CAR_Public/160513.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, May 13, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 96



                            Headlines


21ST CENTURY: Faces "Birken-Sikora" Class Suit in M.D. Florida
AA AUTOMOTIVE: Blumenthal Nordrhaug Files Unpaid OT Class Action
APPLE INC: iTunes Violates TCCWNA, Class Action Claims
APPLE INC: Sued in California Over iTunes Terms and Conditions
AT&T MOBILITY: Faces "Sandoval" Suit in Cal. Over Unpaid Wages

AUTO DREAMS: "Ramirez" Class Suit Removed to New Jersey Ct.
BCE: Judge Stays Duplicative Proceeding for Abuse of Process
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Armstrong" Suit Over Pradaxa(R) Drug
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Ballard" Suit Over Pradaxa(R) Drug
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Banner" Suit Over Pradaxa(R) Drug

BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Bartlett" Suit Over Pradaxa(R) Drug
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Bellistri" Suit Over Pradaxa(R) Drug
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Burchett" Suit Over Pradaxa(R) Drug
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Butterfield" Suit Over Pradaxa(R)
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Conlan" Suit Over Pradaxa(R) Drug

BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Desilva" Suit Over Pradaxa(R) Drug
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Fredieu" Suit Over Pradaxa(R) Drug
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Boone" Suit Over Pradaxa(R) Drug
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Geeter" Suit Over Pradaxa(R) Drug
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Lacour" Suit Over Pradaxa(R) Drug

BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Milos" Suit Over Pradaxa(R) Drug
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Poitier" Suit Over Pradaxa(R) Drug
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Powers" Suit Over Pradaxa(R) Drug
BRAND SCAFFOLD: Faces "Thomas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
BRASSCRAFT MANUFACTURING: Aug. 11 Settlement Approval Hearing Set

CARIBOU COFFEE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Farnham" Suit Claims
CATHAY PACIFIC: June 24 Class Members' Settlement Views Deadline
CHEMOIL ENERGY: Faces "Valdez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
COVENTRY HEALTH: Removed "Williams" Suit to M. Dist. Florida
DAYBREAK VENTURE: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Ross" Action Claims

DELTA OUTSOURCE: Illegally Collects Debt,"Hamra" Suit Claims
DORAL FINANCIAL: August 8 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
DUNKIN' DONUTS: Franchise Workers File Wage Theft Class Action
ERVIN ROSENFELD: Faces "Bichkova" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Class Action

FACEBOOK INC: Motion to Dismiss Photo-Tagging Class Action Denied
FIRST NBC: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
FITBIT INC: Faces "River" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
FORD MOTOR: NZ Unit Awaits Outcome of Australian Class Action
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: July 20 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

HARTFORD FINANCIAL: ERISA Class Action Pending in Second Circuit
HILTON GRAND: TCPA Class Action Dismissed After Plaintiff's Death
HOUSTON DECK: "Robles" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
HUMPHREY RICH: Faces "Rojas-Rios" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
INTERSTATE CLEANING: "Rodriguez" Suit Removed to Fla. Dist. Ct.

INTREXON CORP: July 5 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
JBS FIVE: Faces "Partch" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
KS RENOVATION: "Puma" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
LAND-AIR EXPRESS: Faces "Chain" Suit Over WARN Act Violation
LANNETT COMPANY: Faces UFCW Local Suit Over Digoxin Drugs

LINCOLN TRANSPORTATION: Fails to Pay Employees OT, Action Claims
LUXE WORLDWIDE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Pena" Suit Claims
MDL NO. 2311: Auto Manufacturers Settle Case for $225 Million
MICHAEL HARRISON: Illegally Collects Debt, "Trombley" Suit Says
MIDLAND NATIONAL: Faces "Taylor" Suit Over Contract Breach

MITSUBISHI MOTORS: Mileage Tampering Suspected on All Models
MULTNOMAH: Jail Faces "Stanko" Suit Over Civil Rights Violation
MV TRANSPORTATION: Illegally Obtains Consumer Reports, Suit Says
NAT'L FOOTBALL: 3rd Cir. Upholds $1-Bil. Class Action Settlement
NEW ORLEANS, LA: Post-Katrina Flood Class Action Can Proceed

NORTHSHORE UNIVERSITY: Sued Over Charitable Real Estate Tax
ORLANDO HEALTH: Faces "Miller" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
OS RESTAURANT: "Sears" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
PARA LOS: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Fajardo" Suit Claims
PARRAMATTA EELS: Punters to File Class Action Over Salary Cap

PAYLOCITY HOLDING: Faces "Solak" Suit Over Fee-Shifting Policies
PHILADELPHIA: SEPTA Faces Class Action Over Background Checks
PHILIPP MORRIS: Continues to Defend Deceptive Marketing Suits
PHO QUYEN: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims
PLATFORM SPECIALTY: June 1 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline

PNC BANK: Plaintiffs to Get 12% of Premium Under Settlement
PREMIER DIRECTIONAL: "Parrish" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
RADIOSHACK: Dec. 2 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
RAYMOND JAMES: Jay Peak Investor Files RICO Class Action
RCI EUROPE: Hearing Scheduled for Timeshare Class Action

RELAYRIDES INC: Optimistic on Resolution of Class Action
RENAISSANCE HOTEL: Sued Over Sexual Assault and Harassment
RUSH WELLSITE: "Vollmer" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
SAFEWAY: Sued Over Meat Products "Buy One, Get One Free" Promos
SHAMROCK FOODS: "Zubia" Class Suit Removed to C.D. California

SONY CORP: Sept. 6 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
SOUTHERN CONCRETE: "Morris" Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
STERICYCLE INC: Faces "Wellner" Suit in Connecticut
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Settlement Final Hearing Scheduled for July 26
TAYLOR SMITH: Faces "Law" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

TAYLOR SMITH: Faces "Ntuk" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
TEEKAY CORP: Awaits Results of Class Action Lead Plaintiff Search
TIVO: Shareholders File Class Action Against Directors
TOWERSTREAM CORPORATION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
TRS STAFFING: Faces "Williams" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

UBER: Court Needs to Balance Transparency, Secrecy in Settlements
UBER: Lawyers Winner in $100MM Class Action Settlement
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Drivers' Sexual Assault Victims Can File Suit
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Action Over Prop 1 Robo-Texting
UNITED STATES: FMC Faces Class Actions Over Ro-Ro Price Fixing

UNITED STATES: AG Sued Over Non-Violent Felons' Gun Rights
VERONA GARDENS: "Sutherland" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
WINTERS LANDSCAPE: Faces "Magana" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

* Edelson Files Data Breach Class Action Against Chicago Law Firm
* CFPB Proposes New Rules to Allow Class Actions Against Banks
* U.S. Businesses Expected to Challenge CFPB Arbitration Proposal
* New Measure May Impact Class Action Litigation in New Jersey


                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Noranda Entitled to Summary Judgment vs. ASARCO
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 9th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgments in "McIndoe"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: P. Weymiller's Bid to Intervene in "Perez" OK'd
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Austin Power's Judgment on the Pleadings Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: R. Swanson's Claims vs. Marley-Wylain Granted

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Affirms D. Zelinsky Summary Judgment
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY App. Reverses Summary Judgment in "Wells"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Court Rejects Bid to Remand "Williams"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Bldg Manager Died of Asbestos Cancer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Adopts Inevitability Test in Asbestos Case

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemical Valley Victims Fight Over Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Worcester Homeowner Assessed $52K for Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AG Files Criminal Charges vs. Hotel Owner
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pillsbury Partner Accused of Illegal Cleanup
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MLC Worcester Fined for Removal Violation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Orleans School Tests Positive for Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Removed from Victorian Gov't Schools
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Save-a-buck Contractors Expose Unskilled Workers
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family of Teacher Victim Takes Legal Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found at Oberon Roadworks

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 More PEI Schools Found with Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Machine Co.'s Asbestos Liability Win Overturned
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Auckland City Hospital Moved After Asbestos Find
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Atty Gets 2 Yr. Sentence for Falsifying Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firms Settle Improper Removal Allegations

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Fears Halt Work at Construction Sites
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lead Exposure to Death of Hartford Man
ASBESTOS UPDATE: $7MM Awarded in Take-Home Exposure Trial
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Md. Jury Awards $8.1MM in Exposure Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: S. Jersey Lawyer Sentenced for Expanding Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wife Fears Husband Exposed to Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Untrained Workers Used to Remove Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford Off Hook for Asbestos Exposure in Ireland
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jurisdiction Arguments Could Weaken Defendants
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Sides with Policyholders in Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bldg Materials Slipping Into Australia
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family's $800K NZ Property Has Asbestos






                            *********


21ST CENTURY: Faces "Birken-Sikora" Class Suit in M.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against 21st Century
Oncology Holdings, Inc., 21st Century Oncology, LLC, 21st Century
Oncology, Inc.,21st Century Oncology Management Services, Inc.,
and 21st Century Oncology Services, LLC.

The case is captioned Gayle Birken-Sikora, Matthew Sikora, Susan
Lewin, Jeffrey Lewin, Jon Lokietz, Caryn Bendetowies, and Rita
Marx, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
21st Century Oncology Holdings, Inc., 21st Century Oncology, LLC,
21st Century Oncology, Inc.,21st Century Oncology Management
Services, Inc., and 21st Century Oncology Services, LLC, Case No.
2:16-cv-00334-UA-CM (M.D. Fla., May 5, 2016).

The Defendants are in the business of providing radiation therapy
and cancer treatments.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
      Michael James Pascucci, Esq.
      THE EGGNATZ LAW FIRM, PA
      5400 S University Dr Ste 413
      1920 N Commerce Pkwy
      Davie, FL 33328-5313
      Telephone: (954) 634-4355
      Facsimile: (954) 634-4342
      E-mail: JEggnatz@ELPLawyers.com
              mpascucci@elplawyers.com


AA AUTOMOTIVE: Blumenthal Nordrhaug Files Unpaid OT Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles employment law lawyers at Blumenthal, Nordrhaug &
Bhowmik filed a pending class action lawsuit against AA Automotive
Personnel Services, Inc ("AA Automotive").  The primary
allegations in the complaint allege that AA Automotive failed to
compensate their employees the correct amount of for all overtime
hours worked.  The pending class action lawsuit against AA
Automotive, Case No. BC612489, is currently pending in the Los
Angeles County Superior Court for the State of California.

Specifically, the complaint claims that AA Automotive allegedly
did not have in place a timekeeping system that could accurately
record and pay their employees for the actual amount of time these
employees worked, including overtime.

The pending class action lawsuit against AA Automotive claims that
the company's actions amounted to a violation of the California
Labor Code.  California Labor Code Section 558 mandates employers
who violate the regulation of hours and days worked by an employee
shall be subject to a civil penalty.

The complaint also alleges that AA Automotive did not have in
place policies and procedures to consistently provide their
employees with meal breaks.  California labor laws provide that
any employee scheduled to wo rk more than five (5) hours shall
receive, at a minimum, a thirty (30) minute uninterrupted off duty
meal break. Allegedly, even though these employees forfeited meal
breaks, they received no additional compensation.

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik is a Los Angeles employment law
firm that is dedicated to helping employees in California who have
been wrongfully terminated, denied proper overtime pay, denied
payment of earned commission wages, and also employees who have
been improperly denied their meal and rest breaks.


APPLE INC: iTunes Violates TCCWNA, Class Action Claims
------------------------------------------------------
Patently Apple reports that Thomas Silkowski, a citizen of the
State of New Jersey, has filed a class action law suit against
Apple alleging violations of the New Jersey Truth-in-Consumer
Contract, Warranty and Notice Act (TCCWNA).  The TCCWNA was
enacted specifically to prevent deception in consumer contracts
and to incentivize businesses to draft contracts that are clear
and understandable to all consumers, and that clearly explain the
legal rights of consumers and the legal responsibilities of
businesses.  Mr. Silkowski alleges that Apple's iTunes violates
the New Jersey Act.

According to the formal complaint which was filed in the Northern
District Court of California, San Jose on April 28, 2016,
Defendant/Apple "operates the iTunes Store, the Mac App Store, the
App Store, the App Store for Apple TV, the iBooks Store, and Apple
Music (collectively the "Stores").

In order to access the Stores, consumers must create an Apple ID
and/or agree to the iTunes terms and conditions (the "Terms and
Conditions").  As a precondition to creating an Apple ID,
Defendant requires all consumers to agree to the Terms and
Conditions.

The Terms and Conditions violate the TCCWNA because they contain
provisions that violate clearly established legal rights of
Plaintiff and the proposed class, and ignore the legal
responsibilities of Defendant.

Specifically, the Terms and Conditions contain provisions that
purport to: 1) disclaim liability for claims brought for
Defendant's negligent, willful, malicious and wanton misconduct;
2) bar claims for personal injury and punitive damages; 3) ban
consumers from asserting claims against Defendant for deceptive
and fraudulent conduct; and 4) require Store users to indemnify
and hold harmless Defendant for any claims brought against
Defendant for its negligent, willful, malicious and wanton
misconduct.  All of the aforementioned provisions are in direct
contravention of rights afforded to Plaintiff and the proposed
class under New Jersey law.

The inclusion of these violative provisions in the Terms and
Conditions deceives consumers into thinking that they are
enforceable and accordingly, gives consumers the impression that
they are unable to enforce rights they otherwise have under New
Jersey statutory and common law.

As a result of Defendant's illegal conduct, Plaintiff, on behalf
of himself and the Class seeks statutory penalties, actual
damages, attorneys' fees, costs of suit, and any additional legal
or equitable relief the Court deems appropriate."


APPLE INC: Sued in California Over iTunes Terms and Conditions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Silkowski, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Apple Inc. and Does 1- 50, inclusive, Case No. 5:16-
cv-02338 (N.D. Cal., April 28, 2016), arises out of the
Defendants' iTunes terms and conditions that violates the New
Jersey Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act,
specifically, disclaim liability for claims brought for the
Defendant's negligent, willful, malicious and wanton misconduct;
bar claims for personal injury and punitive damages; ban consumers
from asserting claims against the Defendant for deceptive and
fraudulent conduct; and require Store users to indemnify and hold
harmless Defendant for any claims brought against the Defendant
for its negligent, willful, malicious and wanton misconduct.

Apple Inc. operates the iTunes Store, the Mac App Store, the App
Store, the App Store for Apple TV, the iBooks Store, and Apple
Music.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
      Brittany C. Casola, Esq.
      402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 347-3517
      Facsimile: (619) 756-6990
      E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com
              bcasola@carlsonlynch.com

         - and -

      Joseph J. DePalma, Esq.
      LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG LLC
      570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
      Newark, NJ 07102
      Telephone: (973) 623-3000
      Facsimile: (973) 623-0858
      E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com

         - and -

      Katrina Carroll, Esq.
      Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq.
      LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG LLC
      211 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 500
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Telephone: (312) 750-1265
      Facsimile: (312) 212-5919
      E-mail: kcarroll@litedepalma.com

         - and -

      R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
      Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
      Kevin Abramowicz, Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
      1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
      Pittsburgh, PA 15222
      Telephone: (412) 322-9243
      Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
      E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com
              glynch@carlsonlynch.com


AT&T MOBILITY: Faces "Sandoval" Suit in Cal. Over Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Karla Sandoval, Fernando Felix, Mariana Vasquez, Valerie Calderon,
and Ariana Moreno, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. AT&T Mobility Services, LLC,
AT&T Services, Inc., and Pacific Bell Telephone Company, Case No.
RG16814598 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 5, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay wages earned and owed, in the form
of vested unused vacation time accrued by employees.

The Defendants are in the business of providing wireless voice and
data communications services and products to individual, business,
and government users in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Yeremian, Esq.
      DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
      535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705 3
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Telephone: (818) 230-8380
      Facsimile: (818) 230-0308
      E-mail: david@yeremianlaw.com

         - and -

      Emil Davtyan, Esq.
      DAVTYAN PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
      21900 Burbank Blvd., Suite 300 7
      Woodland Hills, CA 91367
      Telephone: (818) 992-2935
      Facsimile: (818) 975~5525
      E-mail: emil@davtyanlaw.com


AUTO DREAMS: "Ramirez" Class Suit Removed to New Jersey Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Silvia Ramirez, individually and
on behalf of those similarly situated v. Auto Dreams USA, Credit
Acceptance Corporation, Benjamin Frenkel, and John Does 1-10, Case
No. OCN-L-16-00684, was removed from the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Ocean County to the U.S. District Court District of New
Jersey (Trenton). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-
cv-02549-FLW-LHG to the proceeding.

Auto Dreams USA operates a used car dealership company at 1182
Ocean Ave, Lakewood Township, NJ 08701.

Credit Acceptance Corporation operates an auto finance company
providing automobile loans and other related financial products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan Rudnick, Esq.
      CARTON & RUDNICK
      788 Shrewsbury Ave, Suite 204
      Tinton Falls, NJ 07724
      Telephone: (732) 842-2070
      Facsimile: (732) 879-0213
      E-mail: jonr@cartonandrudnick.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Andrew Muscato, Esq.
      SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM, LLP
      Four Times Square
      New York, NY 10036-6522
      Telephone: (212) 735-3000
      Facsimile: (212) 735-2000
      E-mail: amuscato@skadden.com

BCE: Judge Stays Duplicative Proceeding for Abuse of Process
------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Prefontaine, Esq., Juliette Cong Liu, Esq., and Jessica
Harding, Esq., of Osler Hoskin & Harcourt LLP, in an article for
Lexology, report that on March 14, 2016, the decision Hafichuk-
Walkin v. BCE was rendered by the Manitoba Court of Appeal,
dismissing the appeal, thereby confirming the motion judge's
decision to unconditionally stay the duplicative proceeding on the
ground of an abuse of process.

Background

This case began more than a decade ago in 2004 when Merchant Law
Group ("MLG") instituted the Frey/Chatfield action in Saskatchewan
seeking certification of a national class action against almost
all the Canadian wireless telecommunications companies with regard
to "system access fees" ("SAF").  The same action was then filed
by MLG before eight other jurisdictions with similar claims and
overlapping class members.

Decision

Based on the court record, the Court of Appeal concluded that MLG
never had the intention to pursue the claims filed elsewhere than
Saskatchewan which was the only jurisdiction before which MLG
successfully certified one aspect of its claims, that is, on the
ground of unjust enrichment.  In the other jurisdictions, the
proceedings remained dormant for 10 years at the pleadings stage
until the various defendants sought to have them stayed, and
succeeded in having them either stayed or dismissed in Nova
Scotia, Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba:

In Nova Scotia, in Gillis v BCE Inc., the Supreme Court of Nova
Scotia declined to grant the stay sought by defendant.  The Court
of Appeal, in BCE Inc. v Gillis, reversed that decision and
granted an unconditional stay.

In Alberta, a first SAF class action was commenced by MLG and
dismissed for delay in 2014 in the decision Pappas v BCE Inc.  A
second SAF class action was then filed in which the Court of
Queen's Bench of Alberta initially declined to grant a permanent
stay.  This decision was reversed by the Alberta Court of Appeal
in Turner v BCE Inc.

In British Columbia, the class action was stayed conditionally as
an abuse of process in the decision Drover v BCE Inc.
In Saskatchewan, MLG filed a second SAF class action in 2009, the
Collins action, that was essentially the same action as the
Frey/Chatfield action, with the only difference of being an opt-
out action for non-residents rather than opt-in.  The Court
conditionally stayed the action on the ground of an abuse of
process in the decision Collins v BCE Inc.

The court opined that the plaintiffs demonstrated very little
diligence with regards to these proceedings.  In closing, the
Manitoba Court of Appeal described these proceedings as "carbon
copies" and concluded to their abusive nature.

Key Take-Aways

The Manitoba Court of Appeal pointed out that parallel
multi-jurisdictional class actions on behalf of overlapping class
members from one or more jurisdictions are not inherently abusive.
They can be justified by a variety of circumstances, such as the
lack of a national framework for the prosecution of class actions,
issues concerning the recognition by other jurisdictions'
judgments in a national class action, concerns on the tolling of
limitation periods for non-residents of the opt-in jurisdiction.
The court considers it an abuse of process when simultaneous class
actions in various jurisdictions are filed as an overall strategy,
or as the court puts it, "as nothing more than a form of insurance
for the possibility of an unsuccessful result in that jurisdiction
on the claim of unjust enrichment", with the intention of only
advancing it in one jurisdiction.

Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada

Leave to appeal has been sought from plaintiffs regarding the
decisions from the Alberta and Nova Scotia Courts of Appeal.  It
remains to be seen how the Supreme Court of Canada will decide
this particularly unique question.


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Armstrong" Suit Over Pradaxa(R) Drug
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Armstrong, individually, as next of kin and personal
representative of the estate of George Armstrong, deceased v.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Boehringer
Ingelheim International GmbH, Case No. HHD-CV-16-6067795-S (Conn.
Super. Ct., April 28, 2016), is an action for damages suffered by
George Armstrong as a proximate result of the Defendant's alleged
negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design,
testing, and labeling, of Pradaxa(R).
Pradaxa (R) is a direct thrombin inhibitor that is indicated to
reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with
non-valvular atrial fibrillation.
The Defendants operate a pharmaceutical company with its principal
place of business at 900 Ridgebury Road, Ridgefield, Connecticut
06877.
The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
      URY & MOSKOW, LLC
      833 Black Rock Turnpike
      Fairfield, CT 06825
      Telephone: (203) 610-6393
      Facsimile: (203) 610-6399
      E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com

         - and -

      Brian J. Perkins, Esq.
      MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC
      3 North Second Street, Suite 300
      St. Charles, IL 60174
      Telephone: (630) 232-6333
      Facsimile: (630) 845-8982
      E-mail: bjp@meyers-flowers.com


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Ballard" Suit Over Pradaxa(R) Drug
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Ballard v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Case No. HHD-CV-16-
6067797-S (Conn. Super. Ct., April 28, 2016), is an action for
damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a proximate result of the
Defendant's alleged negligent and wrongful conduct in connection
with the design, testing, and labeling, of Pradaxa(R).

Pradaxa (R) is a direct thrombin inhibitor that is indicated to
reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with
non-valvular atrial fibrillation.

The Defendants operate a pharmaceutical company with its principal
place of business at 900 Ridgebury Road, Ridgefield, Connecticut
06877.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
      URY & MOSKOW, LLC
      833 Black Rock Turnpike
      Fairfield, CT 06825
      Telephone: (203) 610-6393
      Facsimile: (203) 610-6399
      E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com

         - and -

      Ellen A. Presby, Esq.
      NEMEROFF LAW FIRM
      2626 Cole Ave., Suite 450
      Dallas, TX 75204
      Telephone: (214) 774-2258
      Facsimile: (214) 393-7897
      E-mail: ellenpresby@nemerofflaw.com


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Banner" Suit Over Pradaxa(R) Drug
--------------------------------------------------------------
Peggy Banner v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Case No. HHD-CV-16-
6067791-S (Conn. Super. Ct., April 28, 2016), is an action for
damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a proximate result of the
Defendant's alleged negligent and wrongful conduct in connection
with the design, testing, and labeling, of Pradaxa(R).

Pradaxa (R) is a direct thrombin inhibitor that is indicated to
reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with
non-valvular atrial fibrillation.

The Defendants operate a pharmaceutical company with its principal
place of business at 900 Ridgebury Road, Ridgefield, Connecticut
06877.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
      URY & MOSKOW, LLC
      833 Black Rock Turnpike
      Fairfield, CT 06825
      Telephone: (203) 610-6393
      Facsimile: (203) 610-6399
      E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com

         - and -

      Michael Brady Lynch, Esq.
      THE MICHAEL BRADY LYNCH FIRM
      127 West Fairbanks Ave., Ste. 528
      Winter Park, FL 32789
      Telephone: (877) 513-9517
      Facsimile: (321) 972-3568
      E-mail: Michael@mblynchfirm.com


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Bartlett" Suit Over Pradaxa(R) Drug
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Bartlett v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Case No. HHD-CV-16-
6067798-S (Conn. Super. Ct., April 28, 2016), is an action for
damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a proximate result of the
Defendant's alleged negligent and wrongful conduct in connection
with the design, testing, and labeling, of Pradaxa(R).

Pradaxa (R) is a direct thrombin inhibitor that is indicated to
reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with
non-valvular atrial fibrillation.

The Defendants operates a pharmaceutical company with its
principal place of business at 900 Ridgebury Road, Ridgefield,
Connecticut 06877.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
      URY & MOSKOW, LLC
      833 Black Rock Turnpike
      Fairfield, CT 06825
      Telephone: (203) 610-6393
      Facsimile: (203) 610-6399
      E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com

         - and -

      Brian J. Perkins, Esq.
      MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC
      3 North Second Street, Suite 300
      St. Charles, IL 60174
      Telephone: (630) 232-6333
      Facsimile: (630) 845-8982
      E-mail: bjp@meyers-flowers.com


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Bellistri" Suit Over Pradaxa(R) Drug
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Salvatore Bellistri v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
and Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Case No. HHD-CV-16-
6067802-S (Conn. Super. Ct., April 28, 2016), is an action for
damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a proximate result of the
Defendant's alleged negligent and wrongful conduct in connection
with the design, testing, and labeling, of Pradaxa(R).

Pradaxa (R) is a direct thrombin inhibitor that is indicated to
reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with
non-valvular atrial fibrillation.

The Defendants operate a pharmaceutical company with its principal
place of business at 900 Ridgebury Road, Ridgefield, Connecticut
06877.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
      URY & MOSKOW, LLC
      833 Black Rock Turnpike
      Fairfield, CT 06825
      Telephone: (203) 610-6393
      Facsimile: (203) 610-6399
      E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com

         - and -

      Brian J. Perkins, Esq.
      MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC
      3 North Second Street, Suite 300
      St. Charles, IL 60174
      Telephone: (630) 232-6333
      Facsimile: (630) 845-8982
      E-mail: bjp@meyers-flowers.com


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Burchett" Suit Over Pradaxa(R) Drug
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colleen Burchett v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Case No. HHD-CV-16-
6067771-S (Conn. Super. Ct., April 28, 2016), is an action for
damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a proximate result of the
Defendant's alleged negligent and wrongful conduct in connection
with the design, testing, and labeling, of Pradaxa(R).

Pradaxa (R) is a direct thrombin inhibitor that is indicated to
reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with
non-valvular atrial fibrillation.

The Defendants operates a pharmaceutical company with its
principal place of business at 900 Ridgebury Road, Ridgefield,
Connecticut 06877.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
      URY & MOSKOW, LLC
      833 Black Rock Turnpike
      Fairfield, CT 06825
      Telephone: (203) 610-6393
      Facsimile: (203) 610-6399
      E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Butterfield" Suit Over Pradaxa(R)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Earl Butterfield v. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
and Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Case No. HHD-CV-16-
6067772-S (Conn. Super. Ct., April 28, 2016), is an action for
damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a proximate result of the
Defendant's alleged negligent and wrongful conduct in connection
with the design, testing, and labeling, of Pradaxa(R).

Pradaxa (R) is a direct thrombin inhibitor that is indicated to
reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with
non-valvular atrial fibrillation.

The Defendants operates a pharmaceutical company with its
principal place of business at 900 Ridgebury Road, Ridgefield,
Connecticut 06877.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
      URY & MOSKOW, LLC
      833 Black Rock Turnpike
      Fairfield, CT 06825
      Telephone: (203) 610-6393
      Facsimile: (203) 610-6399
      E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Conlan" Suit Over Pradaxa(R) Drug
--------------------------------------------------------------
Watson Conlan v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Case No. HHD-CV-16-
6067773-S (Conn. Super. Ct., April 28, 2016), is an action for
damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a proximate result of the
Defendant's alleged negligent and wrongful conduct in connection
with the design, testing, and labeling, of Pradaxa(R).

Pradaxa (R) is a direct thrombin inhibitor that is indicated to
reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with
non-valvular atrial fibrillation.

The Defendants operates a pharmaceutical company with its
principal place of business at 900 Ridgebury Road, Ridgefield,
Connecticut 06877.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
      URY & MOSKOW, LLC
      833 Black Rock Turnpike
      Fairfield, CT 06825
      Telephone: (203) 610-6393
      Facsimile: (203) 610-6399
      E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Desilva" Suit Over Pradaxa(R) Drug
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lillian Joycelyn Desilva v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. and Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Case No. HHD-CV-
16-6067774-S (Conn. Super. Ct., April 28, 2016), is an action for
damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a proximate result of the
Defendant's alleged negligent and wrongful conduct in connection
with the design, testing, and labeling, of Pradaxa(R).

Pradaxa (R) is a direct thrombin inhibitor that is indicated to
reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with
non-valvular atrial fibrillation.

The Defendants operates a pharmaceutical company with its
principal place of business at 900 Ridgebury Road, Ridgefield,
Connecticut 06877.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
      URY & MOSKOW, LLC
      833 Black Rock Turnpike
      Fairfield, CT 06825
      Telephone: (203) 610-6393
      Facsimile: (203) 610-6399
      E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Fredieu" Suit Over Pradaxa(R) Drug
---------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Fredieu v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Case No. HHD-CV-16-
6067776-S (Conn. Super. Ct., April 28, 2016), is an action for
damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a proximate result of the
Defendant's alleged negligent and wrongful conduct in connection
with the design, testing, and labeling, of Pradaxa(R).

Pradaxa (R) is a direct thrombin inhibitor that is indicated to
reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with
non-valvular atrial fibrillation.

The Defendants operates a pharmaceutical company with its
principal place of business at 900 Ridgebury Road, Ridgefield,
Connecticut 06877.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
      URY & MOSKOW, LLC
      833 Black Rock Turnpike
      Fairfield, CT 06825
      Telephone: (203) 610-6393
      Facsimile: (203) 610-6399
      E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Boone" Suit Over Pradaxa(R) Drug
-------------------------------------------------------------
Geralynn Boone, individually, as next of kin and as personal
representative of the estate of Mary Boone, deceased v. Boehringer
Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Boehringer Ingelheim
International GmbH, Case No. HHD-CV-16-6067796-S (Conn. Super.
Ct., April 28, 2016), is an action for damages suffered by Mary
Boone as a proximate result of the Defendant's alleged negligent
and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, testing, and
labeling, of Pradaxa(R).

Pradaxa (R) is a direct thrombin inhibitor that is indicated to
reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with
non-valvular atrial fibrillation.

The Defendants operates a pharmaceutical company with its
principal place of business at 900 Ridgebury Road, Ridgefield,
Connecticut 06877.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
      URY & MOSKOW, LLC
      833 Black Rock Turnpike
      Fairfield, CT 06825
      Telephone: (203) 610-6393
      Facsimile: (203) 610-6399
      E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com

         - and -

      Ellen A. Presby, Esq.
      NEMEROFF LAW FIRM
      2626 Cole Ave., Suite 450
      Dallas, TX 75204
      Telephone: (214) 774-2258
      Facsimile: (214) 393-7897
      E-mail: ellenpresby@nemerofflaw.com


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Geeter" Suit Over Pradaxa(R) Drug
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Geeter, individually, as next of kin and as personal
representative of the estate of Regina Geeter, deceased v.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Boehringer
Ingelheim International GmbH, Case No. HHD-CV-16-6067777-S (Conn.
Super. Ct., April 28, 2016), is an action for damages suffered by
Regina Geeter as a proximate result of the Defendant's alleged
negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design,
testing, and labeling, of Pradaxa(R).

Pradaxa (R) is a direct thrombin inhibitor that is indicated to
reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with
non-valvular atrial fibrillation.

