CAR_Public/160527.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, May 27, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 106



                            Headlines


AGFA HEALTHCARE: Recalls DX-D 600 Systems
ALCON LABORATORIES: Recalls Centurion FMS Packs Due to Molds
ALLERTON DINER: Faces "Gervacio" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
AMERICAN GREETINGS: "Smith" Class Deal Has Final Okay
ANYTIME LABOR: Faces "Hanks" Suit Over Disability Discrimination

BANKERS LIFE: "Woerner" Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
BANK OF AMERICA: Sued Over Alleged Bond Trading Manipulation
BARD ACCESS: Recalls Groshong NXT PICC Replacement Connectors
BECKMAN COULTER: Recalls DURACLONE B27
BECKMAN COULTER: Recalls Cellular Analysis Systems

BECKMAN COULTER: Recalls GASTROCCULT 40T Kits
BIG WATER RESORT: Sanctions Bid Denied in "Reed" Suit
BMW NORTH AMERICA: Sued Over Faulty i3 Electric Vehicles
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Hayden" Suit Over Pradaxa(R) Drugs
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Taylor" Suit Over Pradaxa(R) Drugs

BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Maida" Suit Over Pradaxa(R) Drugs
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Roopcharan" Suit Over Pradaxa(R)
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Roth" Suit Over Pradaxa(R) Drugs
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Rybak" Suit Over Pradaxa(R) Drugs
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Throckmorton" Suit Over Pradaxa(R)

BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Westfall" Suit Over Pradaxa(R) Drugs
BOK FINANCIAL: Discovery Underway in Class Action Lawsuit
BOYD BILOXI: "Bennett" Settlement Agreement Granted in Part
CASCADE DESIGNS: Recalls MSR Striker Probes
CELLULAR BIOMEDICINE: "Bonanno" Dismissed With Leave to Amend

CHILDREN'S NATIONAL HEALTH: "Khan" Suit Remanded to State Court
CHOW LAO: Faces "Studdard" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CINTAS CORP: Cal. Ct. App. Affirms Judgment in "Tarantino" Suit
CLOUGHERTY PACKING: Sued Over Failure to Provide Meal Breaks
COACH INC: "Esparza" Suit Transferred to South. District New York

COMPLETE CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Martin" Suit Claims
CONAGRA FOODS: Recalls Beef Products Due to Misbranding
COOPER TIRE: Appeal From Case Dismissal Order Underway
CORESITE REALTY: Denies Allegations in Overtime Class Action
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Updates Vegetable Products Recall

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Updates Organic Sweet Peas Recall
CHEVROLET: Recalls 2015 Models Due to Crash Risk
CREDIT CONTROL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Genova" Suit Claims
DAIMLER AG: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action in Calif.
DEVRY EDUCATION: July 12 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set

DISCOVER BANK: Arbitration Award in "Passmore" Affirmed
DOW CHEMICAL: To Pay $835 Million Settlement in Second Half 2016
EASTERN PLATINUM: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Class Action
ECOPETROL S.A.: Designation of Legal Representative Pending
ECOPETROL S.A.: Oil Spill Class Action in Probatory Stage

ELI LILLY: Actos(R) Product Liability Suits Still Pending
ELI LILLY: Defendant in 525 Byetta(R) Product Liability Suits
ELI LILLY: Appeal in Cymbalta(R) Product Liability Case Underway
ELI LILLY: Defending 140 Suits Over Cymbalta Injuries
ELI LILLY: Defending 10 Prozac(R) Product Liability Cases

EMULEX CORP: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Shareholders' Suit
ENDESA AMERICAS: Defending Class Suit in Garzon, Colombia
EQUITY TRUST: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Repair Units' Defects
FACEBOOK INC: Averts Class Action Over Message-Scanning Practices
FITBIT INC: Sued in California Over Misleading Financial Reports

FLINT, MI: NAACP Files Class Action Over Water Crisis
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Fuel Economy Label Error
GENERAL NUTRITION: Faces "Gennock" Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
GENZYME CORP: Dismissal of Consolidated Fabrazyme Suits Affirmed
GEORGE LOMBARDI: Inmate May Proceed in Forma Pauperis

