel Brian Wolfman of Stanford Law School.
Mr. Wolfman told me the interests of future claimants weren't
taken into account enough in the settlement, especially when you
consider inflation.  I asked whether the 3rd Circuit's approval
will lead to more mass torts class action settlements; Wolfman
said that's 'too broad a question to answer yes or no.'"

Paul Clement of Bancroft argued for the NFL at the 3rd Circuit.
Howard Bashman of the beloved How Appealing blog also argued for
objectors.


NETSOL TECHNOLOGIES: June 27 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on April 18 disclosed that the United
States District Court for the Central District of California
Western Division has approved the following announcement of a
proposed class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of
common stock of NetSol Technologies, Inc.:

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED NETSOL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. COMMON
STOCK BETWEEN OCTOBER 24, 2013 AND NOVEMBER 8, 2013, INCLUSIVE

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, that a
hearing will be held on June 27, 2016 at 1:30 p.m. before the
Honorable Percy Anderson, United States District Judge of the
Central District of California, 312 North Spring Street,
Los Angeles, CA 90012-4701 (the "Settlement Hearing") for the
purpose of determining:  (1) whether the proposed Settlement
consisting of the sum of $850,000.00 should be approved by the
Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the proposed
plan to distribute the settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable,
and adequate; (3) whether the application for an award of
attorneys' fees of $212,500 or 25% of the settlement amount and
reimbursement of case-related expenses of not more than $75,000
and a case contribution award payment of no more than $1,000 to
the Plaintiff, should be approved; and (4) whether the Litigation
should be dismissed with prejudice. A portion of the Settlement
Fund also will be used to pay taxes due on any interest earned by
the Settlement Fund, if necessary, and any notice and claims
administration expenses permitted by the Court.

If you purchased NetSol common stock between October 24, 2013 and
November 8, 2013, inclusive (the "Class Period"), your rights may
be affected by the Settlement of this action.  If you have not
received a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of
Class Action and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release, you may
obtain copies by writing to the Claims Administrator: NetSol
Technologies, Inc. Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, P.O.
Box 230, 600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 3, Media, PA 19063, or going
to the website www.strategicclaims.net

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 June 13, 2016 to the
Claims Administrator, establishing that you are entitled to
recovery.  Unless you submit a written exclusion request, you will
be bound by any judgment rendered in the Litigation whether or not
you make a claim.  If you desire to be excluded from the Class,
you must submit a request for exclusion postmarked no later than
June 13, 2016, in the manner and form explained in the detailed
Notice to the Claims Administrator.

Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or the
Plaintiff's Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of case-related expenses must be in the manner and
form explained in the detailed Notice and received no later than
June 6, 2016, to each of the following:

Clerk of the Court
United States District Court
Central District of California
312 North Spring Street, Room G-8
Los Angeles, CA 90012

Thomas J. McKenna
GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON
440 Park Avenue South, 5th Floor
New York, New York 10016
Tel: (212) 983-1300
Fax: (212) 983-0383
Class Counsel

Sean T. Prosser
PERKINS COIE LLP
11988 El Camino Real, Suite 350
San Diego, CA  92130
Tel:  (858) 720-5700
Fax:  (858) 720-5799
Counsel for Defendants

If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or
write Class Counsel.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.


NESHAMINY ELECTRICAL: Faces "Roth" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
William F. Roth (Roth), on behalf of himself and similarly
situated v. Neshaminy Electrical Contractors, Case No. 2:16-cv-
01794-CMR (E.D. Penn., April 14, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Neshaminy Electrical Contractors performs commercial and
industrial electrical installation services in Pennsylvania, New
Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott M. Pollins, Esq.
      POLLINS LAW FIRM
      800 Westdale Avenue
      Swarthmore, PA 19081-2311
      Telephone: (610) 896-9909
      Facsimile: (610) 896-9910
      E-mail: scott@pollinslaw.com


NII HOLDINGS: Labaton Recovers $41.5MM in Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP on April 19 disclosed that the firm achieved
a $41.5 million settlement, subject to court approval, in a
securities class action on behalf of the Pension Trust Fund for
Operating Engineers Pension Plan and the International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local No. 58/Southeastern Michigan
Chapter National Electrical Contractors Association (SMC NECA)
Benefit Funds in In re NII Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation,
against certain former executives of NII Holdings, Inc. (NII).
NII is a telecommunications company that, through its
subsidiaries, operates wireless voice and data networks in Latin
America under the Nextel brand.

E. Craig Young, the administrator of the IBEW Local No. 58/SMC
NECA Benefit Funds commented, "We are very pleased to have reached
this result on behalf of the class.  Ensuring that the best
interests of our members are constantly maintained is of the
utmost importance to us, and with the help of Labaton Sucharow, we
can continue to uphold our mission to protect those interests from
corporate misconduct."

First to file the securities class action complaint and led by
Labaton Sucharow partners Joel H. Bernstein --
jbernstein@labaton.com -- Mark S. Arisohn -- marisohn@labaton.com
-- and Serena Hallowell -- shallowell@labaton.com -- Labaton
Sucharow served as co-lead counsel in this case, which took place
in the Eastern District of Virginia -- otherwise known as the
"rocket docket" for its speedy disposition of cases.

Prior to and during the class period (February 25, 2010 to
February 27, 2014), NII's wireless service featured a unique,
walkie-talkie like "Push to Talk" (PTT) communication function.
Among other factors, the decline of PTT in the United States and
increased demand for higher speed data availability compelled NII
to transition its wireless services -- including its signature PTT
service -- from a 2 to 3G network.  While NII was transitioning to
the more modern 3G network, the company raised $1.45 billion in
funding through the issuance of publicly traded debt securities by
NII Capital.  The plaintiffs allege in the complaint that within
that time, NII made nearly 100 misstatements and omissions
regarding allegations including those concerning defendants'
misrepresentations about NII's instant-communication PTT function
during its transition from 2G to 3G technology and NII's efforts
to attract and retain high-quality subscribers.  When the truth
emerged, plaintiffs alleged that shareholders suffered substantial
losses caused by significant declines in the value of the
company's stock and NII Capital's bonds.

NII filed for bankruptcy mid-litigation and was eventually
released as a defendant, which led to a host of complex issues the
Firm's team effectively navigated.  The case was further
complicated in that the allegations heavily involved Latin
America, which posed discovery challenges including obtaining key
discovery from these countries within the compressed schedule of
the rocket docket.  Notwithstanding these hurdles, the parties
were successfully able to negotiate an agreement in principle to
settle in the amount of $41.5 million.

                  About Labaton Sucharow LLP

Labaton Sucharow -- http://www.labaton.com-- prosecutes
precedent-setting class actions, recovering billions of dollars on
behalf of defrauded investors and consumers.  The Firm litigates
in the areas of securities, antitrust, and consumer protection
law.


NIKE: Faces Class Action Over False "Suggested Retail Price"
------------------------------------------------------------
KOIN reports that Nike is being sued for $5 million in a class
action lawsuit.

The lawsuit, filed on April 18 in U.S. District Court, alleges
that Nike has been deceptive and misleading in its labeling and
marketing of items sold at its outlet stores.

The lawsuit states: "Nike misrepresented the existence, nature and
amount of price discounts on products sold in Nike Outlet stores
by purporting to offer discounts off of a false 'Suggested Retail
Price,' which the Plaintiff understood to be short for the
commonly used retail phrase: Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price
(MSRP.)"

The lawsuit claims "Nike led consumers to believe that its MSRPs
represented authentic price information about the products they
purchased.  In reality, Nike manufactures the Nike Outlet Products
for exclusive sale at its Nike Outlets and always sells these
goods for the advertised "OUR PRICE," never the MSRP."

Nike said it would not comment on pending litigation.


PF CHANG: 7th Cir. Reverses Data Breach Class Action Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Caleb Skeath, Esq. -- cskeath@cov.com -- of Covington & Burling
LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, reports that the
Seventh Circuit handed down another friendly ruling for data
breach class action plaintiffs, reversing a district court's
dismissal of a class action complaint over a 2014 data breach at
P.F. Chang's restaurants.  In reversing the district court's
holding that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated Article III
standing, the Seventh Circuit ruled that the risk of future
fraudulent charges and identity theft created by the breach as
reported by P.F. Chang's constituted a "certainly impending"
future injury sufficient to confer Article III standing.  This
decision builds on an earlier ruling from the Seventh Circuit that
revived a data breach suit filed against Neiman Marcus, and will
create further incentives for future plaintiffs to file data
breach class action lawsuits in the federal courts of Illinois,
Indiana, and Wisconsin, when jurisdictionally possible.

The class action against P.F. Chang's (Lewert v. P.F. Chang's
China Bistro) stems from a breach of the computer systems at P.F.
Chang's restaurants, announced in June 2014.  The breach resulted
in the theft of credit and debit card information belonging to
consumers who dined at certain P.F. Chang's restaurants.  Although
P.F. Chang's initial announcement of the breach indicated that the
restaurant chain was not certain how many locations had been
affected, P.F. Chang's later announced in August 2014 that the
breach had only affected thirty-three restaurant locations.

The two plaintiffs in Lewert both ate at a P.F. Chang's restaurant
that was not included in the list of affected locations, but both
brought claims for the breach.  One plaintiff observed four
fraudulent charges on the debit card shortly after dining at PF
Chang's, cancelled his card, and purchased a credit monitoring
service.  The other plaintiff "spent time and effort" monitoring
his credit report and credit card statements after hearing about
the breach.  The district court dismissed the suit on Article III
grounds, holding that the allegations of future harm of identity
theft or fraudulent charges were too speculative to satisfy
Article III.

The Seventh Circuit, however, held that these allegations were
sufficient to demonstrate Article III standing, relying on its
July 2015 holding in Remijas v. Neiman Marcus Group in the
process.  In Remijas, the Seventh Circuit held that the increased
risk of fraudulent charges or identity theft following a data
breach affecting the plaintiffs' credit or debit card information
could satisfy the post-Clapper "certainly impeding" standard for
Article III standing.  Although P.F. Chang's argued that Remijas
could be distinguished on the grounds that P.F. Chang's, unlike
Neiman Marcus, disputed whether the plaintiffs' information was
disclosed in the breach, the Seventh Circuit disagreed.  Instead,
the Seventh Circuit held that the plaintiffs had "plausibly
alleged" that their data was stolen, because P.F. Chang's initial
statement regarding the breach was directed to all P.F. Chang's
customers and did not distinguish between restaurant locations.
As the court stated, when "the corporation reacts as if that
breach could affect all of its locations, it is certainly
plausible that all of its locations were in fact affected."  The
court characterized P.F. Chang's assertions that only thirty-three
restaurants were affected as a "factual dispute" that should be
resolved at a later stage in the case.

The Seventh Circuit pointed to several post-breach statements made
by P.F. Chang's as the primary basis for its holdings, including
statements about the scope of the breach and advice to affected
individuals.  The court's holding not only establishes the Seventh
Circuit as friendly territory for data breach class action
plaintiffs, but also highlights the importance of thoroughly
vetting communications to consume.


PJT PARTNERS: June 14 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of PJT Partners Inc. ("PJT") between November 12, 2015
and March 28, 2016. You are hereby notified that a securities
class action lawsuit has been commenced in the USDC for the
Southern District of New York. To get more information go to:

http://www.zlk.com/pslra/pjt-partners-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 throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) PJT's compliance and fraud-prevention controls were
inadequate; (2) as a consequence of PJT's inadequate controls,
Andrew W. W. Caspersen, a managing partner at the Company's
private-equity arm, Park Hill Group, perpetrated a criminal scheme
to defraud investors.

On March 28, 2016, news reports revealed that Caspersen was
arrested and charged with defrauding investors of more than $95
million.  A criminal complaint was filed in federal court, in
addition to a complaint filed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.  In a press release, PJT Partners announced Caspersen
had been terminated after they were "stunned and outraged to learn
of the fraudulent circumvention and violation" of the Company's
ethical and compliance standards.

If you suffered a loss in PJT Partners you have until June 14,
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.


PREMIER NUTRITION: Judge Certifies Class in Supplement Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Dye, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal judge has
certified a class of California consumers who claim they were
duped by marketing statements for a nutritional supplement
targeting joint pain sufferers, while questioning whether
conflicts among states' consumer-protection laws mean the class
cannot be expanded nationwide.

In his ruling on April 15 in a case against Premier Nutrition, the
maker of drinkable supplement Joint Juice, U.S. District Judge
Richard Seeborg in the Northern District of California requested
additional briefing from both parties on what impact the 9th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals' 2012 decision in Mazza v. American Honda
should have on plaintiff Kathie Sonner's request to include all
U.S. customers in the class.


PRIME AID: Faces "Reyes" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------
Margarette Reyes, individually and in behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Prime Aid Pharmacy Corporation, Alex
Fleyshmakher, Igor Fleyshmakher, and Samuel Khimov, Case No. 1:16-
cv-02789 (S.D.N.Y., April 14, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate Prime Aid Pharmacy located at 373 East
Fordham Road, Bronx, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brandon David Sherr, Esq.
      Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
      John Gurrieri, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
      277 Broadway, Suite 408
      New York, NY 10007
      Telephone: (212) 229-2249
      Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
      E-mail: bsherr@zellerlegal.com
              Jazeller@zellerlegal.com
              jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com


PROGRESSIVE GOURMET: Recalls Frozen Edamame Due to Shellfish
------------------------------------------------------------
Progressive Gourmet Inc. of Wilmington, MA, is voluntarily
recalling its frozen, 9 ounce packages of Taste of Inspirations
Edamame Rangoon out of an abundance of caution because they have
the potential to contain crustacean shellfish (crab). People who
have an allergy to crustacean shellfish run the risk of serious or
life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products.
The item is produced for Hannaford Supermarkets.
The product comes in a 9 ounce carton, marked with Best Before: 1
1117 on the back of the retail carton. Note, no other production
runs of this product are impacted by this recall.

The potentially impacted Edamame Rangoon were possibly sold to
consumers at select Hannaford stores located in Maine,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and New York.

A consumer reported the mislabeling incident. The firm has
initiated prompt corrective actions to prevent future mislabeling.
No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
product.

Consumers who have purchased 9 ounce packages of the edamame
rangoon are urged to return them to the place of purchase for a
full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at
1-800-224-7630 (9:00 am - 5:00 pm Monday through Friday EST).

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/Sb7nto


R.J. REYNOLDS: Fee Dispute Hampers $3.5MM Award Distribution
------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Kay, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that a
dispute among plaintiffs attorneys over the division of attorney
fees has hung up the distribution of a $3.5 million jury award
against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. in an Engle progeny tobacco case
after appeal.

A six-member legal team won the verdict three years ago, and the
losing defendant isn't standing in the way of payment.

But Miami attorney Donald Fitzgerald of the Fitzgerald Law Firm
filed a charging lien last December in Escambia Circuit Court,
alleging a dispute exists about the undisclosed fee distribution
agreement.

Details of the fee agreement are confidential.  However, the
plaintiffs attorneys say the split by the six lawyers is not even.
Payment was approved by R.J. Reynolds but will not be made until
the fee dispute is resolved in one of about 8,000 smoker cases
filed after a statewide class action was disbanded by the Florida
Supreme Court.

After unsuccessfully attempting to get the charging lien
dissolved, one of Fitzgerald's former co-counsel sued him on
Feb. 8 in Miami-Dade Circuit Court.  Coral Gables attorney Richard
J. Diaz sued on behalf of plaintiff Robert Thibault, the husband
of the late smoker Evelyn Thibault, both residents of Navarre.

The other plaintiffs attorneys are Miami attorney J.B. Harris,
Tallahassee attorney Robert Trammell, Coral Gables attorney Carlos
Santisteban Jr. and Key Biscayne attorney John Crabtree. The group
has collaborated on a handful of other smoker cases but worked on
only one with Fitzgerald before.

"We received a settlement on attorney fees that we felt was fair,
and Mr. Fitzgerald took it upon himself to try to hold up the
settlement," Mr. Harris said.  "As a result of his selfishness and
greed, this will have the effect of holding up the distribution to
a sick and elderly client -- his own client."

Mr. Fitzgerald did not return calls or emails for comment by
deadline.

Mr. Diaz's lawsuit alleges malpractice, breach of contract, breach
of fiduciary duty and intentional infliction of emotional
distress.  The lawsuit contends Fitzgerald filed the lien because
he was in debt to a third-party litigation funding company --
Appellate Advance -- after borrowing money during the appellate
process.

Many plaintiffs attorneys finance their litigation while waiting
for the appellate process to wind down.

"Some time after the verdict, Fitzgerald applied for advanced
funding from a third-party funding company during the appellate
process," the suit said.  "These types of funding companies are
quite unique.  Generally speaking, they gamble against the
likelihood of an ultimate affirmation of the jury's verdict."
The companies provide 50 percent advance financing of the
anticipated fee payable and require the attorney to repay 200
percent of the amount borrowed plus interest until the final
judgment is paid.

The suit alleges Mr. Fitzgerald may have overstated the amount of
fees he was due to get a higher loan.

"To obtain this advanced funding, Mr. Fitzgerald had to make
certain representations to the funding company and assign all (or
a part) of his interest in the expected final payout on the
judgment," the suit continues.


ROBERT HALF: Supreme Court to Decide on Legal Team's Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jocelyn Larkin, writing for San Francisco Chronicle, reports that
the California Supreme Court soon will decide how best to
compensate the legal team that has now persevered for more than a
decade representing Lafitte and his co-workers.

Mark Laffitte and his co-workers at a large staffing agency had
had enough of their employer's wage theft by 2004 and, with the
help of legal advocates, filed a class-action lawsuit for nearly
4,000 workers.

Class actions, like Mr. Lafitte's, benefit millions of
Californians every day.  Class actions promote equal pay for equal
work, challenge race discrimination, safeguard the environment and
deter corporate fraud and hidden fees.  Class actions provide
access to the courts for everybody -- not just big corporations --
supplying a check in our judicial system. Class actions save time
and money because thousands of claims get resolved in a single
case.

Eight years after Mr. Laffitte's case was filed, the employer
settled for $19 million.  After careful evaluation, the court
awarded 33 percent of the fund to his advocates as compensation
for their work.  Just one class member objected to the fees and
appealed the settlement.  The California Supreme Court soon will
decide how best to compensate the legal team that has now
persevered for more than a decade representing Lafitte and his co-
workers.  Getting this question right in this and future cases
will be critical for preserving class actions as a viable tool for
justice.

At the heart of the issue is a practical problem: how to get
someone -- an attorney -- to risk spending the time and money
necessary to help victims and hold law breakers accountable.  In
class actions, attorneys get paid only if and when they are
successful, and often after many years and substantial investment
of their own money in fronting expenses.  The answer, under
California law, is to provide fair compensation to the advocates
who undertake and win these David-versus-Goliath struggles.

As it stands now, if a case is successful, then the judge, who has
observed the advocates' work firsthand, sets the compensation.  He
or she is in the best position to know how good a job has been
done and whether the advocates have achieved a good result.
Californians don't need another expensive layer of bureaucracy to
second-guess our able and experienced judges.

Judges use the same methods to compensate a successful team of
class-action advocates that are used in ordinary cases, either
allocating a percentage of the amount of the money received by the
plaintiff or authorizing an hourly rate.

In cases where a percentage is used, the average in class actions
is 25 percent, lower than the up to 40 percent that a person would
pay to bring the same lawsuit on his or her own. Compensating the
legal team in class actions based on a percentage ensures that the
attorney's interest is always 100 percent aligned with the
victim's.  Awarding an hourly rate, on the other hand, makes sense
when the result is not money, but corporate or government reform,
such as ending a discriminatory practice.

Every class member gets a notice about what the proposed payment
to the legal team is and can provide his or her views to the
judge.  No fee is ever approved under cover of night -- in every
class action, the judge scrutinizes the nature and quality of work
done to ensure that the compensation is fair.

Class-action justice is already under attack by big business --
understandably not its biggest fan. Further restrictions will only
discourage the already small community of advocates who take on
these tough cases, depriving ordinary Californians of equal access
to justice.

The case is Laffitte vs. Robert Half International.