The Defendants operates a pharmaceutical company with its
principal place of business at 900 Ridgebury Road, Ridgefield,
Connecticut 06877.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
      URY & MOSKOW, LLC
      833 Black Rock Turnpike
      Fairfield, CT 06825
      Telephone: (203) 610-6393
      Facsimile: (203) 610-6399
      E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Lacour" Suit Over Pradaxa(R) Drug
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pearlie Lacour v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Case No. HHD-CV-16-
6067778-S (Conn. Super. Ct., April 28, 2016), is an action for
damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a proximate result of the
Defendant's alleged negligent and wrongful conduct in connection
with the design, testing, and labeling, of Pradaxa(R).

Pradaxa (R) is a direct thrombin inhibitor that is indicated to
reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with
non-valvular atrial fibrillation.

The Defendants operates a pharmaceutical company with its
principal place of business at 900 Ridgebury Road, Ridgefield,
Connecticut 06877.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
      URY & MOSKOW, LLC
      833 Black Rock Turnpike
      Fairfield, CT 06825
      Telephone: (203) 610-6393
      Facsimile: (203) 610-6399
      E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Milos" Suit Over Pradaxa(R) Drug
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marion Milos, Individually, as Next Of Kin and as Personal
Representative of The Estate of Raymond Milos, deceased v.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Boehringer
Ingelheim International GmbH, Case No. HHD-CV-16-6067765-S (Conn.
Super. Ct., April 28, 2016), is an action for damages suffered by
Raymond Milos as a proximate result of the Defendant's alleged
negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design,
testing, and labeling, of Pradaxa(R).

Pradaxa (R) is a direct thrombin inhibitor that is indicated to
reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with
non-valvular atrial fibrillation.

The Defendants operates a pharmaceutical company with its
principal place of business at 900 Ridgebury Road, Ridgefield,
Connecticut 06877.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
      URY & MOSKOW, LLC
      833 Black Rock Turnpike
      Fairfield, CT 06825
      Telephone: (203) 610-6393
      Facsimile: (203) 610-6399
      E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Poitier" Suit Over Pradaxa(R) Drug
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maurice Poitier v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Case No. HHD-CV-16-
6067770-S (Conn. Super. Ct., April 28, 2016), is an action for
damages suffered by Raymond Milos as a proximate result of the
Defendant's alleged negligent and wrongful conduct in connection
with the design, testing, and labeling, of Pradaxa(R).

Pradaxa (R) is a direct thrombin inhibitor that is indicated to
reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with
non-valvular atrial fibrillation.

The Defendants operates a pharmaceutical company with its
principal place of business at 900 Ridgebury Road, Ridgefield,
Connecticut 06877.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
      URY & MOSKOW, LLC
      833 Black Rock Turnpike
      Fairfield, CT 06825
      Telephone: (203) 610-6393
      Facsimile: (203) 610-6399
      E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Powers" Suit Over Pradaxa(R) Drug
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ollie Mae Powers v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Case No. HHD-CV-16-
6067761-S (Conn. Super. Ct., April 28, 2016), is an action for
damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a proximate result of the
Defendant's alleged negligent and wrongful conduct in connection
with the design, testing, and labeling, of Pradaxa(R).

Pradaxa (R) is a direct thrombin inhibitor that is indicated to
reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with
non-valvular atrial fibrillation.

The Defendants operates a pharmaceutical company with its
principal place of business at 900 Ridgebury Road, Ridgefield,
Connecticut 06877.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
      URY & MOSKOW, LLC
      833 Black Rock Turnpike
      Fairfield, CT 06825
      Telephone: (203) 610-6393
      Facsimile: (203) 610-6399
      E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com


BRAND SCAFFOLD: Faces "Thomas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maurice Leonard Thomas, an individually and on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated v. Brand Scaffold Services, Inc.,
and Does 1 to 50,inclusive, Case No. BC619547 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
May 5, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

Brand Scaffold Services, Inc. provides scaffolding services
primarily to refining, chemical, petrochemical, utility, and pulp
and paper industries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric B. Kingsley, Esq., Esq.
      Kelsey M. Szamet, Esq., Esq.
      KINGSLEY &KINGSLEY, APC
      16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
      Encino, CA 91436
      Telephone: (818) 990-8300
      Facsimile: (818) 990-2903
      E-mail: eric@kingsleykingsley.com
              kelsey@kingsleykingsley.com

         - and -

      Walter L. Haines, Esq.
      UNITED EMPLOYERS LAWGROUP, PC
      5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite201
      Huntington Beach, CA 92649
      Telephone: (562) 256-1047
      Facsimile: (562) 256-1006
      E-mail: admin@uelglaw.com


BRASSCRAFT MANUFACTURING: Aug. 11 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement has been reached with BrassCraft Manufacturing
Company ("BrassCraft") about certain potable water plumbing
components, including stop valves, connectors and fittings, made
with yellow brass manufactured and/or sold by BrassCraft ("Covered
Products").  The settlement provides certain benefits for
conditions alleged to be associated with Covered Products.

The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles, will hold a hearing to decide whether to give final
approval to the settlement, so that the benefits can be issued.
Those included have legal rights and options, such as submitting a
claim for benefits or excluding themselves from or objecting to
the settlement.  More information is in the detailed notice and
Settlement Agreement, which are both available at
www.BCyellowbrasssettlement.com

The lawsuit makes various claims, including that the Covered
Products can corrode or leak and cause property damage. BrassCraft
denies all of the claims and allegations in the lawsuit and
maintains that the Covered Products are not defective.  The Court
has made no determination about the strengths or weaknesses of any
of the claims or any of BrassCraft's defenses.  Instead, the
parties have entered into a settlement to end the litigation.

The Court created a Settlement Class covering all persons that own
or have owned homes, buildings, or any other structures located in
the United States that contain Covered Products during a certain
time period.  Visit the website to read descriptions and see
photos of the Covered Products.

Class Members who submit valid claims may be entitled to one or
more of the following Settlement Benefits: (1) for Covered
Products that are confirmed to have exterior "meringue" (white or
green zinc oxide) deposits as a result of corrosion to the Covered
Product: a choice of either (a) up to 15 replacement products, or
(b) five year extended settlement benefit coverage for potential
leaks; (2) for Covered Products with occlusions (reduction in
water flow capacity) or inoperable valves as a result of corrosion
to the Covered Product, up to three replacement products; (3)
reimbursement for reasonable replacement costs and related labor
charges for Covered Products with leaks, and for property damage
caused by corrosion of a Covered Product up to $5,000.  Commercial
properties with confirmed exterior meringue deposits as a result
of corrosion to a Covered Product may receive five year extended
settlement benefit coverage for leaks only.

To obtain any benefits from the settlement you must fill out and
submit a Claim Form.  Claim Forms are available at the website or
by calling (888) 633-9195. The earliest deadline for submitting a
claim is expected to be November 9, 2016.  The detailed Notice and
Settlement Agreement, available at www.BCyellowbrasssettlement.com
describe more fully the benefits available under the proposed
settlement and how to file a claim.

If you do not want to be legally bound by the settlement, you must
exclude yourself from the Class by June 29, 2016, or you will not
be able to sue BrassCraft about the legal claims this settlement
resolves, ever again. If you exclude yourself, you cannot get any
benefits from the settlement.  If you stay in the Class, you may
object to it by written Objection no later than June 29, 2016.
The Court will consider oral objections made at the Fairness
Hearing.  The detailed notice explains how to exclude yourself or
object.

The Court will hold a hearing in the case, known as Houze, et al.
v. BrassCraft Manufacturing Company, et al., Case No. BC493276, on
August 11, 2016, at 9:00 a.m., to consider whether to approve the
settlement, and a request by Class Counsel for attorneys' fees,
costs, and expenses of no more than $4.95 million and incentive
awards for the Class Representatives of $5,000 for each property
unit they own.  Payment of attorneys' fees and expenses will not
reduce the benefits to Settlement Class Members.  You or your own
lawyer, if you have one, may ask to appear and speak at the
hearing at your own cost, but you do not have to.  For more
information, call (888) 633-9195 or go to
www.BCyellowbrasssettlement.com


CARIBOU COFFEE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Farnham" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kristie Farnham, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Caribou Coffee Company, Case No. 3:16-cv-
00295 (W.D. Wis., May 5, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's
practice of making unsolicited calls.

Caribou Coffee Company is a specialty coffee and espresso
retailer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Frank Hedin, Esq.
      CAREY RODRIGUEZ MILIAN GONYA, LLP
      1395 Brickell Ave, Suite 700
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (305) 372-7474
      E-mail: fhedin@careyrodriguez.com

CATHAY PACIFIC: June 24 Class Members' Settlement Views Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Did you purchase airfreight shipping services within, to, or from
Canada (except to/from the United States) between January 2000 and
September 2006?

If so, you might be affected by a class action settlement with
Cathay Pacific Airlines Ltd.  Pursuant to the settlement, Cathay
has agreed to pay CDN $6,000,000.  The settlement is a compromise
of disputed claims and is not an admission of liability or
wrongoding by Cathay.

The settlement requires court approval in Ontario, British
Columbia and Quebec.  The courts will also be asked to approve a
protocol for distributing the settlement funds received in the
litigation to date.  Settlement class members may express their
views about the proposed settlement and protocol for distributing
the settlement funds to the courts.  To do so, you must act by
June 24, 2016.

Questions? Visit www.aircargosettlement2.com or call 1-800-461-
6166 ext. 2446


CHEMOIL ENERGY: Faces "Valdez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Valdez and Rafael Valdez, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Chemoil Energy, Inc., Case No. 5:16-
cv-00419 (W.D. Tex., May 5, 2016), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Chemoil Energy, Inc. is one of the world's leading retail energy
companies in sea and land sectors, delivering energy to an
extensive network of international clients.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert R. Debes Jr., Esq.
      Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
      SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
      11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 621-2277
      Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
      E-mail: bdebes@eeoc.net
              rprieto@eeoc.net


COVENTRY HEALTH: Removed "Williams" Suit to M. Dist. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Mia Williams, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Coventry Health Care
of Florida, Inc., Case No. 05-2016-CA-018366, was removed from the
Brevard County Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court
Middle District of Florida (Orlando). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 6:16-cv-00731-GKS-TBS to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts labor-related claims.

Coventry Health Care of Florida, Inc. operates a healthcare
facility in Brevard County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremiah Joseph Talbott, Esq.
      JEREMIAH J. TALBOTT, PA
      900 E. Moreno St.
      Pensacola, FL 32503
      Telephone: (850) 437-9600
      Facsimile: (850) 437-0906
      E-mail: civilfilings@talbottlawfirm.com

         - and -

      John Clark Davis, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. DAVIS
      623 Beard St
      Tallahassee, FL 32303
      Telephone: (850) 222-4770
      Facsimile: (850) 222-3119
      E-mail: john@johndavislaw.net

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Amanda Simpson, Esq.
      Keith L. Hammond, Esq.
      JACKSON LEWIS, PC, Suite 1285
      390 N Orange Ave
      Orlando, FL 32801
      Telephone: (407) 425-7010
      Facsimile: (407) 425-2747
      E-mail: amanda.simpson@jacksonlewis.com
              hammondk@jacksonlewis.com


DAYBREAK VENTURE: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Ross" Action Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Veronica Ross, Stephanie Wagner, Lisa Traylor, Crystal Kilwili,
Denise Birch, and Tara Garrett v. Daybreak Venture L.L.C. and
Frankston Healthcare Center, L.P., Case No. 2:16-cv-00479-JRG
(E.D. Tex., May 5, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours
per workweek.

The Defendants own and operate a nursing home located at 500 S.
Taylor, Suite 1100, LB 219, Amarillo, Texas 79101.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Harry Bob Whitehurst, Esq.
      BOB WHITEHURST, ATTORNEY AT LAW
      5380 Old Bullard Road, Suite 600, #363
      Tyler, TX 75703
      Telephone: (903) 593-5588
      Facsimile: (214) 853-9382
      E-mail: whitehurstlawfirm@yahoo.com


DELTA OUTSOURCE: Illegally Collects Debt,"Hamra" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Yaffa Hamra, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
consumers v. Delta Outsource Group, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-02259
(E.D.N.Y., May 5, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Delta Outsource Group, Inc. specializes in post charge-off
financial services products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Maxim Maximov, Esq.
      MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
      1701 Avenue P
      Brooklyn, NY 11229
      Telephone: (718) 395-3459
      Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
      E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


DORAL FINANCIAL: August 8 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP and Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP regarding the In re Doral
Financial Corporation Securities Litigation.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

IN RE DORAL FINANCIAL CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION, CIVIL
ACTION NO. 3:14-CV-01393-GAG, CLASS ACTION, SUMMARY NOTICE

This Document Relates To: ALL ACTIONS.

TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED
THE COMMON STOCK OF DORAL FINANCIAL CORPORATION ("DORAL") DURING
THE PERIOD FROM APRIL 2, 2012 THROUGH AND INCLUDING MAY 1, 2014,
AND WERE ALLEGEDLY DAMAGED THEREBY

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, that a hearing
will be held on August 8, 2016, at 9:00 a.m., before the Honorable
Gustavo A. Gelpi, United States District Judge, at the United
States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, JosÇ V.
Toledo U.S. Courthouse, 300 Recinto Sur Street, San Juan, Puerto
Rico, for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed
Settlement of the claims in the Litigation for the principal
amount of $7 million, plus interest, should be approved by the
Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether a Final
Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice should be entered
by the Court dismissing the Litigation with prejudice; (3) whether
the Plan of Allocation of Settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable,
and adequate and should be approved; and (4) whether the
application of Lead Counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees and
expenses and Co-Lead Plaintiffs' expenses in connection with this
Litigation should be approved.

IF YOU PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED ANY DORAL COMMON STOCK
DURING THE PERIOD FROM APRIL 2, 2012 THROUGH AND INCLUDING MAY 1,
2014, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS
LITIGATION.  If you have not received a detailed Notice of
Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice") and a copy of the
Proof of Claim and Release form, you may obtain copies by writing
to Doral Securities Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o GCG,
P.O. Box 10284, Dublin, OH 43017-5784, or on the internet at
www.DoralSecuritiesLitigation.com

If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution
of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and
Release by mail or online no later than August 29, 2016,
establishing that you are entitled to recovery.  You will be bound
by any judgment rendered in the Litigation unless you request to
be excluded, in writing, to the above address, postmarked by July
5, 2016.

Any objection to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, or the
fee and expense application must be received, not simply
postmarked, by each of the following recipients no later than July
5, 2016:

CLERK OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
Federico Degetau Federal Building
150 Carlos Chard¢n Street, Room 150
San Juan, PR 00918-1767

Lead Counsel:

ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
ELLEN GUSIKOFF STEWART
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101

GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
KARA M. WOLKE
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067

Counsel for Settling Defendants:

WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
DAVID D. AUFHAUSER
725 Twelfth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005

PAUL HASTINGS LLP
KEVIN C. LOGUE
75 East 55th Street
New York, NY 10022

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.  If you have any questions about the Settlement, you
may contact Lead Counsel at the addresses listed above.

DATED: April 21, 2016

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO


DUNKIN' DONUTS: Franchise Workers File Wage Theft Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Progress Illinois reports that former Dunkin' Donuts franchise
workers filed a federal class action lawsuit on May 4, alleging
wage theft at 16 downtown Chicago locations operated by the same
owner.

The suit alleges that the franchise owner frequently made
unauthorized deductions from workers' paychecks for cash register
shortages, manipulated time cards and failed to pay the minimum
wage and overtime.

Christina Padilla, 23, is one of two former Dunkin' Donuts
franchise workers named as plaintiffs in the suit, which is
seeking class action status to cover over 100 current and former
employees of the locations in question.

"Workers have [had their] wages stolen, and they have been
mistreated until they quit," Ms. Padilla said in announcing the
class action suit.

Joined by her attorneys and supporters from the Arise Chicago
worker center, Ms. Padilla spoke outside the Dunkin' Donuts at 229
W. Jackson Blvd., one of the 16 franchise locations named in the
complaint.

Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym, Ltd. and the Community Activism
Law Alliance (CALA) brought the lawsuit on behalf of the
plaintiffs.

"At those [16] locations, inappropriate wage deductions and many
forms of wage theft are occurring, and that's what we're going
after in the current lawsuit," said CALA's Lam Ho.  "But that's
not all that we're gonna be working on.  One of the things that's
really important to us, and one of the most essential elements of
the action, is about empowering workers like Christina and
organizations like Arise to use, not only the legal system, but
other strategies to make sure that this is not happening to
anyone, any worker, anywhere."

Since December 2013, Ms. Padilla worked at two Dunkin' Donuts
locations owned by the franchisee named in the suit.  Most
recently, she was a shift supervisor at the Jackson restaurant
before quitting last August.

Speaking about the alleged wage and timesheet violations she
witnessed as a Dunkin' Donuts franchise employee, Ms. Padilla said
cashiers with register shortages experienced unauthorized wage
deductions from their paychecks.  Workers, she added, have also
been on the hook for bank fees when their paychecks have bounced
due to issues on the employer's end.

As a supervisor, Ms. Padilla said she was not paid for work she
was required to do at home, such as rearranging shifts when
workers called off.  Employees were also required to clock out
while running work-related errands, she claimed.

The employer "didn't want anyone to hit overtime" for hours worked
beyond 40 a week, she said.  The franchise owner,
Ms. Padilla explained, has allegedly adjusted time cards to push
workers' hours below the overtime threshold.

"They hardly ever paid me my overtime," said Ms. Padilla, who was
an hourly employee.  "They're like, 'Your raise is your overtime.
So that's what you're getting paid.' And a lot of times they would
cut my own hours."

Ms. Padilla claimed there was, and continues to be, a fear among
workers of being fired or written up for speaking out about
payroll issues. She decided to quit last August because she could
no longer work in such an environment.

"No worker should feel intimidated by their boss for standing for
their rights," Ms. Padilla said.

As part of the lawsuit, workers are seeking to recover an
unspecified amount of unpaid wages, among other damages.

Defendants named in the suit include Ruby Foods Inc., Standard
Foods Inc., Moonstone Foods Enterprises LLC, Sirajuddin Virani and
Faisal Merchant. Attempts to reach the defendants for comment were
unsuccessful.

Carolyn Morales, an Arise Chicago organizer, said wage theft is an
issue impacting workers across various industries.

"It's a huge problem, not only in the city of Chicago, but across
the nation," she said.  "It happens in any type of industry that
we've seen, but is really concentrated with low-wage workers who
are working often the hardest, the most amount of hours, who need
the money the most.  And they're getting it stolen each and every
day."


ERVIN ROSENFELD: Faces "Bichkova" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tatyana Bichkova, Alejandro Calderon, Karen Franco, Azeddine
Mazaghrane, Sylwia Sawicka, Konstantin Shabalin and Jose Zhumi,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Ervin
Rosenfeld and Pane E Vino Restaurant, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-
02113-ILG-CLP (E.D.N.Y., April 28, 2016), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Ervin Rosenfeld and Pane E Vino Restaurant, Inc. operates a
restaurant and bar called Pane E Vino at 174 Smith Street,
Brooklyn, New York 11201.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert J. Renna, Esq.
      ROBERT J. RENNA, P.C.
      26 Court Street, Suite 2303
      Brooklyn, NY 11242
      Telephone: (718) 422-1003
      E-mail: robert.renna@rennalaw.com


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP ("BLB&G") on May 5
disclosed that on May 4, 2016, it filed a securities class action
lawsuit on behalf of its client Melbourne Municipal Firefighters'
Pension Trust Fund ("Melbourne") against Express Scripts Holding
Company ("Express Scripts" or the "Company"), and certain of its
senior executives (collectively "Defendants").  The action, which
is captioned Melbourne Municipal Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund
v. Express Scripts Holding Company, et al., No. 1:16-cv-03338
(S.D.N.Y.), asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), 15 U.S.C.
Secs. 78j(b) and 78t(a), and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.10b-5, on behalf of investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired Express Scripts common stock
during the period from February 24, 2015 to March 21, 2016,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants
violated provisions of the Exchange Act by issuing false and
misleading press releases, financial statements, filings with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), and statements
during investor conference calls.  Express Scripts is the largest
independent pharmacy benefit manager ("PBM") in the country.  As a
PBM, Express Scripts administers the prescription drug benefit
component of its customers' health insurance plans.  Express
Scripts also negotiates drug prices with pharmacies and
establishes a network of pharmacies through which patients can
fill their prescriptions.

Express Scripts' most important client is Anthem, Inc. ("Anthem"),
one of the largest health benefits companies in the United States,
which represents approximately 14% of Express Scripts' annual
revenues.  Pursuant to the Company's contract with Anthem, Anthem
may periodically conduct a market analysis to ensure that Anthem
is receiving "competitive benchmark pricing" on drugs purchased
through plans administered by Express Scripts.  If Anthem
determines that the pricing terms under the agreement with the
Company are no longer market competitive, then Anthem may propose
new pricing terms to ensure that Anthem is receiving competitive
benchmark pricing, and Express Scripts is obligated to negotiate
in good faith over the proposed new pricing terms.

Throughout the Class Period, Express Scripts repeatedly assured
investors that its relationship with Anthem remained strong and
that it was providing Anthem, and all of its customers, with high
quality service.  Express Scripts also touted that it was
performing at a high level financially and operationally.  In
addition, the Company addressed the ongoing drug pricing
negotiations with Anthem, stating that Express Scripts was
committed to reaching a mutually beneficial agreement, and
continuing its successful working relationship with its most
important client.  As a result of these misrepresentations,
Express Scripts stock traded at artificially inflated prices
during the Class Period.

The truth began to be revealed on January 12, 2016, when Anthem
publicly threatened to terminate its relationship with Express
Scripts unless the Company would renegotiate its agreement with
Anthem to deliver more than $3 billion in annual savings to
Anthem.  Then, on March 21, 2016, Anthem sued Express Scripts
alleging that the Company breached its contract with Anthem by
failing to negotiate drug pricing terms in good faith.  The
lawsuit revealed a conflict between Express Scripts and Anthem
dating back to at least February 2015, including allegations that
Express Scripts was experiencing severe operational problems that
interfered with its ability to adequately serve Anthem and exposed
Anthem to increased regulatory scrutiny.  More importantly,
investors learned that Anthem would almost certainly either
renegotiate its contract to pay billions of dollars less to
Express Scripts, or worse, seek to engage a competing PBM
resulting in the complete loss of Anthem's business.  These
disclosures caused a material decline in the price of Express
Scripts stock.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff for the Class, you must
file a motion with the Court no later than July 5, 2016, which is
the first business day on which the District Court for the
Southern District of New York is open that is 60 days after the
publication date of May 5, 2016.  Any member of the proposed class
may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of
their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain a member of
the proposed class.

Melbourne is represented by BLB&G, a firm of over 100 attorneys
with offices in New York, California, Louisiana, and Illinois.  If
you wish to discuss this Action or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Avi
Josefson of BLB&G at avi@blbglaw.com

Founded in 1983, BLB&G -- http://www.blbglaw.com-- specializes in
securities fraud, corporate governance, shareholders' rights,
employment discrimination, and civil rights litigation, among
other practice areas, BLB&G prosecutes class and private actions
on behalf of institutional and individual clients worldwide.


FACEBOOK INC: Motion to Dismiss Photo-Tagging Class Action Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Hancock, writing for The Recorder, reports that Facebook Inc.
on May 5 lost an attempt to get out from under an Illinois state
law that puts in question the legality of its facial recognition
technology.

U.S. District Judge James Donato of the Northern District of
California denied a motion to dismiss a class action brought under
the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA).
"After briefing and an evidentiary hearing on disputed fact issues
underlying choice of law, the court finds that Illinois law
applies and that plaintiffs have stated a claim under BIPA," Judge
Donato wrote.

Facebook, represented by Mayer Brown, tried to argue that its user
agreement provided it would be governed by California law, not the
law of Illinois, where the plaintiffs live.

Judge Donato agreed with Facebook that its user agreement was
valid. But he ruled that the California "choice-of-law" provisions
could not be enforced because California law conflicts with a
"fundamental policy" of Illinois -- namely BIPA.

"[I]f California law is applied, the Illinois policy of protecting
its citizens' privacy interests in their biometric data,
especially in the context of dealing with 'major national
corporations' like Facebook, would be written out of existence,"
the judge added.  "That is the essence of a choice-of-law
conflict."

The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys from Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd; Edelson; and Labaton Sucharow.  They argue that
Facebook's photo "tagging" tools violate the BIPA because the
company did not inform users of what kind of facial-geometry data
are being collected, how they are being used, and how long they
are being stored.

The law, which also requires companies to get written release to
authorize data collection, carries statutory damages of $1,000 for
negligent violations, and $5,000 for those that are "intentional
and reckless."

Facebook also disputes that its technology falls within the scope
of BIPA.  But Judge Donato said that question would have to be
addressed once more facts are brought to light.

The company did not immediately respond to a request for comment.


FIRST NBC: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP ("Robbins Geller") on May 5
disclosed that a class action has been commenced in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on
behalf of purchasers of First NBC Bank Holding Company ("First
NBC") common stock during the period between May 10, 2013 and
April 8, 2016 (the "Class Period").

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from May 5, 2016.  If you wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights
or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel,
Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at
800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/firstnbc/

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges First NBC and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
First NBC is a bank holding company.  The Company offers a range
of financial services through its wholly owned banking subsidiary,
First NBC Bank.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose adverse facts regarding First NBC's business and
financial results, including that First NBC had improperly
accounted for certain of its tax credit entities, that the
carrying value of its investments in tax credits on its books was
overstated and these investments should have been marked as
impaired and charges taken against them on a more timely basis,
and that First NBC had a larger exposure to the oil and gas
industry than it had disclosed during the Class Period and had
failed to take adequate reserves against this growing exposure.
As a result of these false and misleading statements and
omissions, First NBC stock traded at artificially inflated prices
during the Class Period, reaching a high of $42.47 per share.

Then, starting in early 2016, First NBC began to disclose errors
its accounting dating back to 2011.  On February 1, 2016, First
NBC announced that its earnings for the fourth quarter and fiscal
year 2015 had significantly underperformed analysts' expectations,
based, in large part, on the Company having taken an $8.2 million
tax credit impairment.  The price of First NBC stock fell $3.20
per share on this news to close at $27.20 per share.  On March 16,
2016, First NBC announced it had discovered errors in its
accounting for its Federal and State Historic Rehabilitation tax
credit entities that could potentially require the Company to
restate its previously reported fiscal year 2015 financial
results.  As a result of this news, the price of First NBC stock
dropped 22%, or $5.33 per share, to close at $19.09 per share on
March 16, 2016.

Then on April 8, 2016, First NBC announced that it would be forced
to restate its consolidated financial statements for fiscal years
2014, 2013, 2012 and 2011, including each of the interim periods
within fiscal years 2015, 2014 and 2013 -- the Company's entire
reporting history as a publicly traded company
-- and that the Company's financial statements for fiscal years
2011 through 2015 could no longer be relied upon.  First NBC
blamed "an error in the Company's methodology for the recognition
of impairment of its investment in tax credit entities" and
disclosed that "the Company had not properly consolidated variable
interest entities related to Low-Income Housing Tax Credit
entities."  On this news, the price of First NBC stock declined
another 2%, or $0.47 per share, to close at $18.65 per share the
next trading day.

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

With 200 lawyers in ten offices, Robbins Geller --
http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and international
institutional investors in contingency-based securities and
corporate litigation.


FITBIT INC: Faces "River" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Raul Rivera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Fitbit, Inc., James Park, Eric N. Friedman, William
Zerella, Jonathan D. Callaghan, Steven Murray, Christopher
Paisley, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.,
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Barclays
Capital Inc., Suntrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc., Piper Jaffray &
Co. Raymond James & Associates, Inc., Stifel, Nicolaus & Company,
Incorporated, William Blair & Company, L.L.C., Foundry Group, True
Ventures, Softbank Group Corp., Sapphire Ventures, LLC, Softtech
VC, Qualcomm Incorporated, SVB Financial Group, Westriver Roup,
Westriver Mezzanine Loans, LLC, Kabir Misra, Nino Marakovic,
Richard Douglas Higgins, Jayendra Das, David Hartwig, Andre-As
Weiskam, and 3 Does 1- 25, inclusive, Case No. CIV538403 (Cal.
Super. Ct., April 28, 2016), alleges that the Defendants made
false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects in its initial public stock offering.

Fitbit, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that manufactures wearable
activity-tracking devices.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
      George C. Aguilar, Esq.
      Jay N. Razzouk, Esq.
      ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
      600 B Street, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 525-3990
      E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com
              gaguilar@robbinsarroyo.com
              jrazzouk@robbinsarroyo.com


FORD MOTOR: NZ Unit Awaits Outcome of Australian Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Linklater, writing for stuff.co.nz, reports that Ford New
Zealand is taking a "wait and see" approach to a potential class
action over its PowerShift gearbox technology in Australia.

Australian firm Bannister Law is threatening a class action
against Ford Australia over the transmission.

On its website it says that it has been contacted by customers
"whom allege that the vehicles equipped with the Powershift
transmission are defective in that, amongst other problems, the
transmission slips, bucks, jerks, and harshly engages when driven.

"Further, they allege that, without warning, they have
experienced, whilst driving, sudden acceleration, delay in
downshifts, delayed acceleration, and, in some circumstances,
difficulty in stopping the vehicle whilst braking.  Some consumers
are concerned that, as a result of their experiences on the road,
their vehicles are unsafe to drive."

The concerns relate to the WT and WZ Fiesta 1.5 (2010-14),
EcoSport 1.5 (2012-14) and LW Focus 1.6/2.0 (2010-14).

"The situation in Australia is a potential class action that has
not yet been filed," says Ford NZ communications and Government
affairs manager Tom Clancy.

"At this stage neither Ford Australia or Ford New Zealand can make
any comment on it."

However, Mr. Clancy does acknowledge that PowerShift issues have
arisen with some of its owners:  "We have had some NZ-customer
concerns over how their Powershift transmissions are operating. We
are committed to addressing potential issues and responding
quickly for all our customers.

"We would encourage our customers to work with their local dealer
on their individual circumstances and we will in turn continue to
work closely with our dealers to resolve those concerns."

Mr. Clancy says the company believes some of these complaints can
be put down to the way in which PowerShift technology works: "In
our experience, some customer concerns have been around their
expectations of how the transmission should operate.

"It's not a conventional automatic, it works differently to that
and I think it's fair to say we could have done better in
communicating that to customers."

The Ford Focus moved from a PowerShift transmission to a
conventional automatic as part of a model-upgrade last year.
Clancy says this was not due to any problem with the original
transmission, but rather a new powertrain package based around
Ford's latest 1.5-litre EcoBoost engine, which is now the core
engine for the local Focus range.

Both Fiesta and EcoSport still use the PowerShift gearbox,
although post-2014 models are not included in the potential class
action.

What is PowerShift anyway?

PowerShift is Ford's global brand for a particular type of
gearbox, commonly known as "dual clutch".

Dual clutch transmissions have the ease-of-use of a conventional
automatic as they only have two pedals, yet they theoretically
have all of the performance and fuel-economy advantages of a
manual -- because that's really what they are.

In a conventional manual, the driver operates the clutch with a
pedal.  In a dual-clutch, there are two of them (hence the name),
but they are both automated.  One clutch operates the odd-numbered
gears, while the other takes care of the evens.  This means that
the next gear up or down can be preselected, allowing the
transmission to change very quickly and with minimal interruption
to power.

When gears are selected, a dual-clutch system has direct-drive
just like a conventional manual, so there is none of the power
loss associated with a conventional torque-converter automatic.
Dual-clutch-equipped cars are typically just as fast and
economical as their manual-transmission equivalents -- sometimes
better.