GOOGLE INC: Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Pay-Per-Click Suit
GROUP HEALTH: "Hansen" Suit Remains in District Court
GROUPON INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for July 13
HAECO AMERICAS: Faces "Linnins" Suit in M.D. North Carolina
HAWAII: List of Disability Rights Class Members Due Sept. 19

HEALTH CARE: Faces Class Action Over BCBS Insurance Claims
HEALTHPORT TECHNOLOGIES: 2nd Cir. Reinstates "Carter" Suit
HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Bid to Dismiss Geauga County Suit Pending
HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: "Powell" Parties Engaged in Discovery
HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: To Defend Against FirstMerit Merger Case

IDREAMSKY TECHNOLOGY: N.Y. Securities Action Ongoing
IMMUCOR TRANSPLANT: Recalls Lifecodes HLA-C eRES SSO Typing Kit
INDIANA: 7th Cir. Revives Suit v. Social Services Administration
INFINITI: Recalls Q70 2016 Models Due to Noncompliance
ITT EDUCATIONAL: Settlement in Indiana Securities Action Approved

ITT EDUCATIONAL: June 23 Final Approval Hearing on Gallien Accord
J.B. HUNT: 9th Cir. Appeal in Drivers' Class Suit Pending
JLING INC: Bid for Conditional Class Cert. of "Ji" Suit Denied
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Wash., Calif. Sue Over Vaginal Mesh Implants
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Deep Data Dive Resulted to Big Talcum Verdicts

JOHNSON CONTROLS: Defendant in "Wandel" Lawsuit
JPMORGAN CHASE: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of ERISA Action
JPMORGAN CHASE: Consumer and ERISA Actions Remain Pending
JPMORGAN CHASE: Defending Class Action in Canada v. FX Dealers
JPMORGAN CHASE: Bid to Set Aside Settlement Order Remains Pending

JPMORGAN CHASE: Updates on Benchmark Rate Litigation
JUMEI INTERNATIONAL: Securities Action at Preliminary Stages
KBR INC: Discovery in Securities Litigation to Continue in 2016
LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: Judge Extends Defendants' Response Deadline
M&T BANK: Fact Discovery Stayed in Wilmington Trust Suit

MASERATI: Recalls Quattroporte 2014 Models Due to Crash Risk
MDL 2626: Motion to Dismiss in Contact Lens Suit Pending
MONEY STORE: 2nd Cir. Affirms Class Cert. Denial in "Garrido"
MT. GOX: Bitcoin Class Action to Be Dismissed on June 17
MULTI-FINELINE ELECTRONIX: Faces Securities Class Action

NDG COFFEE: "Sanchez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
NV-ALEXANDER: Sued Over Failure to Repair Units' Defects
OLERUP SSP: Recalls OLERUP SSP HLA-A Kits
OPPENHEIMER HOLDINGS: Underwriters' Motion to Dismiss Granted
PAPA JOHN'S: Recalls Ready-To-Eat Salads Due to Listeria

PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY: Faces Suit Over Athletes' Safety
PERRIGO COMPANY: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Class Action
PETER LUGER: Sued Over Americans with Disabilities Act Violation
PHILIPS MEDICAL: Recalls ICT Systems
PHILIPS HEALTHCARE: Recalls Duradiagnost Products

PHOENIX OF INDIANA: Summary Judgment in Insurance Suit Vacated
PINNACLE WEST: Petition for Rehearing En Banc Denied
PORTLAND GENERAL: Appeal Filed in Trojan Investment Case
PRIDE COMMUNICATIONS: Must Pay $3,336 for Hodge & LeBlanc Claims
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Court Narrows Claims in Flushable Wipes Suit

PULPDENT CORPORATION: Recalls Opaquers Due to Noncompliance
RANDSTAD INHOUSE: "Ortiz" Settlement Deal Has Initial Okay
RAYMOND JAMES: Faces "Shaw" Suit Over Financial Structure
SANOFI SA: Judge Narrows Claims in Local 690 Union's Suit
SIEMENS HEALTHCARE: Recalls ADVIA Centaur TnI-Ultra Assay