S. CARTER ENTERPRISES: Sued in N.D. Cal. Over Tidal Subscription
----------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Baker-Rhett, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. S. Carter Enterprises, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company, and Kanye West, an
individual, together d/b/a Tidal, the Defendants, Case No. 4:16-
cv-02013-KAW (N.D. Cal., April 18, 2016), seeks damages,
disgorgement of Defendants' profits, and restitution, based upon
their conduct of fraudulently inducing consumers to subscribe to
Tidal -- a subscription-based music streaming service owned by the
Defendants.

The Plaintiff seeks an order requiring Tidal to delete the private
information of Plaintiff and the Class members that it collected;
cancel all outstanding negative options of any free trials created
during the class period; and cease any monetization efforts
relying on the illegally obtained information. Tidal was purchased
by music mogul Shawn "Jay Z" Carter in 2015.

According to the complaint, Mr. West's promise of exclusive access
to The Life of Pablo conferred an enormous benefit upon Tidal: a
tripled subscriber base, replete with access to the personal and
financial data of its more than two million new subscribers.
Contrary to Mr. West's representations, however, the purportedly
"exclusive" access to The Life of Pablo that Tidal subscribers
were promised was short lived. A month and a half after The Life
of Pablo's initial release, Mr. West allegedly made the album
available through Tidal's biggest competitors, Apple Music and
Spotify. He also began selling the album through his own online
marketplace.

S. Carter Enterprises is engaged in international music, media and
entertainment industry. Kanye West is an International hip-hop
superstar, who owns a portion of Tidal.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Logan, Esq.
          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          329 Bryant Street
          San Francisco, CA 94107
          Telephone: 415 212 9300
          Facsimile: 415 373 9435
          E-mail: slogan@edelson.com
                  jedelson@edelson.com


SAFEWAY INC: Finkelstein Named as Interim Class Counsel
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward M. Chen granted the request of plaintiff Dan
Shiner to appoint Finkelstein Thompson LLP as sole interim class
counsel.  The Court denied plaintiff Ehder Soto's motion to
appoint Bursor & Fisher as interim counsel.

The class action is brought on behalf of purchasers of Safeway
brand and Open Nature brand tuna.  Plaintiffs allege that the
Safeway Tuna cans are underfilled and substantially underweight.

Plaintiffs Dan Shiner, Julie Whitson, and Mauri Sanders are
represented by Rosemary M. Rivas -- rrivas@finkelsteinthompson.com
-- Finkelstein Thompson LLP.

Ehder Soto, Plaintiff, represented by Lawrence Timothy Fisher --
ltfisher@bursor.com -- Julia A. Luster -- jluster@bursor.com --
Scott A. Bursor -- scott@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A., and
Rosemary M. Rivas, Finkelstein Thompson LLP.

Heney Shihad, Plaintiff, represented by Reuben D. Nathan, Nathan &
Associates, APC & Rosemary M. Rivas, Finkelstein Thompson LLP.

Safeway Inc., Defendant, represented by Clark Reed Nichols --
CNichols@perkinscoie.com -- and Sunita Bali --
SBali@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie LLP.

A copy of the Court's April 8, 2016 Order is available at
http://is.gd/TmHBfofrom Leagle.com.

The case is, IN RE SAFEWAY TUNA CASES, Case No. 15-cv-05078-EMC
(N.D. Cal.).


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Falsely Marketed LED TVs, "Nance" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Nance, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Case No. 8:16-cv-
00704 (C.D. Cal., April 14, 2016), seeks to recover damages and
restitution in connection with the purchase of Samsung-brand
televisions that were falsely marketed and advertised by Samsung
as "LED TVs," "LED HDTVs" or "LED televisions", but instead are
LCD TVs that use light emitting diodes (LEDs) instead of cold
cathode fluorescent lights (CCFLs) to light the liquid crystal
display (LCD) panel that is present in each of the televisions at
issue.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. operates a consumer electronic
company with its principal place of business located in Ridgefield
Park, New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Hayward J. Kaiser, Esq.
      Gilbert S. Lee, Esq.
      MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP
      11377 West Olympic Boulevard
      Los Angeles, CA  90064
      Telephone: (310) 312-2000
      Facsimile: (310) 312-3100
      E-mail: hjk@msk.com
              gsl@msk.com

         - and -

      Jonathan Shub, Esq.
      KOHN SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
      One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
      Philadelphia, PA  19107
      Telephone: (215) 238-1700
      Facsimile: (215) 238-1968
      E-mail: jshub@kohnswift.com

         - and -

      Francis O. Scarpulla, Esq.
      Patrick B. Clayton, Esq.
      SCARPULLA LAW FIRM
      456 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
      San Francisco, CA  94104
      Telephone: (415) 788-7210
      Facsimile: (415) 788-0706
      E-mail: fos@scarpullalaw.com
              pbs@scarpullalaw.com

         - and -

      Daniel R. Shulman, Esq.
      Gregory R. Merz, Esq.
      Kathryn J. Bergstrom, Esq.
      Dean C. Eyler, Esq.
      GRAY PLANT & MOOTY
      500 IDS Center
      80 South Eighth Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 632-3000
      Facsimile: (612) 632-4444
      E-mail: daniel.shulman@gpmlaw.com
              gregory.merz@gpmlaw.com
              katie.bergstrom@gpmlaw.com
              dean.eyler@gpmlaw.com


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Antitrust Class Action Settlement Challenged
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Hancock, writing for The Recorder, reports that on April 19, a
federal judge was scheduled to hear arguments over a nearly $577
million class action settlement.  The deal is the second largest
for a case of its kind, and would resolve a web of lawsuits
alleging that electronics behemoths like Samsung Electronics Co.
and Philips Electronics North American Corp. colluded to fix the
price of cathode ray tubes, the technology used in old TVs and
monitors.

But there's a battle over who exactly should get paid under the
settlement, as well as how the squadron of attorneys who worked
the case should be compensated.  And it has created a faceoff
within a family with a history of courtroom combat.

In one corner is Mario Alioto of Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott.
Mr. Alioto secured the position of lead counsel for indirect
purchasers in the cathode ray tube class action early on in the
case, which dates back to 2007.  After roughly eight years of
litigation, a payday is in sight for him and other class counsel.
His biggest antagonist has become Francis Scarpulla, Mr. Alioto's
second cousin.  The stance Mr. Scarpulla has taken is awkward not
only because of the family tie.  For one, Scarpulla's client is
not actually objecting to the settlement -- Scarpulla himself is.
And as one of the many plaintiffs lawyers on the case,
Mr. Scarpulla also stands to get paid under the pending settlement
if it's approved.

Nevertheless, Mr. Scarpulla, who runs a solo practice, along with
Josef Cooper of Cooper & Kirkham, have come at Mr. Alioto hard for
what they suggest is a failure to adequately represent the best
interests of the class.  They're also taking issue with how the
proposed $192 million in attorney fees has been calculated. That's
roughly 33 percent of the full settlement fund.

At times, the battle has become a straight-up power struggle.
Messrs. Scarpulla and Cooper late last year sought to make
themselves co-lead counsel in the case, arguing that Mr. Alioto
and his team had "abandoned consumers in more than half of the
country," and that "someone needs to be appointed to protect and
advance their interests."

U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar of the Northern District of
California, who is presiding over the case, denied that motion.
But in February he granted Mr. Scarpulla and Cooper's request to
scrutinize the billing sheets of Alioto's team.

Mr. Scarpulla says his aims are purely altruistic: He wants to get
the best deal for the class and make sure that lawyers who didn't
do their fair share of the work aren't drawing huge sums from the
settlement fund.

But he also acknowledges that his labors could bring some more
material reward.  "If the court thinks we did something beneficial
for the class, then we may get compensated," he said in an
interview, before quickly stressing again that this is not his
chief objective.

Mr. Alioto did not respond to messages and emails requesting
comment.

But in court filings, Mr. Alioto has justified the settlement and
proposed attorney fees as more than fair, especially given the
complexity of the case, and the fact that discovery entailed going
through tens of thousands of documents in multiple languages and
traveling around the world.  He has also deflected criticism of
how lead counsel tracked their time working on the case, pointing
out that Mr. Scarpulla used the same method when he was co-lead
counsel in a similar case over LCD screens.

It's not the first time Aliotos and Scarpullas have tangled in a
fight over attorney fees.  Back in 2013, Mr. Scarpullo and
Joseph M. Alioto -- who is related to Mario and the son of the
former San Francisco mayor -- tussled over who should get the
bigger share of the $300 million fee award they reaped in the LCD
case.  Joseph Alioto has not been heavily involved in the cathode
ray tube case.

Judge Tigar on April 19 would be hearing more about how the
attorney fees should be calculated.  Messrs. Scarpulla and Cooper
argue that rather than starting from a percentage over the overall
settlement, the attorneys involved in the case should first have
to map out how what they did led to a better settlement for the
class.  The pair has insinuated that the way some lead attorneys
tracked their billing hours was sloppy.


SANTA FE NATURAL: "Sproule" Suit Transferred to D. New Mexico
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Justin Sproule, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Santa Fe Natural
Tobacco Company, Inc., and Reynolds American Inc., Case No. 0:15-
cv-62064, was transferred from the District of Florida Southern to
the U.S. District Court District of New Mexico (Albuquerque). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-00296-JB to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff seeks redress for the Defendants' fraudulent and
deceptive trade practices with regards to the labeling and
advertising of the Natural American Spirit cigarettes.

The Defendants own and operate a natural tobacco company in New
Mexico.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan Gdanski, Esq.
      Scott P. Schlesinger, Esq.
      Jeffrey Louis Haberman, Esq.
      SHELDON J. SCHLESINGER PA
      1212 SE 3rd Avenue
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
      Telephone: (954) 467-8800
      Facsimile: (954) 523-4803
      E-mail: Jonathan@schlesingerlawoffices.com
              scott@schlesingerlaw.com
              JHaberman@schlesingerlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      David M. Monde, Esq.
      Michael F. Stoer, Esq.
      JONES DAY
      1420 Peachtree Street, Suite 800
      Atlanta, GA 30309
      Telephone: (404) 521-3939
      Facsimile: (404) 521-8330
      E-mail: dmmonde@jonesday.com
              mstoer@jonesday.com

         - and -

      Noel J. Francisco, Esq.
      Peter J. Biersteker, Esq.
      JONES DAY
      51 Louisiana Avenue, NW
      Washington, DC 20001-2113
      Telephone: (202) 879-3939
      Facsimile: (202) 626-1700
      E-mail: njfrancisco@jonesday.com
              pbiersteker@jonesday.com

         - and -

      Paul Courtney Huck Jr., Esq.
      JONES DAY
      600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3300
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (305) 714-9742
      Facsimile: (305) 714-9799
      E-mail: paulhuck@jonesday.com


SCANDRILL INC: Faces "Jones" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Scandrill, Inc., Case No. 6:16-cv-00341 (E.D. Tex.,
April 14, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Scandrill, Inc. is in the business of providing land contract
drilling services to independent and major oil and gas exploration
companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William S Hommel Jr., Esq.
      WILLIAM S. HOMMEL, JR. PC
      1404 Rice Road, Ste 200
      Tyler, TX 75703
      Telephone: (903) 596-7100
      Facsimile: (469) 533-1618
      E-mail: bhommel@hommelfirm.com


SELECT ONE: Embezzler at Center of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Brianna Smith, writing for WSPA.com, reports that a woman
convicted of embezzling $567,000 from an Upstate non-profit, is
now at the center of a class action lawsuit.

Jane Standridge pled guilty to embezzling and bank fraud, stealing
$567,000 from New Foundations, a non-profit children's home.

Teresa Standridge opened Select One Staffing and Select One
Healthcare.

There were Select One offices across the Upstate and Lavonia,
Georgia.

In the class action lawsuit, former employees claim that Select
One gave them bounced checks or wouldn't pay them, and that when
they paid them, the deductions from their checks weren't paid.

Now former employees say they never received their W2's and that
the IRS told them they owe back taxes because their tax deductions
were never paid.

Ms. Standridge was sentenced to pay full restitution in December
to New Foundations.  Ms. Standridge paid $400,000 in restitution
in June of 2015, a few days after it lists her husband Tommy
removed himself from Select One on the Secretary of State's
office.

The Department of Labor says they have 11 cases they are
investigating involving wage disputes with Select Staffing, 9 of
them have been resolved requiring action on Select One's behalf.

The class action lawsuit would be filed on April 19.


SERVERGY INC: SEC Files Securities Fraud Suit v. Texas AG
---------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Svitek and Morgan Smith, writing for The Texas Tribune,
report that Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has been charged in
federal court with allegedly misleading investors in a technology
company.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed the charges on
April 11 in a Sherman-based court.  They are similar to the
allegations Paxton faces in a pending indictment handed up by a
Collin County grand jury last year.

Mr. Paxton is named in the SEC's complaint along with William
Mapp, the founder and former CEO of Servergy Inc.  Mr. Paxton is
accused of raising hundreds of thousands of dollars for Servergy
without disclosing he was making a commission.  The case stems
from when Paxton was a member of the Texas House -- before he was
elected attorney general in 2014.

"People recruiting investors have a legal obligation to disclose
any compensation they are receiving to promote a stock, and we
allege that Paxton and White concealed the compensation they were
receiving for touting Servergy's product," Shamoil T.
Shipchandler, director of the SEC's Fort Worth regional office,
said in a news release on the complaint.

Mr. Paxton has pleaded not guilty to the three felony counts he
faces in the criminal case.

Bill Mateja, an attorney for Mr. Paxton, said that Mr. Paxton's
legal team has not reviewed the SEC's civil lawsuit.

"As with the criminal matter, Mr. Paxton vehemently denies the
allegations in the civil lawsuit and looks forward not only to all
of the facts coming out but also to establishing his innocence in
both the civil and criminal matters."

According to the SEC, Mr. Paxton persuaded five investors to put
$840,000 into Servergy -- and did so without attempting to confirm
Mr. Mapp's claims about the sales of its data servers and their
technological capabilities.  A month later, Mr. Paxton received
100,000 shares of stock in the company.

In marketing materials and investment presentations, the Servergy
CEO said he had preorders for the servers from the online retailer
Amazon, the semiconductor giant Freescale and the Canadian
software engineering firm Koerr.  He also maintained that an
independent testing laboratory had found the product needed up to
80 percent less cooling, energy and space compared with other
servers on the market.  All of those assertions were untrue,
according to the SEC filing.

Mr. Paxton pitched the company to his "friends, business
associates, law firm clients" as well as members of his investment
group. Among those in the investment group who later bought shares
in Servergy was Mr. Paxton's colleague in the Texas House, state
Rep. Byron Cook, R-Corsicana.

"Based on prior dealings in the group, members trusted each other
to consider the interests of the group as a whole and not exploit
one another for a member's personal benefit.  Similarly, prior
experiences in the group established that the member who
recommended an investment would monitor the investment going
forward and represent the group's interests," the filing states.
"Despite a duty to do so, Paxton knowingly or recklessly failed to
inform any member of the investment group that he was being
compensated by Servergy for recruiting investors."

The SEC said Mr. Paxton told investigators that the shares were a
gift from Mr. Mapp, not necessarily a commission.  According to
the complaint, Paxton claimed he accepted the shares only after
Mr. Mapp refused to accept an offer from Paxton to invest $100,000
of his own money in Servergy.

"I can't take your money.  God doesn't want me to take your
money," Mr. Mapp told Paxton during a meeting at a Dairy Queen
during the summer of 2011 in McKinney, according to the SEC.

In May 2014, the state securities board fined Mr. Paxton for
similar conduct.  At that time, Mr. Paxton, who was then running
for attorney general, admitted he solicited clients for an
investment firm without disclosing that he would be paid a
percentage of the fees the firm collected from their business.


SOCAL GAS: Save Porter Ranch and 24 Residents File Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Save Porter Ranch discovered public records showing the Division
of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) knew of leaking wells
and yet DOGGR repeatedly issued permits to SoCalGas without the
proper data showing gas would be confined underground.  One
example is API 03721313 (32F). Well 32F had a patch installed in
1986, but SoCalGas removed the patch in 2010. Well 32F has not
passed any mechanical integrity tests since 2010.  As of April 19,
2016, 32F still does not pass any tests and is a significant risk
to the health and safety of the community.  This is just one
example of records showing DOGGR knew of the leaking wells and
continued to issue permits.

These types of problem led to the EPA ordering DOGGR in 2011 to
stop issuing injection well permits without the required data
showing confinement of injected fluids underground.  Before DOGGR
could fix the problem, Governor Jerry Brown fired the two
regulators trying to bring the state into compliance with the law.
Gov. Brown's office did not want the focus on injection wells to
focus on fracking, which under state law at the time would have
required compliance with the injection well regulations.  Gov.
Brown appointed new regulators and brought back old-timers who
were asked to travel around the state to tell the community that
fracking was not subject to injection well regulations and to
unwind all corrections implemented by DOGGR to bring the state's
injection program into compliance with the law.

Save Porter Ranch, along with 24 individuals, lead the charge with
filing class based claims against the State of California on
behalf of the community of Porter Ranch.  Combined with the other
claims filed by R. Rex Parris and co-counsel, the last two waves
of claims filed against the state bring the total up to 951 claims
for individuals and potential class members and thousands more to
follow.  They challenge the State's failure to protect the
residents of Porter Ranch who suffered from the massive gas
injection well blowout of well SS-25 in the Aliso Canyon Natural
Gas Storage Facility.  Natural gas, noxious odors, hazardous
chemicals, and toxic pollutants rolled down the hillside into
Porter Ranch and surrounding areas for over three months. The
blowout ultimately released 100,000 tons of natural gas.

"DOGGR needs to be held responsible for allowing the operation of
a facility with a known history of injection wells leaking gas
into this community," according to R. Rex Parris.  The County
Panel recently appointed Mr. Parris to the Los Angeles County
advisory panel assisting a County Strike Team in assessing the
conditions, regulatory compliance and potential public health
risks from existing oil production activities.  As mayor of
Lancaster, Mr. Parris is noted for his work in developing programs
to reduce emissions and frequently is called to speak on panels
with Governor Brown.

"Governor Brown had a duty to Californians to coordinate the State
Emergency Plan . . . for the mitigation of the effects of any
emergency in this state," says Mr. Parris. "But instead, Governor
Brown went to Paris and boasted about California's reduction of
emissions.  He was eerily silent about Porter Ranch in the midst
of the blowout and evacuation of over 4,000 families."

The tragedy to Porter Ranch residents is their Governor was
conflicted, as explained in the Government Tort Claims filed on
April 19.  First, Governor Brown is a defendant in another lawsuit
arising from the same permitting issues present in this action
which alleges he was engaged in a criminal enterprise with the oil
and gas industry.  The state issues injection well permits to all
gas companies if they provide basic data showing the injected gas
will remain in a confined area underground.  This is a safety
requirement that is mandated by federal law.

Governor Brown, however, ordered state regulators in October of
2011 to stop requiring this basic data for permits of injection
wells.  And DOGGR then stopped requiring gas companies to provide
data showing confinement of the injected gas.

Second, Governor Brown's sister is on the board of directors of
Sempra Energy (the parent company of SoCalGas).  She received
income of almost $200,000 each year for the last three years from
Sempra and rights to Sempra stock worth another $409,945.

Also named in the claim against the state are other agencies
including the South Coast Air Quality Management District.  The
claim also lists SoCalGas, whose property in Aliso Canyon is
treated as government property.  Each client is seeking damages
for personal injury and property damage which is expected to
exceed $3.5 million per person.

                  About The R. Rex Parris Law Firm

For over 30 years, R. Rex Parris -- http://www/rrexparris.com--
has devoted his practice to protecting the rights of injured
people and aggrieved workers.  Rex and his dedicated team provide
thorough, high-quality representation with integrity and
compassion.  These lawyers fight aggressively against corporate
defense attorneys and insurance companies to ensure their clients
get the compensation they deserve.


SONY PICTURES: Court Approves $2.5MM in Attorneys Fees
------------------------------------------------------
Hunton & Williams LLP on April 18 disclosed that on April 6, 2016,
U.S. District Judge R. Gary Klausner approved a settlement in
Corona v. Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc., No. 14-CV-09600
(RGK).  The litigation centered on a data breach involving the
stolen personal information of at least 15,000 former and current
employees.  After a partial success on its motion to dismiss, Sony
still faced potential liability for negligence based on its three-
week delay in notifying its employees of the data breach, as well
as statutory claims under the California Confidentiality of
Medical Information Act and the Unfair Competition Law.