There are some disadvantages with dual clutch technology.  While
constant-throttle and performance-driving gearshifts are quick and
smooth, the automated clutches can sometimes be hesitant and jerky
in light-throttle driving, parking and especially hill driving.

Dual-clutch gearboxes were first used successfully by Porsche and
Audi in racing cars in the 1980s, but popularised by Volkswagen
Group in production cars over the past decade.  The first road car
to have such a transmission as standard was the VW Golf R32 of
2003, with its Direct Shift Gearbox (DSG).

Dual-clutch technology is currently used by many (mostly European)
makers, especially in economy or performance-focused models.


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: July 20 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
RICHMOND DIVISION

IN RE GENWORTH FINANCIAL, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION

Civ. A. No. 3:14-cv-00682-JAG
Hon. John A. Gibney, Jr.
CLASS ACTION

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

TO:  All persons and entities who, during the period between
October 30, 2013, and November 5, 2014, inclusive, purchased or
otherwise acquired the publicly traded Genworth Securities (as
defined below to include Genworth common stock and certain bonds)
and were allegedly damaged thereby (the "Settlement Class"):

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

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, that the above-
captioned litigation (the "Action") has been provisionally
certified as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class,
except for certain persons and entities who are excluded from the
Settlement Class by definition as set forth in the full printed
Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action, Provisional Certification
of Settlement Class, and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement
Fairness Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees
and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the "Notice").
"Genworth Securities" includes Genworth common stock (CUSIP No.
37247D106) and the following Genworth Bonds:  Fixed Senior
Unsecured Notes due 5/22/2018; Fixed Senior Unsecured Notes due
6/15/2020; Fixed Senior Unsecured Notes due 2/15/2021; Fixed
Senior Unsecured Notes due 9/24/2021; Fixed Senior Unsecured Notes
due 8/15/2023; Fixed Senior Unsecured Notes due 2/15/2024; Fixed
Senior Unsecured Notes due 6/15/2034; and Variable Junior
Subordinated Notes due 11/15/2066.

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiffs in the Action have
reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $219,000,000.00
USD in cash (the "Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve
all claims in the Action.

A hearing will be held on July 20, 2016 at 2:00 p.m., before the
Honorable John A. Gibney, Jr., at the Spottswood W. Robinson III
and Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Federal Courthouse, 701 East Broad
Street, Richmond, VA 23219, to determine (i) whether the proposed
Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate;
(ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against
Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (and in the Notice) should
be granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should
be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) whether Lead
Counsel's motion for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement
of expenses should be approved.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Settlement Fund.  If you have not yet
received the Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these
documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at In re Genworth
Financial, Inc. Securities Litigation, P.O. Box 4390, Portland, OR
97208-4390, 1-844-804-4359.  Copies of the Notice and Claim Form
can also be downloaded from the website maintained by the Claims
Administrator, www.GenworthSecuritiesSettlement.com

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
potentially eligible to receive a payment under the proposed
Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked no later than
August 22, 2016.  If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not
submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in
the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement but you
will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by
the Court in the Action.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received no later than June 22, 2016, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.  If you
properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not
be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of
the Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court and
delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they
are received no later than June 22, 2016, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice.

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

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to Lead Counsel:

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
David R. Stickney, Esq.
12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300
San Diego, CA 92130
(866) 648-2524
blbg@blbglaw.com

or

BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP
Joseph A. Fonti, Esq.
7 Times Square, 27th Floor
New York, NY 10036
(888) 879-9418
jfonti@bfalaw.com

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

In re Genworth Financial, Inc. Securities Litigation
P.O. Box 4390
Portland, OR 97208-4390
(844) 804-4359
www.GenworthSecuritiesSettlement.com

By Order of the Court


HARTFORD FINANCIAL: ERISA Class Action Pending in Second Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip E. Stano, Esq. -- phillip.stano@sutherland.com --
Gail L. Westover, Esq. -- gail.westover@sutherland.com --
Steuart H. Thomsen, Esq., Wilson G. Barmeyer, Esq., Carol T.
McClarnon, Esq., and Katherine E. Dumeer, Esq. of Sutherland
Asbill & Brennan LLP, in an article for Lexology, report that an
employee benefit plan that includes an alleged subsidization
component for its basic and supplemental options is neither
prohibited by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
(ERISA) nor a violation of the plan sponsor or service provider's
fiduciary duties, a federal district court in Connecticut held on
March 29, 2016.  The district court dismissed a putative class
action against The Hartford Financial Services, Inc. (the Insurer)
and Family Dollar Stores, Inc. (the Company) filed in connection
with the Company's group and supplemental life insurance payment
structure.1

Plaintiffs -- who were participants in the Company's group life
insurance plan -- sought to recover for alleged "overcharges" they
were assessed as premiums to obtain group life insurance coverage.
Plaintiffs alleged that the Insurer and the Company engaged in a
"cross-subsidization scheme" to overcharge plaintiffs for
supplemental life insurance that was higher than called for by the
underwriting and actuarial pricing experience for the purpose of
lowering the price that the Company incurred for "non-
contributory" basic group life insurance coverage. Plaintiffs
alleged that the Insurer and the Company implemented and
maintained their cross-subsidization scheme by misrepresenting
that the Company was paying entirely for the basic non-
contributory group life insurance and by not disclosing the
inflated charges built into the supplemental life insurance
policies in order to subsidize the basic life insurance.  In
connection with this payment structure and alleged
misrepresentations, plaintiffs alleged that the Insurer and the
Company violated ERISA's prohibited transaction and fiduciary
rules and were unjustly enriched under federal common law. The
Insurer and the Company both separately moved to dismiss the
action.

In its motion to dismiss, the Company argued that under U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit precedent,2 setting premiums for
basic and supplemental life insurance is part of plan design and
is not a fiduciary function subject to ERISA's fiduciary rules.
Moreover, the Company argued that all of the premiums plaintiffs
paid were used to pay for life insurance under the plan.  Finally,
the Company argued that plaintiffs' state law claims were
preempted by ERISA.  If there were an ERISA breach, the Company
argued that only ERISA could provide the remedy for that
violation.

In its motion to dismiss, the Insurer argued that an insurance
provider is not an ERISA fiduciary when negotiating the price of
services it will provide to a plan.  Further, the Insurer argued
that even if it were a fiduciary at the time, negotiating
discounts for certain benefits does not constitute a violation of
fiduciary duty, and the Insurer did not misrepresent the pricing
structure of the life insurance coverage it provided because it
accurately disclosed the premium for the supplemental insurance.
Further, the Insurer argued that it had no duty to disclose the
details of the pricing arrangement for the basic and supplemental
life insurance coverage to the Company's employees.

The Insurer argued that plaintiffs' claim that it knowingly
participated in a breach of fiduciary duty should be dismissed
because the Company's decision to purchase insurance that contains
cross-subsidization pricing was proper; the Company breached no
fiduciary duty, and therefore it did not participate in a
fiduciary breach.  Finally, the Insurer argued that it was not
liable for any alleged prohibited transaction under ERISA because
none of the actions alleged against it constituted prohibited
transactions.  Moreover, as a non-fiduciary, it could only be
liable for a fiduciary's breach3 if it "knowingly participated" in
the breach and in any event, only for equitable relief, not money
damages under ERISA.

In its decision on the motions, the court dismissed all counts
against both the Insurer and the Company.  First, the court
acknowledged the Insurer's position that it was not a fiduciary
with respect to negotiating plan premiums, noting that plaintiffs
may have conceded that position.  In any event, however, the court
rejected plaintiffs' arguments that the Insurer could become a
fiduciary via the terms of the arrangement, holding that "with
respect to an agreement to provide a service to an ERISA plan,
where a term of the agreement is bargained for at arm's length,
adherence to that term is not a breach of fiduciary duty."

Turning to plaintiffs' misrepresentation arguments, the court held
that the Insurer had no duty to disclose cost-containment
mechanisms or financial incentives for cost savings in its plans,
relying on a New York federal district court decision5 that had
considered an "identical omission claim."  Plaintiffs had
attempted to distinguish that case and instead liken it to an Ohio
case6 in which a defendant health insurer was held liable for its
representation that policyholders would be responsible for a 20%
co-payment for their medical expenses, when in reality, the
insurer determined the co-payments based on the total amount
billed by the healthcare providers (rather than the discounted
amount that was actually paid to the providers by the insurer).
The court found the Ohio case to be "plainly inapposite," since in
that case, the insurer misrepresented the amounts that the
policyholder must pay for future medical expenses, whereas here,
the sole allegation was that the Insurer and the Company
misrepresented how plaintiffs' premiums would be allocated by the
plan sponsor after they were assessed.

Since the court found that neither defendant had breached any
fiduciary duties, it dismissed plaintiffs' co-fiduciary liability
claims.  The court dismissed plaintiffs' claim that the Insurer
had engaged in a prohibited transaction, finding that Plaintiffs
failed to allege that the Insurer breached any fiduciary duty owed
to plaintiffs by engaging in self-dealing with plan assets. The
court also dismissed plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim, finding
that plaintiffs failed to properly respond to the Company's
argument that no independent federal common law cause of action
for unjust enrichment exists where ERISA already provides for the
sole and exclusive remedy for the alleged conduct.

On April 26, Plaintiffs appealed this case, which is currently
pending before the Second Circuit.  As it currently stands, this
decision is helpful to plans and service providers in reconfirming
situations where the service provider will not be deemed a
fiduciary and in rejecting efforts to invalidate the structure of
a basic/supplemental group life insurance arrangement.


HILTON GRAND: TCPA Class Action Dismissed After Plaintiff's Death
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Taryn Phaneuf, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
New York court has dismissed the lawsuit of a man who died before
certification of a class in his claim against a company that
allegedly violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The plaintiff, Mark Hannabury, sued Hilton Grand Vacations over
two calls to his cell phone, attempting to sell interests in
timeshare properties.  Mr. Hannabury allegedly was included on the
national Do Not Call registry.

TCPA, passed in 1991, restricts telemarketing and the use of
automated phone equipment.

Mr. Hannabury sought $3,000 in damages.  He intended to pursue a
class action suit on behalf of others whom the company had called,
but he died before moving to certify the class.  After his death,
his estate asked to substitute itself as the named plaintiff.

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York
determined the suit doesn't survive the plaintiff because the
claims at issue are primarily penal, not remedial.

"It's not surprising that the courts decided the damages are
penal," Andrew Van Houter -- Andrew.VanHouter@dbr.com -- an
associate attorney at Drinker Biddle & Reath in New Jersey, told
Legal Newsline.

To figure out if a claim is primarily penal or remedial in nature,
courts consider three factors: whether the purpose of the claim is
to redress individual or public wrongs; whether recovery is for
the individual or the public; and whether the recovery is
disproportionate to the harm suffered.

In this case, the court determined that TCPA is meant to deter
defendants from calling people, which would mean redressing public
wrongs.  Additionally, the damages requested in the suit (and
allowed by TCPA) are disproportionate to the harm suffered by two
calls that each lasted less than a minute.  Based on those two
points, the court determined the claims are penal.

"It is difficult to see how this lawsuit, which is a powerful
reaction to two brief phone calls, is anything other than a tool
to redress and deter public wrongs," the court determined,
according to court documents.

Mr. Van Houter said a unique aspect of this case involves the fate
of the class action.  Because the class wasn't certified before
his death, the action is dismissed along with the named
plaintiff's suit.

To pursue it now will require starting from the beginning with a
new named plaintiff.

"It would be a hurdle to start all over to try and do whatever
they'd done up to that point," Mr. Van Houter said.


HOUSTON DECK: "Robles" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Rodrigo Robles, Jose G. Robles, Martin Cruz, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Houston Deck and Shade
L.L.C. and Loren Goodrich, Case No. 4:16-cv-01159 (S.D. Tex.,
April 28, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants are in the business of providing design and
installation services for outdoor deck and patio spaces.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Curt Christopher Hesse, Esq.
      Melissa Moore, Esq.
      Rochelle Owens, Esq.
      MOORE & ASSOCIATES
      Lyric Center
      440 Louisiana Street, Ste 675
      Houston, TX 77002-1637
      Telephone: (713) 222-6775
      Facsimile: (713) 222-6739
      E-mail: curt@mooreandassociates.net
              melissa@mooreandassociates.net
              rochelle@mooreandassociates.net


HUMPHREY RICH: Faces "Rojas-Rios" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Freddy F. Rojas-Rios, on behalf of himself and all similarly
situated individuals v. Humphrey Rich Construction Group, Inc.,
Dynamo Painting LLC, and Edgar Uriona Cabrera, Case No. 1:16-cv-
00847-APM (D. Col., May 5, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a construction company with its
principal place of business located at 10200 Old Columbia Road,
Suite K, Columbia, Maryland 21046.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Virginia Rae Diamond, Esq.
      Rebekah Miller, Esq.
      Benjamin Douglas, Esq.
      ASHCRAFT & GEREL, LLP
      4900 Seminary Road, Suite 650
      Alexandria, VA 22311
      Telephone: (703) 627-5510
      Facsimile: (703)820-0630
      E-mail: vdiamond@ashcraftlaw.com


INTERSTATE CLEANING: "Rodriguez" Suit Removed to Fla. Dist. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Osmel Rodriguez and other
similarly situated non-exempt employees v. Interstate Cleaning
Corporation and John E. Brauch, Jr., Case No. 16-08642-CA-01, was
removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit Court In Miami Dade, FL to
the U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida (Miami). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-21597-KMW to the
proceeding.

The case alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate a janitorial and maintenance company
servicing shopping centers, and lifestyle centers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brody Max Shulman, Esq.
      Jason Saul Remer, Esq.
      Tyler Aaron Stull, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      Courthouse Tower
      44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 416-5000
      Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
      E-mail: bshulman@rgpattorneys.com
              jremer@rgpattorneys.com
              ts@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Robert Bleakley, Esq.
      M. Kristen Allman, Esq.
      THE BLEAKLEY BAVOL LAW FIRM
      15170 N Florida Ave
      Tampa, FL 33613
      Telephone: (813) 221-3759
      Facsimile: (813) 221-3198
      E-mail: rbleakley@bleakleybavol.com
              kallman@bleakleybavol.com


INTREXON CORP: July 5 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, reminds investors of class
action against Intrexon Corporation ("Intrexon" or "the Company").
The class action has been filed on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons or entities who purchased Horsehead securities between
May 12, 2014 and April 20, 2016, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period").

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The Complaint alleges that certain officers and directors have
issued materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose opposing information to investors.  On April 21, 2016,
Spotlight Research reported about Intrexon that: (1) Intrexon's
technology is being questioned by the WHO, CDC and NIH; (2)
Intrexon exaggerated its revenues by 50% through dealings with
related parties; (3) Intrexon's technology program is just
overhyped failed products; and (4) Intrexon is the Theranos of the
public markets. Following this news, Intrexon stock dropped $9.73
per share or over 26%, to close at $27.10 per share on April 21,
2016.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint and join the action, visit the
firm's website: http://www.bgandg.com/#!xon/pj7k7
To discuss this action, or have any questions, please contact
Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael
Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484 or
via email info@bgandg.com

Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their
mailing address and telephone number.  If you suffered a loss in
Intrexon you have until July 5, 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.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique.  Its primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients.  In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration.


JBS FIVE: Faces "Partch" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Janie Partch individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. JBS Five Rivers Cattle Feeding, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-
00957 (D. Col., April 28, 2016), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the  Fair Labor
Standards Act.

JBS Five Rivers Cattle Feeding, LLC operates a feed mill business
at 1770 Promontory Circle, Greeley, Colorado 80634.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KS RENOVATION: "Puma" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Puma, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
KS Renovation Group Inc., James Zammit, and Sylvano [Lnu], Case
No. 1:16-cv-02254 (E.D.N.Y., May 5, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate a construction company with a principle
place of work located at, 9-19 38th Avenue, Long Island City, NY
11101.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anne Melissa Seelig, Esq.
      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 465-1124
      Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
      E-mail: anne@leelitigation.com
              cklee@leelitigation.com


LAND-AIR EXPRESS: Faces "Chain" Suit Over WARN Act Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
Victor J. Chain, Jr., Peter Hayward, Gilbert Lewis, Anthony L.
Platoni, and Owen Taylor, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Land-Air Express of New England, Ltd., Case
No. 7:16-cv-03371 (S.D.N.Y., May 5, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act.

Land-Air Express of New England, Ltd. owns and operates a trucking
company in New York.

Victor J. Chain, Jr., Peter Hayward, Gilbert Lewis, Anthony L.
Platoni, and Owen Taylor are pro se plaintiffs.


LANNETT COMPANY: Faces UFCW Local Suit Over Digoxin Drugs
---------------------------------------------------------
UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund, on behalf of itself and all oters
similarly situated v. Lannett Company, Inc., Allergan PLC, Impax
Laboratories, Inc., Mylan Inc., Par Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sun
Pharmaceutical Industries  Co., and West-Ward Pharmaceutical
Corp., Case No. 2:16-cv-02169-CMR (E.D. Penn., May 5, 2016),
arises from the Defendants' and others' alleged unlawful
combination, agreement and conspiracy  to fix, maintain, and
stabilize the prices of generic digoxin or doxycycline products.

Digoxin is a prescription drug that is used to treat mild to
moderate heart failure in adults, increase the heart contracting
functions for pediatric patients with heart failure, and control
the resting heart rate in adult patients with chronic atrial
fibrillation.

Doxycycline monohydrate is a prescription antibiotic used in
treating humans and animals.

The Defendants own and operate pharmaceutical companies that
manufacture and distribute generic digoxin and generic
doxycycline.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark S. Goldman, Esq.
      Paul Scarlato, Esq.
      GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY PC
      161 Washington St., Suite 1025
      Conshohocken, PA 19428
      Telephone: (484) 342-0700
      E-mail: goldman@lawgsp.com
              scalato@lawgsp.com

          - and -

      Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq.
      Jay L. Hines, Esq.
      Domenico Minerva, Esq.
      Karin E. Garvey, Esq.
      Matthew J. Perex, Esq.
      LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
      140 Broadway
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 907-0700
      Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
      E-mail: gasciolla@labaton.com
              jhimes@labaton.com
              dminerva@labaton.com
              kgarvey@labaton.com
              mperez@labaton.com

          - and -

      Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq.
      Paul Costa, Esq.
      Adam J. Pessin, Esq.
      FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK, RPC
      One South Broad, Street, Suite 2300
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Telephone: (215) 567-6565
      Facsimile: (215) 568-5872
      E-mail: rliebennerg@finekaplan.com
              pcosta@finekaplan.com
              apessin@finekaplan.com


LINCOLN TRANSPORTATION: Fails to Pay Employees OT, Action Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leo Thompson, individually and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated v. Lincoln Transportation Services, Inc., and
Does 1-50, Case No. BC619604 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 5, 2016), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the California Labor Code.

Lincoln Transportation Services, Inc. operates a transportation
company located at 250 W Manville St, Compton, CA 90220.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ari E. Moss, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ARI MOSS
      15300 Ventura Blvd., Suite 207
      Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
      Telephone: (310) 982-2984
      Facsimile: (310) 861-0389

          - and -

      Evan Selik, Esq.
      SELIK & ASSOCIATES, APC
      15300 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 207
      Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
      Telephone: (818) 602-4173
      Facsimile: (310) 861-0389


LUXE WORLDWIDE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Pena" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elmer Pena v. Luxe Worldwide Hotels, LLC, E.H. Summit, Inc., Luxe
Sunset Boulevard Hotel, Luxe Sunset Boulevard, Luxe Sunset Blvd,
and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. BC619311 (Cal. Super.
Ct., May 5, 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 hotel in Los Angeles County,
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lawrence W. Freiman, Esq.
      FREIMAN LAW
      100 Wilshire Blvd., Ste.940
      Santa Monica, CA 90401
      Telephone: (310) 917-1024
      Facsimile: (888) 835-8511
      E-mail: lawrence@freimanlaw.com


MDL NO. 2311: Auto Manufacturers Settle Case for $225 Million
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Ducey, writing for ABC15, reports that a lawsuit alleges auto
parts manufacturers colluded to keep prices high.  The settlement
means that if you bought a new car between 1998 and 2015, or
bought a replacement part from someone other than the
manufacturer, you could get part of this $225 million settlement.

There's a hearing on May 11, as details are still being worked
out.

The companies involved claim no wrongdoing.

The Settling Defendants are:

   -- Autoliv, Inc.; Autoliv ASP, Inc.; Autoliv B.V. & Co. KG;
Autoliv Safety Technology, Inc.;
and Autoliv Japan Ltd. (collectively, "Autoliv"),

   -- Fujikura, Ltd. and Fujikura Automotive America LLC
(together,"Fujikura"),

   -- Hitachi Automotive Systems, Ltd.("HIAMS"),

   -- Kyungshin-Lear Sales and Engineering, LLC ("KLSales"),

   -- Lear Corporation ("Lear"),

   -- Nippon Seiki Co., Ltd.; N.S. International, Ltd.; and New
Sabina Industries, Inc.
(collectively, "Nippon Seiki"),

   -- Panasonic Corporation and Panasonic Corporation of North
America (together, "Panasonic"),

   -- Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd.; Sumitomo Wiring Systems,
Ltd.; Sumitomo Electric

   -- Wiring Systems, Inc. (incorporating K&S Wiring Systems,
Inc.); and Sumitomo Wiring
Systems (U.S.A.) Inc. (collectively, "Sumitomo"),

   -- T.RAD Co., Ltd. and T.RAD North America, Inc. (together,
"T.RAD"),

   -- TRW Deutschland Holding GmbH and TRW Automotive Holdings
Corporation (now known
as "ZF TRW Automotive Holdings Corp.") (together, "TRW"), and

   -- Yazaki Corporation and Yazaki North America, Incorporated
(together, "Yazaki").

For more information on the settlement visit:

        http://www.autopartsclass.com/


MICHAEL HARRISON: Illegally Collects Debt, "Trombley" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alejandra Trombley, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Michael Harrison t/a Michael Harrison Attorney At Law
and John Does 1-25, Case No. 2:16-cv-02546-KM-MAH (D.N.J., May 6,
2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt.

The Defendants are in the business of providing collection
services to healthcare providers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
      JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
      375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
      Fairfield, NJ 07004
      Telephone: (973) 227-5900
      Facsimile: (973) 244-0019
      E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com


MIDLAND NATIONAL: Faces "Taylor" Suit Over Contract Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
Frederick D. Taylor, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Midland National Life Insurance Company,
Case No. 4:16-cv-00140-SMR-HCA (S.D. Iowa., April 28, 2016), is an
action for breach of contract and conversion to recover amounts
that the Defendant has charged and collected from the Plaintiff
and members of a class of life insurance policy owners in excess
of amounts authorized by the express terms of their policies.

Midland National Life Insurance Company operates a life insurance
company with its principal place of business in West Des Moines,
Iowa.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Barton Goplerud, Esq.
      HUDSON, MALLANEY, SHINDLER & ANDERSON, PC
      5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100
      West Des Moines, IA 50265
      Telephone: (515) 223-4567
      Facsimile: (515) 223-8887
      E-mail: jbgoplerud@hudsonlaw.net

         - and -

      Patrick J. Stueve, Esq.
      Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
      Bradley T. Wilders, Esq.
      STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
      460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
      Kansas City, MO 64112
      Telephone: (816) 714-7100
      Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
      E-mail: stueve@stuevesiegel.com
              siegel@stuevesiegel.com
              wilders@stuevesiegel.com

         - and -

      John J. Schirger, Esq.
      Matthew W. Lytle, Esq.
      Joseph M. Feierabend, Esq.
      MILLER SCHIRGER, LLC
      4520 Main Street, Suite 1570
      Kansas City, MO 64111
      Telephone: (816) 561-6500
      Facsimile: (816) 561-6501
      E-mail: jschirger@millerschirger.com
              mlytle@millerschirger.com
              jfeierabend@millerschirger.com


MITSUBISHI MOTORS: Mileage Tampering Suspected on All Models
------------------------------------------------------------
Yuri Kageyama, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
Mitsubishi Motors Corp., the Japanese automaker under
investigation for lying about fuel economy data for some models,
said on May 4 such tampering is suspected in all of its vehicles
sold in Japan.

The company has said it carried out false tests and gave inflated
mileage on minicars known as "kei," whose production began in
2013, called eK wagon and eK Space light passenger cars under its
own brand and Dayz and Dayz Roox that it produced for Nissan Motor
Co.

The company said the extent of such fraudulence was wide, possibly
affecting all current and discontinued models sold in Japan.  It
abided by mileage-test requirements for vehicles sold abroad, it
said.

The latest scandal surfaced in April after Nissan pointed out
discrepancies with its own mileage tests.  Mitsubishi also was
embroiled in a massive scandal 15 years ago involving a systematic
cover-up of auto defects.

U.S. environmental regulators have ordered additional testing to
verify gas mileage on the five models Mitsubishi sells in the
U.S., including three cars and two SUVs.

Although managers were fully aware of the difficulties involved in
attaining good mileage, it did not bother to communicate with
those on the ground doing the cheating to investigate, the company
said in a statement to the government.

Employees simply made up some of the data, raising the mileage
fraudulently five times during the development of the minicars, it
said.

Tokyo-based Mitsubishi is still working on how to compensate the
customers.

Mileage fraud is a violation of Japan's fuel efficiency law for
autos because buyers are eligible for tax breaks if a vehicle
model delivers good mileage.  Possible penalties are still
unclear.

The company said it will report later on the findings of a panel
of three lawyers to further investigate the scandal from an
outsider's point of view.

Big-name brands such as Mitsubishi, an industrial conglomerate
that includes a trading company, real-estate, jet manufacturing
and financial group, are revered in Japan, a nation that values
tradition.

But these days, even Japanese media have begun speculating about
the future of Mitsubishi Motors, which apparently failed to learn
from its serious auto-defects scandal in the early 2000s.

The cover-ups then were over failing brakes, faulty clutches and
fuel tanks prone to falling off dating back to the 1970s. That
resulted in more than a million vehicles being recalled
retroactively.


MULTNOMAH: Jail Faces "Stanko" Suit Over Civil Rights Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rudy Stanko and similarly situated citizens v. Multnomah County
Jail and Sheriff Daniel Staton, individually and in official
capacity, Case No. 7:16-cv-05002-JMG-CRZ (D. Neb., May 5, 2016),
is brought against the Defendant for civil rights violation.

The Defendant operates the law enforcement office of Multnomah
County.

Rudy Stanko is a pro se plaintiff.


MV TRANSPORTATION: Illegally Obtains Consumer Reports, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barrie Woods, individually and as a representative of the class
v. MV Transportation, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-05001 (N.D. Ill., May
5, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide
required disclosures prior to procuring a consumer report on
applicants and employees.

MV Transportation, Inc. owns and operates a transportation
contracting firm in Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jorge A. Gamboa, Esq.
      STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
      205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
      Chicago, ID 60601
      Telephone: (312) 233-1550
      E-mail: jgamboa@stephanzouras.com


NAT'L FOOTBALL: 3rd Cir. Upholds $1-Bil. Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stefanie M. Renaud, writing for Society for Human Resource
Management, reports that a nearly $1 billion settlement between
the National Football League (NFL) and over 20,000 retired
football players was upheld as imperfect but fair by the 3rd U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals.

The settlement resolved a large class-action lawsuit brought by
retired NFL players against the league.  The players alleged that
the NFL knew about the increased risk of brain injuries as a
result of playing football but did not inform or protect players.
In a class-action lawsuit, a large number of people with the same
legal problem -- the class members -- are represented by one or
more members of the class -- the named plaintiffs.  A court must
approve a class-action settlement before it is finalized.

In 2011, 73 former players filed a complaint in California in
which they alleged that the NFL did not take reasonable actions to
protect players from the risk of head injuries.  Subsequently,
over 300 similar suits were filed across the country.  The NFL
requested that all the cases be consolidated, and the consolidated
case was heard before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

A settlement was reached in August 2013 after months of
negotiations and mediation between the parties.  At first, the
court was not satisfied with the settlement and requested two
changes, which the parties agreed to.  The settlement was
preliminarily approved in April 2015.  However, the federal rules
applicable to class actions allow class members to object to the
settlement before it is finalized by the court.  Here, the
objectors argued that the terms of the settlement were too
restrictive and would not provide relief to former players who
develop neurological problems such as chronic traumatic
encephalopathy, a degenerative brain disease linked to repeated
head trauma.  Several objectors appealed the approval of the
settlement to the court of appeals.

The appeals court concluded that the lower court had properly
certified the class and properly approved the settlement. The
court reasoned that the class had been properly certified because
the class met the four required factors: numerosity, commonality,
typicality and adequate representation.  The court also concluded
that the legal issue in common among the group was both
predominant and would be best resolved in a class-action suit.
Finally, the court concluded that the lower court properly
approved the settlement, which will "provide significant and
immediate relief to retired players living with the lasting scars
of a NFL career," because, while imperfect, the settlement was
fair, reasonable and accurate.

Under the approved settlement, a player can be awarded up to $5
million, depending on the severity of the neurological issues, age
when diagnosed and number of years played in the NFL.  A player
diagnosed with Lou Gehrig's disease can be awarded up to $5
million, while players with Parkinson's disease or Alzheimer's
disease are eligible for an award of up to $3.5 million.

In re Nat'l Football League Players Concussion Injury Litig., No.
15-2206 (3d Cir. April 18, 2016).

Professional Pointer: Employers that are aware of workplace
hazards to employee health and well-being should inform employees
of those risks and endeavor to protect employees from an
unreasonable amount of danger.  Failure to do so can result in a
class-action lawsuit, where affected employees, current or former,
can sue for harms caused by undisclosed workplace risks.

Stefanie M. Renaud -- SRenaud@skoler-abbott.com -- is an attorney
with Skoler, Abbott & Presser P.C., the Worklaw(R) Network member
firm in Springfield, Mass.


NEW ORLEANS, LA: Post-Katrina Flood Class Action Can Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin McGill, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
federal judge who ruled last year that the federal government is
responsible for some of the flooding that hit the New Orleans area
after Hurricane Katrina and other storms granted class-action
status in the case on May 4, meaning numerous property owners --
not just the handful in the original 2005 lawsuit -- could be in
line for compensation.

How much money and how many properties could eventually be
involved wasn't immediately clear.  And the ruling made clear that
nothing is imminent, pending an appeal court review.

The case centers on flooding in New Orleans' Ninth Ward and
neighboring St. Bernard Parish blamed on the now-closed
Mississippi River Gulf Outlet.

The lawsuit said the construction, dredging and operation of the
navigation canal, known in south Louisiana as "Mr. Go,"
contributed to conditions that led to catastrophic flooding during
Hurricane Katrina in August 2005, Hurricane Rita weeks later and
other storms.  In effect, the suit argued, the flood damage caused
by the canal was an illegal taking of private property by the
federal government without adequate compensation.

Judge Susan Braden of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims agreed. She
ruled last May that the Corps' "construction, expansions,
operation, and failure to maintain the MR-GO" led to storm surge
and flooding that amounted to "a temporary taking under the Fifth
Amendment to the United States Constitution."

Her May 4 order had some specifics, spelling out hundreds of
thousands of dollars in storm-related costs and lost rent on
specific properties and saying the city of New Orleans should
recoup real estate taxes, currently estimated at $2.5 million.

However, Judge Braden stressed that the ruling dealt with what she
referred to as "test properties" in the case.  She said an
appellate review of her finding will likely take at least a year.

Meanwhile, Judge Braden said, she expects to soon begin issuing
orders to the St. Bernard and New Orleans governments "so that the
court will be in a position to proceed promptly to issue a final
money judgment as to all class members, if the appellate court
affirms this court's decisions."