SIEMENS MEDICAL: Recalls Ultrasound Operating Software
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS: Sued in Cal. Over Porter Ranch Gas Leak
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Class Cert., Summary Judgment Bids Pending
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Consolidated Complaint Filed in Airfare Case
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: To Defend Against Airfare Suits in Canada

SPECIALIZED CANADA: Recalls Headlights and Taillights
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Still Defends Harkness Class Action
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Awaits Appeals Court Decision in Class Suit
STATE FARM: Court Won't Reconsider Prior Orders in "Thompson"
TALK FUSION: Jurisdiction Issue Forces Judge to Vacate Hearing

TARGET CORP: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in Minnesota
THERMOMIX: Class Action Mulled Over Machine-Related Injuries
TROPICAL BIOMEDICS: Faces "Spiegel" Suit Over Company Management
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces TCPA Class Action in Illinois
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Liss-Riordan Responds to Settlement Objections

UNDER ARMOUR: Shareholder Class Action Settlement Approved
UNITED STATES: Scheduling Conference in "Garcia" Moved to July 27
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Suit by Allergan Shareholder Pending
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Oral Argument Held in Salix Litigation
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Settlement Approval Hearing Held

VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Consolidate Pending
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Canadian Securities Actions Underway
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Updates on Solodyn(R) Antitrust Actions
VANTIV INC: Class-Action Deal in "Nguyen" Has Initial Okay
VECTOR GROUP: 3 Class Suits Pending v. Liggett

VECTOR GROUP: 15 Engle Progeny Cases for Trial Thru March 2017
VECTOR GROUP: Liggett Legal Costs Total $4.1MM at March 31
VENTAS INC: Settlement in HCT Acquisition Suit Approved
WELLS FARGO: Settles Class Action Over Rotten Bond Issues
ZIMMER GMBH: June 28 Durom Cup Settlement Approval Hearing Set

* Australia Bars US Court Assistance for Oral Discovery
* Law Firms See Big Spike in Class Actions in Australia
* Silicosis Class Action Settlement Value Approximately R500MM


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Briefing Underway in "Major"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Suits Remain Pending Against IDEX at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EMI Sued Over Hayes Asbestos Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit Filed vs. Chevron, Texaco
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. High Court Reinstates Verdict for Workers

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Jury Awards $3.2MM to Plaintiffs
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Probe Launched After Firm Dumps Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Congress Reaches Deal to Overhaul Chemical Laws
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Port Authority Removes Asbestos from Offices
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Policyholders Can Choose Insurers to Pay Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: States Split Take-Home Blame
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Haughton Pensioner Dies from Asbestos Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oregon Court Ruling Upends Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sac State Library Closes for Asbestos Fixes
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Find Closes Central Coast Ambo Station

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Canada Prime Minister Commits to Ban Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victoria Man Given $100K Asbestos Cleanup Bill
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Released in Fire Near Germany Border
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Denham Man's Family Seeks Info on Asbestos Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Denial of Sanctions Sought by Company Affirmed

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Shifts Approach to Exclusion Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Enters $5MM Verdict in Mar-Dustrial Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Feared After Jerusalem Market Fire
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Weitz Pushes for Access to Cancer Research
ASBESTOS UPDATE: TasWater Workers Handling Asbestos w/o Training

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Discovery Closes NZ Council Offices
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lethal Asbestos Present in 70K in Ireland Homes
ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. App. Reverses Judgment in "Sutherland"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio App. Partially Affirms "Blandford" Ruling
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio App. Reverses Judgment in "Watkins"

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Prison Officials Issued Summons in Inmate Suit


                            *********


AGFA HEALTHCARE: Recalls DX-D 600 Systems
-----------------------------------------
Starting date: May 2, 2016
Posting date: May 16, 2016
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-58420

There is a potential of an unsecured mechanical detent marker of
the DX-D 600 system.