Under the terms of the settlement, Sony will provide three years
of identity theft protection, an optional service that will
reimburse up to $1 million dollars and a fund for additional
losses.  An exact settlement amount is not available at this time.
The deadline for Sony employees to sign up for the services
offered in the settlement has not yet passed.

On April 14, 2016, Judge Klausner took issue with the request of
$3.49 million in plaintiffs' attorneys' fees due to: (1) a lack of
itemization and (2) the belief that fees for 17 billable hours per
day, every day, during 61 weeks of litigation were unreasonable.
Instead, the Court approved only 4,500 billable hours at a
$509.34/hour blended rate.  Consequently, $2,587,574.96 in
attorneys' fees and costs were approved as reasonable, but the
Court allowed the parties to independently negotiate any fees and
costs above that amount.


SPROUTS FARMERS: Faces Class Action Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------
The Denver Post reports that a federal lawsuit seeks class action
certification for possibly thousands of Sprouts Farmers Market
employees who might have been affected by a data breach in March
through a scam e-mail.

The lawsuit alleges that the company released 2015 employee W-2
tax forms to unknown parties in response to the phishing scam,
according to the Sawaya Law Firm, which filed the suit in U.S.
District Court in Colorado on behalf of the lead plaintiff.

As a result, the scammers already have used the plaintiff's
personal information such as a Social Security number to
fraudulently apply for a tax refund belonging to the worker, said
attorney David Miller.  The lawsuit claims the company failed to
properly safeguard employee information.

A spokesman for Sprouts Farmers Market said he was unable to
comment on pending litigation but said this was "an isolated
event" and no systems were breached.


SPROUTS FARMERS: Faces "Price" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
Debra Price, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc., d/b/a/ Sprouts Farmers
Market, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-00855 (D. Colo., April 14, 2016), is
brought on behalf of the more than 21,000 employees who have had
their personal identifying information and tax information
accessed, stolen and used illegally as a result of the acts and
failures to act of the Defendant.

Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. operates a nationwide chain of more
than 220 grocery stores in across the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David H. Miller, Esq.
      Heather Joyce, Esq.
      SAWAYA & MILLER LAW FIRM
      1600 Ogden Street
      Denver, CO 80218
      Telephone: (303) 839-1650
      Facsimile: (720) 235-4377
      E-mail: DMiller@sawayalaw.com
              HJoyce@sawayalaw.com


STATE FARM: "Madison" Suit Seeks OT & Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Donna Madison, Timothy Craig Tetley, Kelly Carter, Milton Gibbs,
David Jones, Kenneth Rice, David Ross, Paul D. Smith, Tarland T.
Thomas, Erika Ware, Yulander Mctier, and all persons other
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Company, the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-
01041-L (N.D. Tex., April 18, 2016), seeks to recover damages,
unpaid overtime, unpaid wages, liquidated damages, injunctive
relief, declaratory relief, and reasonable attorney's fee and
costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

According to the complaint, the Defendant repeatedly and willfully
violated FLSA by failing to compensate Plaintiffs at a rate not
less than one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for
each hour worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.

State Farm is a group of insurance and financial service companies
headquartered in Bloomington, Illinois, and maintains offices in
Dallas, Texas.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Charles L. Scalise, Esq.
          Daniel B. Ross, Esq.
          ROSS LAW GROUP
          1104 San Antonio Street
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 474-7677
          Facsimile: (512) 474-5306
          E-mail: Charles@rosslawpc.com
                  dbr@rosslawpc.com

               - and -

          Steven R. Samples, Esq.
          SAMPLES AMES PLLC
          1512 Crescent Drive, Suite 119
          Carrollton, Texas 75006
          Telephone: (214) 308 6505
          Facsimile: (855) 605 1505
          E-mail: steve@texaslit.com


SYNTHES USA: Employees' Labor Suit Can Proceed as Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reports that a
California labor lawsuit alleging various violations to California
labor laws will go ahead as a class action, in spite of efforts by
the defendants to have the two classes decertified. The original
lawsuit was brought in December of 2011 in US District Court,
Eastern District of California.

Defendants in the California labor code lawsuit are Synthes USA,
Synthes USA Sales, and Synthes Spine Company (known collectively
as Synthes Companies, or Synthes). The lead plaintiff in the case,
Troy Lindell, alleges in his lawsuit that Synthes failed to
reimburse certain employees for business expenses, took unlawful
deductions from employees, failed to properly pay employees upon
leaving the employ of the company, and engaged in unfair
competition. All claims made are alleged to be in violation of
various statutes of California labor employment law.

The California labor lawsuit has undergone a few changes since it
was originally brought in 2011. Amended in February of 2012, it
was further amended in 2013 to include certification of two
classes.

The so-called "Expense" class of employees is comprised of sales
consultants from the defendant's Trauma and Spine divisions - and
sales consultants from the defendant's Craniomaxillofacial
divisions who received straight commission and higher levels of
commission, respectively.

A second class has been dubbed the "Deduction" class and would
include all former, current and future sales consultants employed
from December 13, 2007 through to the date of the culmination and
disposition of the lawsuit.

The two classes were originally certified on March of 2014 by
Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. Synthes immediately
appealed to the Ninth Circuit for permission to appeal the class
certification, but the request was denied.

The defendants then filed a motion to decertify the two classes.
On that motion District Court Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill in
California District Court turned that motion down as well.

Thus, the two California and labor law class actions will proceed,
alleging various violations to California Labor Code Sections
2802, 221, 223 and 300, and 201 through 203.

What's more, allegations suggest unfair competition in violation
of the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL), California
Business and Professional Code Sections 17200-210. Finally, the
plaintiff is also looking to recover damages under the California
Private Attorney General Act (PAGA), California Labor Code
Sections 2698-2699.5, and for violations of Labor Code Sections
201-203, 221, 223, 300 and 2804.

The California lawsuit is Troy M. Lindell et al v. Synthes et al,
Case No. 1:11-cv-02053 LJO BAM, in the Eastern District of
California.


TD BANK: Faces Class Action Over Coin-Counting Machines
-------------------------------------------------------
Karen Freifeld, writing for Reuters, reports that a New York man
filed a proposed class action on April 18 accusing TD Bank of
shortchanging him and hundreds of thousands of other customers who
used the bank's coin-counting machines.

In a complaint brought in New York state court in Manhattan on
April 18, Jeffrey Feinman said that TD Bank's Penny Arcade
machines once gave him a receipt for $25.44 when he deposited $26
dollars' worth of coins, and $30.05 when he deposited $31.


TIDAL: Faces Class Action Over "The Life of Pablo" Exclusivity
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Kreps, writing for Rolling Stone, reports that a California
man has aligned with a Chicago law firm to file a class action
lawsuit against Jay Z's Tidal and Kanye West concerning the
exclusivity of The Life of Pablo. At the heart of the lawsuit,
filed on April 18 at San Francisco's U.S. District Court, is a
complaint that West and Tidal misled consumers by having them
believe The Life of Pablo would only be available on Tidal, only
for it to pop up on other streaming services six weeks later.

In the lawsuit, filed on behalf of consumer Justin Baker-Rhett,
law firm Edelson PC accuse Tidal and West of using the lure of a
one-month free trial as well as West's "exclusive" album to boost
membership for the streaming service that was, in their words,
"quietly teetering on the brink of collapse."  "Consumers were
uniformly tricked into handling over their private data and credit
card information by a singular mistruth," the lawsuit reads.

The $5 million lawsuit demands that Tidal delete the "private
information" of both Baker-Rhett and anyone else that joins with
the class action suit.  "In reality, neither Mr. West nor [Jay Z's
company] S. Carter Enterprises ever intended The Life of Pablo to
run exclusively on the Tidal platform," the lawsuit adds.  "To the
contrary, they -- knowing that Tidal was in trouble but not
wanting to invest their own money to save the company -- chose to
fraudulently induce millions of American consumers into paying for
Tidal's rescue."

In a statement to Rolling Stone, Edelson PC founder and CEO
Jay Edelson said, "Kanye has the power to send one tweet out into
the world and get 2 million people to act on it.  This suit is
about holding him accountable when he abuses that power."

Representatives for Tidal, West and Jay Z did not immediately
respond to requests for comment.

"My album will never never never be on Apple.  And it will never
be for sale . . . You can only get it on Tidal," West tweeted on
February 15th.  "Please to all my friends fans and music lovers.
Sign up to Tidal now.  Also all Good Fridays songs will be on
Tidal.  Me and Kendrick got 40 songs and me and Young Thug got 40
songs.  40/40 club!!!" West has not posted any additional Good
Fridays song on Tidal since the arrival of The Life of Pablo.

"By the time Mr. West changed course and broadly released The Life
of Pablo, the deceptive marketing ploy had served its purpose,"
the complaint alleges.  "Tidal's subscriber numbers had tripled,
streaming numbers were through the roof and Tidal had collected
the personal information, credit card numbers, and social media
information of millions of deceived consumers," the lawsuit adds.
"As a result, Tidal's valuation -- the lifeblood of any new
startup -- soared."


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Steve Wozniak Denounces Labor Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
Casey Williams, writing for Huffpost Tech, reports that Apple
co-founder Steve Wozniak just threw some shade at Uber.

On April 18, at the Future Transport Summit in Sydney, Australia,
Wozniak denounced the ride-hailing company's disputed labor
practices and critiqued what he sees as its monopolistic
ambitions, according to Mashable.

"Like a lot of people, I have some distrust of Uber and how their
drivers don't really realize at first that they aren't making much
money, maybe losing money on the wear and tear of their cars,"
Wozniak told reporters at the summit.

"That's how I think of Uber: Not very nice thoughts," Mr. Wozniak
added.

David Rohrsheim, general manager of Uber in Australia, responded
to Wozniak's remarks by noting that Uber drivers have a job with
rare flexibility.

"It has to be a good deal for partners or otherwise they won't use
the platform," Mr.Rorhsheim told Mashable Australia.

Mr. Wozniak isn't alone in criticizing the app. Class-action
lawsuits filed by Uber drivers in California and Michigan argue
that the company wrongly classifies its workers as independent
contractors, allowing it to drive down their wages and withhold
benefits.  As contractors, drivers are exempt from minimum wage
requirements and don't receive certain state and federal benefits.
Both lawsuits contend that Uber drivers are, in fact, employees, a
designation that comes with greater labor protections

Mr. Wozniak added that he'd prefer to use Lyft from now on.

Lyft, which is Uber's main competitor in the U.S., agreed in
January to expand benefits for drivers.  Lyft drivers can no
longer be fired at will and have the right to settle termination
and pay disputes through arbitration. Despite those gains, Lyft
drivers, like Uber drivers, are still considered independent
contractors.

Mr. Wozniak told reporters he'd also like to see more competition
in the ride-sharing market.  "I would rather there be a lot of
competitive forces," Mr. Wozniak said.  "I'd like there to be four
or five choice that are like Uber anywhere you go."

The Woz might get his wish. Several new ride-sharing services are
scheduled to hit roads soon.  Chariot for Women, which was set to
launch on April 19, is an alternative ride-sharing service with
all-women drivers, exclusively for women.  Another service, Juno,
hopes to become Uber's mirror opposite.  It's drivers will not
only have employee status, but will also get equity in the
company, in addition to several other perks.

Despite his concerns about Uber, overall, Wozniak isn't too
worried about the sorts of economic changes Uber represents.

"You might come up with a new technology and some old jobs
disappear and there are robots building cars," he said.  "Well,
the jobs pop up somewhere else. The economy just shifts, it
moves."


UBS AG: July 8 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
If You Purchased Municipal Derivative Transactions from
January 1, 1992, to August 18, 2011

You Could Get a Payment for a Class Action Settlement.

Proposed Settlements have been reached in a class action lawsuit
that alleges price-fixing in the sale of municipal derivatives
transactions by UBS AG, Societe Generale S.A., Natixis Funding
Corp., Piper Jaffray & Co., National Westminster Bank Plc, George
K. Baum & Co. (the "Settling Defendants") and other companies.
The case, In re Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Trust Litigation,
MDL No. 1950, No. 08-02516, is pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  Defendants
deny all allegations of wrongdoing and liability.

Who Is Included in the Settlements?

These Settlements include all state, local and municipal
government entities, independent government agencies, quasi-
government and private entities that purchased municipal
derivative transactions through negotiation, competitive
bidding or auction:

(1) From any Alleged Provider Defendant or Alleged Co-Conspirator
or brokered by any Alleged Broker Defendant or Alleged Co-
Conspirator,

(2) Any time from January 1, 1992, through August 18, 2011, in the
United States and its territories or for delivery in the United
States and its territories.  These Alleged Provider and Broker
Defendants and Alleged Co-Conspirators are
listed in full on the Settlement website at
www.MunicipalDerivativesSettlement.com

What Do the Settlements Provide?

The Defendants agreed to settlement amounts totaling over $100
million.  Certain Defendants will also provide reasonable
cooperation, including discovery cooperation, to Class Plaintiffs'
Counsel to the extent necessary if any of the Settlements are not
finally approved.

What Do I Do Now?

Remain in the Settlements. To remain in the Settlement Class, you
do not have to do anything now.  To be considered for payment,
your Claim must be submitted online at
www.MunicipalDerivativesSettlement.com  OR mail it by July 28,
2016.  If you previously submitted a Claim Form, and you do not
have any changes to make to it, you do not need to do anything --
your previous Claim Form will be used for these settlements.  If
the Court approves the Settlements, you give up the right to sue
the Settling Defendants for the claims and issues in this case.
The Settlement Agreements, which are available at
www.MunicipalDerivativesSettlement.com, describe in more detail
the legal claims that you give up if you stay in the Class.

Exclude yourself from the Settlements. If you do not want to
remain in any of the Settlement Classes, you must exclude
yourself.  You must send a written request for exclusion by first-
class mail, postmarked no later than May 17, 2016, to the
Settlement Administrator.  The detailed notice available on the
Settlement website describes the information you are required to
include in your request for exclusion.  You can exclude yourself
from some but not all Settlements.  If you exclude yourself, you
cannot participate in the Settlements from which you exclude
yourself, but you retain your right to sue the Settling Defendants
involved in the Settlements from which you exclude yourself on
your own for the claims in this lawsuit.

Object or Comment on the Settlements. If you remain in the
Settlement Class and want to object to or comment on the
Settlements or any part of them, you must file an object with the
Court and deliver a copy to the Settlement Administrator no later
than June 20, 2016.

When Will the Court Decide Whether to Approve the Settlements?

The Court has scheduled a hearing on July 8, 2016, at 2:00 p.m. at
the United States District Court for Southern District of New
York, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY
10007, to consider whether to finally approve the Settlements as
fair, reasonable and adequate, whether to approve the plan of
allocation and Class Counsel's request for fees and reimbursement
of litigation expenses, and to consider any objections.

The Court has appointed the law firms of Hausfeld LLP; Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP; and Susman Godfrey L.L.P. to serve as
Class Counsel and represent all Class Members.  If you want to be
represented by your own lawyer, you may hire one at your own
expense. You or your lawyer may ask to appear and speak at the
hearing but are not required to.  If you want to be heard by the
Court, you must file a written notice of your intention to appear
with the Court and deliver a copy to the Settlement Administrator
and Defendant's Counsel no later than June 20, 2016.  The Court
may change the time and date of the hearing.  Any change will be
posted on the Settlement website.

Get More Information

For more information on this lawsuit, your rights, or to obtain a
list of Defendants, call or visit the Settlement website at
www.MunicipalDerivativesSettlement.com  or write to Municipal
Derivatives Settlement, c/o Rust Consulting, Inc., P.O. Box 2500,
Faribault, MN 55021-9500.

For more information: 1-877-310-0512


UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY: Discrimination Class Action Mulled v. Tutor
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Wen, Eryk Bagshaw and Kate Aubusson, writing for The
Canberra Times, report that a University of Sydney business school
tutor has resigned after being caught making a series of
derogatory social media posts insulting mainland Chinese students.

Wei Wu, the business school's head corporate finance tutor,
resigned from the position on April 18 after reports he called his
mainland students "pigs" generated widespread outrage in Australia
and went viral in mainland China.

Under the pseudonym Pekojima, Mr. Wu accused Chinese students of
cheating "due to low IQs" on Chinese micro-blogging site Weibo.

The posts, mostly made last year, were discovered by students in
his class and circulated among the Sydney University community in
a petition condemning the remarks.

"The Usyd finance course is very difficult, not sure how many
international pigs will hire essay writer [sic] because of their
low IQ," read one of the posts, translated by a student who
created the petition.

Mr. Wu's supporters, including many in the local Australian-
Chinese community, insist he was using coded political slang
popular with dissidents online, and was being targeted for his
dissident work and frequent vocal criticism of China's ruling
Communist Party.

Mr. Wu's Weibo account has been taken down and Fairfax Media has
not reviewed all of his previous posts.  But in the posts used as
examples in the USyd student petition, the obscure character tun
is used rather than zhu, the vastly more commonly used character
for pig.

"It [tun] is actually a euphemism used online to refer to
guanerdai, the second-generation [offspring] of [Communist Party]
officials who have gone overseas to study," Wai Ling Yeung, the
recently retired head of Chinese Studies at Curtin University.

"One of the characteristics of these overseas students from very
rich families is that their families very closely connected with
the party, they are very supportive of the party, sometimes online
too, what we refer to as xiaofenhong or 'little pinks'."

Until April last year, Mr. Wu was himself a Chinese national when
he became an Australian citizen.

Mr. Wu's outburst against mainland international students at the
University of Sydney became a viral sensation on the Chinese
internet and was one of the top trending topics on Weibo.

Reports of the controversy carried by online news portals
Sina and Netease garnered more than 300,000 comments and numerous
death threats, with many outraged by his antagonism against
mainland students and by apparent footage of him burning his
Chinese passport and extinguishing the flames in a toilet bowl.

An online counter-petition voicing concerns for the university's
internal disciplinary investigation into Mr. Wu had over 1000
signatures by April 18.

"We are concerned that Mr. Wu is becoming a victim of the Chinese
government's increasingly intrusive attempts to curb voices of
dissent among overseas Chinese.  Mr. Wu has a long track record of
critical comments against the Chinese government, its political
system and social affairs on social networks," the petition
states.

Despite the petition Mr. Wu's resignation was accepted by the
business school after it concluded its investigation on April 18.
His comments were condemned by the Dean of the university's
business school, Greg Whitwell.

"Racist, sexist or offensive language is not tolerated at the
University of Sydney," said Professor Whitwell.

On April 18 the Chinese Community Council of Australia (CCCA)
called for Mr. Wu's students to launch a class action against the
tutor with the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board.

CCCA National President Dr Anthony Pun said the word "pig" was an
extremely derogatory remark, of which any interpretation could be
considered "racially abusive".

Dr Pun said Mr. Wu's political views were no defense for his
actions.

On April 18, Mr. Wu asked for forgiveness.

"I would like to sincerely apologize for the inappropriate and
disrespectful comments I made on the internet.  I will refrain
from such remarks in the future. I have also resigned from my
employment at the University of Sydney," he said via a statement
released by the university.

The controversy is the latest setback to international student
relations to hit the school, a market now worth up to $17 billion.

In April, a sudden graduation date change threatened to put up to
80 per cent of the university's master of management students and
their families thousands of dollars out of pocket for air fares,
accommodation and visas they had already purchased.

Last year, the Chinese consulate appealed to the university when
37 per cent of Chinese students were failed in one of the
university's business courses, drawing accusations of bias towards
non-native English speakers.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Says Cold-FX Suit Lawyer-Driven Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
John McKinley, writing for BC Local News, reports that a Vancouver
Island-based lawsuit against the cold remedy Cold-Fx is a lawyer-
manufactured action in search of a victim and not worthy of class-
action certification.

Or at least that was the argument advanced by lawyers for the drug
giant Valeant Pharmaceuticals earlier this month in a New
Westminster courtroom.

To be certified, an applicant must show the existence of a genuine
class with common issues defined by objective criteria, states a
response filed March 31 by defense lawyer Alan D'Silva
-- adsilva@stikeman.com

"This case fails on all counts. It is a lawyer-driven action with
no real complainants and a hopelessly overbroad class," it states.