The MRGO was authorized by Congress in 1956 as a shortcut from the
Mississippi River to the Gulf of Mexico and was completed years
later.  It was shut down in 2009.


NORTHSHORE UNIVERSITY: Sued Over Charitable Real Estate Tax
-----------------------------------------------------------
Thornmeadow Partners, LP, on behalf of itself and all other
individuals v. Northshore University Health System, David Orr,
and Maria Pappas, Case No. 20l6CH0626B (Ill. Ch. Ct., May 5,
2016), seeks relief on behalf of itself and all other real estate
taxpayers in the State of Illinois who paid real estate taxes
based upon amounts which included charitable real estate tax
exemptions.

Northshore University Health System operates a hospital located at
2650 Ridge Avenue, Evanston, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Larry D. Drury, Esq.
      LARRY D. DRURY, LTD.
      100 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2200
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 346-7950
      E-mail: ldd@larrydrury.com


ORLANDO HEALTH: Faces "Miller" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Miller, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated
v. Orlando Health, Inc., Case No. 6:16-cv-00724-JA-KRS (M.D. Flo.,
April 2016), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Orlando Health, Inc. operates a medical center that offers
comprehensive healthcare services specializing in trauma, critical
care, emergency care, cardiology to its patients.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      20 N Orange Ave Ste 1600
      Orlando, FL 32801
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 425-3341
      E-mail: cleach@forthepeople.com


OS RESTAURANT: "Sears" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
David Sears and Elizabeth Thomas, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. OS Restaurant Services, LLC, and
Bloomin' Brands, Inc., together  d/b/a Outback Steakhouse, Case
No. 8:16-cv-01115-CEH-TGW (M.D. Fla., May 5, 2016), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate Outback Steakhouse in Clarkston,
Michigan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alan L. Quiles, Esq.
      Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
      SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, PA
      Suite 404, 1515 S Federal Hwy
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: (561) 447-8888
      Facsimile: (561) 447-8888
      E-mail: aquiles@shavitzlaw.com
              gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com


PARA LOS: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Fajardo" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Luisa Fajardo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Para Los Ninos and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case
No. BC61860 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 28, 2016), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay all wages due, including both
regular and overtime wages, and minimum wages, failure to provide
meal and rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof, failure to
pay wages due during employment, failure to pay wages due at
separation of employment, and failure to provide accurate itemized
wage statements upon payment of wages.

Para Los Ninos owns and operates educational centers and early
childhood development programs throughout Los Angeles County,
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
      Treana Allen, Esq.
      MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
      249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814
      Long Beach, CA 90802
      Telephone: (562) 590-5550
      Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
      E-mail: krnahoney@mahonev-law.net
              tallen@mahonev-law.net


PARRAMATTA EELS: Punters to File Class Action Over Salary Cap
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Daily Telegraph reports that a leading law firm has flagged a
possible class action against the Parramatta Eels on behalf of
punters who have lost money because of the club's claims it was
within the salary cap.

News of the planned class action by Neville and Hourn Legal came
as the NRL issued an ultimatum to the "Gang of Five" officials --
chairman Steve Sharp, CEO John Boulous, deputy chairman Tom Issa,
director Peter Serrao and head of football Daniel Anderson -- who
took legal action against the League on May 3.  The NRL is
understood to have told the Eels on May 3 that there was no point
continuing negotiations for the club to get under the salary cap
until the five officials ended their court action.

The club now exceeds its salary cap by $570,000 for 2016

If the Eels do not get under the cap by the end of this week, they
will be playing for no points in their next match, against Souths.

The officials have also been lashed by Eels greats for using club
money to fund their fight.

Lawyers estimated the temporary injunction secured by the
directors against the NRL's bombshell decision to ban them from
the game would have cost the club more than $30,000, including the
estimated $10,000-a-day fee for barrister Arthur Moses SC.

Meanwhile, Mr. Boulous and Parramatta Lord Mayor and Eels director
Paul Garrard held crisis meetings at the NRL club's temporary
offices at Parramatta Masonic Club on May 3.

A glum-looking Mr. Boulous appeared particularly hard hit by the
NRL's plan to ban him and the other members of the Gang of Five.

Neville and Hourn's planned class action follows the blowout in
the Eels' odds to win the premiership, from $11 on May 2 to as
much as $101 after the NRL ruling.

Firm principal Matthew Hourn said he had received calls from angry
punters who had backed the Eels. He said any claim under Australia
consumer law could include a much wider group than just punters.
"In the event that we are able to establish that the Eels engaged
in misleading and deceptive conduct, the claim would not be
limited to punters but could also be brought by sponsors or
betting agencies and/or any person caused loss, in reliance on the
fact the Eels were within the salary cap and eligible to field a
team," he said.

Mr. Hourn said sponsors could have a similar gripe because they
supported the team "on the basis that they were within the rules".

Meanwhile, the Gang of Five's involvement in their court action
against the NRL has angered Ray Price.

"The people suffering are our players and our fans," the Eels
legend said.

"What concerns me is the club's money continues to be spent in
court proceedings in the interests of these people."

It is understood the action is being funded by the Parramatta NRL
club or the member-based Parramatta Leagues Club (PLC), which owns
the Eels.

Until now, Messrs. Sharp, Issa and Serrao have been directors of
both.

A sports lawyer who did not wish to be named said there was now a
potential "conflict of interest" between the football club and the
five officials: "Now the league has issued such a strong finding
against those officials, they should not be spending the club's
money in their own interests."

PLC CEO Bevan Paul did not return calls for comment.

But the sports lawyer said that a concern for remaining board
members of both clubs, including Mr. Garrard, former MP Tanya
Gadiel, Andrew Cordwell and former Eels star Geoff Gerard, would
be how long the action continued, and how much money should be
spent.  With the action already estimated to have cost $30,000,
including the large amount of work that would have gone into
securing an injunction at such short notice, the lawyer questioned
how long the Leagues Club CEO and remaining board members would
tolerate such spending.


PAYLOCITY HOLDING: Faces "Solak" Suit Over Fee-Shifting Policies
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Solak, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
stockholders of Paylocity Holding Corporation v. Steven I.
Sarowitz, MarK H. Mishler, Steven R. Beauchamp, Ronald V. Waters
III, Andres D. Reiner, Jeffrey T. Diehl and Paylocity Holding
Corporation, Case No. 12299 (Del. Ch., Ct., May 5, 2016), is an
action for damages as a result of the Defendants' adoption of a
fee-shifting bylaw that allows Paylocity to shift legal fees to
its stockholders for actions.

Paylocity Holding Corporation is a provider of cloud-based payroll
and human capital management software solutions for medium-sized
organizations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter B. Andrews, Esq.
      Craig J. Springer, Esq.
      ANDREWS & SPRINGER, LLC
      3801 Kennett Pike
      Building C, Suite 305
      Wilmington, DE 19807
      Telephone: (302) 504-4967
      Facsimile: (302) 397-2681
      E-mail: pandrews@andrewsspringer.com
              cspringer@andrewsspringer.com


PHILADELPHIA: SEPTA Faces Class Action Over Background Checks
-------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Ahearn, writing for ESR, reports that a class action
lawsuit filed in a federal court in Philadelphia claims that the
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA)
"willfully" violated the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)
and state laws when conducting criminal background checks on job
applicants, according to a press release from Outten & Golden LLP
and a coalition of legal advocates.

The complaint alleges that SEPTA violated the federal FCRA during
procurement of background checks for employment purposes by
failing to provide job applicants with a required "clear and
conspicuous" or "stand alone" written disclosure that SEPTA may
obtain background checks to ensure accuracy and prevent job
applicants from being distracted by unrelated information.

Along with alleged FCRA violations, the complaint also claims
SEPTA -- the nation's sixth-largest public transportation system ?
routinely violated the Pennsylvania state law Criminal History
Record Information Act (CHRIA) by disqualifying job applicants
with unrelated felony convictions from employment involving
operation of SEPTA vehicles, according to the Outten & Golden LLP
press release.

The lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, Frank Long, is a commercially
licensed bus driver who was offered a position as a SEPTA bus
operator in October 2014 that was subsequently rescinded after a
criminal background check revealed he was convicted of a drug
related felony over 20 years ago.  More information is available
at http://www.septaconvictiondiscrimination.com/

The FCRA class action lawsuit is Frank Long v. Southeastern
Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, No. 2:16-cv-01991-PBT, in
the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania. T


PHILIPP MORRIS: Continues to Defend Deceptive Marketing Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Heath, writing for The Atlantic, reports that in a landmark
ruling nearly a decade ago, a federal judge ordered tobacco
companies to stop lying.

After listening to 84 witnesses and perusing tens of thousands of
exhibits, U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler of the District of
Columbia took a year to write a 1,652-page opinion detailing the
companies' elaborate strategy to deny the harmful effects of
smoking.

"In short, [the companies] have marketed and sold their lethal
product with zeal, with deception, with a single-minded focus on
their financial success, and without regard for the human tragedy
or social costs that success exacted," Judge Kessler wrote in
United States of America v. Philip Morris USA.

Judge Kessler noted that the Justice Department, in a racketeering
lawsuit, had presented "overwhelming evidence" of a conspiracy to
defraud the public.  She ordered the companies to take a number of
actions, including ceasing to claim there was such a thing as a
low-tar cigarette that reduced the risk of disease.  The evidence
showed this simply was not true.

Yet in about a dozen pending lawsuits, Philip Morris continues to
do just that.  As of 2010, it still routinely argued that the
nation's top-selling cigarette, once known as Marlboro Lights and
now called Marlboro Gold, reduces the risk of cancer.

To find scientists willing to make this claim, Philip Morris
turned to consultants for the chemical industry.  The experts
Philip Morris hired work for firms whose scientists regularly
contend in medical journals, courtrooms, and regulatory arenas
that their clients' chemical products pose little or no health
risks to the public.  The firms have been instrumental in delaying
new regulations by criticizing the work of other scientists, and
emphasizing the doubt inherent in health science. The resultant
uncertainty has helped delay attempts by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency to crack down on ubiquitous chemicals with known
dangers, such as formaldehyde, arsenic, and hexavalent chromium.

The irony in this arrangement is that the tobacco industry
pioneered such tactics.  "The tobacco industry wrote the playbook
for the rest of the industries," said Matt Myers, president of the
Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.  "Whether it's the chemical
industry, whether its climate change . . . You see it in industry
after industry."  Now, it's hiring consultants who took its
techniques and pushed them further in other industries, relying on
their experience to contest the scientific consensus on the
dangers of low-tar cigarettes.

The industry's tactics continue to have catastrophic consequences.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention attribute 480,000
deaths each year to smoking, equal to one in every five deaths.
Since 1964, when the U.S. Surgeon General warned that smoking
caused cancer, the government estimates that tobacco has killed
more than 20 million Americans. That is 15 times the number of
Americans who have perished in all wars combined.

Although millions have quit, smoking continues to be the most
preventable cause of death in the United States today.

At the turn of the 20th century, cigarette smoking was not yet in
vogue.  Lung cancer was so rare that some doctors had never seen a
case.  But scenes of everyone lighting up in "Mad Men" are no
exaggeration.  By 1955, two-thirds of men and one-third of women
in the United States smoked cigarettes.  Eventually, lung cancer
became the leading killer among cancers in the United States.

Medical researchers noticed the parallel rise.  In December 1952,
a brief article in Readers Digest sent shock waves by summing up
research linking smoking to an epidemic of lung cancer.  A year
later Time reported that mice painted with tobacco tar developed
tumors.  A medical researcher told the magazine that it was now
"beyond any doubt" that cigarettes cause cancer.

Panic ensued at the tobacco companies.  On December 14, 1953, the
CEOs of the six largest cigarette makers met secretly at New
York's Plaza Hotel to discuss a strategy for countering the bad
publicity.  What developed over time, as Judge Kessler's opinion
details, was a joint strategy to twist science and mislead the
public about the dangers of smoking.

The industry announced that it was forming a research committee to
look into the matter.  It hired independent scientists such as
cancer researcher Clarence Cook Little to do interviews, insisting
that there was no proof that cigarettes cause cancer.

In reality, scientific evidence that cigarettes cause cancer was
becoming overwhelming.  In 1964, the Surgeon General seemed to put
an end to any controversy when he released the report of an
independent advisory committee that had considered more than 7,000
published articles.

The Surgeon General's warning had a profound effect on the public,
prompting many smokers to quit.  But the tobacco companies and
their scientists would continue to deny that cigarettes cause
cancer for another 35 years.

To discourage smokers from quitting, companies redesigned their
cigarettes to seem safer.  First, they added filters. Then they
introduced "low-tar" cigarettes.  Within a few years, these
cigarettes dominated the market.  Marlboro Lights, which debuted
in 1971, became the nation's best-selling cigarette.

Tobacco companies knew from extensive internal research that
smokers were addicted to nicotine and needed a certain amount of
it every day to satisfy their habit.  Given a "low-tar" cigarette,
they would change the way they smoked to get their fix.

With the passage of a new law, the Federal Trade Commission in
1967 began testing all cigarette brands on special smoking
machines that measured the amount of tar inhaled.  Cigarettes were
reformulated, not so much to reduce tar but to fool the machines,
according to an NCI report.  Tiny holes were cut in the cigarette
paper to vent tar when a cigarette was smoked by a machine. Those
holes, however, didn't reduce the tar inhaled by smokers.

"If you reduce the amount of nicotine coming through, the person
changes a pattern of it.  They take bigger puffs, they take deeper
puffs, they take longer puffs, they smoke more cigarettes per day
to get the amount of nicotine they are seeking to satisfy their
addiction," said David Burns, a retired medical professor at the
University of California, San Diego, who edited some of the
Surgeon General's reports on smoking.

Mr. Burns testified for the plaintiffs in the recent St. Louis
class-action trial.

Also testifying was William Farone, the research director at
Philip Morris from 1977 to 1984.  He said studies done at the
company even before he was hired showed that smokers who switched
to light cigarettes would take deeper puffs to get the same amount
of nicotine they'd received from regular ones.  Mr. Farone said
other than those tiny holes in the paper, the differences between
a Marlboro Red and a Marlboro Light were small.

Public-health scientists would not figure this out for several
more years.  A study by the American Cancer Society published in
1996 found that the rate of lung cancer deaths among 200,000
smokers actually went up after light cigarettes began dominating
sales.  Experts believe that the low-burning temperature of a low-
tar cigarette and deeper puffs by smokers allow more carcinogens
to go deeper into the lungs.

The rewards for disputing the scientific consensus are high while
the risks are low.  The Justice Department's racketeering lawsuit
had sought to have the tobacco industry repay illegal profits of
$480 billion.  But an appellate court ruled that federal
racketeering laws didn't allow for fines for past behavior.

Judge Kessler's only power was to order cigarette makers to stop
engaging in illegal behavior.  Companies appealed her order to
quit making claims about low-tar cigarettes, arguing it violated
their First Amendment rights.  But Judge Kessler's ruling was
upheld.

Nonetheless, Philip Morris hired scientists from the consulting
firms Gradient Corp. and Ramboll Environ to testify in lawsuits
that so-called low-tar cigarettes are safer than regular ones.

Sharon Eubanks, the former Justice Department attorney who led the
lawsuit, believes Philip Morris is violating Kessler's order. The
order forbids public statements declaring that low-tar cigarettes
have health benefits, even if such statements come from a Philip
Morris consultant.

To enforce the order, the Justice Department would have to file a
motion with Judge Kessler.  A department spokesman would not
comment on the case.  Calls to Philip Morris seeking comment were
not returned.

After the case wound through appeals, Judge Kessler issued a
revised order in February reiterating that tobacco companies must
make the following "corrective statements" on their websites and
in advertising:

Many smokers switch to low-tar and light cigarettes rather than
quitting because they think low-tar and light cigarettes are less
harmful.  They are not.

Low-tar and filtered cigarette smokers inhale essentially the same
amount of tar and nicotine as they would from regular cigarettes.

All cigarettes cause cancer, lung disease, heart attacks, and
premature death-including lights, low-tar, ultra-lights, and
naturals.  There is no safe cigarette.

A decade after the original order, and five years after Kessler
first issued these statements, tobacco companies are still
appealing her ruling.  None have printed the statements.

Congress agreed with Judge Kessler's original findings, and in
2009 passed a law also forbidding the tobacco companies from
calling cigarettes "light" or "low-tar."  But Philip Morris says
research done since Kessler's 2006 order justifies the company's
claims that such cigarettes are safer than regular ones.

Peter Valberg of Gradient Corp. was Philip Morris's star witness
in a Boston class-action lawsuit that went to trial last November
after dragging on for 17 years.  He has impressive credentials,
having been a faculty member at the Harvard School of Public
Health for 24 years and served as a consultant to the EPA and the
Justice Department.  Mr. Valberg has testified that he had help
with his research from another principal scientist at Gradient,
Julie Goodman.

Mr. Valberg presented a slideshow with data showing that Marlboro
Lights delivered less tar to smokers.  It made sense, he
concluded, that the cigarettes also reduced the risk of disease.

Some of Mr. Valberg's findings were based on his own unpublished
analysis of public data.  But the most persuasive evidence came
from a study underwritten by Philip Morris.

Published two years after Judge Kessler's decision, the 24-week
study analyzed urine samples of about 70 smokers who switched from
full-flavored Marlboro Reds to Marlboro Lights.  The test revealed
that their average nicotine levels dropped significantly within
six months.

There was another aspect of the study that Mr. Valberg did not
mention.  Researchers also tracked nicotine levels of Marlboro Red
smokers who did not switch. Known as the "control group," these
smokers were akin to patients given sugar pills, or placebos, in a
drug trial.  In a clinical trial, a control group allows
researchers to see if a new drug is any better than a placebo.  In
this experiment, it enabled researchers to see if switching to
Marlboro Lights was any better than not switching.

In fact, switching was no better. Nicotine levels fell for all
smokers.  The researchers said in the published study that being
in a controlled environment might have influenced how people
smoked.

Asked about the control group in cross-examination, Mr. Valberg
seemed flustered.  He argued that the goal of the study was to
look at what happened to smokers who switched, not to compare them
to those who did not.

Peter Shields, a tobacco expert at Ohio State University
Comprehensive Cancer Center who analyzed Mr. Valberg's findings
for lawyers suing Philip Morris, said the study actually supports
other research showing light cigarettes have no health benefits.

"Dr. Valberg is taking a very unusual position in tobacco class-
action suit cases claiming that light cigarettes result in a 25-
percent reduction in lung cancer risk in contrast to a scientific
consensus that they increase lung cancer risk," Mr. Shields said.

Mr. Valberg's testimony contradicts the findings of the Surgeon
General, the National Academy of Sciences, and the National Cancer
Institute.

In 2001, a panel of experts wrote a 236-page report for the
National Cancer Institute, saying, "In fact, the use of these
cigarettes may be partly responsible for the increase in lung
cancer for long term smokers who have switched to the low-tar/low-
nicotine brands."

Another consultant for Philip Morris and the chemical industry,
Kenneth Mundt of Ramboll Environ, has attacked the NCI report.
Mundt did not testify at the Boston trial but has written expert
reports in other lawsuits saying that the conclusions of some of
the nation's leading tobacco experts, including the authors of the
NCI report, "fail to address the totality of relevant evidence and
largely remain unsubstantiated."

Jonathan Samet, a professor at the University of Southern
California's medical school who was asked by the NCI to be one of
the reviewers of its report, said the findings went through
rigorous peer review.  Mr. Samet himself chaired a panel of 25
experts who met for 10 days in 2002 to hash out a report on
smoking for the International Agency for Research on Cancer, an
arm of the World Health Organization.

Mr. Samet said the clear consensus was that low-tar cigarettes do
not reduce the risk of disease.

Stanton Glantz, director of the Center for Tobacco Control
Research and Education at the University of California, San
Francisco, was blunter about Mundt's attack on the NCI report.
"That's ridiculous," he said.  "Those things are put through the
peer-review grinder.  If anything they are too cautious." Valberg
and Mundt did not respond to interview requests.

The Philip Morris study was also peer-reviewed, appearing in the
journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, with a record of
publishing research paid for by the chemical industry.

The journal's editor, Gio B. Gori, has a controversial history,
first as a former NCI deputy director and later as a tobacco
industry consultant.  In 1976, while at the NCI, Gori made
national news when he claimed people could smoke as many as two
packs of low-tar cigarettes a day with minimum risk of cancer.

Later, Mr. Gori was paid by Brown & Williamson to write several
letters to scientific journals attacking other researchers' work.
He also penned a manuscript in 1987 that started with this claim:
"During the last decade and especially in the last few years
scientific evidence has been gradually emerging, and now indicates
that smoking may in fact provide a net contribution in the
prevention of certain diseases and in extending life expectancy."

After reviewing the manuscript, another paid consultant, Peter
Lee, wrote a confidential letter to a corporate officer at
British-American Tobacco, saying, "I think the paper is pretty
valueless, partly as it is completely unbalanced, partly as the
(many) wild claims made are not substantiated by detailed
evidence."

A critique by a BAT attorney suggests that the company closely
monitored  the work of its consultants: "It obviously needs to be
honed into a first-class scientific paper.  There seems to be a
fairly widespread opinion that that will be difficult to do."

Mr. Gori did not respond to phone messages.

In February, Superior Court Judge Edward Leibensperger ruled in
favor of the plaintiffs in the Boston class-action lawsuit and
ordered Philip Morris to pay $4.9 million in damages. The judge
wrote:

"Dr. Valberg's analysis of the data provided by the published
studies was shown to be inconsistent and contrary to the consensus
of the scientific community. Dr. Valberg's analysis has never been
published or subjected to peer review. I find that the testimony
of Dr. Shields was far more persuasive and credible than the
testimony of Dr. Valberg."

It's not the first time Valberg's work has come under attack. In
2008, Valberg agreed to try to publish scientific articles based
on an asbestos defense lawyer's theory that smoking causes
mesothelioma, a rare cancer virtually always linked to asbestos
exposure.  The articles could have helped the lawyer win lawsuits,
but peer reviewers attacked the manuscript and recommended its
rejection.

Philip Morris's latest claims in court that low-tar cigarettes are
safer fail to account for the industry's own internal research.
Still, the company has proven extremely effective at defending
itself against legal claims brought by smokers. According to
Philip Morris, of the 149 smoker lawsuits that have gone to trial
since 1999, verdicts have gone in the company's favor 77 times.
The company says it has paid out about $323 million in judgments
and interest.  Its efforts to fund research to support its claims,
and to hire experts willing to testify in support of them, may be
one reason for its success in persuading juries not to hold it
liable.

Neal Benowitz, a professor at the University of California, San
Francisco, who did early research on low-tar cigarettes, said
testifying that light cigarettes are safer is so at odds with the
scientific consensus that it would likely damage the reputation of
a tobacco researcher.  But Philip Morris doesn't hire scientists
who've devoted their careers to studying tobacco. "Valberg is not
someone who's known in the tobacco research area," Mr. Benowitz
said.  "I presume it's not affecting his reputation."

"These people are not scientists," said Mr. Glantz, of the Center
for Tobacco Control Research and Education.  "They are public-
relations people who happen to have degrees in science.  These are
people who make their living producing results that their clients
want.  And that's not science."


PHO QUYEN: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Eric Sarmiento, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Pho Quyen Cuisine Enterprises, Co., Case No.
8:16-cv-01118-MSS-MAP (M.D. Fla., May 5, 2016), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Hillsborough
County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Donna V. Smith, Esq.
      WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
      1110 N Florida Ave Ste 300
      Tampa, FL 33602-3343
      Telephone: (813) 224-0431
      Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
      E-mail: dsmith@wfclaw.com


PLATFORM SPECIALTY: June 1 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody on May 5 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit was commenced in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on behalf of persons who purchased or
acquired the securities of Platform Specialty Products ("Platform"
or the "Company") between February 17, 2015 and
March 14, 2016 (the "Class Period").

If you purchased Platform securities during the Class Period you
may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff by no later than
June 1, 2016.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party that
acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.

SS&B is also investigating whether allegations in the class action
were breaches of fiduciary duties by the officers and directors of
Platform.  An action for breaches of fiduciary duty can be brought
derivatively by a shareholder who held Company stock at the start
of the Class Period and who continues to hold Company stock until
the derivative action has concluded.

The lawsuit alleges Platform and others, in violation of federal
securities laws, made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose: (1) Arysta LifeScience Limited ("Arysta")
violated the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ("FCPA") and, as a
result, Platform's public statements were materially false and
misleading.  On March 11, 2016, Platform disclosed it discovered
that Arysta made improper third-party payments in West Africa that
may have been illegal.  On this news, share price fell $0.28 per
share the following trading day to close at $8.57 per share, a
~3.16% drop.

In addition, the lawsuit alleges that on March 14, 2016, the Wall
Street Journal published a story entitled "Chemical Company
Notifies U.S. of West Africa FCPA Probe" that addressed the
aforementioned allegations.  On this news, share price fell $0.62
per share the next day to close at $7.95 per share, a ~7.23% drop.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to
these matters, please contact Michael J. Klein, Esq. at Stull,
Stull & Brody by e-mail at PAH@ssbny.com by calling toll-free
1-800-337-4983 x147, or by fax at 212-490-2022, or by writing to
Stull, Stull & Brody, 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017.  You
can also visit our website at www.ssbny.com

Stull, Stull & Brody -- http://www.ssbny.com-- has litigated many
class actions for violations of securities laws and breaches of
fiduciary duty on behalf of defrauded investors over the past 40
years and has obtained court approval of substantial settlements
on numerous occasions.  Stull, Stull & Brody has offices in New
York and Beverly Hills.


PNC BANK: Plaintiffs to Get 12% of Premium Under Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joe Ducey, writing for ABC15, reports that a class action lawsuit
alleges PNC Bank charged an "excessive rate" for forced place
insurance and got kickbacks.

The settlement means you could get 12.5 percent of the premium
back that you paid for the insurance.  PNC Bank claims no
wrongdoing.

For more information on the settlement visit https://is.gd/FNt061


PREMIER DIRECTIONAL: "Parrish" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
William Parrish, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Premier Directional Drilling, L.P., Case No.
5:16-cv-00417 (W.D. Tex., May 2, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Premier Directional Drilling, L.P. operates a directional drilling
company that claims to have operations in oil and gas formations
such as the Eagle Ford Shale, Delaware Basin, Permian Basin,
Bakken Formation, Michigan Basin, Mississippian Lime Play, and
Marcelleus Formation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

           - and -

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


RADIOSHACK: Dec. 2 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------
Joe Ducey, writing for ABC15, reports that while you don't see
many Radio Shacks around anymore after their bankruptcy, don't
throw away those gift cards because $46 million worth of gift
cards are still floating around.  You can get reimbursed dollar
for dollar.

Radio Shack claims no wrongdoing.

For more information on the settlement visit https://is.gd/JbSBYS


RAYMOND JAMES: Jay Peak Investor Files RICO Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Jess Aloe, writing for Burlington Free Press, reports that a Jay
Peak investor has filed a class-action lawsuit in Miami federal
court against Joel Burstein, Raymond James Financial Inc.,
Bill Stenger and Ariel Quiros.

Investor Alexandre Daccache filed the lawsuit in an attempt to
recover the money "misused, commingled, and stolen by
Messrs. Quiros and Stenger with the assistance of Raymond James
and Burstein" for all the investors, according to court documents.
The lawsuit accuses the defendants of violating a federal
racketeering law, or the RICO Act, which was designed to fight
organized crime.

"The members of the RICO enterprise had a common purpose: to
increase and maximize their profits by illegally diverting funds
that they knew belonged to investors for improper and unauthorized
purposes.  Defendants shared the bounty of their enterprise by
sharing the illegal profits generated by the joint scheme," Mr.
Daccache's lawyer, Tucker Ronzetti, wrote in the complaint, filed
on May 3.

The Securities and Exchange Commission, along with the state of
Vermont, accused Jay Peak developer Mr. Quiros and CEO Stenger of
fraud related to the EB-5 program, which allows foreigners to gain
U.S. residency if they invest $500,000 in projects in economically
depressed areas.  Mr. Burstein and Raymond James were not named as
defendants in the SEC's case.

Jay Peak and Q Burke are in federal receivership, which places
them under control of Michael Goldberg, a court-appointed lawyer.

Mr. Goldberg told reporters he had met, directly or indirectly,
with hundreds of the investors.  Mr. Ronzetti said his firm was
coordinating with the receiver.  The two have worked together on a
number of occasions.

"We look forward to working closely with the receiver and trying
to make all the investors whole," Mr. Ronzetti said.

Mr. Daccache is accusing Burstein, the broker on the Raymond James
account holding investor funds and Mr. Quiros's former son-in-law,
of substantially assisting Messrs. Quiros and Stenger and failing
in their fiduciary responsibility.

Mr. Daccache, a Brazilian citizen, invested $500,000 in August of
2010, as well as paying $50,000 in administrative fees.  According
to the complaint, Mr. Stenger told him he could expect returns of
2-6 percent annually, despite knowing the money would be diverted
for unauthorized use or the personal gain of defendants.

The suit accuses Mr. Burstein and Raymond James of knowing
Mr. Quiros was improperly using investor money.  Raymond James
gave "carte blanche to Mr. Quiros to do whatever he wanted with
the Jay Peak Limited Partnerships investor funds, including paying
himself and paying off both a $23 million margin loan and a $19
million margin loan to Raymond James," Mr. Ronzetti wrote.

In return, Raymond James made more than $2 million in interest
from the margin loans, according to the complaint.


RCI EUROPE: Hearing Scheduled for Timeshare Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Hospitality Net reports that law firm Edwin Coe LLP has announced
it is representing 487 claimants in a class action lawsuit to be
heard in the High Court in London this week, "Abbot & Others v RCI
Europe".  The case, which is listed as a 10 day trial, concerns
claims of detriment suffered by members of the RCI worldwide
timeshare exchange club, part of the Wyndham Worldwide
Corporation.

The claimants allege improper "skimming off" of premium timeshare
properties from the exchange pool by RCI, for profit and in clear
breach of its obligations to exchange members.  As a result,
claimants say they were rarely, if at all, able to exchange their
right to use a holiday property for an alternative holiday
property in a different location of the same 'value' and that they
are entitled to compensation of GBP5000 each totalling approx
GBP2.4 million.

Edwin Coe LLP has acted in the past on class action lawsuits in
the UK representing Lockerbie victims, Railtrack shareholders,
Northern Rock investors and investors in a Madoff fund.

It says a further 9000 members of a UK timeshare action group may
potentially be affected by the judgment.  In addition RCI Europe
has over 700,000 members across Europe who may be interested in
the outcome of this UK trial.

Two class action suits have been filed against RCI in the US over
the conduct of its exchange pool. One is ongoing and one settled
recently (which concerned the transparency of its points based
system and property evaluation methods).

Some of the UK claimants say they only purchased their timeshare
property with the express purpose of entering the exchange scheme
and have found it completely failed to live up to the glossy
brochure promises.

Lawyer David Greene at Edwin Coe LLP comments: "All timeshare
owners want is a simple, transparent and effective way of swapping
their right to use a property for the right to holiday at another
residence of similar quality, within a reasonable timeframe.  RCI,
despite boasts of its large property exchange pool, seems to
consistently thwart this reasonable expectation. Too many members
too often have been told that they cannot exchange their own
property for one of their choice, at a time of their choosing, and
that no properties of equal value exist anywhere within RCI's
'extensive' pool.  We intend to expose RCI's unfair practices at
trial, and to secure rightful compensation for thousands of
frustrated holidaymakers.  This case may provoke a long-overdue
shake up in the opaque world of timeshare exchange companies."