Affected products: DX-D 600
Lot or serial number: Not applicable
Model or catalog number: 5430/110
                         5430/120

Manufacturer: AGFA Healthcare N.V.
              Septestraat 27
              Mortsel
              2640
              BELGIUM


ALCON LABORATORIES: Recalls Centurion FMS Packs Due to Molds
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 4, 2016
Posting date: May 24, 2016
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-58506

Alcon Canada is conducting this voluntary medical device removal
for specific lots of CENTURION FMS packs due to the possible
presence of a molding irregularity found within the aspiration
leur which may result in a reduction of vacuum within the
aspiration line.

Affected products
A. CENTURION VISION SYSTEM - ACTIVE IRRIGATION FMS PACK, BASIC
Lot or serial number: 1794104H
1794108H
Model or catalog number: 8065752180

Manufacturer: Alcon Laboratories Inc.
              6201 South Freeway
              Fort Worth
              Texas
              UNITED STATES

B. CENTURION VISION SYSTEM - ACTIVE IRRIGATION FMS PACK, INFUSION
SLEEVES
Lot or serial number: 1801714H
                      1802311H
Model or catalog number: 8065752917
                         8065752918

Manufacturer: Alcon Laboratories Inc.
              6201 South Freeway
              Fort Worth
              Texas
              UNITED STATES

C. CENTURION VISION SYSTEM - ACTIVE IRRIGATION FMS PACK,
W/INTREPID ULTRA SLEEVES
Lot or serial number: 1794153H
                      1794154H
                      1794155H
                      1794159H
                      1794161H
                      1794163H
                      1794164H
                      1794168H
                      1802317H
                      1804670H
                      1804691H
                      1804696H
                      1804697H
                      1804698H
                      1804849H
Model or catalog number: 8065752200
                         8065752201

Manufacturer: Alcon Laboratories Inc.
              6201 South Freeway
              Fort Worth
              Texas
              UNITED STATES


ALLERTON DINER: Faces "Gervacio" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus J. Gervacio, Thais Luna, and Abel Vera Citlahua, on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated v. Allerton Diner Inc.,
Golden Eagle Restaurant Inc., Shore Road Diner Corp., and Gregory
Garcia a/k/a Gregorio Garcia, Case No. 1:16-cv-03667 (S.D.N.Y.,
May 17, 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 restaurant located at 772
Allerton Ave, Bronx, NY 10467.

Jesus J. Gervacio, Thais Luna and Abel Vera Citlahua are pro se
plaintiffs.


AMERICAN GREETINGS: "Smith" Class Deal Has Final Okay
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned AL SMITH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN
GREETINGS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 14-cv-02577-JST (N.D.
Cal.), Judge Jon S. Tigar granted the plaintiffs' motion for final
approval of a proposed settlement.

Judge Tigar also granted in part the motion for attorneys' fees,
litigation costs, and service enhancement awards, as follows:

          -- Incentive awards of $5,000 each to the plaintiffs Al
             Smith and Jeffrey Hourcade;

          -- Attorneys' fees of $1,120,000 to the plaintiffs'
             counsel;

          -- Litigation costs of $8,047.25 to the plaintiffs'
             counsel;

          -- $35,000 in settlement administration costs to be
             paid from the settlement fund;

          -- $37,500 to be paid to the California Labor &
             Workforce Development Agency from the settlement
             fund as Private Attorney General Act penalties

A full-text copy of Judge Tigar's May 19, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/sCdQah from Leagle.com.

Al Smith and Jeffrey Hourcade brought a putative wage and hour
class action against American Greetings Corporation on behalf of
its current and former non-exempt California employees.  The
plaintiffs sought penalties for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, California's Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA"),
California's Unfair Competition Law, and various California
employment statutes.  The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant
failed to compensate its employees for travel time spent on behalf
of the company, time spent waiting for company vans, and time
spent entering hours worked.  The plaintiffs also alleged that the
defendant prevented employees from entering accurate hours in the
defendant's time system, and from taking mandatory meal and rest
breaks.  Thus, the plaintiffs claimed their wage statements
inaccurately reflected their actual time worked.  Finally, the
plaintiffs alleged the defendant failed to reimburse the
plaintiffs for various expenses, including purchasing cell phones
and computers that were "necessary to perform [plaintiffs']
expected work duties."