The suit alleges the defendants Valeant and Afexa Life Sciences
misled consumers into thinking Cold-Fx was capable of relieving
flu and cold symptoms if taken for periods of less than two months
despite testing that indicated otherwise.

B.C. Supreme Court Justice Janice Dillon is being asked if this
2012 claim by Ladysmith senior Don Harrison against the makers of
the popular product can be expanded to include virtually anyone
who used it between 2004 and 2012.

Valeant ended four years of relative silence on the matter in
court with a multi-pronged 128-page critique that claims lawyer
John Green has failed to demonstrate the need for class-action
certification.

Its response states Mr. Green recruited Harrison as a
"placeholder" applicant, adding the suit lacks evidence that
Harrison or others ". . . were exposed to the alleged
misrepresentations; that such representations influenced their
purchase; or that they were disappointed in the results.

"Despite (Green's) relentless four-year campaign, Mr. Harrison
remains the sole representative plaintiff and no evidence has been
provided to show that any other individual is genuinely interested
in pursuing the alleged claims as part of a class action."

Mr. D'Silva also presented the testimony of consumer behavior
expert Michael Mulvey that the promotional material people were
exposed to and the reasons they bought the product are too
individualized for a class-action case.  The defendants also
maintain the case does not warrant the complexities and expense of
a class proceeding.

"This is not a claim alleging personal injury in relation to a
latent and inherent danger in a product that surfaces years after
purchase, for instance, harm caused by breast implants, heart
defibrillators, or hip implants," the suit states.  "This is a
theoretical claim which at its highest is an efficacy claim for
pure economic loss, alleging complaints in regards to treatment of
the common cold."

It called the "lack of any genuine complainant" unsurprising
because Cold-Fx is the number-one selling cold-and-flu product in
Canada, and 95% of users are happy with its results.

"If any consumers were genuinely displeased with Cold-Fx's
efficacy, they could at any time have availed themselves of a full
refund, which has been offered by the defendants since Cold-Fx's
inception."

In a statement posted to the lawsuit's Facebook page on April 9,
Mr. Green said he has been contacted by people across Canada who
wish to be part of the British Columbia class action, including
large numbers from Ontario.  The statement asks for people to
continue submitting contact information.

"It will also help counter the suggestion by Valeant that everyone
is happy with Cold-Fx and that nobody cares about determining if
it engaged in the conduct alleged in this class action," Mr. Green
said.

Justice Dillon heard the certification case April 4-8 and has
reserved her decision, which deals strictly with class action
portion of the lawsuit.  With or without certification, Green
still has to prove the suit's claims.

In an interview prior to the most recent hearing, he was confident
the suit will be certified and he will be able to proceed with an
action that will make the defendents accountable, while delivering
a stern warning to any health remedy company making, or
considering making, false claims.

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


VASCULAR SOLUTIONS: Recalls Guardian II Hemostasis Valves
---------------------------------------------------------
Vascular Solutions, Inc. (Nasdaq: VASC), initiated a nationwide
recall of Guardian II hemostasis valves used in catheterization
procedures. Specific lots of the products have been recalled
because they pose an increased risk of air leakage that may lead
to an air embolism, which could result in serious injury or death.
This recall only affects the Guardian II hemostasis valves and
does not include the Guardian II NC hemostasis valves. No injuries
have been reported in association with this issue to date.

Healthcare facilities that have the affected Guardian II
hemostasis valves should remove the products from their inventory
and return them to Vascular Solutions.

The recalled products were manufactured from March 2015 to
February 2016 and distributed from April 2015 to February 2016.

The recalled products are specific lots of Model Numbers 8210 and
8211. A listing of the recalled lots is available from Vascular
Solutions and has been provided to each facility that purchased
the affected products. A total of 26,550 devices have been
manufactured, with 5,283 distributed in the United States. The
condition that led to the recall may affect approximately 2.4% of
recalled devices.

Vascular Solutions Inc. voluntarily initiated the recall on
March 3, 2016 through an Urgent Medical Device Recall notification
distributed to purchasers of the affected products. The
notification identified the specific lots subject to the recall
and included instructions on how to return the affected products.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) classified this as a
Class I recall. FDA defines Class I recalls as "a situation in
which there is a reasonable probability that the use of, or
exposure to, a violative product will cause serious adverse health
consequences or death.

Consumers with questions may contact the company by phone at 1-
888-240-6001 Monday through Friday, between the hours of 8:00 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m. Central Time or by email at
customerservice@vasc.com. Adverse reactions or quality problems
experienced with the use of this product may be reported to the
FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program:

Online at http://www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm(form available
to fax (1-800-FDA-0178) or mail), or
Call FDA 1-800-FDA-1088 to request a reporting form

                        About Vascular Solutions

Vascular Solutions, Inc. is an innovative medical device company
that focuses on developing unique clinical solutions for coronary
and peripheral vascular procedures. The company's product line
consists of more than 90 products and services that are sold to
interventional cardiologists, interventional radiologists,
electrophysiologists, and vein specialists through its direct U.S.
sales force and international independent distributor network.

For further information, connect to www.vasc.com.


WD IMPORT: Recalls Dried Yellow Fish Products Due to Clostridium
----------------------------------------------------------------
WD Import and Export Inc. located at 4703 2nd Ave, Brooklyn, NY
11232 is recalling its bulk unlabeled cardboard boxes of Dried
Yellow Fish because it has the potential to be contaminated with
Clostridium botulinum, a bacterium which can cause life
threatening illness or death. Consumers are warned not to use the
product even if it does not look or smell spoiled.

Botulism, a potential fatal form of food poisoning, can cause the
following symptoms: general weakness, dizziness, blurred or
double-vision and trouble with speaking or swallowing. Difficulty
in breathing weakness of other muscles abdominal distention and
constipation may also be common symptoms. People experiencing
these problems should seek immediate medical attention.

The product, Dried Yellow Fish was sold in bulk unlabeled and un-
coded cardboard boxes and is a product of China. The product was
sold in retail stores in New York City.

The potential for contamination was noted after routine sampling
by New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food
Inspection and subsequent analysis of the product by Food
Laboratory personnel confirming that the fish was not properly
eviscerated prior to processing.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem. Consumers who have purchased Dried Fish are advised not
to eat it, but should return it to the place of purchase.
Consumers with questions may contact the company at 718-567-3339.


YOUNGSTOWN, OH: Seeks Dismissal of Water Funds Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Vindy.com reports that attorneys for Youngstown are asking a judge
to dismiss a class-action lawsuit filed by five city water
customers who question the legality of using water and wastewater
funds for economic development.

In a motion filed on April 18, James F. Lang, one of two attorneys
from the Cleveland-based Calfee, Halter & Griswold law firm
retained by the city for this case, wrote the complaint "is
utterly devoid of any factual support for the contention that the
rates charged by the city were in any way illegal or improper."

Mr. Lang asked Judge John M. Durkin of Mahoning County Common
Pleas Court, assigned this case, to dismiss it.  "Plaintiffs
failed to provide any factual support or legal basis for their
claims that the city was over-charging its customers for water and
sewer utilities," he wrote.


* Abolishing Tips Won't Benefit Restaurants, Owners, Servers
------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Rose, writing for Munchies, reports that with a federal
minimum wage of just $2.13 for tipped workers, it's no surprise
that class action lawsuits pitting servers against major
restaurant chains have been popping up left and right.

But with state laws finally authorizing significantly higher
minimum wages for restaurant workers, some critics are calling for
an end to the social practice of giving servers a gratuity. All of
which begs the question: Is it finally time to get rid of tipping
once and for all?

The answer is a resounding "no," according to Richard McKenzie,
Professor of Economics and Management Emeritus at UC Irvine.  In a
recent study entitled Should Tipping Be Abolished?, McKenzie goes
as far as claiming that tipping benefits pretty much everyone in
the restaurant industry -- not just servers, but restaurant
owners, customers, and other workers.

"At face value, abolishing tipping and offering higher wages
instead sounds like a reasonable and necessary action, especially
when you consider the federal minimum wage for non-tipped workers
is $7.25 and the federal subminimum wage for tipped workers is at
a measly $2.13 per hour rate," Mr. McKenzie said in a press
release.

In his survey of 40 servers at "moderately priced or casual
restaurants with table service," Mr. McKenzie crunched the numbers
and realized they earn significantly more than what so-called "tip
abolitionists" realize.  He also argues that a heftier hourly wage
is not the solution.

"However, my research shows that if tipping were to be replaced by
a fixed hourly rate of pay, service would suffer significantly,
and so might the earnings of the servers in question.  In
addition, the wage that the restaurant servers indicated would be
acceptable was in the range of $30 an hour, not $15, which is the
wage rate states are considering."

In other words, well-meaning proponents of a $15 wage may be
pushing for something that is not actually in the best interest of
servers.

Furthermore, Mr. McKenzie suggests that data from restaurants that
have abolished tipping is not very promising either: Owners had to
raise prices by 20 percent in order to pay for their employees'
higher hourly wages.  Those same restaurants also lost 70 percent
of their servers over a ten-month period because without tips
their wage actually dropped from $35-45 per hour to $20-35 per
hour.

In conclusion, it seems that the American pillars of friendly
service and making money are far more intertwined than what many
policy makers with good intentions have assumed.  "Policy makers
must understand [that] tipping is a pay mechanism that
incentivizes servers to use their localized information for their
own and their company's benefit . . . Through tipping, servers
effectively become commissioned salespeople, enticed to add to
customers' experience and company sales.  It's a win-win
situation."


* Garden City Recognized as Top Securities Claims Administrator
---------------------------------------------------------------
Garden City Group, LLC (GCG(R)), a provider of legal
administration services, has been recognized as the most frequent
securities class action claims administrator by ISS Securities
Class Action Services in its 2015 ranking of the top 100
securities class action settlements of all time by settlement
dollar value.  This is the 7th consecutive year GCG has earned the
top honor.

As of December 2015, GCG had administered 42 of the top 100
settlements throughout the past two decades-more than all other
claims administrators combined.  Moreover, the company had
administered six of the top 10 settlements of all time, twice the
number of the next closest administrator.

GCG's proven record also has made it the administrator of choice
for foreign issuers.  In fact, three of the top 10 securities
settlements of all time involving foreign issuers -- Royal Ahold,
Nortel Networks I, and Nortel Networks II were administered by
GCG.

2015 was a near-record year for securities class actions
settlements.  Twelve settlements totaling more than $4 billion
were added to the top 100 Settlements list; GCG was responsible
for administering settlements representing more than half a
billion dollars of that total.

"The ISS report confirmed what many already know," said
Kenneth Cutshaw, interim president & chief executive officer, GCG.
"When it comes to securities class action settlements, GCG's
experience is unmatched, which consistently makes us the partner
of choice, particularly in these large, complex administrations.
We approach those administrations like we approach all of our
lines of business-with an intense focus on the success of our
clients.  This acknowledgement is a testament to that focus, and
we couldn't be happier."

GCG has handled groundbreaking securities settlements, such as the
$6.2 billion WorldCom settlement, the $3.2 billion Tyco
International settlement, and the $2.425 billion Bank of America
settlement.  Overall, GCG has administered more than $27 billion
in settlements in the top 100 securities class action cases alone.

               About Garden City Group, LLC (GCG(R))

For over three decades GCG -- http://www.gardencitygroup.com--
has been the premier provider for class action settlement
administrations, restructuring and bankruptcy matters, mass tort
settlement programs, regulatory settlements, and data breach
response programs.  GCG is the partner of choice for leading law
firms, corporate legal departments, and government agencies,
handling a wide range of matters, including notably the General
Motors Ignition Switch Defect Litigation, the $2.4 billion Bank of
America Securities Litigation, the $1.425 billion Stryker Hip
Settlement, the $500 million Countrywide MBS Settlement, and the
AT&T Third Party Billing Settlement.

                      About Crawford(R)

Based in Atlanta, Ga., Crawford & Company --
http://www.crawfordandcompany.com-- is one of the world's largest
independent providers of claims management solutions to the risk
management and insurance industry as well as self-insured
entities, with an expansive global network serving clients in more
than 70 countries.  The Crawford Solution(TM) offers
comprehensive, integrated claims services, business process
outsourcing and consulting services for major product lines
including property and casualty claims management, workers
compensation claims and medical management, and legal settlement
administration.  The Company's shares are traded on the NYSE under
the symbols CRD-A and CRD-B.


* Judges More Vocal in Scrutinizing Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jim Middlemiss, writing for Law Times, reports that in class
actions, judges are often thrust into the centre of the dispute,
refereeing not only warring defense and plaintiff lawyers but also
overseeing unseemly fights among plaintiff counsel over who should
carry a case.

Factor in the added challenge of settlement hearings -- where
judges are called upon to determine the fairness of an agreement -
- and it makes for a challenging, and no doubt frustrating, legal
environment in which judges must operate, compared with
traditional litigation.

It's no surprise, then, that justices in Ontario seem to be
calling out class action lawyers more and more on their
strategies.

Alan D'Silva, a class action defense lawyer at Stikeman Elliott
LLP in Toronto, notes, "We have very experienced class action
judges.

"If they suggest to plaintiff or defence counsel to amend
something, or tweak something, or narrow something down, I think
it carries a lot of weight.  I think it's a good thing.  Of
course, judges have to be careful not to be weighing in on the
merits," he says.

Mr. D'Silva adds, "I think it's appropriate for judges to
scrutinize a settlement to make sure that it is in the best
interest of a class because that is what the statute requires.  It
ensures the case is being settled for an amount and quantum it
should be settled for."

It is often in their role of settlement scrutineer where judges
are most vulnerable and becoming increasingly vocal.

Michael Robb -- michael.robb@siskinds.com -- a plaintiff lawyer at
Siskinds LLP in London, Ont., says there's no adversarial process
in a settlement hearing.

"I understand the judge's dilemma.  They have an obligation to
protect the best interest of the class," he says.

One of the challenges lawyers face is justifying the settlement
amount to the judge.  Mr. Robb notes the amount is arrived at
through a range of factors, everything from assessing the merits
of the case -- its weaknesses, strengths, and precedents -- to
assessing insurance policies, and engaging in tough negotiations
with defense lawyers, discussions that are usually confidential.

When called on to defend the settlement, Mr. Robb says it's "a
fine line to walk in terms of what you can explain to court for a
rationale for a settlement."  It can be difficult to explain to a
judge how a particular figure is obtained, he says.

"You have to keep in mind that there is a risk of non-approval and
you have client obligations of confidentiality and privilege," he
says.

"When a judge presses you for the rationale, if you really throw
back the curtain, you expose important weaknesses in a case that
might not have been apparent [to defense counsel]."

If it doesn't settle, he says, "you go in with a significantly
weaker hand."

The subject came up recently before Justice Edward Belobaba in
Leslie v. Agnico-Eagle Mines, a securities class action that
settled for $17 million.  Justice Belobaba warned the bar to
expect more scrutiny in settlements.

"The judicial approval of class action settlements, especially
securities settlements, leaves much to be desired.  Judges should
do more to ensure that a proposed settlement is in the best
interest of a class," he wrote.

He said the "core problem is that the only players at the
settlement table -- the defendant (or their counsel) and class
counsel -- have interests and incentives that can be aligned
against the best interests of the class."

He noted that under legislation, it's his job to ensure that a
settlement is fair and reasonable and in the best interests of the
class.

"But how does a judge do this? Judges are not in a position to
second-guess the actual amount of the proposed settlement.  Nor
should they do so."

The best they can do, he wrote, is look for "structural indicators
that suggest collusion or conflict of interest" and "satisfy
themselves that the settlement amount falls within a zone of
reasonableness."

Robb, who was counsel on the case, filed an extensive
supplementary factum to address concerns Justice Belobaba had
raised at the settlement hearing and set out a list of structural
indicators the court should look for that could call into question
a settlement, including: a release of claims without payment;
"nebulous non-monetary compensation" to which substantial value is
attached to boost fees; or a reversionary interest to the
defendant in settlement funds, especially when a portion goes back
to class counsel.  He also filed an extensive chart showing a
settlement range in securities class suits.

Justice Belobaba was satisfied with the amount and approved the
settlement, but he asked whether it was time to appoint
independent counsel paid for by both parties to provide a "much
needed adversarial dimension to the settlement approval hearing."

The best they can do, he wrote, is look for "structural indicators
that suggest collusion or conflict of interest" and "satisfy
themselves that the settlement amount falls within a zone of
reasonableness."  It's not just settlement amounts facing greater
scrutiny.  Justice Paul Perell used a November settlement ruling
in the Visa and Mastercard merchant fees case, Bancroft-Snell v.
Visa Canada Corporation, to pontificate upon the national class
action conundrum.

Although the ruling dealt with the settlement of a case certified
in B.C., which covered Ontario, it was as much about
Justice  Perell's criticisms of counsel's strategy for dealing
with the rival class actions and the steps they should have taken
to knock out those suits that caught the bar's attention as it was
about the fact that he refused to approve a fee-sharing agreement
involving Merchant Law Group.

MLG had filed rival cases in Alberta and Saskatchewan more than 15
months after the B.C. litigation, which was already moving toward
certification. MLG agreed to stand down its actions in exchange
for a cut of any settlement.

Justice Perell took issue with that and prohibited the class
consortium from paying MLG, finding the fee agreement was
"unenforceable and may possibly be an illegal agreement."  He
warned the bar that champerty and maintenance was still alive and
well in Ontario and paying an "intermeddler" in a lawsuit was
frowned upon."


* Accounting-Related Securities Class Action Filings Up in 2015
---------------------------------------------------------------
A new report from Cornerstone Research reveals that 2015 was the
third consecutive year that the number of accounting-related
filings increased.  There were 71 securities class action filings
with accounting allegations in 2015, according to Accounting Class
Action Filings and Settlements -- 2015 Review and Analysis.

"Not only did the number of accounting case filings increase in
2015, the market capitalization losses associated with those
filings jumped as well," said Elaine Harwood, a vice president of
Cornerstone Research and head of the firm's accounting practice.
"The increase is attributable, in part, to accounting cases filed
against NYSE-listed firms. The market capitalization losses
associated with those filings more than doubled in 2015."

Accounting case settlement dollars reached $2.6 billion in 2015.
"The total settlement value for cases with accounting allegations
in 2015 was almost three times the level for 2014," said
Laura Simmons, a Cornerstone Research senior advisor.  "Looking at
overall settlement dollars for 2015, accounting cases represented
87 percent of the total value."

Highlights

The Disclosure Dollar Loss (DDL) Index(TM) for accounting cases
filed in 2015 rose to $34.8 billion, the second largest amount in
the last seven years.

In 2015, 37 percent of accounting cases were filed in the Ninth
Circuit -- more than any other circuit.

The number of accounting cases against companies with headquarters
outside the United States increased 43 percent to its second
highest level in the last 10 years.  Accounting cases against
companies headquartered in China increased 75 percent from 2014 to
2015.

Accounting case filings involving company announcements of
internal control weaknesses were the highest in 10 years.  The DDL
Index for filings with allegations related to accounting
restatements was smaller than for other types of accounting case
filings in 2015.

Accounting cases in 2015 had a median filing lag of eight days
between the end of the alleged class period and the filing date of
the lawsuit, the shortest in 10 years.

In 2015, 86 percent of accounting case settlements involved
allegations of internal control weaknesses -- the highest
proportion in the last 10 years.

For settled cases with GAAP allegations, settlement amounts were
highest for matters involving write-downs.

Following a sharp decrease in 2014, the proportion of accounting
settlement dollars represented by financial firms led all sectors
in 2015. This increase reflects 11 settlements averaging over $133
million.

                     About Accounting Cases

Cases are considered "accounting cases" if they involve
allegations related to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
(GAAP) violations, auditing violations, or weaknesses in internal
control over financial reporting.

                   About Cornerstone Research

Cornerstone Research provides economic and financial consulting
and expert testimony in all phases of complex litigation and
regulatory proceedings.  The firm works with an extensive network
of prominent faculty and industry practitioners to identify the
best-qualified expert for each assignment.  Cornerstone Research
has earned a reputation for consistent high quality and
effectiveness by delivering rigorous, state-of-the-art analysis
for over 25 years.  The firm has 600 staff and offices in Boston,
Chicago, London, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, Silicon
Valley, and Washington.