RCI Europe (Resort Condominiums International) is based in
Kettering, Northamptonshire, England and is owned by Wyndham
Destination Network, part of Wyndham Worldwide, one of the largest
hospitality companies in the world.  RCI claims to be the world's
largest resort holiday exchange network.


RELAYRIDES INC: Optimistic on Resolution of Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Emma Gallimore, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
representative of the car rental company RelayRides Inc. says that
the company is confident it will be able to resolve the class
action lawsuit filed against it in U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

"We are optimistic that once we clarify how our processes work
with the named plaintiff, he will choose to dismiss the lawsuit,"
Steve Webb, director of communications for the operating company
Turo, told Legal Newsline.

The plaintiff, Prov Krivoshey, who is a resident of Illinois,
filed the lawsuit on March 31, alleging that RelayRides, while
doing business as Turo, overcharges customers by leveraging
administrative fees when the customer breaches a service
agreement.

These fees are in addition to the cost of any damage a renter
caused to the vehicle.

According to the complaint, these fees are laid out in the service
agreement and may be assessed any time a customer returns a
vehicle late, drives more miles than permitted, smokes in the
vehicle or causes damage to the vehicle.

"Our fees go towards covering the costs of providing our services
to our customers and are clearly and transparently defined on the
site," Mr. Webb said.  "They do not constitute liquidated
damages."

The company adopted the name Turo in 2015 as part of a rebranding
of the company.  Founded in San Francisco in 2009, RelayRides
sought to expand its peer-to-peer car rental service with the help
of Series C funding led by Kleiner Perkins Caufiled & Byers.

According to marketing information released by the company, Turo
is now in 2,500 cities and 300 airports across the U.S. and
Canada.  Its Canadian service launched in April.

The peer-to-peer model allows private automobile owners to make
their cars available to travelers seeking to rent.  The class in
the lawsuit is defined as RelayRides customers who used the
service anytime before November who incurred an admin fee, as well
as those customers who used the service at any time, incurred a
fee and opted out of the company's arbitration provision, which
was recently added to the terms of service on its website.

Thousands of renters may be eligible to join the class.  The
claims of all members of the proposed class exceed $5 million,
according to the complaint.

According to the complaint, Mr. Krivoshey caused damage to a
vehicle that was assessed at $583.99.  He paid this fee but was
also assessed a $150 administrative fee.  Mr. Krivoshey opted out
of any agreement by sending an opt out notice to an email address
designated by Turo.

He also paid the fee, but told an employee at the company that he
was only doing so to avoid negative consequences to his credit.

The complaint alleges that Turo violated both the Consumer Legal
Remedies Act and section 1671 of the California Civil Code First.
It also alleges that Turo engaged in unlawful business practices
in violation Unfair Competition Law and the Business and
Professional Code.

Mr. Webb said that this lawsuit is the first of its kind against
the company.


RENAISSANCE HOTEL: Sued Over Sexual Assault and Harassment
----------------------------------------------------------
Luz Cuevas and Teresa Evangelista v. Renaissance Hotel Operating
Company, d/b/a Renaissance Long Beach Hotel, Marriott
International, Inc., David Flores, and Does 1-15, inclusive, Case
No. BC618556 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 28, 2016), is an action for
damages as a proximate result of the Defendants' alleged sexual
assault and sexual harassment.

The Defendant operates the Renaissance Long Beach Hotel, located
at 111 East Ocean Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90802.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bernard Alexander III, Esq.
      Michael S. Morrison Esq.
      Ana Mendoza, Esq.
      ALEXANDER KRAKOW + GUCK LLP J.
      401 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1000
      Santa Monica, CA 90401
      Telephone: (310) 394 0888
      Facsimile: (310) 394 0811
       E-mail: balexander@akgllp.com
               mmorrison@akgllp.com
               amendoza@akgllp.com


RUSH WELLSITE: "Vollmer" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Toby Vollmer, Ryan Janke, and all others similarly situated v.
Rush Wellsite Services, LLC, & Rush Wellsite Holding, LLC, Case
No. 2:16-cv-00529-CRE (W.D. Penn., April 28, 2016), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate an oilfield service company with locations
in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania and West Virginia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
      GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C.
      3634 California Ave.
      Pittsburgh, PA 15212
      Telephone: (412) 766-1455
      Facsimile: (412) 766-0300
      E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com

         - and -

      J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
      Jay Forester, Esq.
      LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P.
      1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Telephone: (214) 749-1400
      Facsimile: (214) 749-1010
      E-mail: info@l-b-law.com

         - and -

      Jack Siegel, Esq.
      SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC
      10440 N. Central Expy., Suite 1040
      Dallas, TX 75231
      Telephone: (214) 706-0834
      Facsimile: (844) LOW-WAGE
      E-mail: jacksiegel@msiegellaw.com


SAFEWAY: Sued Over Meat Products "Buy One, Get One Free" Promos
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Iboshi, writing for KGW.com, reports that Safeway and
Albertsons are accused of misleading customers on their "Buy One,
Get One Free" promotion for meat products.

A pair of customers filed a class action lawsuit in Multnomah
County arguing the grocery stores raised the price of meat so
customers actually paid more to cover the cost of the 'free'
product.

"You are not allowed to do that. It's not free.  It's a lie," said
Portland attorney David Sugerman, who represents the plaintiffs in
the case.

The lawsuit claims Safeway and Albertsons grocery stores in Oregon
offer specials on meat products every day sold as "Buy One, Get
One Free," or "Buy One, Get Two Free."

According to the lawsuit, consumers buying these specials are
paying more per pound than regularly priced meat and they're
buying more product.

"You can't sell your boneless, skinless chicken breast at $9.99 a
pound, 'Buy One Get One Free,' when they are otherwise available
at $2.89 a pound," said Mr. Sugerman.  "That's not free. That is
deceptive advertising."

Shoppers outside of a Safeway store in Northwest Portland said
they expected to get a discount when items are promoted as "Buy
One, Get One Free."

"It seems like it should be a better deal," said Safeway shopper
Kitrina King.

The lawsuit claims the pricing strategy violates Oregon consumer
protection laws.

A spokesperson for Safeway and Albertsons declined to comment
because of pending litigation.


SHAMROCK FOODS: "Zubia" Class Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Francisco Zubia, on behalf of
himself, all others similarly situated and on behalf of the
general public v. Shamrock Foods Company and Does 1-100, Case No.
BC615331, was removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(Western Division - Los Angeles).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-03128-BRO-AGR to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts job-related claims.

Shamrock Foods Company specializes in the manufacturing and
distribution of quality food and food-related products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Thomas Mara, Esq.
      Jill Marie Vecchi, Esq.
      William Turley, Esq.
      THE TURLEY LAW FIRM APLC
      7428 Trade Street
      San Diego, CA 92121
      Telephone: (619) 234-2833
      Facsimile: (619) 234-4048
      E-mail: dmara@turleylawfirm.com
              jvecchi@turleylawfirm.com
              bturley@turleylawfirm.com

           - and -

      Vartan Serge Madoyan, Esq.
      Jeffrey Charles Bils, Esq.
      BAKER AND HOSTETLER LLP
      11601 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1400
      Los Angeles, CA 90025
      Telephone: (310) 820-8800
      Facsimile: (310) 820-8859
      E-mail: vmadoyan@bakerlaw.com
              jbils@bakerlaw.com


SONY CORP: Sept. 6 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
If You Bought a Lithium Ion Battery or Lithium Ion Battery
Product, a Class Action Settlement May Affect You.

Lithium Ion Battery Products include, but are not limited to,
notebook computers, cellular (mobile) phones, digital cameras,
camcorders and power tools.

Why was this notice published?

A settlement has been reached with a group of defendants in a
class action lawsuit involving Lithium Ion Batteries ("Li-Ion
Batteries") and Lithium Ion Battery Products ("Li-Ion Products").
A Li-Ion Battery is a cylindrical, prismatic or polymer battery
that is rechargeable and uses lithium ion technology.  A Li-Ion
Product is a product manufactured, marketed and/or sold by
Defendants, their divisions, subsidiaries or Affiliates, or their
alleged co-conspirators that contain one or more Lithium Ion
Battery Cells ("Li-Ion Cells") manufactured by Defendants or their
alleged co-conspirators.  LiIon Products include, but are not
limited to, notebook computers, cellular (mobile) phones, digital
cameras, camcorders and power tools.

What is this lawsuit about?

The lawsuit alleges that Defendants and Co-Conspirators engaged in
an unlawful conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize the
prices of Li-Ion Cells.  Plaintiffs further claim that direct
purchasers from the Defendants of LiIon Batteries and/or Li-Ion
Products manufactured by a Defendant may recover for the effect
that the alleged conspiracy had on the prices of the purchased
items.  Plaintiffs allege that, as result of the unlawful
conspiracy involving Li-Ion Cells, they and other direct
purchasers paid more for Li-Ion Batteries and Li-Ion Products than
they would have absent the conspiracy.  Defendants deny
Plaintiffs' claims.

Who's included in the Settlement?

The settlement class includes persons and entities who, from
January 1, 2000 through May 31, 2011, bought a Li-Ion Battery
and/or Li-Ion Product directly from one or more of the Defendants,
or any division, subsidiary or Affiliate thereof, or any alleged
co-conspirator in the United States ("Settlement Class").

Who are the Defendants?

A settlement has been reached with Released Defendants Sony
Corporation, Sony Energy Devices Corporation and Sony Electronics
Inc. (collectively "Sony").  Non-Released Defendants include: LG
Chem, Ltd.; LG Chem America, Inc.; Samsung SDI Co. Ltd.; Samsung
SDI America, Inc.; Panasonic Corporation; Panasonic Corporation of
North America; Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd.; Sanyo North America
Corporation; Hitachi Maxell, Ltd.; Maxell Corporation of America;
NEC Corporation; NEC Tokin Corporation; and Toshiba Corporation.

What does the Settlement provide?

The Settlement provides for the payment of $19,000,000 in cash,
plus interest, to the Settlement Class.  Sony has agreed to
produce witnesses in the case against the remaining Non-Released
Defendants.  Money will not be distributed to Settlement Class
members at this time.  The lawyers will pursue the lawsuit against
the other Defendants, to see if any future settlements or
judgments can be obtained in the case and then be distributed
together, on a pro rata basis based on the value of your Li-Ion
Battery and/or Li-Ion Product purchases, to reduce expenses.

What are my rights?

If you wish to remain a member of the Settlement Class you do not
need to take any action at this time.  If you do not want to be
legally bound by the Settlement, you must exclude yourself in
writing by Friday, June 10, 2016, or you will not be able to sue,
or continue to sue, Sony about the legal claims that were or could
have been asserted in this case.

If you wish to object to any aspect of the proposed Settlement,
you must file your written objection no later than Friday,
June 10, 2016.  The Settlement Agreement, along with details on
how to object to it, is available at
www.BatteriesDirectPurchaserAntitrustSettlement.com
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
will hold a Fairness Hearing on Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 2:00
p.m., at 1301 Clay Street, Courtroom 1, 4th Floor, Oakland, CA
94612 to consider whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable and
adequate.  If there are objections, the Court will consider
them at that time.  You may appear at the hearing, but don't have
to. We do not know how long these decisions will take.  The
hearing may be moved to a different date or time without
additional notice, so it is a good idea to check the website for
information.  Please do not contact the Court about this case.

The Court has appointed the law firms of Saveri & Saveri, Inc.;
Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP; and Berman DeValerio as Class
Counsel, to represent Direct Purchaser Class members.

This is a Summary Notice. For more details, call toll free
1-844-778-5952, visit
www.BatteriesDirectPurchaserAntitrustSettlement.com or write to In
re: Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litigation, Settlement
Administrator, P.O. Box 4098, Portland, OR 97208-4098.


SOUTHERN CONCRETE: "Morris" Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip Morris, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated employees v. Southern Concrete and Construction, Inc.,
and Kelly Boulware, Case No. 8:16-cv-01440-TMC (D.S.C., May 5,
2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants owns and operates a construction business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John G. Reckenbeil, Esq.
      Lawrence E. McNair, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JOHN RECKENBEIL, LLC
      215 Magnolia Street (29306)
      Post Office Box 1633
      Spartanburg, SC 29304
      Telephone: (864) 582-5472
      Facsimile: (864) 582-7280
      E-mail: john@johnreckenbeillaw.com

           - and -

      J. Bradley Bennett, Esq.
      Jessica Salvini, Esq.
      SALVINI & BENNETT, LLC
      101 W. Park Avenue
      Greenville, SC 29601
      Telephone: (864) 232-5800
      E-mail: salvini_bennett@yahoo.com


STERICYCLE INC: Faces "Wellner" Suit in Connecticut
---------------------------------------------------
Murray I. Wellner, M.D., P.C, and Harry Hameroff, M.D.,
individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v.
Stericycle, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-00657-SR (D. Conn., April 28,
2016), arises out of the Defendant's alleged practice of charging
customers automatic price increases and a variety of associated
fees and costs that were not authorized by any agreement of the
parties.

Stericycle, Inc. is in the business of collecting and disposing of
medical and bio-hazardous waste for its customers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephen F. Fogerty, Esq.
      Scott S. McKessy, Esq.
      HALLORAN SAGE LLP
      315 Post Road West
      Westport, CT 06880
      Telephone: (203) 227-2855
      Facsimile: (912) 227-6992
      E-mail: fogerty@halloransage.com
              mckessy@halloransage.com

         - and -

      Richard H. Middleton Jr., Esq.
      THE MIDDLETON FIRM, LLC
      107 East Gordon Street (3140) P.O. Box 10006
      Savannah, GA 31412
      Telephone: (912) 234-1133
      Facsimile: (912) 233-1750
      E-mail: rhm@middletonfirm.com

         - and -

      Michael H. Cummings II, Esq.
      MICHAEL H. CUMMINGS, II, LLC
      10 Seed Tick Road P.O. Box 1568
      Clayton, GA 30525
      Telephone: (706) 782-9297
      Facsimile: (706) 782-0866
      E-mail: attorneymhc@windstream.net

         - and -

      F. Dulin Kelly, Esq
      THE KELLY FIRM
      629 East Main Street
      Hendersonville, TN 37075-2606
      Telephone: (615) 824-3703
      Facsimile: (615) 824-2674
      E-mail: dulin@kellyfirm.net

         - and -

      Edward L. Hardin Jr., Esq.
      BURR & FORMAN, LLP
      Suite 3400420
      North 20th Street
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 458-5377
      Facsimile: (205)244-5731
      E-mail: ehardin@burr.com


SUBARU OF AMERICA: Settlement Final Hearing Scheduled for July 26
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a
Subaru oil consumption class-action lawsuit settlement agreement
has been reached concerning some of Subaru's most popular
vehicles.  Subaru says it agreed to settle the lawsuit to avoid
the cost of litigation but the automaker says it is not admitting
guilt.

Owners filed the lawsuit in 2014 alleging certain Subaru models
experience severe oil consumption issues caused by piston rings
that wear out early, causing engine failure.

Owners complain about the headaches and cost of needing to pull
the entire engine just to replace the piston rings, a cost that
can reach $8,000.  Further, many owners said replacing the piston
rings didn't decrease oil consumption.

The class-action lawsuit includes certain 2011-2015 Subaru models
equipped with Subaru FB engines.  Subaru owners should take note
that most of the vehicles must fall below certain vehicle
identification numbers.

Subaru Models with Automatic / CVT Transmissions:

2011-14 Forester (below VIN *529004)
2012-13 Impreza 4-Door (below VIN *033336)
2012-13 Impreza 5-Door Wagon (below VIN *886714)
2013 Crosstrek (below VIN *856139)
2013 Legacy (below VIN *048086)
2013 Outback (below VIN *321435)

Subaru Models with Manual Transmissions:

2011-15 Forester (below VIN *543650)
2012-15 Impreza (below VIN *270253)
2013-15 Crosstrek (below VIN *270284)
2013-14 Legacy (all vehicles)
2013-14 Outback (all vehicles)

Complete details of the settlement agreement will not be known
until the agreement is finalized by the court.  The final hearing
is scheduled for July 26, 2016, when the court will decide whether
to grant final approval.

Here's what is currently known about the settlement.

Affected Subaru owners will receive a warranty extension of 8
years/100,000 miles (whichever comes first) for repairs by an
authorized Subaru retailer to correct excessive oil consumption
problems.

Cash reimbursements will be available for Subaru owners for costs
associated with an oil consumption test and repairs as set out in
Subaru's service bulletins.  For owners who paid for oil, Subaru
will pay for up to six quarts of oil to owners who took their
vehicles to an authorized Subaru retailer and complained of
excessive oil consumption.

The automaker says owners who paid towing bills or had to rent
vehicles because of oil consumption issues will, in certain
circumstances, be reimbursed for those expenses.

To learn more about the Subaru oil consumption class-action
lawsuit settlement agreement, visit
OilConsumption.SettlementClass.com

The Subaru oil consumption class-action lawsuit was filed in the
U.S. District Court of the District of New Jersey - Yaeger, et al.
v. Subaru of America Inc., et al.

The plaintiffs are represented by Girard Gibbs LLP, Chimicles &
Tikellis LLP, and McCuneWright, LLP.

Read complaints submitted to CarComplaints.com about the vehicles
included in the Subaru oil consumption lawsuit:

Subaru Forester
Subaru Legacy
Subaru Outback
Subaru Impreza
Subaru XV Crosstrek


TAYLOR SMITH: Faces "Law" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
William J. Law, Jason Blackshear, and Jonas Nelson, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Taylor Smith
Consulting, LLC, Case No. 4:16-cv-01164 (April 28, 2016), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Taylor Smith Consulting, LLC is a technical, service, and staff
resource provider specializing in the recruiting and placement of
clerical, administrative, general labor, production, warehouse and
call center specialists.

The Plaintiff William J. Law is represented by:

      William J. Law, Esq.
      PRO SE
      VETHAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
      3501 Allen Parkway
      Houston, TX 77019
      Telephone: (713) 526-2222
      E-mail: edocs@vwtexlaw.com

The Plaintiff Jason Blackshear is represented by:

      Jason Black Shear, Esq.
      PRO SE
      VETHAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
      3501 Allen Parkway
      Houston, TX 77019
      Telephone: (713) 526-2222

The Plaintiff Jonas Nelson is represented by:

      Jonas Nelson, Esq.
      PRO SE
      Vethan Law Firm, P.C.
      3501 Allen parkway
      Houston, TX 77019
      Telephone: (713) 526-2222


TAYLOR SMITH: Faces "Ntuk" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Cedric Ntuk, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Taylor Smith Consulting, LLC, Case No. 4:16-cv-01165
(S.D. Tex., April 18, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Taylor Smith Consulting, LLC is a technical, service, and staff
resource provider specializing in the recruiting and placement of
clerical, administrative, general labor, production, warehouse and
call center specialists.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles M R Vethan, Esq.
      THE VETHAN LAW FIRM, PC
      3501 Allen Pkwy
      Houston, TX 77019
      Telephone: (713) 526-2222
      Facsimile: (713) 526-2230
      E-mail: cvethan@vethanlaw.com


TEEKAY CORP: Awaits Results of Class Action Lead Plaintiff Search
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Whitney Wright, writing for Louisiana Record, reports that former
Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti and his associates at
Kahn Swick and Foti LLC await the results of the search for a lead
plaintiff in a recently filed class-action lawsuit against Teekay
Corporation, an international shipping, marine energy
transportation, storage and production company.

The lawsuit, filed on March 1 in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut, involves allegedly false and misleading
statements Teekay made in reports in 2015 that the suit claims
inflated the company's stock price.  The lawsuit names Teekay's
CEO Peter Evensen and Chief Financial Officer Vincent Lok.

The Louisiana-based law firm hopes to recover damages to investors
who bought Teekay shares between June 30 and Dec. 17, 2015.

On June 30, 2015, Teekay announced that it had raised its
dividends by 75 percent and predicted that the dividends for the
next three years would rise anywhere between 15 to 20 percent.  On
November 6, the company reassured the public that this was still
true; however, by Dec. 16, Teekay had dropped its dividend by 90
percent, causing the share price to drop by 58 percent in one
trading session.

Teekay continues to defend against the claims of the lawsuit,
saying it's possible that the stock's value dropped for other
reasons.

"There's many reasons a company's stocks might fall in that short
of a time," Lewis Kahn, founding partner of Kahn Swick and Foti,
told the Louisiana Record.

This could include faulty numbers in the initial report, such as a
drop in the gross margins -- the difference between revenues and
the cost of goods -- or the company's cash position, or financial
strength, which may include highly liquid assets.  When the
company knew this information, however, is vital to the case.

"If the company was withholding information that they knew, but
then didn't present that information in their report, then that is
a cause for a lawsuit," Mr. Kahn said.

This is supported by Rosen Law Firm's review of the case in a
press release, in which it states "the cash flows from Teekay's
master limited partnerships -- Teekay LNG Partners LP and Teekay
Offshore Partners LP -- could not possibly sustain such high
dividends" and "as a result, Teekay's public statements about the
strength of its business and financial condition were materially
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times."

Whether Teekay is guilty or innocent is a long way from being
decided, but the lawsuit was able to move one step forward with
petitions for the lead plaintiff due to the court on May 2.  Now,
it is simply a waiting game.

"The case will be reviewed by the federal judge, and he will
decide how long the application and plaintiff process takes,"
Mr. Kahn said.

As Mr. Kahn also noted, "the federal judge on the case hasn't been
decided yet."

How long the case may take once a federal judge and lead plaintiff
are chosen also remains a mystery.

"A case like this, to be completely finished, just depends,"
Mr. Kahn said.  "We've had cases that were finished in a couple of
months, and I've had cases that have lasted for the past 14
years."

Those involved in the case may need to prepare for the long haul.


TIVO: Shareholders File Class Action Against Directors
------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Television reports that class action writs are not
unusual in the US, and it seems at least one group of TiVo
shareholders feel aggrieved by the recent agreement for Rovi to
acquire TiVo.

Brodsky & Smith -- class action veterans -- say they are gathering
potential evidence that the Board of Directors may have breached
their fiduciary duties and might have violated State rules.
Another legal firm, Levi & Korsinsky is also seeking willing TiVo
shareholders, saying the Directors may have "failed to adequately
shop the company before agreeing to enter into this transaction".

The headline numbers see Rovi buying TiVo in a $1.1 billion deal.

Brodsky & Smith says: "Under the terms of the transaction, TiVo
shareholders will receive only $10.70 in cash and stock for each
share of TiVo stock they own.  Rovi will pay $2.75 in cash,
subject to a collar mechanism, and the remainder will be paid in
shares of common stock of a holding company that will own both
Rovi and TiVo.  [Our] investigation concerns whether the Board of
TiVo breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders and whether
Rovi is underpaying for the Company.  The transaction may
undervalue the Company and would result in a loss for many TiVo
shareholders.  For example, TiVo stock traded at $11.56 per share
on March 15, 2015 and an analyst has set an $18.00 per share price
target for TiVo stock."


TOWERSTREAM CORPORATION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Curtis Schallow and Michelle Mohamed, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. TowerStream Corporation, Case No.
9:16-cv-80718-DMM (S.D. Fla., May 5, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and the costs
and reasonable attorneys' fees under the provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

TowerStream Corporation owns and operates a nationwide business
providing fixed wireless services to businesses in urban markets
across the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Hazel Solis Rojas, Esq.
      Keith Michael Stern, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
      2300 Glades Road, Suite 360W
      Boca Raton, FL 33431
      Telephone: (561) 299-3844
      Facsimile: (561) 288-9031
      E-mail: hsolis@workingforyou.com
              employlaw@keithstern.com


TRS STAFFING: Faces "Williams" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jay Williams and others similarly situated v. TRS Staffing
Solutions, Inc., and Fluor Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-
00119 (S.D. Tex., May 5, 2016), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

TRS Staffing Solutions, Inc. operates a company primarily engaged
in the recruitment of engineers.

Fluor Enterprises, Inc. operates a company that primarily delivers
integrated engineering, procurement, fabrication, construction
(EPFC), maintenance and project management solutions to
governments and private sector Clients in diverse industries
around the world.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas H. Padgett Jr., Esq.
      ROSS LAW GROUP
      4809 Pine St.
      Bellaire, TX 77401
      Telephone: (800) 634-8042
      Facsimile: (512) 4745306
      E-mail: tpadgett@rosslawgroup.com


UBER: Court Needs to Balance Transparency, Secrecy in Settlements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Posner, Esq. -- dposner@bakerlaw.com -- of
BakerHostetler, in an article for JDSupra Business Advisor,
reports that companies have the right to protect their trade
secrets against public disclosure, while class action members (and
the judges who must determine the fairness and adequacy of
proposed class action settlements) have the right to know the
potential value of their claims.  At times, as seems to be the
case with respect to the proposed $100 million class action
settlement between Uber Technologies, Inc. and its drivers in
California and Massachusetts in O'Connor v. Uber Technologies,
Inc., 13 CV-03826 (N.D. Cal.), these respective rights can clash.

On the one hand, before he approves the proposed class action
settlement, the United States District Court Judge in the O'Connor
case is required by Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure to determine whether the settlement is fair and
adequate; information that appears to be relevant to this
determination in the O'Connor case are such things as the most
recent valuation of Uber as a company, as well as data on the
number of miles logged by drivers, gross fares, and service fees
on fares.  Not surprisingly, on the other hand, and although Uber
is keen to see the proposed class action settlement approved, Uber
contends that all of this is trade secret information/data and
should be shielded from public disclosure by means of sealed court
records.

Interestingly, class counsel for the plaintiffs in the O'Connor
case took no position on whether what Uber contends is trade
secret information should be sealed.  The District Court Judge,
though, is not yet convinced of the propriety of sealing records
containing such information and has ordered the parties' counsel
to "explain why the potential value of the claims should not be
publicly disclosed given the importance of this information in the
court's determination of the fairness and adequacy of a proposed
class action settlement."  Indeed, case law holds that the purpose
of Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is to
protect the unnamed members of a class from unjust or unfair
settlements affecting their rights.  Accordingly, before a court
approves a class settlement, it must conclude that the settlement
is fundamentally fair, adequate, and reasonable. Of central
concern in this regard is a consideration of the plaintiffs'
expected recovery in the litigation balanced against the value of
the settlement offer.

So where does a company such as Uber's right to protect its trade
secrets fit into the class action settlement approval process of
Rule 23(e)?  Uber says that right outweighs the presumption in
favor of access to court records when the public disclosure of its
trade secret information would cause it to suffer competitive
harm.  The question, then, is whether and how the court will
balance the class members' interests in the transparency of the
information important to assessing the potential value of their
claims against Uber's interest in maintaining the secrecy of its
financial data.

It is uncertain how this tug-of-war between transparency and
secrecy will be resolved by the court.  However, similar
information in a class action lawsuit involving Uber rival Lyft,
Inc. was disclosed as part of the class action settlement approval
process in prior, separate litigation, and other courts likewise
have denied motions to seal records containing alleged trade
secret information when determining the fairness and adequacy of
class action settlements.  The sense here is that the court in
O'Connor may permit the filing under seal of information
pertaining to Uber's most recent valuation but not information
pertaining to miles driven, gross fares, and service fees on fares
inasmuch as these latter data points are integral to the class
members' and the court's assessment of the potential value of the
plaintiffs' claims and whether the proposed class action
settlement is fair and adequate.  It would not be altogether
surprising, though, if the court denied the request to seal
records disclosing Uber's most recent valuation, since $16 million
of the proposed $100 million class action settlement is contingent
on Uber's going public and its valuation continuing to grow, i.e.,
Uber's valuation increasing one and one-half times from its
December 2015 financing valuation within the first year of an
initial public offering.


UBER: Lawyers Winner in $100MM Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------
Linette Lopez, writing for Business Insider, reports that in April
Uber agreed to pay drivers in Massachusetts and California $100
million to settle a class action suit that accused the company of
misclassifying employees as independent contractors.

At the Milken Conference in Los Angeles, a panel including the
CEOs TaskRabbit, Marquis Jet and AirBnB, and Princeton economist
Alan Kreuger talked about it, and no one was really satisfied.

"The only winners here are the lawyers," said Mr. Kreuger.

"The lawyers representing them in the class action suit made more
than the workers."

Indeed, about quarter of the settlement ($21 million) will go to
lawyers.  Worse yet, according to the panel, none of the really
deep-seated problems workers like Uber drivers face were actually
addressed.

Here's what they did get, from Alan Hyde at The Conversation:

Under the terms of the settlement, which you may read here, Uber
will pay US$84 million to be distributed among a class of 385,000
drivers (and $16 million more if the company goes public).  In
return, the drivers will not pursue their claim to be employees.

Uber will also make it clear that tips are not included in the
price users pay and will revise its procedures for delisting
drivers to give longer notice and greater transparency, including
adding an appeals process.  And the company will assist the
creation of drivers' councils and meet with them quarterly.

Again, Uber drivers' issues with not having benefits like health
insurance and not being covered under the Civil Rights Act, were
not addressed here and some drivers got only a few hundred dollars
out of the settlement.

That's why Mr. Kreuger said that he's working to create a new
category of workers, "independent workers."  This status would
bring workers under the protection of Title 7 of the Civil Rights
Act and allow employers to apply tax withholding.

It would not, on the other hand, require employers to pay
overtime, since employees can set their own hours.

Intermediaries sometimes do want to provide benefits, Mr. Kreuger
explained, but they're afraid that it would mean their workers
would be classified as employees.

TaskRabbit CEO Stacey Brown-Philpot agreed with Mr. Kreuger.

"No one's putting legistation forward to address this," she said
adding later, "I am for more activist work around regulation
because of the gray areas where we are."

So who's going to Washington to fix this?


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Drivers' Sexual Assault Victims Can File Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that two women who allege that Uber
drivers sexually assaulted them, one in Boston and the other in
South Carolina, can sue the ride-hailing company, a federal judge
said.

The women showed the possibility that the drivers were Uber
employees who acted within the scope of their employment, U.S.
District Judge Susan Illston in San Francisco ruled on May 4.

Uber had argued that the drivers were independent contractors and
at least one of them may not have used the company cellphone app,
where customers book rides, before the alleged assault.

"It may be that facts will ultimately be revealed that disprove
plaintiffs' allegations or that tilt the scales toward a finding
that Uber drivers are independent contractors," Judge Illston
said. "However, taking the allegations in the amended complaint as
true, plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts that an employment
relationship may plausibly exist."

The judge rejected Uber's move to dismiss the women's lawsuit,
although she threw out a negligence claim related to one of the
drivers.  Judge Illston also said the women could pursue punitive
damages and a fraud claim against Uber.

The San Francisco-based company declined to comment on the ruling.

The Boston driver, Abderrahim Dakiri, was convicted earlier this
year of assault and battery.  He was sentenced to two years'
probation and ordered to stay away from the victim, the campuses
of her school and her workplace.

The South Carolina driver was arrested last year on suspicion of
kidnapping and first-degree criminal sexual conduct.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Action Over Prop 1 Robo-Texting
--------------------------------------------------------------
KUOW.ORG reports that Uber is facing a federal class action
lawsuit after mass-texting its Austin users ahead of the
Proposition 1 vote over ride-hailing regulations.

The lawsuit, filed by Austin activist Melissa Cubria, alleges Uber
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act when it robo-texted
Austinites, urging them to support Proposition 1 at the ballot
box.  The suit argues that Uber's texts violated users' privacy
and violated the law, which protects consumers against unwanted
voice or text contact from political campaigns "unless in an
emergency or with consent of the recipient of the call," according
to the suit.

Lawyers filing on behalf of Cubria argue Uber used an automated
system to send messages of a political nature.