Al Smith, Jeffrey Hourcade, Plaintiffs, represented by Kevin
Francis Woodall, Woodall Law Offices.

American Greetings Corporation, Defendant, represented by Angela
Joy Rafoth -- arafoth@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C.,
Arthur M. Eidelhoch -- aeidelhoch@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson, P.C., Jessica Xing Yun Rothenberg --
jrothenberg@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C. & Margaret Hart
Edwards -- kedwards@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C.


ANYTIME LABOR: Faces "Hanks" Suit Over Disability Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pam Hanks, Ian Potter, and Danielle Adams, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. Anytime Labor-Kansas LLC
d/b/a LaborMax Staffing, Anytime Labor-Funding LLC
d/b/a LaborMax Staffing, Anytime Labor-Springfield LLC d/b/a
LaborMax Staffing, and Anytime Labor Las Vegas LLC d/b/a LaborMax
Staffing, Case No. 4:16-cv-00445-RK (W.D. Mo., May 17, 2016),
arises out of the Defendants' employment discriminatory practices
based on disability.

The Defendants operates a physical fitness facility located in
Kearney, Missouri.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan Paulus, Esq.
      Brittany Coughlin Mehl, Esq.
      HOLLINGSHEAD, PAULUS, ECCHER, & FRY
      8350 North St. Clair Avenue, Suite 225
      Kansas City, MO 64151
      Telephone: (816) 581-4040
      Facsimile: (816) 741-8889
      E-mail: r.paulus@hpelaw.com
              b.mehl@hpeflaw.com

BANKERS LIFE: "Woerner" Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Joseph Woerner, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bankers Life and
Casualty Company, Case No. 2016CH-05202, was removed from the
Circuit Court of Cook County to the U.S. District Court Northern
District of Illinois (Chicago). The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:16-cv-05296 to the proceeding.

Bankers Life and Casualty Company provides insurance products and
services to customers in the United States.

Joseph Woerner is a pro se plaintiff.


BANK OF AMERICA: Sued Over Alleged Bond Trading Manipulation
------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP and Hausfeld LLP, on behalf of Boston
Retirement System, jointly filed on May 18 the first nationwide
class action alleging a global conspiracy between 2005 and 2014 to
manipulate trading in supranational, sub-sovereign, and agency
bonds (SSA bonds).  Named defendants include some of the world's
largest dealer banks -- Bank of America, Deutsche Bank, Credit
Suisse, Credit Agricole, and Nomura International.  SSA bonds are
debt instruments issued by a sovereign country's political
subdivisions and administrative bodies used to fund critical
government operations.

Gregory Asciolla, Co-Chair of Labaton Sucharow's Antitrust and
Competition Litigation Practice, remarked, "Once again many of the
same global banks implicated in numerous other price-fixing
conspiracies of complex financial products are up to their same
old tricks in the $9 trillion SSA bond market.  Similar to
allegations in the LIBOR and foreign exchange antitrust price-
fixing cases, the banks agreed to fix prices for SSA bonds by
various means, including exchanging confidential customer
information, trading habits, and order sizes via electronic
chatrooms, where traders were able to both hide and police their
conspiracy."

The plaintiff alleges that traders at the dealer banks exchanged
confidential information about their customers' identities,
trading habits, and order sizes, which enabled them to collude to
fix bid and ask spreads offered to customers in the secondary
market -- most of which are state and local governments,
institutional and individual investors, pension funds, mutual
funds, hedge funds, and insurance companies.

The defendants' conduct in the SSA bond market has also caught the
attention of antitrust enforcement agencies worldwide.  In
December 2015, the U.S. Department of Justice launched an
investigation into London-based traders of SSA bonds.  Additional
probes by the UK's Financial Conduct Authority and the European
Commission soon followed.

                   About Labaton Sucharow LLP

Labaton Sucharow -- http://www.labaton.com-- prosecutes
precedent-setting class actions, recovering billions of dollars on
behalf of defrauded consumers and investors.  The Firm's
successful reputation is built not only on its team of more than
60 attorneys, but also on its industry-leading in-house
investigators, financial analysts, and forensic accountants.  The
Firm litigates in the areas of antitrust, consumer protection, and
securities law.