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: CNA Fin'l Loss Portfolio Transfer $2.6-Bil.
------------------------------------------------------------
The cumulative amount ceded under CNA Financial Corporation's Loss
Portfolio Transfer is $2.6 billion, 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, "We have exposures related to asbestos and
environmental pollution (A&EP) claims, which could result in
material losses.

"Our property and casualty insurance subsidiaries have exposures
related to A&EP claims. Our experience has been that establishing
claim and claim adjustment expense reserves for casualty coverages
relating to A&EP claims is subject to uncertainties that are
greater than those presented by other claims. Additionally,
traditional actuarial methods and techniques employed to estimate
the ultimate cost of claims for more traditional property and
casualty exposures are less precise in estimating claim and claim
adjustment expense reserves for A&EP. As a result, estimating the
ultimate cost of both reported and unreported A&EP claims is
subject to a higher degree of variability.

"On August 31, 2010, we completed a retroactive reinsurance
transaction under which substantially all of our legacy A&EP
liabilities were ceded to National Indemnity Company (NICO), a
subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., subject to an aggregate
limit of $4 billion (Loss Portfolio Transfer). The cumulative
amount ceded under the Loss Portfolio Transfer as of December 31,
2015 is $2.6 billion. If the other parties to the Loss Portfolio
Transfer do not fully perform their obligations, net losses
incurred on A&EP claims covered by the Loss Portfolio Transfer
exceed the aggregate limit of $4 billion, or we determine we have
exposures to A&EP claims not covered by the Loss Portfolio
Transfer, we may need to increase our recorded net reserves which
would result in a charge against our earnings. These charges could
be substantial."

CNA Financial Corporation and its subsidiaries provide products
and services primarily marketed through independent agents,
brokers and managing general underwriters to a wide variety of
customers, including small, medium and large businesses, insurance
companies, associations, professionals and other groups.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AO Smith Continues to Defend Asbestos Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
A.O. Smith Corporation continues to defend itself against
proceedings involving exposures to asbestos, 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, "We are involved in various unresolved legal
actions, administrative proceedings and claims in the ordinary
course of our business involving product liability, property
damage, insurance coverage, exposure to asbestos and other
substances, patents and environmental matters, including the
disposal of hazardous waste. Although it is not possible to
predict with certainty the outcome of these unresolved legal
actions or the range of possible loss or recovery, we believe,
based on past experience, adequate reserves and insurance
availability, that these unresolved legal actions will not have a
material effect on our financial position or results of
operations."

A. O. Smith Corporation manufactures water heating equipment,
serving a diverse mix of residential and commercial end markets
principally in the United States with a growing international
presence.  Its company is comprised of one reporting segment:
Water Products.  The Company is based in Milwaukee.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntington Still Faces PI Cases at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------
Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc., continues to face cases
alleging exposure to asbestos-containing materials, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2015.

The Company states, "HII and its predecessors-in-interest are
defendants in a longstanding series of cases that have been and
continue to be filed in various jurisdictions around the country,
wherein former and current employees and various third parties
allege exposure to asbestos containing materials while on or
associated with HII premises or while working on vessels
constructed or repaired by HII. The cases allege various injuries,
including those associated with pleural plaque disease,
asbestosis, cancer, mesothelioma and other alleged asbestos
related conditions. In some cases, several of HII's former
executive officers are also named as defendants. In some
instances, partial or full insurance coverage is available to the
Company for its liability and that of its former executive
officers. The average cost per case to resolve cases during the
years ended December 31, 2015, 2014, and 2013 was immaterial
individually and in the aggregate. The Company's estimate of
asbestos-related liabilities is subject to uncertainty because
liabilities are influenced by numerous variables that are
inherently difficult to predict. Key variables include the number
and type of new claims, the litigation process from jurisdiction
to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms made by state and
federal courts and the passage of state or federal tort reform
legislation. Although the Company believes the ultimate resolution
of current cases will not have a material effect on its
consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash
flows, it cannot predict what new or revised claims or litigation
might be asserted or what information might come to light and can,
therefore, give no assurances regarding the ultimate outcome of
asbestos related litigation."

Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. (HII) designs, builds,
overhauls and repairs ships for the United States Navy and the
United States Coast Guard.  The Company is the designer, builder
and refueler of nuclear powered aircraft carriers, the builder of
amphibious assault and expeditionary warfare ships for the United
States Navy and the sole builder of National Security Cutters for
the United States Coast Guard.  The Company designs and builds
nuclear-powered submarines for the United States Navy and builds
the Navy's fleet of DDG51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers.  The
Company operates its shipbuilding business through Huntington
Ingalls Incorporated subsidiary, which is organized into two
segments: Ingalls Shipbuilding (Ingalls), which includes non-
nuclear ship design, construction, repair and maintenance
businesses, and Newport News Shipbuilding (Newport News), which
includes the nuclear ship design, construction, overhaul,
refueling, and repair and maintenance businesses.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colgate Settled 15 Talc Cases as of Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------
Colgate-Palmolive Company settled 15 talc cases as of December 31,
2015, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2015.

The Company states, "The Company is a defendant in a number of
civil actions alleging that certain talc products it sold prior to
1996 were contaminated with asbestos. The Company is challenging
these cases vigorously. As of December 31, 2015, 25 cases filed
against the Company had been voluntarily dismissed and/or had
final judgment entered in favor of the Company. In addition, as of
December 31, 2015, the Company had settled 15 cases for amounts
that are not material to the Company's results of operations.

"As of December 31, 2015, there were 32 additional individual
cases pending against the Company in state and federal courts in
California, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Indiana,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New
York, South Carolina, Texas and Wisconsin. Thirteen of these cases
were filed against the Company during the quarter ended December
31, 2015; all of these cases have multiple defendants named in
addition to the Company. Some of the cases are expected to go to
trial in 2016. While the Company and its legal counsel believe
that these cases are without merit and intend to challenge them
vigorously, there can be no assurances of the outcome at trial.
Since the amount of any potential losses from these cases
currently cannot be estimated, the range of reasonably possible
losses in excess of accrued liabilities disclosed does not include
any amount relating to these cases."

New York-based Colgate-Palmolive Company makes and markets
toothpaste and oral care products (mouthwashes, toothpaste,
toothbrushes).  The Company operates in more than 70 countries and
sells its products in about 200 countries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: DCLLC Had 25K Active PI Claims at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------
Dana Holding Corporation's former unit, DCLLC, had approximately
25,000 active pending asbestos personal injury liability claims at
December 31, 2015, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2015.

The Company states, "As part of our reorganization in 2008, assets
and liabilities associated with personal injury asbestos claims
were retained in Dana Corporation which was then merged into Dana
Companies, LLC (DCLLC), a consolidated wholly-owned limited
liability company. The assets of DCLLC include insurance rights
relating to coverage against these liabilities, marketable
securities and other assets which are considered sufficient to
satisfy its liabilities. DCLLC had approximately 25,000 active
pending asbestos personal injury liability claims at both December
31, 2015 and 2014.

"DCLLC had accrued $78 million for indemnity and defense costs for
settled, pending and future claims at December 31, 2015, compared
to $81 at December 31, 2014. A fifteen-year time horizon was used
to estimate the value of this liability.

"At December 31, 2015, DCLLC had recorded $51 million as an asset
for probable recovery from insurers for the pending and projected
asbestos personal injury liability claims, compared to $52 million
recorded at December 31, 2014. The recorded asset represents our
assessment of the capacity of our current insurance agreements to
provide for the payment of anticipated defense and indemnity costs
for pending claims and projected future demands. The recognition
of these recoveries is based on our assessment of our right to
recover under the respective contracts and on the financial
strength of the insurers. DCLLC has coverage agreements in place
with insurers confirming substantially all of the related coverage
and payments are being received on a timely basis. The financial
strength of these insurers is reviewed at least annually with the
assistance of a third party. The recorded asset does not represent
the limits of our insurance coverage, but rather the amount DCLLC
would expect to recover if the accrued indemnity and defense costs
were paid in full."

"DCLLC continues to process asbestos personal injury claims in the
normal course of business, is separately managed and has an
independent board member. The independent board member is required
to approve certain transactions including dividends or other
transfers of $1 or more of value to Dana. Dana Holding Corporation
has no obligation to increase its investment in or otherwise
support DCLLC.

"In 2013, other income includes proceeds of $4 million from the
sale of our interest in claims pending in the liquidation
proceedings of an insurer and other asbestos-related recoveries of
$7 million."

Dana Holding Corporation (Dana Holding) is a global provider of
technology driveline, sealing and thermal-management products. The
Company's driveline products include axles, driveshaft and
transmissions. The Company operates in four business segments:
Light Vehicle, Commercial Vehicle, Off-Highway and Power
Technologies. Under Light Vehicle segment, the Company provides
front and rear axles, driveshafts, differentials, torque couplings
and modular assemblies. Under Commercial Vehicle segment, the
Company offers axles, driveshafts, steering shafts, suspensions
and tire management systems. Under Off-Highway segment, the
Company's products include axles, driveshafts and end-fittings,
transmissions, torque converters and electronic controls. Under
Power Technologies segment, the Company offers gaskets, cover
modules, heat shields, engine sealing systems, cooling and heat
transfer products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Still Faces PI Suits at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------
Flowserve Corporation continues to face asbestos-related personal
injury lawsuits at December 31, 2015, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2015.

The Company states, "We are a defendant in a substantial number of
lawsuits that seek to recover damages for personal injury
allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos-containing products
manufactured and/or distributed by our heritage companies in the
past. While the overall number of asbestos-related claims has
generally declined in recent years, there can be no assurance that
this trend will continue, or that the average cost per claim will
not further increase. Asbestos-containing materials incorporated
into any such products were encapsulated and used as internal
components of process equipment, and we do not believe that any
significant emission of asbestos fibers occurred during the use of
this equipment.

"Our practice is to vigorously contest and resolve these claims,
and we have been successful in resolving a majority of claims with
little or no payment. Historically, a high percentage of resolved
claims have been covered by applicable insurance or indemnities
from other companies, and we believe that a substantial majority
of existing claims should continue to be covered by insurance or
indemnities. Accordingly, we have recorded a liability for our
estimate of the most likely settlement of asserted claims and a
related receivable from insurers or other companies for our
estimated recovery, to the extent we believe that the amounts of
recovery are probable and not otherwise in dispute. While
unfavorable rulings, judgments or settlement terms regarding these
claims could have a material adverse impact on our business,
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows, we
currently believe the likelihood is remote.

"Additionally, we have claims pending against certain insurers
that, if resolved more favorably than reflected in the recorded
receivables, would result in discrete gains in the applicable
quarter. We are currently unable to estimate the impact, if any,
of unasserted asbestos-related claims, although future claims
would also be subject to then existing indemnities and insurance
coverage."

Flowserve Corporation is a manufacturer and aftermarket service
provider of comprehensive flow control systems.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Had 13 Cases at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Minerals Technologies Inc. had 13 pending asbestos cases at
December 31, 2015, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2015.

The Company states, "Certain of the Company's subsidiaries are
among numerous defendants in a number of cases seeking damages for
exposure to silica or to asbestos containing materials. The
Company currently has 30 pending silica cases and 13 pending
asbestos cases. To date, 1,465 silica cases and 46 asbestos cases
have been dismissed, not including any lawsuits against AMCOL or
American Colloid Company dismissed prior to our acquisition of
AMCOL. One new asbestos case and no new silica cases were filed in
the fourth quarter of 2015. One silica case was dismissed during
the fourth quarter of 2015.

"Most of these claims do not provide adequate information to
assess their merits, the likelihood that the Company will be found
liable, or the magnitude of such liability, if any. Additional
claims of this nature may be made against the Company or its
subsidiaries. At this time management anticipates that the amount
of the Company's liability, if any, and the cost of defending such
claims, will not have a material effect on its financial position
or results of operations.

"The Company has settled only one silica lawsuit, for a nominal
amount, and no asbestos lawsuits to date (not including any that
may have been settled by AMCOL prior to completion of the
acquisition). We are unable to state an amount or range of amounts
claimed in any of the lawsuits because state court pleading
practices do not require identifying the amount of the claimed
damage. The aggregate cost to the Company for the legal defense of
these cases since inception continues to be insignificant. The
majority of the costs of defense for these cases, excluding cases
against AMCOL or American Colloid, are reimbursed by Pfizer Inc.
pursuant to the terms of certain agreements entered into in
connection with the Company's initial public offering in 1992. Of
the 13 pending asbestos cases all except one allege liability
based on products sold largely or entirely prior to the initial
public offering, and for which the Company is therefore entitled
to indemnification pursuant to such agreements. The one exception
pertains to a pending asbestos case against American Colloid
Company.  Our experience has been that the Company is not liable
to plaintiffs in any of these lawsuits and the Company does not
expect to pay any settlements or jury verdicts in these lawsuits."

Minerals Technologies Inc., is a resource and technology-based
company. The Company develops, produces and markets mineral,
mineral-based and synthetic mineral products and supporting
systems and services. The Company operates in five segments,
including Specialty Minerals, Refractories, Performance Materials,
Construction Technologies and Energy Services. The Specialty
Minerals segment is engaged in producing and selling of the
synthetic mineral product precipitated calcium carbonate (PCC).
The Refractories segment produces and markets monolithic and
shaped refractory materials and specialty products. The
Performance Materials segment is engaged in supplying bentonite
and bentonite-related products. The Construction Technologies
segment provides products for non-residential construction,
environmental and infrastructure projects. The Energy Services
segment offers technologies, products and services for all phases
of oil and gas production.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AT&T Unit Subject to Inquiry Over Removal
----------------------------------------------------------
AT&T, Inc.'s subsdiary, Cricket Communications, Inc., is subject
to an inquiry by the San Diego County over alleged violations of
regulations governing removal of asbestos-containing materials,
according to AT&T's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2015.

The Company states, "In February 2014, the San Diego County Air
Pollution Control District initiated investigation into alleged
violations of California regulations governing removal, handling
and disposal of asbestos containing materials arising from an
independent dealer's demolition and construction activity in
preparation to install upgraded point of purchase and fixtures in
accordance with Cricket Dealer Guidelines. While the independent
dealer was in sole control of contractors performing the work at
issue, the County has focused on Cricket Communications dealer
agreement terms and interactions with the independent dealer as a
basis for asserting direct liability against Cricket
Communications, Inc.  After exchanges of information and
discussions, in November 2015, the County issued a penalty demand
in excess of one hundred thousand dollars. We continue
communications with the County with a view for resolution of this
matter, and in no event expect monetary settlement amounts
including penalties will be material."

Cricket Communications, LLC is a wireless/cell phone company. The
company offers prepaid phones and plans.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Probes Dumping from Mill West Building
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hayward, writing for New Hampshire Union Leader, reported
that the EPA has undertaken an investigation into the alleged
dumping of toxic sandblasting grit last year from the Brady
Sullivan-owned Mill West properties at a mill complex in Lawrence,
Mass.

New Hampshire Public Radio reported about emails exchanged in
September among New Hampshire officials, Massachusetts
environmental officials and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. The emails discuss "black beauty" sandblast grit that had
been discovered at the Pacific Mills Industrial Complex in
Lawrence.

The grit tested at 70 percent chrysotile asbestos -- the most
common form of the substance -- and an informant had told
officials with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection that it had come from Mill West in Manchester,
according to the emails published by NHPR.

The informant said some of the 10 truckloads of grit from
Manchester had been disposed of in the basement cement of a
Lawrence building; several piles were found outside the mill
building.

In a statement, Brady Sullivan said it leases a portion of the
Pacific Mills complex.

"Brady Sullivan has performed an initial investigation regarding
the allegations contained in the NHPR report. As of this time, we
are highly confident that Brady Sullivan has engaged in no
wrongdoing, or illegal activity, at the Pacific Mills project in
Lawrence, Massachusetts," the company said in an email to the
Union Leader on Tuesday.

The company said officials spoke with the Massachusetts DEP, and
it is not uncommon for rogue contractors to illegally dump
material; Brady Sullivan does not know where the material came
from, the company said in a statement.

At the direction of the Massachusetts DEP, Brady Sullivan's
contractor has placed the material in 55-gallon drums and is
awaiting permission to properly dispose of it, the company said.

In an email to the Union Leader on Tuesday, the EPA said it "does
not comment on or discuss ongoing investigations. We'll be sure to
get you anything if/when we have something."

If the information turns out to be correct, it represents a
ratcheting up of health and environmental concerns to emerge from
the Mill West complex, which Brady Sullivan has converted into
upscale residential lofts and offices for government and non-
profit organizations.

Last year, Manchester and New Hampshire officials forced Brady
Sullivan Properties to shut down a contractor's sandblasting
operation and clean many apartments after residents found high
levels of lead in stairwells and apartments at the Mill West
complex.

Forty-four tenants have since sued Brady Sullivan Properties, one
of the largest commercial property owners in Manchester.

The sandblasting operation was run by Environmental Compliance
Specialist Inc., according to previous news accounts.

Environmental Compliance Specialist Inc. is the contractor
identified in a September email that the Massachusetts DEP sent to
New Hampshire officials who oversaw the Mill West cleanup. The DEP
had spoken to a confidential informant who said the black beauty
grit had come from Mill West.

"Please let me know if you saw anything like this up there and
what (contractor) ECSI said they did with the spent black beauty
and asbestos," reads an email from the DEP to New Hampshire state
officials.

Within a day, criminal and civil investigators with the EPA were
holding a teleconference with environmental and health regulators
in both states. And the EPA was asking for photos of the sandblast
debris at Mill West.

"In regard to allegations concerning Brady Sullivan/ECSI, to
include allegations of illegal disposal of lead and asbestos in
the Lawrence, Mass. area, several of us thought a conference call
to discuss the current status of both the civil and criminal
investigations at the federal and state made sense," wrote Tyler
Amon, special agent in charge of the EPA Criminal Investigation
Division, on Sept. 23.

The teleconference was scheduled for the following day.

Meanwhile, the lawyer handling the tenants suit against Brady
Sullivan said the emails raise additional concerns for his
clients. While Brady Sullivan has cleaned and retested the
properties for lead, no mention was made of asbestos at the time.

"This puts another whole level on it," said Christopher Seufert of
Franklin. "Asbestos exposure, it's a 20- to 30-year incubation
period before you get lung cancer."

He said the trial in the civil suit is scheduled for December.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Council Leader Wants EPA Probe of Music Hall
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth C. Crowe II, writing for Times Union, reported that City
Council President Carmella Mantello has asked the federal
government to investigate "significant asbestos issues" at the
Troy Saving Bank Music Hall Building.

"It's my duty to approach the EPA," Mantello said, citing the
environmental contamination and public health problems in Hoosick
Falls and Flint, Mich.

Mantello wrote the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regional
office in New York City after reviewing documents associated with
reducing the tax assessment for the music hall building and other
properties by about 80 percent.

"I would submit that the amount of asbestos labeled as
'significant' in the basement of these buildings should be
investigated," Mantello wrote Judith Enck, the EPA's regional
administrator.

"In fact, the said correspondence states that an offer in the past
to buy these buildings was withdrawn due to concerns regarding
remediation costs associated with the buildings. I believe to
ensure that the significant asbestos in these buildings does not
cause harm to the environment or individuals that this should and
must be investigated," Mantello continued.

The City Council voted 7-2 to table the measure that called for
reducing the combined tax assessment from $1.795 million to
$340,000.

The First Niagara Bank-owned properties involved are the buildings
at 32 Second St. and 14 First St. and parking and building at 44-
48 Second St.

Corporation Counsel Kevin Glasheen said the asbestos posed no
threat to the music hall and the bank buildings. The asbestos, he
said, is located in the basement and would have to be remediated
if the space was developed.

Glasheen said the assessment reduction request was due to the
expense of maintaining the building in which the music hall is
located, the difficulty in finding a buyer and the potential
asbestos remediation costs.

Since First Niagara Bank closed its offices in the building, there
has been no rental income and only one purchase offer that was
withdrawn, according to documentation supporting the assessment
reduction provided by Glasheen's office.

"Although the property was subsequently marketed and listed, it
sparked little market interest due to significant asbestos issues
in the basement, limited parking and the associated financial
burden of paying for upkeep of the Troy Music Hall," the memo
said.