"[It] is absurd to imagine that Uber paid individual, living
persons to manually type and then manually send thousands (and
perhaps tens of thousands) of individual text messages in support
of a political campaign," the suit says.

The company's terms of service say that users "may send you
informational text (SMS) messages as part of the normal business
operation of your use of the Services."

In a written statement, Uber representative Jaime Moore dismissed
both the timing and the merit of the lawsuit.

"We have taken great precaution to comply with applicable laws and
believe the claims in this lawsuit are meritless.  The
announcement of this action at an anti-Prop 1 press conference
also reveals how it was designed to unduly influence the
election."


UNITED STATES: FMC Faces Class Actions Over Ro-Ro Price Fixing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Bonney, writing for JOC.com, reports that two additional
groups of vehicle shippers have filed class-action complaints
seeking double damages for alleged shipping act violations by 10
roll-on, roll-off carriers involved in criminal and civil price-
fixing investigations.

The latest complaints, filed by truck and heavy equipment dealers
and by automobile dealers, follow a similar action filed by three
ocean transportation intermediaries.

All of the complaints seek double the proven amount of damages to
the shippers as allowed under rules from the U.S. Federal Maritime
Commission.  The damage amounts were not specified in the
complaints.  When multiple similar class-action complaints are
filed, they typically are consolidated into a single case.

The complaints to the FMC follow guilty pleas by three carriers
and four of their former managers, the indictments of three other
persons and fines by Japanese authorities.

The shippers allege that the carriers violated the shipping act by
restricting capacity and fixing prices in deals that were not part
of FMC-filed agreements.  The shippers said the result was
artificially high prices for the shipment of vehicles to and from
the United States.

The complaints were filed against NYK Line, Mitsui O.S.K., World
Logistics Service (U.S.A.), "K" Line, Eukor Car Carriers,
Wallenius Wilhelmsen Logistics, CSAV, Hîegh Autoliners, Autotrans
and Nissan Motor Car Carrier Corp.

A U.S. Justice Department antitrust investigation centered in
Baltimore has produced guilty pleas and fines by "K" Line Japan,
which paid $67.7 million; NYK Line Japan, $59.4 million and CSAV,
$8.9 million.

Four former "K" Line and NYK officials have pleaded guilty to
antitrust violations, been fined $20,000 each and sentenced to
prison terms ranging from 14 months to 18 months.  Three other
former executives of the companies were indicted last October.

The class-action complaints to the FMC are only one facet of the
case.  Several civil damage suits filed against ro-ro carriers for
alleged antitrust violations have been consolidated into a single
case in U.S. District Court in New Jersey.

In addition, the Japan Fair Trade Commission in 2014 fined
Wallenius Wilhelmsen Logistics and Japanese carriers NYK, "K" Line
and Nissan Motor Car Carrier a total of $224 million for price
fixing on routes from Japan to North America, Europe, the Middle
East, South Asia and Australasia between 2008 and September 2012.
Mitsui O.S.K Lines avoided a fine by seeking leniency before the
JFTC launched its investigation in September 2012.


UNITED STATES: AG Sued Over Non-Violent Felons' Gun Rights
----------------------------------------------------------
Michael E. Zapin and Herman A. Saitz filed a Class Action lawsuit
against Loretta Lynch as Attorney General of the United States and
Thomas E. Brandon, as Deputy Director and Head of the United
States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives on
behalf of their client, Barry Michaels and millions of others
similarly situated.

Barry Michaels is a Democrat running for Nevada's 3rd
Congressional District.  Mr. Michaels is a non-violent felon and
under federal law, he cannot possess a firearm to protect himself
and his family.

Mr. Michaels alleges a provision of the Federal Gun Control Act as
applied to him and millions of other law-abiding non-violent
felons, violate their constitutional right under the Second
Amendment.

According to Mr. Michaels: "The purpose of the statute was to
assist law enforcement in their battle against violent crime.  The
problem is, it was written too broadly.  It should have been
narrowly tailored to conform to the government's purpose, by
excluding those felons with non-violent offenses."

"It makes no sense to be able to serve in Congress or even become
the President of the United States, but barred for life from
owning a firearm to protect myself and my loved ones. The idea of
creating second class citizens contradicts the Constitution and
more specifically, the Second Amendment."

The complaint can be viewed at: www.michaelsvslynch.com where
Class Members can register to join the suit.  Americans For Civil
Rights a 501c3 has setup an Indiegogo crowd funding campaign to
help pay for the legal fees at: https://lnkd.in/bKBKjZ7

All donations are tax deductible.

To schedule an interview or for more information contact:

Michael E. Zapin, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL E. ZAPIN
Counsel for Plaintiffs
20283 State Rd. 7 Suite 400
Boca Raton, FL 33498
Tel. No. 561-330-5732
zapinclass@gmail.com

Barry Michaels, DC, MPA
9708 Gilespie St, Suite 104
Las Vegas, Nevada 89183
Cell Phone: (702) 415-0905
nevadaonly@yahoo.com


VERONA GARDENS: "Sutherland" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yvonne Sutherland, and other similarly situated individuals v.
Verona Gardens LLC and Jose Pol, Case No. 0:16-cv-60981-JEM (S.D.
Fla., May 5, 2016), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid
overtime and minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate an assisted living facility in
Broward County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
      Ria N. Chattergoon, Esq.
      SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
      20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (305) 503-5131
      Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
      E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com
              ria@saenzanderson.com


WINTERS LANDSCAPE: Faces "Magana" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alfredo Magana, on behalf of himself, and all other similarly
situated plaintiffs known and unknown v. Winters Landscape, Inc.,
a/d/b/a Winters Nursery & Landscaping, and Michael L. Winters,
Individually, Case No. 1:16-cv-04983 (N.D. Ill., May 5, 2016), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants are in the business of providing landscaping
maintenance, nursery, landscape construction, and snowplowing
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John William Billhorn, Esq.
      BILLHORN LAW FIRM
      53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 840
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Telephone: (312) 853-1450
      E-mail: jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com

           - and -

      Meghan A. VanLeuwen, Esq.
      FARMWORKER AND LANDSCAPER ADVOCACY PROJECT
      33 N. LaSalle, Suite 900
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 784-3541
      E-mail: mvanleuwen@flapillinois.org


* Edelson Files Data Breach Class Action Against Chicago Law Firm
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Global Legal Post reports that class action firm Edelson has
filed a lawsuit against an unnamed Chicago firm for alleged data
security breaches and claims there are more lawsuits to come.

A US law firm is bringing a privacy class action against a Chicago
law firm over allegations of data security around client
information.  Edelson PC announced on May 5 it has filed a federal
class-action under seal that targets the Chicago-based regional
law firm.  It said the  case was filed under seal so that hackers
would not be alerted whilst the problem was still outstanding but
that a motion was filed to unseal the complaint now that the issue
had been resolved.

Investigation

In an interview with Big Business Law recently, class action
lawyer Jay Edelson said that the firm was gearing up to bring
malpractice class actions against law firms over the exposure of
client information and claimed his firm had conducted a year-long
investigation which identified 15 law firms with inadequate
cybersecurity .

Law firms targeted by hackers

In the aftermath of the leaks from Panama law firm Mossack
Fonseca, data security is a key risk for law firms.  The Federal
Bureau of Investigation has identified law firms as vulnerable to
attacks and are investigating a number of incidents.  New York law
firms Cravath Swaine & Moore and Weil Gotshal were part of one
attack last year.  In the Wall Street Journal, Cravath said of its
breach, which is being investigated by federal agencies, that it
involved a "limited breach" of its systems and that the firm was
"not aware that any of the information that may have been accessed
has been used improperly".  The firm said its client
confidentiality was 'sacrosanct' and it was working with law
enforcement agencies as well as outside consultants to assess its
security.  Law firms in the US last year formed an information-
sharing group to share information on cybersecurity.


* CFPB Proposes New Rules to Allow Class Actions Against Banks
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mandi Woodruff, writing for Yahoo Finance, reports that the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has proposed long-awaited new
rules that could prevent financial institutions from blocking
customers from filing class action lawsuits.

Class action bans, often buried in the fine print of legal
disclosures on everything from bank accounts to student loans,
make it practically impossible for consumers with small claims to
band together.  The new rules would impact just about every kind
of financial institution -- payday lenders, credit card issuers,
debt collectors, check cashers, even credit reporting agencies.

The proposal still allows companies to include mandatory
arbitration clauses in new contracts, which forces customers to
settle claims privately through an independent arbitrator rather
than in court and in the public eye.

"Signing up for a credit card or opening a bank account can often
mean signing away your right to take the company to court if
things go wrong," CFPB Director Richard Cordray said in a
statement.

Consumer advocates have long decried the cooling effect that
mandatory arbitration and class action ban clauses have on
customers seeking financial relief for small claims.

Dr. Lachin Hatemi, 34, was working as a physician in Buffalo,
N.Y., when he noticed his bank, M&T Bank, began charging him $35
every time he overdrafted his account, rather than simply denying
the transaction.  He had unknowingly been signed up for so-called
"overdraft protection." (Overdraft protection is a service offered
by banks that lets customers to make purchases or make withdrawals
from their checking account even if they don't have sufficient
funds to cover them.) After several fruitless attempts to recoup
his fees -- which totaled more than $300 -- he took the bank to
court in the fall of 2013, spending hundreds of dollars in legal
fees in the process.  Ultimately, the court ruled in the bank's
favor.

"It cost me more to file the initial complaint -- about $450 --
than it cost for the overdraft fees," Hatemi told Yahoo Finance.
"But it was the principle of it.  I could afford those fees but
how about the people [who can't]?" M&T Bank did not immediately
return a request for comment.

The Arbitration Association of America, which handles the majority
of arbitration cases, charges $200 for an initial filing fee, not
counting fees incurred by consumers who hire attorneys. The CFPB
argues that fees like this have a cooling effect on potential
claimants.  Over the two-year period between 2010 and 2011, the
CFPB found only 25 cases were filed by consumers with claims for
under $1,000.  For every dollar claimed, consumers won an average
of 12% of the original claim in relief.  Only 9% of consumers who
took on financial institutions received any relief at all. In
contrast, 93% of claims filed against consumers by financial
institutions came out in the institution's favor.

In addition to making it easier for consumers to file joint
claims, the CFPB's new rules would require companies to keep track
of all customer claims filed and submit results of arbitration
cases to the agency.

"This new rule should provide consumers with a more level playing
field," Elise Sanguinetti, president of the Consumer Attorneys of
California, told Yahoo Finance.

Without the ability to form a class, there's little hope of
providing relief to consumers whose claims are too small or
resources too limited to take on corporations alone.  A mere 2% of
consumers with credit cards surveyed by the CFPB said they would
take legal action to resolve a small-dollar dispute.

"[Class action waivers] have destroyed and made ineffective the
ability of individual consumers to challenge corporations," says
Andre Regard, a consumer law attorney in Lexington, Ky., who is
representing Dr. Hatemi in his lawsuit.  "They know they aren't
going to be challenged because individuals generally do not spend
time or money to do this."

Unfortunately, the CFPB's new rules, if implemented, would only
apply to future customer agreements.  Dr. Hatemi says he plans to
keep fighting his suit in spite of this.  After losing a recent
appeal, he is now working with Regard to have his case heard by
the U.S. Supreme Court, although. The Supreme Court has issued
several previous rulings in favor of forced arbitration clauses.

Giving up isn't an option.

"People do not fight these battles," Dr. Hatemi says.  "There are
only a few people like me who go out of their way to sue banks.
And they get away with charging all these fees without getting the
consent of their customers."

                 Proporal to Open Floodgate

Meanwhile, Samuel Rubenfeld, writing for The Wall Street Journal,
reports that the CFPB proposal "will apply to multiple, whole
categories of industries," said Jennifer Lee, a former enforcement
lawyer for the agency. The rule doesn't change any specific law,
but it will greatly increase the amount of litigation financial
institutions face, legal experts said to Risk & Compliance
Journal.

The CFPB's proposal "will open the floodgate of class-action
lawyers" filing lawsuits over "alleged violations of any number of
substantive consumer-protection laws," said Ms. Lee, now a partner
with the firm Dorsey & Whitney LLP who defends clients against
claims made by the agency, while elaborating on her remarks to the
Journal.  She said the intent behind the rule "appears consistent"
with the agency's overarching strategy to leverage private-actor
behavior to "effectuate the greatest change with the least
effort," and cautioned that "this rule is unlikely to be the most
effective way to protect consumers."

Joseph Barloon, a partner at Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP
who co-leads the law firm's consumer financial services practice,
said financial institutions should be prepared to address
significantly more class-action litigation over the products and
services they offer, and that the litigation will be far tougher
to beat.  "Lenders and other financial-services companies need to
review their agreements and determine what products and services
have arbitration provisions that could run afoul of the rule," he
said.


* U.S. Businesses Expected to Challenge CFPB Arbitration Proposal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Lambert, writing for Reuters, reports that new rules proposed
on May 5 by a U.S. consumer watchdog would block credit card
companies, banks and other firms from forcing customers to waive
their rights to join class action lawsuits and settle disputes
only through arbitration.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau said financial firms
should be barred from using fine print in contracts that mandates
arbitration instead of a group lawsuit in the event of a dispute
over products ranging from checking accounts to credit cards.  The
agency said the clauses prevent consumers who have been wronged
from receiving justice and compensation through the courts.

U.S. businesses are expected to oppose the proposal and sue if it
becomes final.  They say arbitration is more efficient and helps
avoid costly litigation that rarely benefits the people filing
suit.

"Companies simply insert these clauses into their contracts for
consumer financial products or services and literally 'with the
stroke of a pen' are able to block any group of consumers from
filing joint lawsuits known as class actions," CFPB Director
Richard Cordray said in prepared remarks.

"That is so even though class actions are widely recognized to be
valid avenues to secure legal relief under federal and state law."

In class actions, people band together to sue over the same
alleged wrongdoing to make the lawsuit more affordable.  A 2015
study by the CFPB found individuals rarely sue on their own
because it is too expensive and that about 6.8 million consumers
receive $220 million in payments from class action settlements
each year.

In arbitration, a private individual settles a conflict.
Frequently, companies select the arbitrators, the proceedings are
confidential and decisions are hard to appeal.

Under the proposal, companies could still use arbitration clauses,
but would have to state explicitly that consumers can sign onto
class actions.  They would also have to give the bureau
information on claims filed and awards issued in the arbitrations,
as well as correspondence from arbitrators regarding unpaid fees
and failure to follow standards of conduct.

Requiring customers to agree to "mandatory arbitration clauses"
when they sign up for a product has become nearly universal since
a 2011 U.S. Supreme Court decision known as AT&T Mobility vs.
Concepcion validated the practice.  It has also become a
flashpoint for both political parties.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton on May 5
supported the proposal, saying "mandatory arbitration clauses
buried deep in contracts for credit cards, student loans, and more
prevent American consumers from having their day in court when
they've been harmed."

U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown, an Ohio Democrat sometimes mentioned
as a possible vice presidential candidate in November's election,
pledged to push the CFPB to "finalize the rule as soon as
possible."

The private sector and conservative political leaders quickly
criticized the proposal, saying it only helps attorneys who file
class actions and reap fees and shares of settlements.

The chairman of the House of Representatives Financial Services
Committee, Republican Jeb Hensarling of Texas, called it a "big,
wet kiss to trial attorneys" and cast Cordray as a "de facto
dictator."

"This move -- which will apply to some of the most common
financial contracts including credit cards, checking accounts, and
even cell phones -- essentially hands over the keys of the CFPB's
luxury office building to the wealthy, powerful, and politically
well-connected trial lawyer lobby," he said.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, representing the business sector,
said that "in the 50 years since the advent of modern day class
action lawsuits, plaintiffs' lawyers have made millions of dollars
in fees from these suits while consumers often receive little
benefit."

The CFPB said the proposal would give consumers "a day in court."
It also aims to create a deterrent effect through the threat of
group lawsuits and increased transparency, the agency said.

"Forced arbitration and class action bans force consumers into a
biased, secretive, and lawless forum, preventing either a court or
an arbitrator from ordering a lawbreaker to repay all of its
victims," Lauren Saunders, associate director of the National
Consumer Law Center, said in a statement.


* New Measure May Impact Class Action Litigation in New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
measure introduced in the New Jersey Legislature this year has the
potential to save class action litigants both time and money,
sponsors of the legislation say.

The legislation, S1845, would allow a person involved in a class
action lawsuit to immediately appeal to the Appellate Division of
the Superior Court as to the certification or decertification of
the class.

In addition, an appeal of a decision of the Appellate Division of
the Superior Court concerning class certification or
decertification may be taken to the New Jersey Supreme Court in
the same manner as a final judgment of the Appellate Division.

An appeal stays all other proceedings in the Superior Court
pending resolution of the appeal, according to the legislation,
which was introduced in the state Senate March 7.  The bill was
referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, where it has remained
since.

"Under the existing system, litigants who wish to challenge a
determination as to class certification must either request leave
to file an interlocutory appeal or litigate the matter to a final
judgment," the bill states.

"If a motion for leave to file an interlocutory appeal is not
granted, the litigant is generally left with a choice between
incurring the expense of litigating the matter to a final judgment
or settling the case without the benefit of a judicial ruling."

Sen. Peter J. Barnes III, a Democrat, was S1845's primary sponsor.
However, Sen. Barnes stepped down in April to take a judgeship.

Assemblyman John S. Wisniewski and Assemblywoman Nancy J. Pinkin,
both Democrats, are the primary sponsors for A1911, an identical
bill that was introduced in January.  It also has been held up in
a judiciary committee.

Mr. Wisniewski said efficiency is the driving force behind the
proposed change.

"Right now, at the beginning of the process, if you fight the
certification of the class and you're not successful, that isn't
considered a final decision subject to being appealed," explained
Wisniewski, who serves as deputy speaker and has his own law firm
in Sayreville, N.J. "So then you have to litigate the entire
matter.  Then, at the end, you're given leave to appeal.

"Hypothetically, should your appeal be successful, you will now
have expended lots of time and money when you didn't really need
to."

Several other states, he pointed out, including Connecticut,
Florida, Ohio, Oklahoma and Texas, currently permit interlocutory
appeals as of right of determinations as to class certification.

"For businesses, especially, money and time are interchangeable,"
Mr. Wisniewski said.  "We're not only talking about the overhead
aspect of having to pay for the attorneys involved in the
litigation, but also the uncertainty that pending litigation can
create."

He noted that the legislation does not deprive anyone of an
opportunity to be heard.

"They can still seek certification," he said.  "But this allows
the issue of certification to be heard and potentially disposed of
prior to litigating the case."

A similar bill was introduced last session, but failed to move
through both houses.

Mr. Wisniewski said the legislature will resume with committee
hearings soon.  It's his hope to get the legislation through both
houses and on the governor's desk before lawmakers break for the
summer, he said.

"I don't believe a majority of states are there yet," he said of
the proposed change.  "But I do see it as a growing movement,
simply based on the practicality."

He continued, "I know some would argue that forcing a party to
litigate a class action suit brings about a quicker settlement,
and I get that.  Settlements usually are in everyone's best
interest.

"But why should anyone settle if they believe the lawsuit was
brought in error in the first place?"



                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Noranda Entitled to Summary Judgment vs. ASARCO
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Asarco, LLC, emerged from bankruptcy in 2009, it filed a
suit against Noranda Mining, Inc., to recoup a portion of $7.4
million it paid to the Environmental Protection Agency for
environmental cleanup of a former mining site near Park City, Utah
("Richardson Flat Site" or "Site"). Asarco relies on Section 113
of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA) to claim a right to payment from Noranda.
Noranda asks the court to grant summary judgment on Asarco's
claims because: (1) Asarco lacks standing to seek contribution for
cleanup of a portion of the site (the Lower Silver Creek Area)
because it failed to preserve that contribution claim when it was
discharged from bankruptcy; (2) Asarco is judicially estopped from
recovering the $7.4 million because it convinced the Bankruptcy
Court to accept Asarco's representation that $7.4 million was its
fair share of response costs at the Site; (3) Noranda is
statutorily protected from at least a portion of its alleged
liability to Asarco because the EPA granted Noranda contribution
protection through a partial consent decree under CERCLA; and (4)
Asarco's claim fails as a matter of law under CERCLA because
Asarco cannot establish that it paid more than its fair share of
costs for cleanup at the Site.

Judge Tena Campbell of the United States District Court for the
District of Utah, Central Division, ruled that Asarco has standing
to bring the entirety of its contribution claim, but that Noranda
is entitled to summary judgment based on judicial estoppel,
Noranda's contribution protection, and Asarco's inability to
establish that it paid more than its fair share of costs at the
Site.

A full-text copy of the Amended Order and Memorandum Decision
dated March 31, 2016 is available at http://is.gd/msfnbifrom
Leagle.com. This Amended Order only changes the March 29, 2016
Order and Memorandum in two related respects.  Specifically, the
incorrect date of "March 1, 2016," which appears in the text of
page 31 and again in footnote 33 of the original order, has been
corrected to read "March 1, 2006."

A full-text copy of the Original Order and Memorandum Decision
dated March 31, 2016, is available at https://is.gd/ARsSDy from
Leagle.com.

The case is ASARCO, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
Plaintiff, v. NORANDA MINING, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 2:12-CV-527-TC-DBP.

Asarco, a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, is represented by
Gregory Evans, Esq. -- gevans@mcguirewoods.com -- MCGUIREWOODS
LLP, Steven J. Christiansen, Esq. -- schristiansen@parrbrown.com -
-  PARR BROWN GEE & LOVELESS, Cheylynn Hayman, Esq. --
chayman@parrbrown.com --  PARR BROWN GEE & LOVELESS, Daphne Hsu,
MCGUIREWOODS LLP, David C. Reymann, Esq. -- dreymann@parrbrown.com
--  PARR BROWN GEE & LOVELESS, James G. Warren, Esq. --
jwarren@mcguirewoods.com -- MCGUIREWOODS LLP, Laura G. Brys, Esq.
-- lbrys@mcguirewoods.com -- MCGUIREWOODS LLP, Tanya Guerrero,
Esq. -- tguerrero@mcguirewoods.com -- MCGUIREWOODS LLP & William
R. Pletcher, Esq. -- wpletcher@mcguirewoods.com -- MCGUIREWOODS
LLP.

Noranda Mining, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, is represented
by Jeffrey C. Corey, Esq. -- jcorey@parsonsbehle.com -- PARSONS
BEHLE & LATIMER, Richard J. Angell, Esq. --
rangell@parsonsbehle.com -- PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER & Zack L.
Winzeler, Esq. -- zwinzeler@parsonsbehle.com -- PARSONS BEHLE &
LATIMER.

Atlantic Richfield Company, Movant, is represented by H. Michael
Keller, Esq. -- mkeller@fabianvancott.com -- FABIAN VAN COTT.
Sandra M. Stash, Movant, is represented by Jonathan W. Rauchway,
Esq. -- jrauchway@dgslaw.com -- DAVIS GRAHAM & STUBBS LLP & H.
Michael Keller, FABIAN VAN COTT.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 9th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgments in "McIndoe"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs-Appellants Carol Mcindoe et al. are James McIndoe's
legal heirs, who filed suit in California state court against
Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, FKA Northrop Grumman
Shipbuilding, Inc., Defendant, and Bath Iron Works Corporation,,
arguing that McIndoe's exposure to asbestos-containing materials
aboard their ships contributed to his death. McIndoe's heirs
raised design, manufacture, and failure-to-warn claims based on
theories of both strict products liability and general negligence.

The case was removed to federal district court where Bath and
Huntington each moved for summary judgment.

The district court granted both motions on the grounds that the
ships were not products for purposes of strict liability and that
the heirs could not establish a genuine issue of material fact
regarding whether the shipbuilders were responsible for installing
any asbestos-containing insulation that caused McIndoe's injuries.
McIndoe's heirs timely appealed, and these cases have been
consolidated before our court.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed
the judgment of the district court.

Notwithstanding the declaration of Dr. Raybin, McIndoe's heirs
failed to put forward evidence demonstrating that James McIndoe
was substantially exposed to asbestos from the shipbuilders'
materials for a substantial period of time. The heirs have
established no genuine issue of fact regarding whether any such
exposure was a substantial factor in McIndoe's injuries, and thus
they cannot prevail on their general negligence claims.

A full-text copy of the Opinion dated March 31, 2016 is available
at http://is.gd/lEq1rcfrom Leagle.com.

The cases are CAROL McINDOE, as Wrongful Death Heir, and as
Successor-in-Interest to James McIndoe, Deceased; LORRAINE
McINDOE; PAULINE McINDOE, as Legal Heirs of James McIndoe,
Deceased, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. HUNTINGTON INGALLS
INCORPORATED, FKA Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc., Defendant,
and BATH IRON WORKS CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. CAROL
McINDOE, as Wrongful Death Heir, and as Successor-in-Interest to
James McIndoe, Deceased; LORRAINE McINDOE; PAULINE McINDOE, as
Legal Heirs of James McIndoe, Deceased, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.
HUNTINGTON INGALLS INCORPORATED, FKA Northrop Grumman
Shipbuilding, Inc., Defendant-Appellee, and BATH IRON WORKS
CORPORATION, Defendant, Nos. 13-56762, 13-56764.

Richard M. Grant, Esq. -- Brayton Purcell LLP, Novato, California,
argued the cause and filed the briefs for the plaintiffs-
appellants. With him on the briefs wasLloyd F. LeRoy, Esq. --
Brayton Purcell LLP, Novato, California.

Daniel J. Kelly, Esq. -- daniel.kelly@tuckerellis.com -- Tucker
Ellis LLP, San Francisco, California, argued the cause and filed
the brief for defendant-appellee Huntington Ingalls Incorporated.
Edward R. Hugo, Esq. -- ehugo@hugoparker.com -- Brydon Hugo &
Parker, San Francisco, California, argued the cause and filed the
brief for defendant-appellee Bath Iron Works Corporation. With him
on the brief were James C. Parker Esq. -- ehugo@hugoparker.com --
Brydon Hugo & Parker and Charles S. Park, Esq. --
cpark@hugoparker.com -- Brydon Hugo & Parker, San Francisco,
California.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: P. Weymiller's Bid to Intervene in "Perez" OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge B. Lynn Winmill of the United States District Court for the
District of Idaho granted Intervenor Penny Weymiller's Motion to
Intervene for the limited purpose of responding to Defendant Idaho
Falls School District No. 91's Petition for Writ of Mandamus and,
dismissed the Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed by Defendant for
lack of jurisdiction.

A full-text copy of the Memorandum Decision and Order dated March
15, 2016 is available at http://is.gd/HutzJafrom Leagle.com.
The case is THOMAS E. PEREZ, SECRETARY OF LABOR, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF LABOR, Plaintiff, v. IDAHO FALLS SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 91,
Defendant, Case No. 4:15-cv-00019-BLW.

Thomas E. Perez, Plaintiff, is represented by Susan Brinkerhoff,
U.S. Department of Labor.

Idaho Falls School District No. 91, Defendant, is represented by
Bret Allen Walther, Esq. -- bwalther@ajhlaw.com -- Anderson Julian
& Hull LLP & Brian K Julian, Esq. -- bjulian@ajhlaw.com --
ANDERSON JULIAN & HULL.

Penny Weymiller, Intervenor, is represented by Jonathan W Harris,
Esq. -- jwharris@bakerharrislaw.com -- BAKER & HARRIS.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Austin Power's Judgment on the Pleadings Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert McDoulett was employed by Austin Building Company as a
pipefitter when he was allegedly exposed to asbestos insulation
between July and December 1968 while working at Public Service
Company of Oklahoma (PSO)'s Northeastern Power Station. Mr.
McDoulett was later diagnosed with mesothelioma -- a disease
commonly linked to asbestos exposure -- and he died on December
30, 2012. On July 9, 2013, Mr. McDoulett's wife, who was the
personal representative of his estate, filed suit in Oklahoma
County District Court against numerous entities, including PSO,
who were thought to be responsible for McDoulett's exposure to
asbestos. On April 14, 2014, PSO made demand upon Austin Building
Company under the Contract, but received no response. In May, 2014
PSO reached a settlement of the McDoulett litigation, for a
payment of $187,500. PSO also expended approximately $70,000 in
fees and costs in the McDoulett case. After further research, PSO
determined that Austin Building Company had merged into defendant
Austin Power, and PSO thus made demand upon Austin Power. Austin
Power did not respond, and PSO then filed this lawsuit, alleging
claims for breach of contract and indemnity under the Contract.
Austin Power has moved for judgment on the pleadings. The sole
issue presented by the motion is whether plaintiff's claims in
this case, which are premised on the 1968 Contract's indemnity
clause, are prohibited by a statute enacted by the Oklahoma
Legislature in 2006.

Judge John E. Dowdell of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Oklahoma denied defendant's motion for
judgment on the pleadings.

A full-text copy of the Opinion and Order dated March 30, 2016 is
available at http://is.gd/B1UA07from Leagle.com.

The case is PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF OKLAHOMA, Plaintiff, v.
AUSTIN POWER, INC., Defendant, Case No. 15-CV-321-JED-FHM.

Public Service Company of Oklahoma, Plaintiff, is represented by
Michael John English, Esq.-- menglish@dsda.com -- Doerner Saunders
Daniel & Anderson LLP.

Austin Power, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Gerald Patrick
Green, Esq. -- jgreen@piercecouch.com -- Pierce Couch Hendrickson
Baysinger & Green LLP & John C Lennon, Esq. -- Pierce Couch
Hendrickson Baysinger & Green LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: R. Swanson's Claims vs. Marley-Wylain Granted
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division One,
ordered the respondent, Superior Court of Los Angeles County, to
vacate its order of September 25, 2015, denying petitioner Marley-
Wylain Company's motion to apply Michigan law to the plaintiff
Robert Swanson's claim, granted the motion on Swanson's claims
against Marley-Wylain only and, denied the petition in all other
respects. The temporary stay order is terminated.

A full-text copy of the Decision dated March 14, 2016 is available
at http://is.gd/xpwEl1fromLeagle.com.

The case is THE MARLEY-WYLAIN COMPANY, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR
COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; ROBERT SWANSON, Real
Party in Interest, No. B267711.

Kirkland & Ellis, Richard C. Godfrey, Esq. --
richard.godfrey@kirkland.com, Scott W. Fowkes, Esq. --
scott.fowkes@kirkland.com,  Kristopher S. Ritter, Esq. --
kristopher.ritter@kirkland.com,  Shaun Paisley, Esq. --
shaun.paisley@kirkland.com, Jonathan J. Faria, Esq. --
jonathan.faria@kirkland.com; Segal McCambridge Singer &
Mahoney,Cameron D. Turner, Esq. -- cturner@smsm.com, Jason
Eckerly; Law Offices of Glaspy & Glaspy, David M. Glaspy, Esq. --
dglaspy@glaspy.com,  and Gary F. Lundry, Esq. --
glundry@glaspy.com for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

Waters Kraus & Paul and Michael B. Gurien, Esq. for Real Party in
Interest.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Affirms D. Zelinsky Summary Judgment
---------------------------------------------------------------
The trial court granted summary judgment to defendant D. Zelinsky
& Sons, Inc. in an asbestos action brought by plaintiff Melvin
Desin. On appeal, plaintiffs contend the court erred by finding
Zelinsky met its initial burden of production, by finding
plaintiffs did not meet their burden, and by excluding from
evidence their expert witness declaration.

The Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Four,
affirmed the judgment of the trial court.

In the absence of admissible evidence that Desin was exposed to
asbestos-containing products as a result of the activities of
Zelinsky employees, plaintiffs failed to carry the burden to show
a triable issue of material fact.

A full-text copy of the Decision dated March 18, 2016 is available
at http://is.gd/NwklAWfrom Leagle.com.

The case is CHERYL UNTERMANN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. D.
ZELINSKY & SONS, INC., Defendant and Respondent, No. A137513.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY App. Reverses Summary Judgment in "Wells"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff/Appellant Linda Wells commenced this action on November
5, 2012, seeking to recover damages for personal injuries
allegedly resulting from her exposure to various asbestos-
containing products. In particular, plaintiff alleged that, on or
about August 5, 2010, she was diagnosed with malignant epithelial
mesothelioma, which was caused by her secondary exposure to
asbestos through her father, who brought asbestos dust home on his
clothes while working with and around various asbestos-containing
products. After joinder of issue and discovery, defendants Abex
Corporation, Borg Warner Corporation, Genuine Parts Company,
Honeywell International Inc. and National Automotive Parts
Association moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint
against them as time-barred pursuant to CPLR 214-c (2). During the
pendency of their motion, all moving defendants, except Genuine
Parts Company and National Automotive Parts Association, withdrew
their applications, apparently having settled with plaintiff.
Supreme Court granted defendants' motion and dismissed the
complaint. Plaintiff appealed.

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third
Department, reversed the Supreme Court's decision granting
defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint
against them.

A full-text copy of the Memorandum and Order dated March 31, 2016
is available at http://is.gd/RXdLiOfrom Leagle.com.

The case is LINDA WELLS, Appellant, v. 3M COMPANY, Formerly Known
as MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING CO., et al., Defendants, and
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY et al., Respondents, 521580, 2016 NY Slip Op
02508.

Levy Konigsberg LLP, New York City (Brendan J. Tully of counsel),
for appellant.

Barclay Damon, LLP, Buffalo (Mark T. Whitford, Esq. --
mwhitford@barclaydamon.com, of counsel), for respondents.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Court Rejects Bid to Remand "Williams"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Before the Court are Plaintiffs', Breck Williams and Tarsia
Williams, "Motion to Remand", Defendant's, Lockheed Martin
Corporation, opposition thereto, as well as Plaintiffs' reply.
Plaintiffs seek to have the remaining claims in this case remanded
to state court in light of the dismissal of Defendant Lockheed
Martin, the only defendant with a potential federal defense so as
to warrant federal jurisdiction.

Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana denied the Plaintiffs' Motion.
A full-text copy of the Order dated March 31, 2016 is available at
http://is.gd/PO5QX9from Leagle.com.

The case is TARSIA WILLIAMS, ET AL. v. LOCKHEED MARTIN
CORPORATION, ET AL., SECTION "B" (2), Civil Action No. 09-65.

Tarsia Williams, Plaintiff, is represented by Caleb H. Didriksen,
III, Esq. -- caleb@didriksenlaw.com -- Didriksen Law Firm & Erin
B. Saucier, Esq. -- erin@didriksenlaw.com -- Didriksen Law Firm.
Breck Williams, Plaintiff, is represented by Caleb H. Didriksen,
III, Didriksen Law Firm & Erin B. Saucier, Didriksen Law Firm.
Owens-Illinois Inc, Defendant, is represented by Ronald Dean
Church, Jr., Esq. -- Dean Church Law, LLC & Molly Marie Massey,
Esq. -- Jefferson Parish Attorney's Office.

General Electric Company, Defendant, is represented by Leon Gary,
Jr., Esq. -- Jones Walker, James Conner Percy, Esq. -- Jones
Walker, Olivia Smith Regard, Esq. -- jbabineaux@bpasfirm.com --
Babineaux, Poche, Anthony & Slavich, LLC & William L. Schuette,
Jr., Esq. -- Jones Walker.

Uniroyal Inc, Defendant, is represented by Ronald Dean Church,
Jr., Esq. -- Dean Church Law, LLC.

McCarty Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Susan Beth Kohn,
Esq. -- Suek@spsr-law.com -- Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn,
LLP, Douglas Kinler, Esq. -- Dkinler@spsr-law.com -- Simon,
Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Michael David Harold, Esq. --
Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP.

Eagle Inc, Defendant, is represented by Susan Beth Kohn, Simon,
Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon, Peragine,
Smith & Redfearn, LLP, James R. Guidry, Simon, Peragine, Smith &
Redfearn, LLP & Michael David Harold, Simon, Peragine, Smith &
Redfearn, LLP.

Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Christopher
Kelly Lightfoot, Hailey, Esq. -- McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale,
Anne Elizabeth Medo, Esq. -- Deutsch Kerrigan LLP & Claude Alvin
Greco, Esq. -- Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale.

NORCA Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Edward A.
Rodrigue, Jr., Esq. -- Boggs, Loehn & Rodrigue & Charles K.
Chauvin, Esq. -- Chauvin Law Firm, LLC.

CBS Corporation, Defendant, is  represented by Leon Gary, Jr.,
Jones Walker,James Conner Percy, Jones Walker, Olivia Smith
Regard, Babineaux, Poche, Anthony & Slavich, LLC & William L.
Schuette, Jr., Jones Walker.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Bldg Manager Died of Asbestos Cancer
------------------------------------------------------------
Gazette & Herald reported that a former building manager died of
asbestos-related cancer, an inquest has heard.

Ralph Hubert Rogers, 89, of Heron Close, Thornton-le-Dale, died on
November 15. Dr Juliet Walker, who had performed a post-mortem
examination, said the cause of death was candidal pneumonia and
mesothelioma, a cancer caused by asbestos inhalation.

At the inquest in Scarborough on Wednesday, the coroner Michael
Oakley said that he recorded, on the balance of probability, a
conclusion of death by industrial disease.

In his younger days, Mr Rogers had spent eight years supervising
and running a division which built new houses.

The inquest heard written accounts from Mr Rogers in which he
described working with and around asbestos, which was cut into
strips, giving off clouds of dust.

Speaking after the inquest, Mr Rogers's son, Adrian Rogers, said:
"I am pleased that the coroner has properly recorded that my
father died as a result of his work. He had always enjoyed
remarkable health for a man of his age.

"The diagnosis of mesothelioma made in 2015 was a great shock to
him and my mother."

The family solicitor Howard Bonnett, of Corries solicitors, added:
"Mr Rogers's situation adds another all too common and sad
statistic to the North Yorkshire history of asbestos victims.

"At 89 years of age Mr Rogers assumed that the dangers of asbestos
exposure that he been exposed to as a younger man had passed him
by.

"Unfortunately, this proved not to be the case and he succumbed to
his illness.

"This case is one of a worrying trend of older asbestos victims in
their eighties and beyond. With longer life sometimes comes the
risk that asbestos cancer can incubate and come to the fore later
in life.

"I would implore anyone who has been exposed to asbestos to keep a
careful eye on their health and to monitor any change in their
respiratory health. Asbestos disease, sadly, has no 'sell by
date'."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Adopts Inevitability Test in Asbestos Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Dye, writing for Reuters, reported that a manufacturer of
brake-grinding machines must face an asbestos lawsuit because it
was inevitable its products would have been used on brakes
containing asbestos, a California appeals court has ruled.

The unanimous decision from the California First District Court of
Appeal reinstated a lawsuit against Hennessy Industries brought by
Renee Rondon, whose husband Frank was allegedly exposed to
asbestos dust from 1965 until 1988 through his work with brake-
grinding machines made by Hennessy's predecessor, Ammco Tools.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemical Valley Victims Fight Over Asbestos
------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Simpson, writing for Sarnia Observer, reported that almost
eight years to the day her father took his last breath, Stacy
Cattran was a mix of tears and triumph over news Canada may
finally ban asbestos.

"It's always a tough time during the week of the anniversary of
his passing, so it's wonderful to have some positive news
intermixed with the feelings of sadness and loss," she said
Wednesday.

She and her sister Leah Nielson have been behind a years-long
battle to get the federal government to ban the cancer-causing
fibre after their father Bill Coulbeck -- a former Chemical Valley
electrician -- died of mesothelioma, a cancer caused by exposure
to asbestos.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau brought the sisters' dream closer to
reality by announcing Canada is "moving forward" on an asbestos
ban.

He made the comment while speaking at a Canadian building trades
union conference.

"It's thrilling," Cattran said of the news. "It's been a long road
-- and a much longer road for many other people that have been
working on this cause much longer than we have -- but we're so
excited to see the light at the end of the tunnel."

While Canada stopped mining and exporting asbestos in 2012, the
country has continued to import construction materials and
automotive parts containing asbestos.

"A lot of people don't know, for example, that their car brakes in
many cases still have asbestos in them," Sarnia Mayor Mike Bradley
said Wednesday. "We're still using them in Ontario and across the
country."

A longtime champion for an asbestos ban, Bradley was behind the
push for Sarnia to become the first Canadian municipality to
support the end of asbestos exportation back in 2001.

He also recently wrote a letter to Trudeau calling for him to
introduce a ban.

"To me, to have the prime minister of this country address this
issue directly sends a very powerful message that we're going to
get a ban on asbestos in this country," Bradley said Wednesday.

But the road to this historic moment has been long in a community
hard hit by cases of mesothelioma due to the heavy use of asbestos
in local industry.

"A lot of people here didn't want to talk about the issue -- some
still don't -- they see it as a negative in the community, but the
Victims of Chemical Valley came together and sent a very clear
message that we're not going to give up until this is resolved,"
Bradley said.

For city politician Brian White, the fight to ban asbestos has
been incredibly personal.

He lost Ron Powers -- his father figure through the local Big
Brothers program -- to mesothelioma in 1996.

Powers had worked at Holmes Foundry.

"When I didn't have a dad, (Powers) was my dad and he took me into
his family," White said. "At 19 years old, I got to speak at his
funeral, which was a tremendous honour and the most heartbreaking
thing I've ever done."

He credits local anti-asbestos advocates for their ongoing work
towards a ban.

"The voices here in Sarnia-Lambton have been loud and relentless
and constant," he said.

Victims of Chemical Valley have been one of those long-standing
voices in the fight to ban asbestos.

Members of the support group have kept the pressure up over the
years by writing letters to elected officials, including Trudeau.

"It's good to be heard and especially for all those people in our
community who have been devastated by the product," said Sandy
Kinart, of the Victims of Chemical Valley committee.

But as one fight draws to a close, committee members are gearing
up for a new fight -- this time, with the city.

Anti-asbestos advocates are now calling for the city to truck
asbestos-contaminated materials from Centennial Park as opposed to
cap it on site near the Victims of Chemical Valley memorial.

City council approved the plan to cap the materials on site as
part of the remediation plan for the waterfront park last year.

"We want to go lobby with the community at city council because
this is wrong," Kinart, who has lost four family members to
mesothelioma.

"The word that was used to me was, 'We're going to entomb it on
the boat launch.' Well, we all entombed our people -- our men, our
women -- and [the material is going] right next to the memorial.

"That to me is such a huge slap in the face and a huge reminder of
why we're even here today."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Worcester Homeowner Assessed $52K for Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Banker & Tradesman reported that the Department of Environmental
Protection (MassDEP) has assessed MLC Worcester LLC, the owner of
43 Illinois St., nearly $52,000 for violations of asbestos
regulations that occurred during the renovation of the triple-
decker.

Under the terms of the settlement, MLC Worcester will pay a
$10,000 penalty with the balance suspended provided it has no
further violations for one year.

In January 2014, MassDEP inspectors responding to a complaint
observed dry, friable asbestos-containing pipe insulation on the
basement floor and in a pile of renovation debris on the ground
outside. The owner did not notify MassDEP prior to the asbestos
removal work as required by state regulations.

MassDEP required MLC Worcester to hire a licensed asbestos
contractor to clean up and decontaminate all affected parts of the
property and properly package, label and dispose of the asbestos-
contaminated waste.

MassDEP regulations require asbestos-containing materials to be
removed wet and sealed while wet into leak-tight containers with
warning labels. During asbestos abatement the work area must be
sealed off and air filtration and monitoring equipment operated.

These requirements are designed to prevent a release of asbestos
fibers to the environment, which is hazardous. Notification is
required to MassDEP 10 working days prior to commencing asbestos
removal work so that MassDEP has the opportunity to conduct
inspections to ensure compliance with the regulations.

"Prior to commencing renovation activity, contractors must
identify asbestos-containing materials so they can be removed and
handled in accordance with the regulations," Mary Jude Pigsley,
director of MassDEP's Central Regional Office in Worcester, said
in a statement. "Asbestos is a known carcinogen, and following
required work practices protects workers, as well as the general
public. Failure to do so will result in penalties, as well as
escalated cleanup, decontamination and monitoring costs."

Property owners or contractors with questions about asbestos-
containing materials, notification requirements, proper removal,
handling, packaging, storage and disposal procedures, or the
asbestos regulations are encouraged to contact the appropriate
MassDEP Regional Office for assistance.

MassDEP is responsible for ensuring clean air and water, safe
management and recycling of solid and hazardous wastes, timely
cleanup of hazardous waste sites and spills and the preservation
of wetlands and coastal resources.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AG Files Criminal Charges vs. Hotel Owner
----------------------------------------------------------
Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson filed criminal charges in
Spokane Superior Court against three people and one company for
multiple violations of clean air laws involving improper asbestos
removal and disposal. Ferguson alleges the defendants' actions
endangered the health of their neighbors and workers.

Kent-based 2013 Investors, LLC, its owner, Dayabir Bath, his
nephew, Gee Grewal, and employee John Hickson are accused of
multiple violations of the Washington Clean Air Act and reckless
endangerment. Grewal is also accused of making false statements to
a public servant.

In 2013 and 2014, the state alleges, 2013 Investors performed
extensive renovation work on an 89-room hotel at 4301 W. Sunset
Blvd. in Spokane. Although the building, the former Spokane House
Hotel, contained asbestos, the owners didn't obtain the proper
asbestos surveys or city permits to do the work as required by
law, according to the allegations.

"My office won't tolerate skirting our environmental laws and
endangering public safety to make a quick buck," Ferguson said.
"Asbestos-removal regulations are strict for a reason: The alleged
actions of these individuals put at risk not only workers,
inspectors and innocent neighbors, but also endangered our
environment."

One City of Spokane permit application filed by the defendants
asserted they planned only to replace, texture and paint drywall,
though more extensive renovation was already underway.

Investigators from the Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency only
became aware of the full extent of the renovation when one of them
happened to drive by and noticed the extensive work in June of
2013. Investigators reported piles of debris likely to contain
asbestos sitting out in the open air, endangering workers and
neighbors.

Again in 2014, Clean Air Agency investigators spotted another
debris pile, containing visible asbestos. The asbestos allegedly
sat in the open air for several months, experiencing winds of up
to 43 mph in that timeframe. During such winds, delicate and
breakable asbestos fibers can freely blow around the neighborhood,
endangering the health of those nearby.

2013 Investors, Bath, Grewal and Hickson are each charged with:

Three counts of violating the Washington Clean Air Act, and
One count of reckless endangerment
Additionally, Grewal is charged with:

One count of making false statements to a public servant
Each count carries a maximum of 364 days in jail and/or $5,000 in
fines.

The charges contained in the complaint are only allegations.  A
person is presumed innocent unless and until he or she is proven
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

Ferguson praised the efforts of the Spokane Regional Clean Air
Agency and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, among others,
for their work on the case. "Their efforts directly led to these
charges," Ferguson said.

The lead prosecutor is Assistant Attorney General Bill Sherman.

Ferguson has made prosecuting environmental crimes a priority of
his administration. Since 2013, he has brought environmental
prosecutions leading to 14 criminal convictions, and restitution
orders totaling in excess of $700,000.

The Office of the Attorney General is the chief legal office for
the state of Washington with attorneys and staff in 27 divisions
across the state providing legal services to roughly 200 state
agencies, boards and commissions. Attorney General Bob Ferguson is
working hard to protect consumers and seniors against fraud, keep
our communities safe, protect our environment and stand up for our
veterans. Visit www.atg.wa.gov to learn more.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pillsbury Partner Accused of Illegal Cleanup
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Landis, writing for The State Journal-Register, reported that
a partner in the partial demolition of the former Pillsbury Mills
plant in Springfield now faces a federal indictment for improper
asbestos removal and for making false statements in a separate
state court case.

Joseph Chernis IV, a partner in P. Mills LLC, will be arraigned
June 7 on four violations of the federal Clean Air Act and two
counts of making false statements, according to an announcement
from the U.S. Attorney's Office in Springfield. The penalty on
each count is up to five years in prison followed by three years
of supervised release and a fine of up to $250,000.

The indictment was handed down May 5.

Chernis, of Sherman, is accused of hiring an untrained individual
to illegally remove more than 1,000 feet of asbestos pipe
insulation from four buildings between October 2014 and August
2015.

"The asbestos debris was stuffed into approximately 300 garbage
bags and at least two open-topped cardboard boxes, and left inside
vacant buildings at the facility," according to the indictment
announcement.

The 18-acre site and plant at 1525 E. Philips St. have remained
vacant since the last owner, Cargill Corp., closed the facility in
2001.

The indictment charges that Chernis falsely claimed not to know
who was responsible for the asbestos removal during an October
2015 hearing in Sangamon County Circuit Court on a separate civil
lawsuit filed by the Illinois Attorney General's Office.The
lawsuit filed in August at the request of the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency halted the demolition and sought
to force a proper cleanup.

Chernis also falsely stated at the hearing that someone else was
responsible for hiring an untrained worker to remove asbestos, the
federal indictment says.

A message left for Joseph Chernis IV was not immediately returned,
but his father, Joseph Chernis III, said he was not aware of the
indictment. The father and son operate Midwest Demolition Co. of
Springfield.

"We knew people were being questioned," said the senior Chernis,
who was not named in the indictment but is a defendant in the
state civil case. The Chernises have represented themselves in
recent circuit court hearings.

Chernis said he and his son are trying to come up with an
asbestos-cleanup plan that is acceptable to the state.
"We're working diligently with the EPA to remedy the situation,"
said Chernis.

The state lawsuit claims improper asbestos removal created a
health hazard both for workers and neighborhood residents. The
mill site has been secured, according to the state EPA, and no
longer poses a threat.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MLC Worcester Fined for Removal Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Eckelbecker, writing for Telegram & Gazette Staff, reported
that the owner of a three-decker has been ordered by state
officials to pay up to $51,938 for improperly removing asbestos
during a renovation.

The state Department of Environmental Protection said it assessed
the penalty against MLC Worcester LLC over work at 43 Illinois St.
The company will pay $10,000, with the rest of the fine suspended
as long as no other violations occur for one year, the state said
in a news release.

The agent for MLC Worcester LLC is Ignatius Chang of 56 Whisper
Drive, Worcester, according to Massachusetts corporations records.
An Ignatius Chang of the same address is also listed as president
of Nancy Chang Worcester Inc., a restaurant, according to state
corporation records.

Asbestos was once commonly used as a building material, but is now
considered a potential danger to human health. State regulations
dictate how asbestos should be handled.

The state reported that an environmental inspector responding to a
complaint in January 2014 found asbestos pipe insulation on the
floor of the building's basement and in an outdoor debris pile.
The state required the property owner to hire a licensed asbestos
contractor to remove asbestos waste and clean the affected parts
of the property, the state said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Orleans School Tests Positive for Asbestos
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wynton Yates, writing for WWL.com, reported that Einstein Charter
School, a New Orleans East school that had reportedly tested
positive for asbestos was closed as officials try to figure out
the next steps.

A statement from the Recovery School District said, "Preliminary
air testing results show zero presence of asbestos in the air,
indicating that the building is and has been safe...The inspector
shared, 'no asbestos structures detected in air sampling." The
report showing that there is no asbestos in the air should serve
as a comfort to the students and families of Village de L'Est."

But the school district did find there were also 15 positive
samples found below the ceiling grid in places inaccessible to
children and adults, according to the RSD.

"Despite knowing that there is no asbestos in the air and knowing
that the samples found are mostly inaccessible, the RSD, out of an
abundance of caution, will immediately begin working on a clean-up
plan in coordination with the DEQ to ensure that all appropriate
steps are taken to further protect students and teachers," said
the RSD.

The school remains closed and a plan for students will be
announced later today.

John Trueblood's daughter is in the first grade at Einstein
Charter School Village De l'Est campus.

"She's been an honor roll student since she's been there,"
Trueblood said.

The head of the Recovery School District closed the school after
receiving a letter from the Department of Environmental Quality
saying the school tested positive for asbestos.

Greg Langley with the Department of Environmental Quality said
anytime asbestos is present in a building, it is a problem.

"There's like six different kinds of it, and the particular
asbestos we're talking about here was in some ceiling tile,"
Langley said.

The DEQ said they got an anonymous tip in late April saying that
the company Dynamic Constructor, who was doing renovations on the
building, didn't properly dispose of those ceiling tiles.

The RSD explained the ceiling tiles that may have been
contaminated with asbestos were removed while school was not in
session. RSD sent WWL-TV a statement saying an air quality test
was performed after the removal and the school was deemed safe to
return.

After a secondary set of testing, 13 places in the school tested
positive for asbestos.

Dr. Kyle Happel with LSU Health Sciences Center said while the
effects of asbestos exposure can be severe, the symptoms won't
show for 20 to 30 years and are very rare.

"The problem becomes when someone goes into a building and they
renovate it or there's been a physical disturbance," Happel said.

"The cases that we have seen of significant health-related
problems from asbestos are people who were exposed in a much
greater way. People who were working in the Navy, working
shipyards, doing boiler work -- different work like that," Happel
said.

While the effects may be rare, parents like Trueblood are glad the
school district is taking the precautions.

"I'm glad that there are taking care of it because you think about
the kid's health as they grow up in the next 20 years," Trueblood
said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Removed from Victorian Gov't Schools
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alex White, writing for Herald Sun, reported that high-risk
asbestos has been removed from scores of Victorian schools,
according to Education minister James Merlino.

A parliamentary inquiry was told all A1 and A2 grade asbestos had
been removed successfully from Victorian Government schools and
497 facilities were now free of the toxic substance.

Despite the good news Mr Merlino could not reveal the true cost of
removing asbestos from all public schools -- believed to be more
than $800 million -- despite an election promise all schools will
be asbestos free by 2020.

The Public Accounts and Estimates Committee was also told soil was
not routinely tested in schools where the toxic material was
found.

Despite the concerns raised by the panel, Mr Merlino said $30
million had been budgeted until June 2018 to continue the clean
up.

"The focus for me is about safety," Mr Merlino said.

"We will deliver on our commitment. We are now rolling through the
removal of the rest of asbestos."

Opposition Education minister Nick Wakeling said Mr Merlino's
comments on soil testing showed the Government was back peddling
on its promise to ensure all schools were totally asbestos free.

"The Minister confirmed what Victorians already knew, that this
government has no intention on delivering its commitment to making
Government schools asbestos free by 2020," he said.

"This demonstrates that Daniel Andrews is more about spin than
delivering for Victorian families."

In November, students were banned from an asbestos-clad primary
school oval in Melbourne's west after it was deemed unsafe.

An audit revealed 140 out of 170 pieces of cement sheeting found
at the school had tested positive to asbestos.

It followed a serious of finds in schools which proved asbestos
could be located throughout school grounds and not just in
buildings.

Mr Merlino told the committee the Government had made strong
progress on the program and audits had been carried out on 1712
schools.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Save-a-buck Contractors Expose Unskilled Workers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Delaware Business Times reported that contractors are using
immigrants, ex-cons, homeless people and teenagers to remove
material containing asbestos from aging buildings, according to a
Detroit Free Press report.

Experts say documenting the extent of the problem is difficult
because workers may be afraid to complain, may not know who to
call or don't speak English.

Dan Somenauer, business manager of Taylor-based Abatement Workers
Regional Local 207, says some of his members said before joining
the union they worked for companies that paid substandard wages
and hired homeless workers.

Craig Gestring, an assistant U.S. attorney in Rochester, New York,
says he has prosecuted several cases that involved workers who
were "unskilled" and "unknowledgeable" and "it's always done to
save a buck."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family of Teacher Victim Takes Legal Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The Sentinel reported that the family of a former teacher who died
decades after being exposed to asbestos while working in schools
are to take legal action.

Bernard Dawson lost his battle against a rare form of lung cancer,
known as pleural mesothelioma, last year. An inquest into the 81-
year-old's death heard he developed the illness after coming into
contact with asbestos during his teaching career.

Now his grief-stricken widow Maureen Dawson has instructed
industrial disease experts to help her find answers about his
death.

She said: "I just want to know if anything more could have been
done to save him. He was very health conscious. He never smoked,
he rarely drank and he liked to keep fit. But almost overnight he
turned into a decrepit old man who could no longer keep up with
the boys. He would cough so much that he couldn't catch his
breath, it racked his whole body. He was so tired and weak and he
was scared.

"It's during his time teaching that I believe Bernard was exposed,
yet a recent report found there was still asbestos in three
quarters of all state schools and an estimated 88 in Stoke-on-
Trent. I find it totally unacceptable that we are still putting
people's lives at risk."

Mr Dawson, from Cobridge, died at the Douglas Macmillan Hospice on
August 6 last year.

The inquest heard he came into contact with asbestos while working
at a school in Aberdeen in the 1960s and possibly at other schools
in Lancashire, Stoke-on-Trent and Manchester throughout his
career.

A statement prepared by Mr Dawson before his death, which was read
out at the hearing, said: "There were asbestos mats which we used
in one of the science classes. They were in a good state and were
not dusty. I also used some grey material to line some cupboards
that I built."



The statement added that Mr Dawson was not aware of any other
instances where he had come into contact with asbestos.

Assistant coroner Margaret Jones concluded he died from industrial
disease caused by carcinomatosis and pleural mesothelioma.

Mrs Dawson's lawyer Kevin Johnson, from Slater and Gordon, said:
"Bernard dedicated his life to teaching and the thought that he
may have been exposed to asbestos because of it was devastating
for him. His family would like to know if more could and should
have been done to protect him. The smallest detail could be vital
so if anyone remembers working with him in places where they may
have been exposed to asbestos, we would urge them to get in
touch."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found at Oberon Roadworks
---------------------------------------------------
Joanna Woodburn, writing for ABC News, reported that there are
fears council staff and landholders on the New South Wales central
tablelands have been exposed to potentially deadly asbestos during
roadworks.

The carcinogenic mineral has been exposed during works on Dog
Rocks Road, west of Oberon.

The naturally occurring asbestos was noticed by exploration
geologist Michael Ostrowski, who was driving past the worksite and
told Oberon Council about them.

The grading was suspended and mitigation measures were put in
place to prevent dust particles from spreading.

Oberon Mayor Kathy Sajowitz said the risk was minimal.

"But of course we have closed the site until it's deemed
completely safe by the EPA [Environment Protection Authority]," Ms
Sajowitz said.

However, the degree of danger posed by the asbestos had been
disputed by Mr Ostrowski.

"The World Health Organisation classes all varieties of asbestos
as dangerous and carcinogens, but personally my opinion is that
tremolite is one of the more dangerous forms of asbestos,
especially when the fibres are disturbed," he said.

The site where asbestos was found near Oberon.
PHOTO: The site where asbestos was found near Oberon. (ABC News)
Locals angry council did not notify them

Resident Christine Healey said people living along the road were
angry it took about three months for Oberon Council to notify them
of the discovery.

"They haven't given us the opportunity for us to say 'well look,
if they've found asbestos there, I'm not going to use that road',"
Mrs Healey said.

A statement from Oberon Council said the presence of asbestos on
Dog Rocks Road had not been identified during the environmental
assessment carried out before the roadworks started.

But government mapping shows the mineral had been found north of
the Dog Rocks Road area, near Rockley earlier.

Ms Sajowitz said the council had since adhered to the requirements
set out by SafeWork NSW.

"We had to get the EPA out, we had to find out exactly what the
issues were and as soon as we were aware of those we notified the
landowners," she said.

"We're covering it with hydroseed, so that has been put over the
road, over the surface, over the banks and over the stockpile on
the side of the road.

"Once it's covered it's not a risk and we are doing constant air
monitoring out there and the results of that are that there's very
minimal risk to the public or anybody driving on the road."

Council staff will be offered lung checks in June.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 More PEI Schools Found with Asbestos
-------------------------------------------------------
The Guardian reported that Ecole Evangeline, Ecole La Belle Cloche
joiin list that now numbers nine schools

The P.E.I. government has plans to remove asbestos from nine
Island schools over the summer.

Initially, asbestos was found in seven Island schools however the
province has added Ecole Evangeline and Ecole La Belle Cloche to
the list.

Other schools containing asbestos include East Wiltshire
Intermediate, Eliot River Elementary, Glen Stewart Primary,
Central Queens Elementary, Queen Elizabeth Elementary, Three Oaks
Senior High School and St. Louis Elementary.

The province has budgeted $750,000 to remove and replace ceiling
tiles containing asbestos. That doesn't include work at Three
Oakes Senior High in Summerside, where asbestos will be removed
during planned renovations.

The asbestos was first discovered in ceiling tiles in preparation
for renovations at Three Oaks.

The government proceeded to test all Island schools with acoustic
lay-in ceiling tiles built before 1990.

Asbestos is a fire- resistant mineral that was used to insulate
homes and buildings for noise and temperature.

Health Canada guidelines do not consider asbestos harmful if the
materials containing asbestos are in good condition, properly
maintained and managed.

However, if asbestos fibres are disturbed during renovations or
demolitions, they can become airborne and can cause cancer and
other diseases.

The province has decided to take extra precaution and remove the
asbestos so any routine school maintenance involving ceiling tiles
will not disturb the fibres.

Until the work is done, the schools have been asked to not disturb
the ceiling tiles.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Machine Co.'s Asbestos Liability Win Overturned
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Needs, writing for Legal Reader, reported that Machine Co.'s
asbestos liability win overturned by CA court, after the asbestos
suit ruling in favor of car parts machinery maker Hennessy
Industries Inc. was reversed after finding the company can be held
liable for making a product that causes asbestos to be released
from another product.

A three-judge First Appellate District panel ruled that a lower
court was incorrect in granting summary judgement to Hennessy in a
suit over lung injuries suffered by deceased mechanic James
Hetzel, which was alleged to have been caused by a Hennessy-made
machine that released asbestos.

"The combined use of Hennessy's machines with the asbestos brakes
inevitably created a hazardous condition by releasing asbestos
fibers into the air," the court wrote in a 12-page unpublished
opinion. "Such is the case here. Looking at the evidence in the
light most favorable to plaintiff, Hennessy was in a position to
provide safeguards from this exposure, and thus Hennessy should
share liability for injuries resulting from the hazardous
condition created by the use of its grinders in the 1950's and
1960's."

The appellate court found that the trial court ruling conflicts
with the Second Appellate District's 2015 precedential decision in
a similar suit, Sherman v. Hennessy, asserting that the company's
brake shoe arcing machine were almost solely used to alter
asbestos-containing products, and so the company should have
warned the mechanics of the danger.

"We find Sherman is directly on point and persuasive, and we
therefore reverse," the court wrote.

An attorney for Hetzel said he was satisfied with the decision.

"If you were a mechanic [using the machines], it was inevitable
that you were going to be exposed to asbestos and that is what
this court is saying," said Richard Grant of Brayton Purcell LLP.
"Liability is appropriate and you at least have a duty to warn.
It's an important opinion."

Representatives for Hennessy did not immediately respond to
requests for comment.

The decision cited a 2012 California Supreme Court ruling, O'Neil
v. Crane Co., that made exceptions to the understanding that a
company cannot be held liable for harm caused by the product of
another company.