Councilman Robert Doherty, whose district includes the music hall,
said the asbestos is not a current public health threat.

"When we're talking about the value of the music hall, asbestos is
a minor issue," Doherty said.

If the city does not approve the proposed property tax settlement,
the case challenging the tax assessment would go to trial in July.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ind. High Court Ruling Opens Door to More Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Taryn Phaneuf, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that former
manufacturers and sellers of products containing asbestos will
likely see more claims filed under the Indiana Product Liability
Act after the state Supreme Court determined the law's statute of
repose doesn't apply to asbestos claims.

Jeffrey Stemerick, an environmental litigation lawyer in
Indianapolis, told Legal Newsline he was surprised by the court's
decision, which concluded a section of the law that previously
limited asbestos-related claims was unconstitutional.

"The Indiana Supreme Court is very stable and well-regarded," said
Stemerick, an associate at Taft Law. "While it does not hesitate
to change the common law when it becomes outdated or strike down
laws that are unconstitutional, it is unusual for it to change
directions twice within such a short timeframe."

Section 2 of the state law allowed claims against defendants who
both mined and sold asbestos, which leaves out defendants who sold
products containing the mineral that is known to cause
mesothelioma.

Under section 2, those limited asbestos claims differed from other
product liability claims because they weren't subject to a 10-year
statute of repose. Instead, those certain asbestos claims could be
brought after 10 years had passed since the product was sold as
long as it was filed within two years of plaintiff learning of a
related sickness.

A 2003 court decision determined that claims against defendants
that hadn't both mined and sold asbestos were subject to Section 1
of the state law and its 10-year statute of repose.

In a decision combining three separate appeals, an electrician and
an electric company employee filed suit for damages because of
asbestos-related diseases. Larry Myers worked as an electrician
for 40 years before retiring in 1999. He was diagnosed with
malignant pleural mesothelioma in 2014.

Raymond Geyman was exposed to asbestos when he worked at an
electric utility company from 1955 to 1970. He was diagnosed with
mesothelioma in 2007 and died in 2008. Litigation continued on
behalf of his estate.

The crux of the case came in the argument that Section 2 did not
provide equal privilege to asbestos plaintiffs because asbestos-
related injuries often don't manifest until long after exposure.

"The practical effect of the enactment of Section 2 was to bar
many claims brought against sellers of asbestos-containing
products because the asbestos injury typically would not manifest
within Section 1's 10-year statute of repose," Stemerick said.

The Supreme Court determined that treating potential asbestos
plaintiffs unequally violates the state's constitution. Thus, the
recent suit invalidated Section 2 of the law.

After throwing out the asbestos-specific facet of the law, the
Supreme Court turned to another precedent-setting decision. In
Covalt v. Carey Canada, Inc., the Supreme Court determined that a
plaintiff can bring a suit within two years of discovering a
disease even if it's been 10 years since they were last exposed to
the product.

The ruling was limited to cases involving a disease contracted
after prolonged exposure to a foreign substance.

"Thus, neither Section 2 nor Section 1's 10-year statute of repose
currently applies to asbestos claims," Stemerick said. "Defendants
who sold asbestos-containing products will now be exposed to
liability for injuries caused by their products even when those
products were delivered more than 10 years ago."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Victim Helps Lobby for Funding
--------------------------------------------------------
Emma Macdonald, writing for The Canberra Times, reported that
Serafina Salucci was just seven when she helped her dad build a
garage in their Sydney backyard using the common building material
of bonded asbestos sheeting.

But in 2007, at the age of 37, a persistent cough sent her to the
doctors where a scan of her lung confirmed the deadly cancer
mesothelioma.

Given her lack of exposure to any other form of asbestos, the most
likely explanation is a tiny fibre entered her young lung during
the backyard renovation, where it lay dormant for 30 years.

But Ms Salucci considers herself one of the lucky ones. The
average time between diagnosis of mesothelioma and death is just
two years. She has survived nine. And she has watched her four
children -- the youngest was three when she was diagnosed - reach
milestones she never thought possible.

With one lung removed, too many surgeries to list, and bouts of
chemotherapy and radiation therapy behind her, Ms Salucci lives as
full a life as she can between her six-monthly scans.

And on Monday, she did something she never thought she would do --
come to Federal Parliament to plead for funding for the national
effort against Australia's asbestos legacy.

Ms Salucci was joined by asbestos advocates, legal and union
representatives from across Australia -- all of whom have banded
together to call on the Turnbull Government to approve $3 million
in funding for the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency.

The money was budgeted to go to the agency after 2013 when it was
established with bipartisan support. But it was returned to
Treasury when the agency did not spend it within an allocated
time.

According to Asbestos Diseases Foundation of Australia president
Barry Robson, who is also a member of the Asbestos Safety and
Eradication Advisory Council, the agency is now significantly
underfunded and does not have the budget to implement the National
Strategic Plan, signed off by all state and territory governments
last year.

Mr Robson said it was a case of bureaucracy gone mad.

He said some of the reasons the money was not spent in time,
included staffing issues due to a hiring freeze under Tony Abbott.
Then the agency had to help coordinate a national response to the
National Broadband roll-out when telecommunications technicians
found themselves working in asbestos lined cable pits.

Agency head Peter Tighe helped bring Canberra's Mr Fluffy asbestos
crisis to a head when he intervened in 2014 to call for all homes
to be demolished on public safety grounds despite ACT Government
protestations at the time that homes were safe.

In March, Employment Minister Michaelia Cash called for review of
the agency's funding.

A spokesman for Senator Cash said: "The Government has not cut the
funding of the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency. The
agency's funding has been maintained at the level set by the
former Labor government.

"The Labor Government provided the funding on the basis that the
setup costs would reduce after the early years and the agency
would then focus on its coordination role, working with the states
and territories to implement ASEA's National Strategic Plan."

Budget rules across all government agencies do not allow agencies
to keep underspends from one year and reallocate them to
subsequent years.

But Mr Robson said the politics of the situation could put public
safety at risk.

Some of the projects that are currently on hold include a mobile
phone app assisting homeowners identify asbestos, a program to
remove asbestos in indigenous communities, a pilot project to
develop safety certificates that identify asbestos in the home
ahead of sales or renovation work, and improved coordination with
Border Force to stop illegal importation of products containing
asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Electrician Dies After Asbestos Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------
Southern Daily Echo reported that a retired electrician died of
cancer after coming into contact with asbestos in his working
life.

Winchester Coroner's Court heard how Robert Payne, from Testwood
Lane in Totton, worked at a tar distillery in Totton in the 1960s.

At the time, Mr Payne, who died aged 69, worked in a boiler room
which had a boiler and pipes lagged with asbestos.

One of his jobs was to install copper cables which involved mixing
asbestos powder.

In in a past statement he said he would spend a lot of time with
laggers who were covered in asbestos.

In 1967 he started working in a factory where he also came into
contact with the substance.

Mr Payne developed a cough which was later diagnosed as
mesothelioma in October 2014. He later died at Countess
Mountbatten Hospice on January 22.

Senior coroner Grahame Short recorded a death due to industrial
disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: W. Va. DEP Satisfied with City's Response
----------------------------------------------------------
Evan Bevins, writing for Parkersburg News and Sentinel, reported
that the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection
approves of the way the city dealt with the discovery of a pipe
containing asbestos at the Point Park Marketplace.

"The asbestos situation was handled by the city to our
satisfaction," Kelley Gillenwater, chief communications officer
for the DEP, said via email Tuesday.

A DEP inspector met with Parkersburg Mayor Jimmy Colombo and Code
Enforcement Director Gary Moss on Thursday, two days after city
officials were notified the pipe had been found by a vendor
clearing out his space at the market, located at 113 Ann St.

On that day, April 12, Empire Builders owner Hank Oldaker, who is
certified in asbestos abatement, oversaw removal of the pipe,
which had apparently been used as part of a gas vent from a hot
water tank that had been replaced. Oldaker said the pipe was non-
friable, meaning it would not crumble or be reduced to powder by
hand pressure.

The next day, air quality tests were performed by Best Home
Inspections of St. Albans. The results detected 0.001 fibers per
cubic centimeter. Company owner Arvin Gibbs said that did not
necessarily mean asbestos fibers and the results indicated "almost
perfectly clear air." The acceptable clearance level is 0.01, he
said.

Gillenwater said the DEP inspector indicated the city had handled
the situation "in a good manner before we could even get there"
and the actions taken are what the department would have requested
once it investigated the complaint.

"It's perfectly clean and safe. That's what this is all about,"
Colombo said.

John Wiseman, whose business, Lapping the Couch Adventures, closed
at the market earlier this month, alerted the DEP after finding
the pipe. He also expressed concern that two similar pipes had
been left in the building and covered with blown-in insulation.
Oldaker said he did not find any indication of that.

The discovery of the pipe was discussed during the City Council
meeting, during which council voted 4-3, with two members recusing
themselves, to approve a five-year lease of the market building
with vendors Marvin Edwards and James Kincaid.

Colombo said he expects the lease to be signed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Criminal Probe Possible at Brady Sullivan Site
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Rodolico, writing for New Hampshire Public Radio, reported
that responding to a confidential tip, last fall a Massachusetts
investigator went to Pacific Mills in Lawrence and found piles of
contaminated debris.  The informant alleged the debris had been
illegally transported across state lines from New Hampshire.

Working on a tip from a confidential source, federal and state
regulators investigated how piles of asbestos-laden debris ended
up in Lawrence, Mass. outside a building owned by Brady Sullivan
Properties, one of New Hampshire's largest real estate developers.

Investigators with the Environmental Protection Agency and the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection have raised
questions about whether the toxic debris was illegally moved
across state lines from New Hampshire.

Brady Sullivan is the subject of ongoing investigations by the two
agencies, although neither would confirm the nature of the
investigations.

But emails obtained by NHPR describe a tip that led a
Massachusetts state investigator to the Pacific Mills Industrial
Complex in Lawrence, where the inspector found hazardous waste,
including asbestos. The investigator contacted four more
environmental and public health agencies across New Hampshire,
Massachusetts and the federal government.

State and federal authorities were already investigating Brady
Sullivan's conduct at another site the company was developing:
Mill West in Manchester. In June of 2015, EPA ordered Brady
Sullivan to clean up hazardous lead dust from dozens of apartments
in Mill West.

In emails obtained by NHPR, a federal agent referred to "criminal
investigations" of Brady Sullivan and a subcontractor,
Environmental Compliance Specialists, Inc., or ECSI, who is linked
to both Mill West and the Pacific Mills development sites.

Tim Dame, an investigator with the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection, told state and federal colleagues in an
email that the cases in Manchester and Lawrence might be
connected.

"We have a confidential informant . . . that is saying that up to
10 truckloads of black beauty sandblast grit with lead paint chips
and asbestos from [Mill West in Manchester] was disposed of in
Pacific Mills in Lawrence about 2 to 3 months ago in the basement
cement," Dame wrote in an email.

The emails do not say if authorities determined the source of the
hazardous waste, or if they dug up the basement cement in search
of lead and asbestos. They also do not describe any further legal
response.

Brady Sullivan responded to NHPR by saying it knew nothing of the
materials investigators found until MassDEP informed the company.

"Brady Sullivan does not know where the materials came from and
believes that its environmental contractors always dispose of all
materials in a safe, legal and regulated manner," the statement
says.

"A confidential informant"

Emails sent between state and federal regulators describe the
following narrative: Last fall, an employee of a Brady Sullivan
subcontractor contacted the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection. That person is referred to in the emails
as "a confidential informant."

The informant told MassDEP that construction debris had been
transported that past summer from Mill West in Manchester to the
Pacific Mills Industrial Complex in Lawrence, Mass. Brady Sullivan
is currently renovating both of these properties, converting
historic mills into luxury lofts.

Without alerting the landlord to the complaint, MassDEP
investigator Tim Dame visited the Lawrence site. He went to
Building 3, where the confidential informant claimed Dame would
find several piles of contaminated debris.

According to emails, Dame did find the debris, and the piles
included what he called "small squares of pink material with paper
backing." Dame tested those pink squares, and the results showed
the material was mostly asbestos. Dame took photos of the debris,
and tested for lead as well. The lead results were not immediately
available.

"Motivation to bury it in a floor"

Within hours, a handful of state and federal agencies were trying
to learn more about what Dame had found in Lawrence -- and if it
was connected to the site in Manchester.

On September 23, Dame sent an email to colleagues from the federal
Environmental Protection Agency and two New Hampshire agencies,
the Department of Environmental Services and the Department of
Health and Human Services.

"Also, as you know," Dame wrote, "it is much more expensive to get
rid of asbestos than regular solid waste so some motivation to
bury it in a floor is there."

Dame emailed photos of the debris outside Building 3 to his
colleagues, writing, "I would be interested to know of any records
of testing or disposal of shotblast from the Manchester mill
site...."

A criminal investigator with EPA quickly organized a conference
call, looping in the federal Department of Labor's Occupational
Safety and Health Administration. The subject of the call: Brady
Sullivan and one of its subcontractors, Environmental Compliance
Specialists, Inc., or ECSI. That subcontractor was linked to the
Brady Sullivan sites in Lawrence and Manchester.

"Folks," wrote EPA Special Agent Tyler Amon to his state and
federal colleagues, "in regards to allegations concerning Brady
Sullivan/ECSI, to include allegations of illegal disposal of Lead
and asbestos in the Lawrence, MA area, several of us thought a
conference call to discuss the current status of both civil and
criminal investigations at the federal and state made sense."

Prior problems with arsenic, cadmium and lead

Brady Sullivan Properties, based in Manchester, has taken on many
renovation jobs in recent years, transforming dilapidated New
England mills into high-end commercial and residential space. Rent
for a loft in a converted Brady Sullivan mill tops out around
$2,500 per month.

But the conversions themselves are complex and costly, in part
because old mills are full of toxic material that can be expensive
to dispose of in a safe, legal manner.

Brady Sullivan and ECSI had recently run afoul of some of those
regulations.

According to state and federal officials, Brady Sullivan hired
ECSI to do a demolition job at Mill West in Manchester last May.
The contractor sandblasted lead paint off the walls using a
demolition material called Black Beauty. Residents in dozens of
apartments were exposed to toxic lead dust. The City of Manchester
reported ECSI lacked the required permits, and EPA found the
company lacked the necessary employee training to deal with lead.

An NHPR investigation last year found that after the lead exposure
occurred, Brady Sullivan downplayed the health risks posed by the
dust to its tenants.

ECSI was subsequently fined $19,600 by OSHA for exposing its
workers to arsenic, cadmium and lead at Mill West; those penalties
were later reduced to $12,250. ECSI's website has since been taken
down, and the company's corporate filings with the state of New
Hampshire have not been renewed. Attempts to call ECSI led to full
voicemail boxes.

EPA ordered Brady Sullivan to clean up the mess at Mill West in
Manchester. A tenants group has sued Brady Sullivan and ECSI in
Hillsborough County Superior Court.

"Far-fetched" claims

Last September in Lawrence, MassDEP investigator Tim Dame
questioned the owner of ECSI, Jesse Wright.

In an email last September, Dame said Wright made conflicting
claims about how the material got to Lawrence. Dame wrote he found
the explanations "far-fetched."

Dame also questioned a Brady Sullivan supervisor. In that same
email Dame wrote that the supervisor "briefly mentioned that ECSI
may have 'brought some fill in.'"

Almost six months later in March of this year, an ECSI trailer
still sat outside Building 3 in Pacific Mills in Lawrence. The
trailer's doors were padlocked and the tires were flat and blocked
off with bricks.

In its statement to NHPR, Brady Sullivan says it placed the
material in 55-gallon drums under the supervision of MassDEP.
Those drums remain on site at Pacific Mills in Lawrence.

"Brady Sullivan is awaiting permission from the MassDEP to have
its environmental contractor properly dispose of the materials,"
the statement says.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Fined $24,000 for Unsafe Removal
-----------------------------------------------------
Safety Culture reported that the Industrial Court convicted an
asbestos removalist of seven counts of unsafe asbestos removal
work.

The man entered a guilty plea and was convicted undertaking Class
A asbestos removal work without authorization, failing to engage a
suitably qualified person to carry out mandatory air monitoring
and clearance inspection, providing false and misleading
documentation to the regulator, and failing to provide the
homeowner with a copy of the Asbestos Removal Control Plan before
starting work.

An initial fine of $40,000 was reduced to $24,000 plus court costs
because of his early guilty plea.

In addition to the fine, the man's licence was cancelled and he
was disqualified from applying for a new licence for three years.
He was also required to train before re-applying.

"By his action the defendant has effectively lost his business and
any income that he might have derived from that business," said
Industrial Magistrate Ardlie.

"Whenever asbestos is involved, the health and safety of workers
as well as other people, including neighbouring property owners,
is of paramount importance," said Ms Marie Boland, Executive
Director of SafeWork SA.

"SafeWork SA is prepared to cancel licences, or seek
disqualification from holding a licence, where that's in the best
interest of the wider community."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Victim's Family Appeals for Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Spoors, writing for Northampton Chronicle & Echo, reported
that a grieving brother and sister are appealing for help after
their mum, a former factory worker, died after suffering from an
asbestos-related cancer.

Cherrill Bradshaw, from Northampton, passed away at the age of
just 62 in October 2014 leaving a devastated son, Gary, and
daughter, Lisa.

They have instructed specialist lawyers to investigate conditions
at three places she worked at to see if a presence of asbestos led
to her being diagnosed with mesothelioma decades after her
employment.

As part of their investigations, the lawyers urgently want to
speak to anyone who worked with Cherrill during a career which
included roles firstly as a machinist and then as a supervisor in
factories around her local town.

In particular, they want to hear from anyone with knowledge of a
fire in an adjoining factory at Barratts shoes in the 1980s, which
led to damage next door where Cherrill was part of a team tasked
with the clean-up process.

Even though not everywhere in the factory suffered damage, dust
from the fire spread to all the areas they were required to clean.

Lawyers Irwin Mitchell claim it was "dusty and dirty work" and
Cherrill had to sweep up and dust down the machines and work
benches.

The solicitors are also looking into whether, prior to this, in
the late 1970s, there was asbestos around pipes in two other
factories where Cherrill working as a machinist.

Kim Barrett, a specialist asbestos lawyer at Irwin Mitchell who is
representing Cherrill's children, said: "We now see on a daily
basis the devastating impact exposure to asbestos years ago is
having on thousands of people's lives.

"This tragic case has left a son and daughter searching for
answers after losing their mum unexpectedly and far too soon.
Although we cannot change the past, we can investigate working
conditions and see whether Cherrill and other employees were
safeguarded from the deadly dust or if more could have been done
to keep her safe."

Lisa, 44, said: "My mum worked very hard all her life, both at
home and work, to bring up her children and support her family.

"As retirement approached she was suddenly diagnosed with
mesothelioma which turned our family upside down and left us
devastated.

"Watching her last months was incredibly upsetting and the least
we now deserve is answers to tell us what caused her to develop
such a painful illness.

"If you have any information that could help then we'd really
appreciate your support."

Anyone who worked with Cherrill and has information on the
presence of asbestos can call Kim Barrett on 0121 214 5211 or
email kim.barrett@irwinmitchell.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Client Fined Over Pre-Construction Info
--------------------------------------------------------
Philip Poynter Construction Safety reported that a construction
project client has been fined alongside an appointed contractor
after asbestos was disturbed during refurbishment work between
June and August 2014.

Westminster Magistrates' Court heard how two employees of 24-Hour
Maintenance Services Limited disturbed asbestos insulating board
(AIB) whilst undertaking work at a former commercial premises
undergoing conversion residential flats, in Romford, London.

HSE investigators found that the client failed to pass on the
details of the presence of asbestos to the contractor despite
knowledge of this fact.

Asbestos can be found in any building built before the year 2000.
A refurbishment/demolition asbestos survey is required where the
premises, or part of it, need upgrading, refurbishment or
demolition.

Significant exposure to asbestos fibres

A refurbishment and demolition survey was not conducted to
determine the presence of asbestos on the site. The two workers
removed AIB without any effective precautions and therefore
received significant exposure to asbestos fibres.

Firestone Estates Limited -- of Watford, Hertfordshire pleaded
guilty to breaching Regulation 10(1)(b) of the Construction
(Design and Management) Regulations 2007 and were fined GBP10,000
and were ordered to pay GBP1020.64 in costs with a GBP1,000 victim
surcharge.

CDM 2007 Regulation 10 required that the project client must
provide designers and contractors with the required Pre-
construction Information. This duty has now been replaced by new
duties under CDM 2015.

24-Hour Maintenance Services Limited -- of Borehamwood,
Hertfordshire pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the
Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and were fined GBP5,000
with GBP974.44 in costs and a victim surcharge of GBP500.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Says Saleman Wasn't "Sophisticated User"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Dye, writing for Reuters, reported that a California jury
erroneously found that a salesman who spent years peddling
asbestos-containing products to industrial facilities was a
"sophisticated user" and therefore did not need to be warned about
the substance's health risks, a state appeals court has ruled.

California's Second District Court of Appeal said that Foster
Wheeler Energy Corp, a subsidiary of engineering conglomerate Amec
Foster Wheeler, had not presented sufficient evidence that
plaintiff Richard Moran, by virtue of his job, would have been
aware that asbestos exposure can cause mesothelioma, a deadly
cancer.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dying Kiwi Wins Payouts for Exposure
-----------------------------------------------------
Deidre Mussen, writing for Sunday Sun Times, reported that it's in
Des Sayegh's nature to help others, but his work rebuilding
cyclone-ravaged Western Australia nearly 40 years ago is helping
to kill him.

The 81-year-old Aucklander has just won a confidential payout from
Australia for asbestos exposure while working as a cabinet maker
and carpenter in 1978 around Nyabing, a tiny township about 300km
south-east of Perth.

Last April, his nagging cough was diagnosed as mesothelioma, a
fatal cancer of mesothelial cells that line a person's lungs and
abdominal cavity, caused by inhaling asbestos fibres.

"We never wore masks or ear muffs in those days because it was
just sort of unheard of -- you'd have felt a bit of a fool going
around with those things on in those days, as stupid as it is now,
but that's the way it was then."

Nobody knows whether he breathed the killer fibres during his 11
months in Australia or his many decades working in New Zealand's
building industry.

Regardless, his asbestos-related disease makes him eligible for
compensation on both sides of the Tasman, including a lump sum of
about $100,000 from ACC in New Zealand and the Australian out-of-
court settlement from the asbestos product's manufacturer, which
cannot be named because of a confidentiality clause.

He has unwittingly inhaled asbestos dust over many years while
sawing building products containing asbestos, starting when he was
an apprentice in the 1950s in Auckland.

At the start of 1978, his then-teenage son, Mark, encouraged his
Dad to join him in Western Australia for work, so he moved there
with his teenage daughter, Debbie. Within a few months, in March
1978, Cyclone Alby struck, causing massive damage to buildings in
the state, creating a surge of demolition and building work.

Eventually, his wife, Ann, and their two younger children joined
them in Australia.

Des fears his entire family has been exposed to asbestos because
his son worked with him for two years and his family had close
contact with him at work plus his work clothes.

"When you come home from work, you could be covered in the stuff.
My wife would chuck my clothes in the washing machine and from
memory, you could almost see the fibres on the shirts and things
like that."

After last year's diagnosis, ACC swiftly offered lump sum
compensation and other support, including taxi chits for medical
appointments, home help and home equipment for his declining
health.

But it was luck Des heard about Australian compensation after his
daughter ordered a free copy of the book Surviving Mesothelioma
off the internet, not realising an Australian law firm was the
sponsor. A few days later, top Australian asbestos lawyer Theodora
Ahilas, of Maurice Blackburn Lawyers, contacted him and offered to
help him fight his case.

She has assisted a handful of New Zealanders to gain settlements
for historic asbestos exposure in Australia, including a dying
Wellington man last year, and believes many people and their
doctors are unaware they can get compensation across the Tasman.

While the yet-to-be-paid Australian money feels a bitter-sweet win
because Des faces death, he wants other sick Kiwis to know they
can claim in Australia too if they worked there too.

"There's been an awful lot of people who have gone down without
any form of compensation or anything and there's just nothing left
for the families, which can be soul-destroying.

"The settlement made me well aware that there's a lot of people
who worked in Australia, probably similar situations to myself,
and in fairness, they should be able to make a claim and it will
certainly make their lives a little bit easier."

ASBESTOS FACTS:

   * A long latency period of 20 to 50 years between exposure and
disease occurring.

   * Diseases include mesothelioma, asbestosis, lung cancer and
other lung conditions.

   * Those most at risk include those who mined asbestos, or those
who processed or used asbestos products, such as building products
and pipe lagging. It includes construction workers, builders,
carpenters, electricians, pipe fitters, insulation installers and
shipbuilders.

   * In the past 10 years, ACC has paid out 1644 lump sum payments
to sick New Zealanders for asbestos-related diseases, costing
$74.5 million.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Grants 24 Unopposed Bids to Dismiss Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a Missouri federal court has
granted motions filed by 24 asbestos defendants to dismiss for
lack of personal jurisdiction, noting that the plaintiff did not
respond to the motions and had not met his burden of proving
jurisdiction.

In the April 13 order, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri wrote that there was no evidence in the
complaint that would establish that the defendants were subject to
general or specific jurisdiction in Missouri.

Twenty-four of the defendants moved to dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction. The plaintiff did not respond to the
motions.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sonoma State University Focus of Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Clark Mason, writing for The Press Democrat, reported that a
longtime Sonoma State University employee's lawsuit is raising
questions about asbestos contamination on campus amid allegations
that supervisors ignored his warnings about the problem and then
retaliated against him when he reported it to authorities.

Thomas R. Sargent, an environmental health and safety specialist,
claims that he was forced to resign after repeatedly raising
concerns about asbestos problems at the Rohnert Park campus,
including that asbestos dust likely contaminated the heating,
ventilation and air conditioning systems throughout six buildings.

The administration acknowledges the presence of asbestos in a
number of buildings but denies that it poses a health hazard based
on previous tests as well as monthly measurements taken since
January.

Despite those reassurances, word of the potential asbestos danger
has unsettled both students and faculty.

Articles in the Sonoma State Star student newspaper, which first
wrote about the issue in March, describe professors who say they
don't use their own offices, instead meeting students at other
locations. One student wrote an opinion piece in the paper that
said Stevenson Hall, the building at the center of the complaints,
is "not a safe place on campus."

Attorneys also have raised allegations the university tampered
with evidence prior to one test for asbestos by extensively
cleaning classrooms and offices against a judge's order.

Also at issue are the emails of Sonoma State President Ruben
Arminana, and whether he inappropriately deleted communications
related to Sargent's whistleblowing and the asbestos issue.

Arminana declined comment through a spokeswoman. He testified in a
deposition that he routinely deletes all of his emails, but
lawyers for Sargent claim it was tantamount to destruction of
evidence and have asked Sonoma County Superior Court Judge Nancy
Shaffer to issue sanctions against the university.

A lawyer for the Board of Trustees of California State University
told the judge there is no evidence Arminana was directly involved
in the Sargent dispute and his deleted emails can still be
accessed on the university's computer server.

Judge Shaffer initially said she was concerned there was evidence
of "sanctionable conduct" regarding tampering with evidence, but
after listening to arguments on both sides said she would issue a
written ruling later.

Sargent's lawsuit seeks approximately $15 million in general and
punitive damages from the CSU system. Some of the damages are
being sought a under a law that allows workers to file suit
against their employers for workplace safety violations with 75
percent of the award going to Cal/OSHA, the agency that oversees
the regulations.

But the university contends such lawsuits can't be brought against
a public entity.

The lawsuit, filed in May 2014, is scheduled for a trial beginning
July 29. Among other issues, a jury is expected to weigh the
threshold for safe exposure to asbestos and whether that was
exceeded at Sonoma State.

Asbestos was commonly used in building construction until the late
1970s and valued for insulation, sound reduction and fire
retardant qualities. But its microscopic fibrous crystals are
considered hazardous and carcinogenic, particularly with prolonged
inhalation.

Sargent, a certified asbestos consultant, asserts that his
supervisor, Craig Dawson, a defendant in the lawsuit, ignored many
warnings over the years about damaged asbestos floor tiles in
faculty offices that were being scratched and eroded by the
casters on chairs, releasing asbestos-contaminated dust.

Sargent routinely collected samples in some buildings, including
Stevenson Hall, where he was alarmed by the levels of asbestos
detected in 2013 on a windowsill. It confirmed his fears that
deadly asbestos fibers were being dispersed into the air
throughout faculty offices, according to his lawsuit.

The university did its own testing with a different method and
results. When Sargent raised questions about whether the technique
met professional standards, "he was reprimanded and things stared
to spiral out of control," said his attorney, Dustin Collier of
San Francisco.

The focus of the lawsuit has been Stevenson Hall, one of the
oldest buildings on campus. The more than half-century-old
building houses numerous faculty offices and classrooms.

In two air shafts at Stevenson, an independent testing company in
January found levels above the 100,000 asbestos "structures" per
square centimeter that are considered high by industry standards.

One air shaft was found with 518,000 asbestos structures per
square centimeter, and another had 259,000.

Dawson, SSU's director of environmental heath and safety, did not
dispute those measurements Friday, but said they were taken from
settled surfaces not accessible to regular occupants of the
building.

"Everything we have been doing is showing we don't have any
dangerous or unsafe conditions," he said.

He said the university has done a "phenomenal job" maintaining
floor and wall surfaces with wax, epoxy, paint and other covering
to avoid airborne release of asbestos fibers.

"We have never had an episode where we have had dangerous
conditions in our buildings," he said. "We have had a number of
reviews of the buildings and the program itself."

On the Sonoma State website, the university maintains there is no
evidence of any exposure above recognized EPA and or Cal/OSHA
applicable limits.

"Results from surface asbestos dust sampling are not indicative of
employee or public exposure," the administration said in a
statement on the university's website. "All area testing has shown
no airborne asbestos had been detected in all six buildings using
recognized EPA air sampling methodology."

But the controversy has resonated with the university's more than
600 faculty members, whose union filed a grievance over the issue
to ensure they have a safe working environment.

Faculty representative Anne Janks said there has been difficulty
getting timely and adequate information from the administration on
the issue. The faculty union recently hired its own consultant
with extensive background in safety and healthy issues, and
asbestos in particular.

"We want to ensure the faculty receives accurate information and
analysis and advice . . . and (understands) what it means if you
have asbestos in the intake exhaust units," Janks said. " It's
important to understand where the asbestos is coming from and the
different potential sources."

A School of Education lecturer, Elizabeth Galvez-Hardin, who has
worked in Stevenson Hall for 19 years, gave a signed declaration
as part of the lawsuit indicating she believes her lymph cancer,
which she was diagnosed with in 2010, is associated with
environmental toxins.

In addition to asbestos, Sargent says the university also put
students, faculty, day care children and others in danger with the
manner in which lead-based paint chips on the roof of the physical
education building were scattered with a leaf blower in 2012.

He claims he warned that the leaf-blowing technique would violate
state public health regulations and instead recommended using a
vacuum to remove the substance to ensure it wasn't dispersed, but
was rebuffed by his supervisor, Dawson.

Sargent reported the incident to a number of regulatory agencies.
As a result, Cal/OSHA cited Sonoma State for violating lead
standards and the Sonoma County Department of Emergency Services
fined the university for the incident, according to the lawsuit.

Sargent said as a result of some of his complaints, a vice
president used his influence to cause university police to "begin
surveilling and subtly intimidating the plaintiff."

SSU spokeswoman Susan Kashack said Arminana was unavailable to
comment on the allegation, and that he generally does not comment
on pending litigation.

Sargent also said it appeared Dawson tried to retaliate against
him by, among other things, directing him to transfer by hand
4,000 pounds of sewer-contaminated debris to a garbage truck,
exacerbating a chronic back problem.

Dawson said he is prohibited from comment on the allegations due
to the ongoing litigation.

"I'd love to comment," he said. "I hope our justice system brings
everything to light."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Tied to Colon Cancer Diagnosis
--------------------------------------------------------
Madison Record reported that a longtime laborer and his wife are
suing over the man's alleged exposure to asbestos during his
working life and the results of that alleged exposure. Among the
counts are negligence and conspiracy.

George O. Machino Jr. and Jeri Machino filed the suit March 29 in
St. Clair County Circuit Court against Ameren Illinois Company,
Borg-Warner Morse Tec LLC, Chevron USA Inc., Honeywell
International and many other defendants listed.


The plaintiff worked from 1966 to 2012 and during that time was
allegedly exposed to and inhaled, ingested or otherwise absorbed
large amounts of asbestos fibers, the suit says.

On Oct. 9, 2015, the plaintiff was diagnosed with colon cancer, as
asbestos-induced disease, according to the complaint.

Despite the defendants' duty to exercise care and caution for the
safety of the plaintiff, the suit alleges they failed to do so in
the following ways: including asbestos in their products when they
should have known it is toxic and when adequate substitutes were
available; not providing adequate warnings to those working around
asbestos or adequate instructions concerning the safe methods of
working with asbestos.

There are eight counts against the defendants for which the
plaintiff seeks judgments in excess of $50,000 and other relief
the court deems appropriate.

The final count is for loss of consortium, brought by plaintiff
Jeri Machino, who claims she has been deprived of the
companionship, society and services of her husband. She seeks an
amount in excess of $50,000.

They are represented by Randy L. Gori and Barry Julian of Gori,
Julian & Associates PC in Edwardsville.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 16-L-177


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Agrees To Create $480MM Trust
------------------------------------------------------
James J.A. Mulhall, Esq. -- james.mulhall@steptoe-johnson.com --
and Cara N. Parcell, Esq. -- cara.parcell@steptoe-johnson.com --
at Steptoe & Johnson PLLC, in an article for The National Law
Review, reported that Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC, as part of
a settlement agreement involving Garlock's owner, direct parent,
and current and future asbestos claimants, will establish a $480
million trust to be used for United States asbestos claims.
Garlock is to provide $400 million up front, with another $80
million to be added within one year.  After-tax value would be
$284 million.

The settlement must be approved by the claimants, the North
Carolina bankruptcy court, and the U.S. District Court.  The plan
could be approved as early as summer 2017.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Suit Filed Against Amchem, et al.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Scott T. Jervis and Melinda P. Gardner, individually, and as
Executors of the Estate of Thomas Jervis, deceased, the
Plaintiffs, v. Amchem Products, Inc., n/k/a Rhone Poulenc AG
Company, n/k/a Bayer Cropscience Inc., American Biltrite, Inc.,
individually and as successor to Amtico Floors, Armstrong
International, Inc., Dap Products, Inc., Domco Products Texas,
Inc., f/k/a Azrock Industries, Inc., Ford Motor Company, Georgia-
Pacific LLC, Honeywell International, Inc., f/k/a Allied Signal,
Inc., as successor in interest to The Bendix Corporation, Kaiser
Gypsum Company, Inc., Mannington Mills, Inc., Pfizer, Inc., Pneumo
Abex LLC, individually and as successor in interest to Pneumo Abex
Corporation, and The Goodyear Tire And Rubber Company the
Defendants, Case No. N16C-03-126 ASB (Del. Super. Ct., New Castle
County, March 14, 2016), seeks to recover all injuries and damages
which Plaintiff allegedly suffered from exposure to asbestos-
containing products including framing, drywall, insulation,
flooring, ceiling panels, electrical products, paint products,
brakes, and brake linings.

According to the lawsuit, the Defendants directly or indirectly
engaged in the specification, mining, manufacturing, distribution,
sales, licensing, leasing, installation, removal, or use of
asbestos and asbestos-containing products. Defendants were also
engaged in the development, manufacture, distribution, sales,
licensing or leasing of equipment, procedures, or technology
necessary to mine, manufacture, sell, distribute, install, remove,
and use asbestos and asbestos-containing products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bowers, A Dale, Esq.
          Kenneth L. Wan, Esq.
          William J. P. Mulgrew III, Esq.
          BOWERS, A DALE PA
          PO Box 6047
          Wilmington, DE 19804
          Telephone: (302) 691 3786
          Facsimile: (302) 691 3790
          E-mail: dale@bowerslegal.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Massachusetts Case vs. Rapid-American Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Complaint was filed by Catherine Murray, as executrix of John M.
Murray's Estate, against Eastern Refractories Company, Inc., et
al., in Massachusetts Superior Court.  The five-count Complaint
alleges that John M. Murray contracted asbestosis and other
related asbestos-related diseases from exposure to the defendants'
asbestos and asbestos-containing materials while working as a
rigger at the Boston Naval Shipyard, Charlestown, Massachusetts.
The case was removed to the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts and transferred to Magistrate Judge
Bowler's Asbestos Docket.

Defendant Rapid-American Corporation filed a Suggestion of
Bankruptcy.  The plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand Case to State
Court stating that the only remaining defendant is a bankrupt
entity.

Rapid filed a voluntary petition for relief in the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.  As per
the bankruptcy code, all proceedings against a bankrupt entity are
automatically stayed when a petition is filed.

In an Order dated March 10, 2016, which is available at
http://is.gd/hxRFxY from Leagle.com, Judge Mark L. Wolf of the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
denied the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand Case to State Court and
stayed the case.

The case is CATHERINE MURRAY, as Executrix of the Estate of JOHN
M. MURRAY, Plaintiff, v. EASTERN REFRACTORIES COMPANY, INC., et
al., Defendant, C.A. No. 12-12355-MLW (D. Mass.).

Yarway Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Jeffrey L. Adams,
Esq. -- Jeffrey.Adams@piblaw.com -- Parker Ibrahim & Berg, LLC,
Patrick S. Tracey, Esq. -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP & Todd S.
Holbrook, Esq. -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trane Wins Summary Judgment in "Moss"
------------------------------------------------------
Jane Moss filed a civil action on behalf of her deceased husband,
Harry M. Moss, who died in 2013 from lung cancer.  The Plaintiff
contends that her husband's cancer was caused by his exposure to
asbestos-containing materials used to insulate and maintain
boilers.  Soon after the case was filed, it was transferred to the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania for consolidated pretrial
proceedings as part of multidistrict litigation.

Defendant Trane U.S., Inc., has moved for summary judgment on two
grounds.  First, the defendant argues that it did not assume the
liabilities at issue when it purchased American Standard (a
company that manufactured some of the boilers on which Moss
worked).  Second, the defendant argues that it cannot be held
liable because American Standard did not manufacture, distribute
or specify the use of the asbestos-containing materials that
caused the plaintiff's injuries.

In an Opinion and Order dated March 9, 2016, which is available at
http://is.gd/fpJ6Ibfrom Leagle.com, Judge Barbara B. Crabb of the
United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the second
of these two grounds.

Even if American Standard's failure to warn the plaintiff of the
risks associated with the use of asbestos constitutes negligence,
the defendant is nevertheless entitled to summary judgment on the
ground that public policy supports limiting the liability of
manufacturers that did not manufacture, distribute or specify the
products that caused a plaintiff's injuries, Judge Crabb held.

The case is JANE MOSS, individually and as Special Administrator
of the Estate of Harry M. Moss, Plaintiff, v. TRANE U.S., INC.,
Defendant, No. 13-cv-42-bbc (W.D. Wis.).

Jane Moss, Plaintiff, is represented by Michael P. Cascino, Esq. -
- Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd. & Daniel Benjamin Hausman,
Esq. -- Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd..

Trane U.S. Inc., Defendant, is represented by Trevor Jonathan
Will, Esq. -- twill@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner & Gregory Neil
Heinen, Esq. -- gheinen@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Three Cos. Win Summary Judgment in "Holland"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff George D. Holland filed a lawsuit individually and as
the personal representative of the estate of Owen D. Holland
against Crane Company, Fluor Daniel Services Corporation and
Goulds Pumps Incorporated for allegedly exposing Owen to airborne
asbestos fibers that directly caused his contraction of and
subsequent death from malignant mesothelioma.

Owen and Gregory A. Legg originally filed the case in United
States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama,
Northeastern Division against 45 defendants.  The Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation subsequently transferred the case to
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for inclusion in MDL 875.
There, Judge Eduardo C. Robreno severed Legg and Owen's claims.
Owen subsequently filed an amended and severed complaint alleging
that he was exposed to asbestos-containing products produced,
manufactured, specified for use, installed, distributed, sold,
and/or placed into the stream of commerce by Defendants during his
employment as a laborer, operator, and utility worker from
approximately the late 1960's to 2004.