The plaintiffs can bring strict product liability and negligence
claims against the company under O'Neil because the plaintiffs
alleged Hennessy's machine substantially contributed to the harm
they suffered, the court said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Auckland City Hospital Moved After Asbestos Find
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marika Hill, writing for Sunday Star Times, reported that Auckland
City Hospital is working to remove asbestos as tougher health and
safety rules come into effect.

The potentially carcinogenic substance was identified after an
extensive survey of the hospital, including in the old building at
Grafton.

It follows the recent discovery of asbestos at Dunedin and Timaru
hospitals.

The Auckland District Health Board (ADHB) reassured patients there
was no significant risk and hospital clinics and wards were not
affected by the work.

The asbestos was either isolated or enclosed, an ADHB spokesman
said.

However, an anxious staff member said the hospital should do more
to remove the asbestos.

"I'm not comfortable with it. I don't think it should be still
around in 2016, especially in hospitals.

"We were told the risk was quite minimal, but you don't know if
they are just saying that as a safeguard so people don't panic."

The employee, who asked not to be identified, said staff were
being moved as asbestos removal contractors worked in the old
building.

Tougher asbestos regulations came into force on April 4 as part of
the new Health and Safety at Work Act.

This included a greater onus on building owners to locate asbestos
and the potential for more intrusive testing before refurbishment
or demolition work.

Health and safety consultants reported a surge in demand for
asbestos surveys of commercial buildings ahead of the changes.

Asbestos was widely used in the building industry up until the
1980s.

It is harmless while contained, but construction work could spread
carcinogenic dust.

Inhaled asbestos dust or fibres could cause lung cancer and other
health problems.

The ADHB spokesman said extensive air monitoring had shown no
reason for concern at Auckland City Hospital.

"Safety of patients and staff is our paramount responsibility."

The survey of the buildings allowed them to plan for asbestos
removal as renovations took place in different parts of the
hospital, he said.

Auckland Hospital previously cleaned up asbestos in 1988 and 2004
for specific building projects.

This included a $10 million project which contained the substance
in the old building's maternity unit.

Other hospitals have also been undertaking clean-up work after
surveys turned up asbestos.

Dunedin Hospital was forced to move patients and close its
mortuary and postpone some ultrasound scans after asbestos was
found in 2015.

Asbestos dust was also discovered in Timaru Hospital's tunnels,
clinical services building's basement and administration block's
basement on High St during an audit in 2015.

The South Canterbury District Health Board are spending $100,000
on evaluating their asbestos problem before upgrading the Timaru
Hospital.

District health boards use their operational funding to pay for
any asbestos removal and clean up.

What is asbestos?

Asbestos is New Zealand's number one killer in the workplace.

Approximately 170 people die each year from asbestos-related
diseases, according to Worksafe NZ.

Asbestos was used widely in the building industry from the 1920s
to the mid 1980s.

More than 80,000 public buildings were estimated to have used
asbestos during construction.

Tougher rules around asbestos came into force on April 4.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Atty Gets 2 Yr. Sentence for Falsifying Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that a former New Jersey lawyer has
been sentenced to serve two years in federal prison after
admitting he fraudulently added defendants to more than 100
asbestos lawsuits in New York.

Federal prosecutors say Arobert Tonagbanua deleted the names of
actual defendants from copies of legitimately filed asbestos
complaints and added the names of clients from his Haddonfield
firm. Prosecutors say he then sent the doctored complaints to
those clients, their representatives and insurance companies.

Prosecutors say the scheme generated more than $1 million in bogus
fees, costs and settlements. They say Tonagbanua personally
benefited from bonuses and compensation bumps.

Tonagbanua pleaded guilty to a charge of wire fraud.

Prosecutors say the 47-year-old Sicklerville man was sentenced in
a Camden federal court. Tonagbanua must also pay nearly $233,000
in restitution.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firms Settle Improper Removal Allegations
----------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reported that a
compelling aspect of any asbestosis lawsuit or issue concerning
the health risks of asbestos are the hazards associated with the
removal of asbestos. Those hazards affect not only workers tasked
with removal of the known carcinogen, but also members of the
general public and passersby who may inadvertently be exposed to
free-floating asbestos fibers without knowing it.

Massachusetts Firms Settle Allegations of Improper Asbestos
RemovalTo that end, a settlement has been announced in a dispute
involving Patriots Environmental of Oxford, in Massachusetts, a
demolition company alleged to have improperly handled material
containing asbestos during two demolition projects.

According to a report in the Telegram & Gazette, Patriots
Environmental was involved in the removal of asbestos shingles
from the exterior walls of a single-family home in Sturbridge,
Massachusetts, in July 2013. The defendant involved workers from
another firm, Demo Realty, in the removal of the shingles. The
Attorney General's office for the State of Massachusetts charged
in a lawsuit brought in 2014 that workers involved in the removal
allowed the shingles to break apart, with debris containing
asbestos allowed to drop onto unprotected ground below or into
unsealed plastic bags, which exposed the asbestos fibers to the
air.

Environmental protocol requires a contractor to wet, cover or seal
asbestos-laden material in containers, thereby preventing the
possibility that asbestos fibers could float freely through the
air, potentially impacting workers, or even passersby.

Ingestion of even minute particles of asbestos could lead to
asbestosis disease or mesothelioma years, even decades, after the
fact. Asbestos mesothelioma is usually fatal.

The original asbestosis lawsuit was brought in July 2014 in
Suffolk Superior Court, but was amended a year later to include
allegations that those who owned Patriots Environmental were
operating in association with three other owned companies: Demo
Realty, CRB Demolition Corp. based in Charlton, and Patriots
Realty LLC headquartered in Worcester.

The lawsuit was amended in July 2015 to include the other
companies due to the shared ownership, finances, employees and
other factors common to all four operations. The settlement is
worth a modest $129,000.

Amongst the allegations, is a failure to pay $54,714 in penalties
for prior asbestos violations on the part of one of the four
companies.

In an unrelated story that nonetheless carries a common issue, the
Coliseum at West Virginia University in Morgantown was closed
after workers performing renovations on the 46-year-old building
stumbled upon some material that contained asbestos.

According to a report in the Charleston Gazette-Mail (4/30/16),
the material, found above the ceiling in an area containing
washrooms, was considered to be not unsafe provided the material
remained undisturbed.

Once asbestos became widely known for its association with
asbestosis disease, mesothelioma and asbestos cancer, the feeling
was that all asbestos needed to be removed from old buildings.
That thinking, however, has changed over time to a position where
asbestos out of harm's way and not likely to be disturbed would
not be considered a hazard. Only when an older building requires
renovation would asbestos require removal.

In this context, as any asbestosis attorney would attest, removal
of asbestos has to be carried out safely and in concert with
modern environmental hazard protocols to prevent the spread of
potentially lethal asbestos fibers that could negatively impact
renovation workers and the general public.

Many plaintiffs filing an asbestosis claim, or having been
diagnosed with mesothelioma, do not live to see the conclusion of
their asbestosis compensation lawsuit.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Fears Halt Work at Construction Sites
---------------------------------------------------------------
North Devon Journal reported that work at two major North Devon
construction projects was temporarily halted after soil
potentially contaminated with asbestos was transported between the
two sites, it has been revealed.

Soil imported from the former Fremington Army Camp was suspected
to have traces of the deadly material -- forcing it to be returned
to the Army Camp.

With some of the soil being transported to the nearby Anchorwood
Bank development, work was also temporarily halted as a
precaution.

Campaigners have used the situation to raise fears about the 277-
home development at the former Fremington Army Camp, which was
approved on appeal after initially being refused by North Devon
Council.

Joanne Bell, who has been heavily involved in the campaign against
the development, said: "I and other individuals have been
attempting to get the various authorities to take seriously the
concerns that the community has regarding the Fremington Army Camp
being riddled with asbestos.

"I am sure I do not need to explain the serious implications of
what has been happening here - both from a financial angle and
more importantly, from a health perspective."

Fremington Army Camp is currently being developed by Bovis Homes
and Barratt Homes. The Journal has contacted Bovis Homes but no
one has yet commented on the situation.

However, Andy Cole, North Devon Council service lead for
environmental protection, said he believed there was no "immediate
risk" to the public.

He said: "We have received reports concerning the presence of
asbestos at the Fremington Army Camp site.

"As a result, we have carried out detailed investigations and are
satisfied that any contaminated material is being dealt with
appropriately by the developer.

"We do not believe there is any immediate risk to public health."

He added that as some soil was transported to Anchorwood Bank for
use on the site, the developer has stopped importing material to
allow for soil samples to be tested.

"This investigation is still ongoing, although again, we are
satisfied at this stage that the contractor has put the relevant
safeguards in place," Mr Cole said.

Lucie Brailsford, project communications manager for Achorwood
Bank, confirmed soil had been imported from numerous site,
including from the former army camp.

She added: "The contractor at Anchorwood Bank is importing
material for use on site from several locations including
Fremington Army Camp. The contractor's works at Anchorwood Bank
are completed in accordance with a very robust materials
management plan. All soil that is imported to the site is
inspected.

"Following reports, the importation of soil from Fremington Army
Camp was suspended with immediate effect. The imported soil stock
pile at Anchorwood Bank has been quarantined and further tests and
analysis are being conducted as a precautionary measure.

"We are confident that our contractor's procedures and response to
this concern have been timely and efficient."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lead Exposure to Death of Hartford Man
-------------------------------------------------------
Sophie Day, writing for The Hunts Post, reported that a Hartford
man who died from a rare form of cancer believes he contracted the
disease because there was "little thought for health and safety"
in the industry in which he worked.

Hugh Goodchild, of Burnett Way, in Hartford, died after developing
mesothelioma, which he believes he contracted after prolonged
exposure to asbestos.

An inquest held at Lawrence Court, Huntingdon, heard that the 65-
year-old worked as a motor mechanic from the 1960s until the late
80s.

The inquest heard that, during that time, Mr Goodchild believes he
was exposed to asbestos dust through replacing brakes and other
parts on thousands of vehicles that contained the substance.

In the months before his death, Mr Goodchild provided a statement
to HMRC regarding his work history.

Read out by assistant coroner for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough
Belinda Cheney, he said: "My working environment was generally
dusty, dirty and industrial. There was little thought for health
and safety at this time and no protection was given just wearing
overalls.

"In the mid 80s when parts stated to be asbestos free on the box
until that time breaks contained asbestos, I and others were not
before as it was a natural way to work."

In his statement Mr Goodchild also noted that when he moved onto
to be a receptionist for a number of garages there were not robust
procedures to get rid of the asbestos dust and he would still
inhale the substance.

The 65-year-old was diagnosed with mesothelioma in June last year
and was admitted to Hinchingbrooke Hospital in March with
breathing and mobility problems after it was found that the
treatment for the disease was not working. He died at the hospital
on March 6.

Coroner Mrs Cheney concluded that Mr Goodchild died of an
industrial disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: $7MM Awarded in Take-Home Exposure Trial
---------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a Louisiana judge has
awarded $7 million to the surviving family members of a woman who
allegedly developed mesothelioma as a result of take-home asbestos
exposure.

Judge Lala Sylvester of the Louisiana 10th Judicial District Court
entered the verdict on April 29, sources said.

The plaintiffs asserted the claims on behalf of Myra Williams,
contending that she developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure
to asbestos fibers brought home on her husband's work clothing.
Myra Williams regularly laundered the work clothing of her
husband, Jimmy Williams, a former employee at Placid Oil Co.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Md. Jury Awards $8.1MM in Exposure Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a Maryland jury has awarded
just over $8 million to a plaintiff who contended that he was
exposed to asbestos when those near him applied and sanded joint
compound, sources told HarrisMartin.

The Maryland Circuit Court for Baltimore City jury reached the
verdict on April 29. Judge Pamela L. North presided over the
trial.

Plaintiff Patrick Rossello contended during trial that he was
exposed to asbestos-containing dust in a bystander capacity; he
specifically said that he was in the vicinity of employees of
Lloyd E. Mitchell Inc. who were applying and sanding Georgia-
Pacific Ready Mix joint compound.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: S. Jersey Lawyer Sentenced for Expanding Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Inquirer reported that a former Camden County lawyer was
sentenced to two years in prison for falsifying defendants' names
in asbestos lawsuits for his personal benefit, federal prosecutors
said.

Arobert C. Tonagbanua, 47, of Sicklerville, pleaded guilty to
fraudulently adding defendant names to more than 100 legitimate
asbestos lawsuits filed in New York state courts.

Tonagbanua, who worked for a Haddonfield law firm, received
bonuses and increased compensation, prosecutors said. The
fraudulent acts generated more than $1 million in fees, costs, and
settlements.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wife Fears Husband Exposed to Asbestos
-------------------------------------------------------
Allison Coggan, writing for Hull Daily Mail, reported that the
wife of a former teacher fears he may have been exposed to
asbestos during his time as a science teacher.

David Clegg, 58, was diagnosed with mesothelioma, terminal cancer
caused by exposure to asbestos, just one week before his death.

Mr Clegg worked for Pollard Bearings at Ferrybridge for eight
weeks during a summer break from Warwick University, where he was
studying to become a teacher in the 1970s.

His family fear he could also have been exposed to asbestos during
his time at Goole Grammar School, now Goole Academy, between 1979
and 1980, or at Featherstone High School, where he worked until
2000.

Now, his wife Susan, 59, is appealing to former school staff or
those who worked alongside her husband during his career to help
her find out how he may have been exposed to the harmful
substance.

Mrs Clegg, 59, said: "David and I were shocked and devastated by
the diagnosis. We had no time to come to terms with it. We had
made plans for our retirement together and now I am facing that
future alone.

"I really hope that David's former work colleagues and employees
of Pollard Bearings, Goole Grammar School and Featherstone High
School will now give any information about the conditions that
David worked in so that my family and I can get some answers."

David had been diagnosed with kidney disease and was receiving
dialysis but managed his condition well.

However, he started to suffer chest problems last year. His GP
ordered further tests and he was diagnosed with mesothelioma,
dying at home in West Yorkshire a week later.

His wife has instructed lawyers at Irwin Mitchell to investigate
how and where he came into contact with the substance and if more
should have been done to protect him and others.

Industrial diseases lawyer Ian Toft said: "Mesothelioma is an
aggressive and incurable cancer that causes so much distress for
people like Susan and her family.

"The disease took David's life within only one week of his
diagnosis.

"We hope former colleagues of David's during his short time at
Pollard Bearings, at Goole Grammar School and at Featherstone High
School will come forward to help us with our investigations."

During his time at Pollard Bearings in the 1970s, David was
employed to scrape down the inside of the furnaces during the
summer shutdown period.

Before his death, he said he had used a long-handled tool to
scrape out a fibrous material, which he believed to have been
asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Untrained Workers Used to Remove Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------
Jillian Duff, writing for Mesothelioma.com, reported that a recent
investigation into Michigan's Occupational Safety and Health
Administration shows that the agency isn't enforcing the safety
standards set for asbestos removal, putting untrained workers and
the community in danger of asbestos exposure. In one instance, a
contractor hired workers from a homeless shelter and custodians to
remove asbestos without being told about the hazardous substance's
presence, yet MIOSHA has done little to nothing about it.

Although asbestos removal is at a record-high in Michigan, MIOSHA
claims it doesn't have enough inspectors to police all asbestos
abatement projects. Rather, its goal is to support proper removal
and lower fines for organizations that fix dangerous conditions
quickly.

The investigation uncovered situations where asbestos contractors
did not fix violations nor did they pay penalties (even when they
were reduced). Unlicensed contractors and untrained workers were
found to be removing the asbestos improperly.

In one example, workers were hired from a homeless shelter with
the promise of quick cash. In another, custodians Theresa Ely and
Rob Smith were ordered to re-wax tile floors containing asbestos
at Annapolis High School in Dearborn Heights.

Ely and Smith were told to dry sand and save time, instead of
using scrubbers and water. According to Smith, the dust was so
thick he had to cover his mouth with wet rags. Ely needed to spit
out the dust with mouthfuls of Pepsi.

"We inhaled it. We swallowed it. It would get gritty in your
teeth," said Ely. Smith claimed his eyes itched "just like I'd
held a cat to my face."

A few months later, a longtime cook at the school passed due to
mesothelioma cancer caused by asbestos exposure. Ely worried her
and Smith had exposed their coworkers to the asbestos when they
were cleaning.

MIOSHA was called in and cited the district stating in a report
that "employees were exposed to asbestos-containing flooring
materials" and workers were not provided with protective equipment
nor were they given asbestos-awareness training.

The settlement resulted in a drastically reduced fine of $1,800
per building where the asbestos exposure occurred. Ely spoke out
and was reprimanded two times by the school for informing other
workers of the unsafe asbestos levels.

"We are heartbroken over that. It enrages me. It makes me sick to
my stomach, The punishment should fit the crime. The fines should
reflect what was done. It's not enough money to bury one worker,"
said Ely.

"It just takes every bit of effort. . . to continue to go into
those schools every single day and do my job," said Ely. According
to Smith, he'll remember sanding those floors forever.

The reports produced by the school showed the high school to be
free of asbestos, but the supposed creator of the report, Don
Clayton, said, "Someone forged it. That's not my format. The whole
thing is wrong. There's no date, no signature. Who did the
analysis? It's all missing. It's totally messed up."

State Agencies "Go Easier" on Violators Compared to Federal
Agencies

In fact, over a seven-year period, employers were given zero
penalties by MIOSHA in two-thirds of asbestos safety cases. For
serious violations, not a single company received the $7k maximum
penalty. For repeat and willful violations, not one company was
fined the $70k maximum penalty.

A former top official in OSHA's regional office in Chicago, John
Newquist, says, "States that choose to oversee worker safety
rather than have the federal government do it tend to go easier on
employers."

In comparison, federal OSHA's asbestos penalties have gotten
larger. The agency has given twice as many willful violations and
two to three more times repeat violations as MIOSHA.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford Off Hook for Asbestos Exposure in Ireland
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff D. Gorman, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Ford USA is not liable for an Irish employee's asbestos exposure,
which took place before he came to America, New York's highest
court ruled.

Raymond Finerty claimed that he was exposed to asbestos in the
1970s and 1980 in Ireland, where his job was to replace brakes,
clutches and other auto parts.

He moved to Queens in 1985 and was later diagnosed with
mesothelioma.

Finerty filed a product liability suit in 2010 against Ford's
U.S., U.K. and Ireland branches.

Ford USA moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the Finerty's
lawsuit was based on events that took place overseas.

Finerty asserted that Ford USA was "actively involved" in the
design and sale of its products and was therefore liable.

The trial court agreed and refused to dismiss the case. The
Manhattan-based First Department New York Appellate Division
upheld the decision.

However, Ford USA took the case to the New York Court of Appeals,
which overturned the lower court rulings in a decision written by
Justice Eugene Pigott.

He noted Finerty's argument that Ford USA played a "direct role"
in the design and marketing of the asbestos-containing parts.

"The record evidence demonstrates, however, that it was Ford UK,
not Ford USA, that manufactured and distributed the tractor and
vehicle parts," Pigott wrote.

He added that Ford's exercise of control over its trademark was
"of no moment."

"Ford USA, as the parent corporation of Ford UK, may not be held
derivatively liable to plaintiff under a theory of strict products
liability unless Ford USA disregarded the separate identity of
Ford UK and involved itself directly in that entity's affairs such
that the corporate veil could be pierced," Pigott stated.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jurisdiction Arguments Could Weaken Defendants
---------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Madison-St. Clair Record,
reported that New York asbestos attorney Paul Napoli says a recent
decision out of the Delaware Supreme Court could provide
defendants with the support they need to transfer asbestos cases
out of Madison County on personal jurisdiction arguments.

On April 18, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed a decision out of
the state's Superior Court and ruled that Delaware "could not
exercise general jurisdiction over a foreign corporation for
claims having nothing to do with Delaware."

The Court explained that states require foreign corporations that
sell products or services in that state to register to do business
and agree to the appointment of a registered agent, but that
doesn't mean jurisdiction can be extended to that state when the
claims have nothing to do with that particular state.

"[W]e hold that Delaware's registration statutes must be read as a
requirement that a foreign corporation must appoint a registered
agent to accept service of process, but not as a broad consent to
personal jurisdiction in any cause of action, however unrelated to
the foreign corporation's activities in Delaware.

"Rather, any use of the service of process provision for
registered foreign corporations must involve an exercise of
personal jurisdiction consistent with the Due Process Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment," the decision states.

In the Delaware case, plaintiffs Ralph and Sandra Cepec of
Georgia, allege Ralph worked for defendant Genuine Parts Company
in Florida from 1988 to 1991. During his time there, he claims he
was exposed to asbestos and eventually developed mesothelioma.

While five of the seven named defendants are Delaware
corporations, Genuine Parts is a Georgia corporation with a
principal place of business in Atlanta.

"The foreign corporation in this case does not have its principal
place of business in Delaware; nor is there any other plausible
basis on which Delaware is essentially its home," the opinion
states. "Hence, Delaware cannot exercise general jurisdiction over
it consistent with principles of due process.

"Furthermore, the plaintiffs concede that they cannot establish
specific jurisdiction over the nonresident defendant under the
long-arm statute or principles of due process."

Napoli said this is a "bad decision for lawyers in Delaware,"
because it means cases will go to new jurisdictions.

Napoli had previously stated that he anticipated asbestos filings
in Madison County to drop drastically over the coming years as
defendants try to transfer cases based on forum non conveniens
motions and personal jurisdiction arguments.

However, several asbestos defense attorneys who declined to speak
on the record said off the record that they believe Madison
County's asbestos docket isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

Forum motions to move cases out of Madison County have not fared
well so far, but Napoli stated that new personal jurisdiction
motions could be the beginning of getting asbestos cases with
little to no connection to Madison County - or Illinois - out of
the local jurisdiction.

"There will be a seismic shift in how these cases are litigated,"
Napoli said of asbestos cases with questions of personal
jurisdiction.

"They will be decentralized in multiple jurisdictions with new
judges and new rulings."

Spreading asbestos cases out to new jurisdictions provides new
opportunities for asbestos plaintiffs to "divide and conquer,"
Napoli said.

Napoli explained that because a defendant may argue that it has no
personal jurisdiction to a specific court, cases could be spread
out over a wide number of jurisdictions in multiple states. So one
plaintiff could have claims against several defendants in several
states for the same case. Defendants will then have to either
countersue other defendants or find a way to show that other
defendants belong in a certain court in order to keep litigation
in one courthouse instead of several.

"Usually the defendants want to have coordinated jurisdictions
because you go to one judge and you do depositions once and you
disclose documents once and you get rulings once.

"With plaintiffs being all over the place, they get 100 bites of
the apple. The defendants usually rush to consolidate. In their
rush to move the cases, they've ended up creating their own worst
nightmare.

"Be careful what you wish for."

Napoli said his firm is working on an analysis of specific
jurisdictions for the typical asbestos defendants and cases could
be spread out over all 50 states, which could present new
challenges for firms that are not prepared or equipped to handle
such a widespread docket.

He added that the Madison County docket isn't always as appealing
for plaintiffs hoping to get a quick trial slot. But the chance to
open new dockets in potentially any courthouse will provide
plaintiffs the opportunity to try cases sooner.

"It will be a great relief for plaintiffs because we will be able
to open up dockets and trial dockets quicker," he said.

"Theoretically, we could have our own docket in every courthouse ?
and that is just going to crush the resources of the defendants,"
Napoli continued.

As for firms that focus primarily on filing in Madison County,
such as the Simmons Firm, Napoli said those firms will have no
choice but to file cases in other jurisdictions or risk having
cases transferred. But, he added that most local firms are well-
equipped to handle widespread case filings across the country.

The issue of personal jurisdiction has remained a focus in
asbestos litigation this year after the Brown v. Lockheed Martin
Corp. case was decided by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on
Feb. 18. The case focused specifically on personal jurisdiction in
Connecticut.

The Second Circuit held that "the terms of [Connecticut's]
registration and appointment statutes are unclear as to whether
they purport to confer on the state's courts the power to exercise
general jurisdiction over duly registered foreign corporations."

The Lockheed case was an asbestos lawsuit filed by Cindy S. Brown,
as personal representative of her father's estate. She appealed a
judgment from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut dismissing the case based on personal jurisdiction.

Brown's father was allegedly exposed to asbestos during his work
as an Air Force airplane mechanic in various locations in the U.S.
and Europe. However, he was not specifically exposed to asbestos
in Connecticut. Lockheed, an aerospace company, is incorporated
and maintains its principal place of business in Maryland.

Brown argued that Lockheed consented to jurisdiction in
Connecticut when it registered business in the state and appointed
an agent to receive service of process there.

The Second Circuit concluded that Lockheed's contacts with
Connecticut "fall well below the high level needed to place the
corporation ?essentially at home' in the state. The court also
held that Lockheed did not consent to the state courts' exercise
of general jurisdiction over it.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Sides with Policyholders in Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judy Greenwald, writing for Business Insurance, reported that
policyholders scored a victory from New York's highest court,
which has ruled in an asbestos case that the "all sums" method
should be used to determine how much insurers owe them for their
coverage.

The unanimous ruling also holds that policyholders can access
their excess coverage after exhausting their underlying coverage
by a method they favor.

The Delaware Supreme Court asked the New York Court of Appeals to
address the issue in the complex insurance dispute.

The case stemmed from Cedar Falls, Iowa-based Viking Pump Inc. and
Warren, Michigan-based Warren Pumps L.L.C. acquiring pump
manufacturing businesses from Northbrook, Illinois-based Houdaille
Industries Inc. in the 1980s, according to In the Matter of Viking
Pump Inc. and Warren Pumps L.L.C. Insurance Appeals.

The acquisitions later subjected Viking and Warren to significant
potential liability in connection with asbestos exposure claims,
according to the ruling.

Houdaille had extensive multilayer insurance coverage from 1972 to
1985 that included coverage for these claims, according to the
ruling.

This included primary coverage totaling about $17.5 million with
Boston-based Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. through successive
annual polices, as well as additional layers of excess insurance
through annual policies issued by various insurers totaling more
than $400 million, including defendant insurers in the case.

As the Liberty Mutual coverage neared exhaustion, litigation arose
as to whether Viking and Warren were entitled to coverage under
the additional excess policies that were issued by other insurers,
according to the ruling.

Eventually, the case reached the Delaware Supreme Court, which
asked the New York court in 2015 to determine which allocation
method should be used under New York law.

Allocation methods

Two basic types of allocation approaches are used in long-tail
claims, including those in asbestos cases: the "all sums" and the
"pro rata" methods.

Under the all-sums approach, favored by policyholders, they can
collect under any policy that is in effect during the period that
the damage occurred up to the limits of that policy, according to
the ruling.

Experts say the all-sums approach means policyholders are not
limited to a single year to claim coverage.

Under the pro-rata allocation that the excess insurers proposed,
an insurer's liability would be limited to the amounts incurred by
the insured during the policy period.

Experts say the pro-rata approach limits insurers' payments to the
fraction of property damage that occurred only during their policy
period.

Courts have ruled both ways on this issue, the New York Court of
Appeals said in its ruling. The court concluded that based on
policy language the "all sums allocation is appropriate" in this
case.

The court also ruled the "vertical exhaustion" of the insurance
coverage is appropriate in this case rather than "horizontal
exhaustion."

Under horizontal exhaustion, all triggered primary and umbrella
excess layers must be exhausted before tapping excess insurance.

Under vertical exhaustion, the policyholders can access each
excess policy immediately once the underlying policies' limits are
depleted, even if other lower-level policies during different
policy periods remain unexhausted.

"In our view, vertical exhaustion is more consistent than
horizontal exhaustion" under the policy language, the court ruled
in siding with policyholders.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bldg Materials Slipping Into Australia
-------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Smail, writing for ABC News, reported that glaring
weaknesses in regulations and border protection issues are
allowing building products contaminated with potentially deadly
asbestos into Australia, a Senate committee has warned.

In an interim report tabled late on Wednesday, the committee
raised particular concern about "the ability of Australia's
enforcement agencies to effectively police borders so that
[contaminated products] are detected and prevented from entering
Australia".

"At the moment, this area of enforcement appears to require
substantial strengthening and should be a high priority for
government," it read.

"The importation of banned materials, such as asbestos, raises
very serious concerns about the capacity of Australian authorities
to deal with this issue, particularly in light of our open and
dynamic trade environment."

The report notes only two importers have been fined over asbestos-
laced building material since tougher penalties were imposed in
February 2014.

It said fines of up to $170,000 could be imposed, but only $64,000
in fines, penalties and costs had been issued since 2009.

The committee said the role of foreign governments in stopping
contaminated products from leaving their shores should also be
considered.

It has requested the inquiry be extended for a fourth time, to
September 30, 2016, "due to the seriousness of the problem and the
disjointed regulation of the use of building products, both
manufactured in Australia and overseas".

In a statement, a spokesman for the Department of Immigration and
Border Protection said they take concerns about "dangerous
products very seriously".

"[The department's] operational arm, the Australian Border Force,
conducts risk assessments on 100 per cent of cargo imported to
Australia, with all cargo deemed "high-risk" physically examined,"
he said.

The spokesman said the review currently underway into the
Department's management of the issue will be used to ensure
Australia's asbestos border control reflects best practice.

He said import data sharing has been rolled out to assist state
and territory regulators with compliance and enforcement
activities for non-conforming building products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family's $800K NZ Property Has Asbestos
--------------------------------------------------------
Nick Truebridge, writing for The Press, reported that Monique and
Garry Bond spent $800,000 on a property in upmarket Christchurch
to build their dream home, only to learn it was contaminated with
asbestos.

Southern Response has launched a multi-agency investigation into
the couple's Fendalton land, where the insurer demolished a house
three years ago.

An excavation contractor shut down the site on Anzac Day, on a
residential block on Clyde Rd, after discovering what appeared to
be white asbestos.

A site analysis, completed three days later, showed both soil and
building material samples at the site tested positive for brown
and white asbestos.

Monique Bond believed Southern Response was to blame, accusing the
insurer of completing a "dirty demolition" when the house was
removed from the site in June 2013.

In the meantime, she worried her family, contractors, neighbours
and the public had been exposed, as the property backs onto the
Fendalton Park playground and sports field.

Her husband and son had been there clearing the site, while her
younger children had played around in the dirt.

"I fired off a whole lot of emails informing all the neighbours,"
Bond said.

"I just feel horrible about this. We wanted to have a fresh start
so we can get on with our lives."

The Bonds, who paid more than $800,000 for the site in April 2014,
were now looking at paying $35,000 for a 100 millimetre site
scrape, but it was unclear how far down the asbestos was buried.

The couple had previously locked horns with Southern Response over
the handling of their claim for the quake-damaged Sumner home.

Excavator Glenn Johnstone of Mount Grey Downs Ltd, reported the
hazard to Worksafe New Zealand, which said it was making inquires
of its own.

A Southern Response spokeswoman said it was investigating the
issues raised by Bond, and whether the presence of asbestos was
caused by the demolition, which was completed by a contractor.

It was investigating whether the asbestos was the result of
alterations to the house completed before the Canterbury
earthquakes.

"As part of that investigation, we will be working with Worksafe
New Zealand, Environment Canterbury, the project management
company that oversaw the demolition, the contractors and the
previous owners."

The house was tested for asbestos before the demolition, but it
was too early to confirm whether asbestos was found or removed,
the spokeswoman said.

Southern Response said it took any concerns about possible
contamination "extremely seriously" and had strict processes in
place to ensure compliance standards, which it expected
contractors and its project management company, Arrow
International, to adhere to.

According to Worksafe, asbestos remained New Zealand's number one
killer in the workplace, with around 170 people dying each year
from asbestos-related diseases.

Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment information stated
all types of asbestos were known to cause serious health hazards
in humans, with blue asbestos considered most harmful.


                            *********

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  * * *