After the Defendants moved for summary judgment, Judge Robreno
granted the motion, in part, for Fluor Daniel as to all claims of
exposure prior to May 19, 1980. As to the remaining claims against
Fluor Daniel, Judge Robreno found that an Alabama judge should
address Alabama's standard for exposure in asbestos cases and the
operation of Alabama's construction statute of repose, and
remanded the case with leave for Fluor Daniel to refile its motion
as to alleged exposure after May 19, 1980. Judge Robreno also
denied Crane's and Goulds' motions for summary judgment with leave
to refile in this court.

In a Memorandum Opinion dated March 24, 2016, which is available
at http://is.gd/HmwrU7from Leagle.com, Judge Abdul K. Kallon of
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama, Northeastern Division, granted the motions for summary
judgment.

The case is GEORGE D. HOLLAND, individually and as the personal
representative of The Estate of OWEN D. HOLLAND, deceased,
Plaintiff, v. AIRCO INC., et. al., Defendants, Civil Action No.
5:11-cv-02189-AKK (N.D. Ala.).

George D Holland, Plaintiff, is represented by G Patterson Keahey,
Jr., Esq. -- LAW OFFICES OF G PATTERSON KEAHEY PC.

Crane Company, Defendant, is represented by F Grey Redditt, Jr.,
Esq. -- gredditt@maynardcooper.com --Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C.,
Roy W Harrell, III, Esq. -- gredditt@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard,
Cooper & Gale, P.C. & Timothy A Clarke, Esq. --
tim.clarke@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard, Cooper, Gale P.C..

Fluor Daniel Services Corporation, Defendant, is represented by
Frank E Lankford, Jr., Esq. -- flankford@huielaw.com -- HUIE
FERNAMBUCQ & STEWART LLP, Moffat G McDonald, Esq. --
mmcdonald@hsblawfirm.com -- HAYNSWORTH SINKLER BOYD PA, Scott A
Frick, Esq. -- sfrick@hsblawfirm.com -- HAYNSWORTH SINKLER BOYD PA
& Stewart W McCloud, Esq. -- smccloud@huielaw.com -- HUIE
FERNAMBUCQ & STEWART LLP.

Goulds Pumps Incorporated, Defendant, is represented by Timothy A
Clarke, Maynard, Cooper, Gale P.C., F Grey Redditt, Jr., Maynard,
Cooper & Gale, P.C. & Roy W Harrell, III.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Consolidates 9 Cases for Trial
--------------------------------------------------------
The Early Law Firm, counsel for plaintiffs Brahe, Randall F., et
al., seek to consolidate for joint trial the following nine in
extremis cases that have all been assigned to this part for trial
pursuant to the New York City Asbestos Litigation Amended Case
Management Order's in extremis cluster provisions:

   -- Randall Brahe, 190422/2014;
   -- Richard Byrnes, 190003/2014;
   -- Frederick Evans, Jr., 190109/2015;
   -- Jeffrey Kahn, 190023/2015 & 190024/2015;
   -- Pablo Laviera, 190118/2015;
   -- Olaf Lyberg, 190057/2015 & 190059/2015;
   -- Donald Miller, 190112/2014;
   -- Jesus Sierra-Guzman, 190086/2015 & 190087/2015;
   -- James Sudimack, M.D., 190045/2014.

The Plaintiffs propose to join these cases into six trial groups.

The Plaintiffs' motion is made on the grounds that common issues
of law and fact exist warranting a joint trial. Malaby & Bradley,
LLC submit opposition to plaintiffs' motion on behalf of all
defendants. Cleaver-Brooks, Inc., Carrier Corporation and Metro-
North Railroad submit supplementary opposition.

In a Decision and Order dated March 21, 2016, which is available
at http://is.gd/tox3N6from Leagle.com, Judge Peter H. Moulton of
the Supreme Court, New York County, granted the motion to
consolidate the cases for joint trial.

The case is IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. BRAHE,
RANDALL F., et al. Plaintiffs v. COLUMBUS McKINNON CHAIN CORP., et
al. Defendants, Docket No. 190422/2014, Motion Seq. No. 006.
2016 NY Slip Op 30466(U)(N.Y. Sup.).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rowan Loses Bid to Sever in "Garza"
----------------------------------------------------
Manuel Garza, et al., filed a Seamen's Petition for Damages in
state court seeking recovery for injuries allegedly sustained as a
result of exposure to asbestos-containing drilling mud while they
were employed with defendants Rowan Companies, Inc., ENSCO
Offshore Company, Harbinger Group, Inc., Diamond Offshore Company,
Nustar Energy, L.P., Kaneb Management Company, L.L.C., and
Helmerich & Payne International Drilling Co.  The Plaintiffs also
named as defendants Union Carbide Corporation, Montello, Inc.,
Chevron Phillips Chemical Company, L.P., Coastal Chemical Co.,
L.L.C., and Nico Supply Company, Inc., who allegedly manufactured
and/or distributed the asbestos-containing drilling mud.  The
Plaintiffs asserted claims under Louisiana state law, general
maritime law, and the Jones Act.  The action was removed based
upon the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Louisiana's original jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' general
maritime claims.

Pursuant to Court Order, plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint
providing a more detailed description of each plaintiff's work
history and alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products. The
Amended Complaint asserts that each plaintiff is suffering from
asbestosis and asbestos related lung disease due to exposure to
Flosal, a product of Drilling Specialties Company (now "Chevron
Phillips Chemical Company, LP"), and to Visbestos and Super
Visbestos, products of Union Carbide Corporation and Montello,
Inc., during their employment with the Jones Act Defendants.

Before the Court is a Motion to Sever Plaintiffs Due to
Misjoinder, filed by defendant Rowan Companies, Inc. asserting
that the 13 plaintiffs were improperly joined and that their cases
should be severed into 13 individual suits. The motion is opposed.
Defendant ENSCO Offshore Company filed a Motion to Join in Rowan's
Motion to Sever Plaintiffs Due to Misjoinder, which was granted by
this Court.

In a Magistrate Judge's Report dated March 4, 2016, which is
available at http://is.gd/52oP72from Leagle.com, Magistrate Judge
Erin Wilder-Doomes of the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Louisiana recommended that the Motion to Sever
Plaintiffs Due to Misjoinder, filed by defendant Rowan Companies
be denied.  Magistrate Wilder-Doomes also recommended to deny the
motion as to ENSCO Offshore Company.

According to the magistrate, the Motion to Sever Plaintiffs Due to
Misjoinder filed by Rowan, and adopted by ENSCO, does not
demonstrate that the 13 plaintiffs in this case are improperly
joined.

The case is MANUEL GARZA, ET AL. v. PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY, ET AL,
Civil Action No. 13-742-SDD-EWD (M.D. La.).

Manuel Garza, Plaintiff, is represented by Jason Christian
MacFetters, Esq. -- Law Office of Maria DeGracia, Daniel J.
Poolson, Jr., Esq. -- The Young Firm, Tammy Dianne Harris, Esq. --
The Young Firm & Timothy Justin Young, Esq. -- The Young Firm.

Larry Laborde, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Christian
MacFetters, Law Office of Maria DeGracia, Daniel J. Poolson, Jr.,
The Young Firm, Tammy Dianne Harris, The Young Firm & Timothy
Justin Young, The Young Firm.

Lynn Laborde, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Christian
MacFetters, Law Office of Maria DeGracia, Daniel J. Poolson, Jr.,
The Young Firm, Tammy Dianne Harris, The Young Firm & Timothy
Justin Young, The Young Firm.

Michael Northcutt, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Christian
MacFetters, Law Office of Maria DeGracia, Daniel J. Poolson, Jr.,
The Young Firm, Tammy Dianne Harris, The Young Firm & Timothy
Justin Young, The Young Firm.

Larry A Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Christian
MacFetters, Law Office of Maria DeGracia, Daniel J. Poolson, Jr.,
The Young Firm, Tammy Dianne Harris, The Young Firm & Timothy
Justin Young, The Young Firm.

Donald Stephens, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Christian
MacFetters, Law Office of Maria DeGracia, Daniel J. Poolson, Jr.,
The Young Firm, Tammy Dianne Harris, The Young Firm & Timothy
Justin Young, The Young Firm.

Wayne Buckley, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Christian
MacFetters, Law Office of Maria DeGracia, Daniel J. Poolson, Jr.,
The Young Firm, Tammy Dianne Harris, The Young Firm & Timothy
Justin Young, The Young Firm.

Charles Easterling, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Christian
MacFetters, Law Office of Maria DeGracia, Daniel J. Poolson, Jr.,
The Young Firm, Tammy Dianne Harris, The Young Firm & Timothy
Justin Young, The Young Firm.

Steven Goode, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Christian
MacFetters, Law Office of Maria DeGracia, Daniel J. Poolson, Jr.,
The Young Firm, Tammy Dianne Harris, The Young Firm & Timothy
Justin Young, The Young Firm.

Jerry Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Christian
MacFetters, Law Office of Maria DeGracia, Daniel J. Poolson, Jr.,
The Young Firm, Tammy Dianne Harris, The Young Firm & Timothy
Justin Young, The Young Firm.

James Little, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Christian
MacFetters, Law Office of Maria DeGracia, Daniel J. Poolson, Jr.,
The Young Firm, Tammy Dianne Harris, The Young Firm & Timothy
Justin Young, The Young Firm.

Paul Luckey, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Christian MacFetters,
Law Office of Maria DeGracia, Daniel J. Poolson, Jr., The Young
Firm, Tammy Dianne Harris, The Young Firm & Timothy Justin Young,
The Young Firm.

James Wells, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Christian MacFetters,
Law Office of Maria DeGracia, Daniel J. Poolson, Jr., The Young
Firm, Tammy Dianne Harris, The Young Firm & Timothy Justin Young,
The Young Firm.

Union Carbide Corp., Defendant, is represented by Deborah Kuchler,
Esq. -- dkuchler@kuchlerpolk.com -- Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner &
Richeson, LLC, Ernest G. Foundas,  Esq. --
efoundas@kuchlerpolk.com -- Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson,
LLC, Francis Xavier DeBlanc, III,  Esq. --
fdeblanc@kuchlerpolk.com -- Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson,
LLC, McGready Lewis Richeson,  Esq. -- mrichesonr@kuchlerpolk.com
-- Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Michael H. Abraham,
Esq. -- mabraham@kuchlerpolk.com -- Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner &
Richeson, LLC, Milele N. St. Julien,  Esq. --
mjulien@kuchlerpolk.com -- Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner Richeson &
Perrey S. Lee, Esq. -- plee@kuchlerpolk.com --  Kuchler Polk.

Montello, Inc., Defendant, is represented by David Cartan Loker
Gibbons, Jr., Esq. -- Thompson, Gibbons & Westholz, LLC.

Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP, Defendant, is represented by
Kathleen F. Drew, Esq. -- kathleen.drew@arlaw.com -- Adams & Reese
& Gerard Joseph Gaudet, Esq. -- gerard.gaudet@arlaw.com -- Adams
and Reese LLP.

Coastal Chemical Co., L.L.C., Defendant, is represented by
Campbell Edington Wallace, Frilot, LLC, Allen J. Krouse, III,
Frilot, Partridge, Kohnke & Clements, LC, Caroline E Conway,
Frilot L.L.C. & Dylan Dennis Lynch, Frilot LLC.

Rowan Companies Inc, Defendant, represented by Delos E. Flint,
Jr., Fowler, Rodriguez, E. Stuart Ponder, Hailey, McNamara &
Lawrence Raymond DeMarcay, III, Fowler, Rodriguez.

Harbinger Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jacqueline M.
Brettner, Carver Darden & Lindsay E. Spann, Carver, Darden,
Koretzky, Tessier, Finn, Blossman.

Diamond Offshore Company, Defendant, represented by Michael J.
Vondenstein, Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale, LLP.

Kaneb Management Company, Defendant, represented by Jay Morton
Jalenak, Jr., Kean Miller LLP, Bradley Joseph Schlotterer, Kean
Miller LLP, Sarah K. Weissman, Kean Miller LLP & Sean T.
McLaughlin, Kean Miller LLP.

ENSCO Offshore Company, Defendant, represented by Delos E. Flint,
Jr., Fowler, Rodriguez, E. Stuart Ponder, Hailey, McNamara &
Lawrence Raymond DeMarcay, III, Fowler, Rodriguez.

Phillips 66 Company, Defendant, represented by Kathleen F. Drew,
Adams & Reese.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5 Cos. Win Summary Judgment in "Pace"
------------------------------------------------------
In a career as an electrician that spanned nearly 50 years,
Raymond Balcerzak worked numerous jobs in numerous locations.  In
2011, Balcerzak was diagnosed with lung cancer; in 2014, he passed
away.  Prior to his death, in July 2013, Balcerzak filed the
instant action in New York State Supreme Court against numerous
manufacturers, alleging that his cancer was the product of decades
of exposure to asbestos-containing products at his various
workplaces.  The case was removed to the the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York Court, and
the complaint was thereafter amended twice.

At the conclusion of discovery, several defendants filed motions
for summary judgment; the motions of six of those defendants
remain pending, namely, those of: (i) Rockwell Automation, Inc.,
as successor-in-interest to Allen-Bradley Company, LLC; (ii) BW/IP
International, individually and as successor to Byron Jackson
Pumps; (iii) Air & Liquid Systems, as successor-by-merger to
Buffalo Pumps, Inc.; (iv) Gardner Denver, Inc.; (v) Schneider
Electric Company, formerly known as Square D Co.; and (vi) Warren
Pumps LLC. Defendants contend, among other things, that Plaintiff
has failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact that exposure
to any of their products was a substantial factor in causing
Balcerzak's injuries.

In an Opinion and Order dated March 22, 2016, which is available
at http://is.gd/qfzFuhfrom Leagle.com, Judge Katherine Polk
Failla of the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted the motions brought by Buffalo,
Gardner Denver, Byron Jackson, Warren, and Square D; and denied
the motion brought by Allen-Bradley.

The case is NANETTE PACE, as Personal Representative of the Estate
of Raymond J. Balcerzak, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. AIR & LIQUID
SYSTEMS CORP., et al., Defendants, No. 13 Civ. 6227
(KPF)(S.D.N.Y.).

Raymond J. Balcerzak, Plaintiff, is represented by Kardon Aaron
Stolzman, Esq. -- Napoli Bern Ripka & Associates.

CBS Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Dennis Enrique Vega,
Esq. -- dennis.vega@sedgwicklaw.com -- Sedgwick LLP & Michael Alan
Tanenbaum, Esq. -- michael.tanenbaum@sedgwicklaw.com -- Sedgwick
LLP.

Imo Industries Inc., Defendant, is represented by Amy Zumsteg,
Esq. -- azumsteg@leaderberkon.com -- Leader & Berkon LLP.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Brian
Thomas Murnane, Esq. -- bmurnane@deybllp.com -- Zukerman Gore,
Brandeis & Crossman, LLP.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, is represented by
Justin Brent Perri, Esq. -- Steptoe & Johnson, LLP.

Ingersoll Rand Company, Defendant, is represented by Lisa M.
Pascarella, Esq. -- Forman Perry Watkins Krutz & Tardy LLP.

Trane US, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Lisa M. Pascarella,
Pascarella Divita Lindenbaum & Tomaszewski PLLC.

General Electric Company, Defendant, is represented by Dennis
Enrique Vega, Esq. -- dennis.vega@sedgwicklaw.com -- Sedgwick LLP.

Arvinmeritor, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Kevin John
Dooley, Esq. -- kdooley@kasowitz.com -- Kasowitz, Benson, Torres &
Friedman, LLP.

Aurora Pump Company, Defendant,is represented by Erich Gleber,
Esq. -- egleber@smsm.com -- Segal McCambrige Singer & Mahoney.

Eaton Electrical Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Robert
Michael Gilmartin, JR., Esq. -- michael.gilmartin@sedgwicklaw.com
-- Sedgwick LLP.

Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Donald
Richard Pugliese, Sr., Esq. -- dpugliese@mwe.com -- McDermott,
Will & Emery, LLP.

Rockwell Automation, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Joseph P.
LaSala, Esq. -- LASALA@MDMC-LAW.COM -- McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney
& Carpenter, LLP.

Carrier Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Julie Robin
Evans, Esq. -- julie.evans@wilsonelser.com --
Wilson,Elser,Moskowitz,Edelman & Dicker LLP


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Grants DuPont's Bid to Dismiss "Dean"
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Leon Dean was employed by defendant Dupont de Numours &
Company Inc. from 1956 to 1990, and alleges that he spent a
significant portion of that time "dealing with asbestos, fiber
glass products and other hazardous products.

After plaintiff retired in 1990, he began to experience
respiratory illness, which he alleges is most likely cancer and
caused by asbestos. Plaintiff originally filed suit in state court
on November 2, 2015, asserting three causes of action: (1)
premises liability, (2) negligence, and (3) negligent infliction
of emotional distress.

Defendant removed the case to the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, and then filed a motion to
dismiss, arguing that the claims were barred by California's
Workers' Compensation Act, which provides the exclusive remedy for
work-related injuries. In response, Dean filed the operative First
Amended Complaint (FAC), adding a new plaintiff, his wife, Wanda
Dean, and asserting seven causes of action in total: (1) premises
liability, (2) negligence, (3) negligent infliction of emotional
distress, (4) products liability -- manufacturing defect, (5)
products liability -- design defect, (6) products liability --
failure to warn, and (7) loss of consortium (although the court
notes that the FAC refers to "Teresa Dean" rather than Wanda Dean.

The FAC also contains additional allegations about plaintiff's
attempts to pursue a workers' compensation claim. The FAC alleges
that, in May 2015, plaintiff sent a workers' compensation claim
form to defendant, but received no response. Plaintiff then sent a
follow-up letter in June 2015, but again received no response.
Plaintiff characterizes this refusal to respond as bad faith.

Plaintiff then contacted the Workers' Compensation Insurance
Rating Bureau, who told him that defendant's insurance provider
was Golden Eagle Insurance Company. However, while that company
had become insolvent, its parent company Liberty Mutual Insurance
Company was still solvent, so plaintiff filed a workers'
compensation claim naming Liberty Mutual as the insurer and claim
administrator. Plaintiff then received a letter from Liberty
Mutual, denying the claim and stating that it was not defendant's
workers' compensation insurance carrier.

Plaintiff then re-contacted the Workers' Compensation Insurance
Rating Bureau, who admitted that it had provided the wrong
information. But when the Bureau repeated its search, it could not
find any coverage records for defendant for the relevant time
frame. However, the Bureau also explained that it did not have
records for self-insured companies, and recommended that plaintiff
contact the California Department of Industrial Relations Office
of Self-Insurance. Plaintiff did so, but was told that there was
no information available showing that defendant was self-insured.

Plaintiff explains that he is in the process of dismissing the
workers' compensation claim against Liberty Mutual, but because
there is no other insurance agency that he can name as the claims
administrator, he filed this suit.

Defendant Dupont de Numours & Company Inc.'s motion to dismiss
came on for hearing before this court on March 16, 2016.

In an Order dated March 23, 2016 which is available at
http://is.gd/SACe8Dfrom Leagle.com, Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton of
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted the defendant's motion, with partial leave to
amend.

The case is LEON E DEAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. E.I. DUPONT DE
NUMOURS & COMPANY INC., Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-6032-PJH (N.D.
Calif.).

Leon E Dean, Plaintiff, is represented by Shahid Manzoor, Esq. --
Shahid@Manzoorlawoffice.com -- Manzoor Law Firm, Inc.

Wanda Dean, Plaintiff, is represented by Shahid Manzoor, Manzoor
Law Firm, Inc.

E.I. Dupont De Numours & Company Inc., Defendant, is represented
by Peter Abraham Cownan, Esq. -- pcownan@glynnfinley.com -- Glynn
& Finley, LLP & Andrew Thomas Mortl, Esq. --
amortl@glynnfinley.com -- Glynn & Finley, LLP.


                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Marion
Alcestis A. Castillon, Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala,
Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 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  * * *