                       About Hausfeld LLP

Hausfeld -- http://www.hausfeld.com-- is a global law firm with
offices in Berlin, Brussels, London, New York, Philadelphia, San
Francisco, and Washington, D.C.  The Firm has a broad range of
complex litigation experience, particularly in
antitrust/competition, financial services, and consumer
protection.  Hausfeld aims to achieve the best possible results
for clients through its practical and commercial approach,
avoiding litigation where feasible, yet litigating robustly when
necessary.


BARD ACCESS: Recalls Groshong NXT PICC Replacement Connectors
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 2, 2016
Posting date: May 16, 2016
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type III
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-58372

Bard is informing customers that the case label for specific lots
of the replacement connector for Groshong NXT PICC (product code
7812500 only) incorrectly identifies the connector colour as
"white", whereas the connector is red and is correctly identified
by the unit label as red. No product return is required.

Affected products:
REPLACEMENT CONNECTOR, GROSHONG NXT PICC
Lot or serial number: REVH0216
                      REWB1353
                      REWD0696
                      REWE1332
                      REWG1375
                      REWJ1000
                      REXA1014
                      REXE1882
Model or catalog number: 7812500

Manufacturer: Bard Access Systems Inc.
              605 North 5600 West
              Salt Lake City
              84116
              Utah
              UNITED STATES


BECKMAN COULTER: Recalls DURACLONE B27
--------------------------------------
Starting date: May 2, 2016
Posting date: May 16, 2016
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type III
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-58422

Beckman Coulter has identified that the reagent lot identified
above was inadvertently released to market despite not meeting its
full product specification. The HLA-B27 Median Fluorescence
Intensity (MDFI) of this lot is higher than lots meeting the
product specification, which may lead to: (1) an indicated result
in the indeterminate zone when the true result is in the negative
range, or (2) an indicated result in the positive range when the
true result is in the indeterminate zone. The issue was discovered
on 2016, March 21 during periodic review of our batch records.
There has been no report of death or injury related to this
defect.

Affected products: DURACLONE B27
Lot or serial number: 210116
Model or catalog number: B36862

Manufacturer: BECKMAN COULTER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
              50-B, II PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL
              BANGALORE
              INDIA


BECKMAN COULTER: Recalls Cellular Analysis Systems
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 2, 2016
Posting date: May 16, 2016
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type III
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-58406

Beckman Coulter has confirmed an issue where the Red Blood Cell
(RBC) aperture baths can contain residue in the sweep flow
fittings. This residue may potentially create increased background
failures, flagged results and vote outs for RBC and platelet (plt)
parameters.

Affected products:
A. UNICEL DXH 800 COULTER CELLULAR ANALYSIS SYSTEM
Lot or serial number: AU38544
Model or catalog number: 629029
                         B24802

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

B. UNICEL DXH 600 COULTER CELLULAR ANALYSIS SYSTEM
Lot or serial number: AZ02609
                      AZ02611
                      AZ02613
                      AZ02616
                      AZ02618
                      AZ02623
Model or catalog number: B23858

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


BECKMAN COULTER: Recalls GASTROCCULT 40T Kits
---------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 2, 2016
Posting date: May 16, 2016
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type III
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-58410

Beckman Coulter has confirmed an issue where the pH test area for
the Gastroccult kit may display an unexpected color for a sample
at a pH 7 reading when compared to the associated section of the
color comparator bar. A sample with a pH 7 may exhibit a brownish-
yellow color reading instead of the expected olive green color.
The issue was first reported by a US account in March 2015 but the
issue was escalated due to trending observed in January 2016.

Affected products: GASTROCCULT 40T
Lot or serial number: More than 10 numbers, contact manufacturer.
Model or catalog number: 66040

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


BIG WATER RESORT: Sanctions Bid Denied in "Reed" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned WILLIAM REED, DONNA REED, BONNIE YOUMANS,
JANE YATES, PHILLIP CAULDER, all individually and for the benefit
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BIG
WATER RESORT, LLC; TLC HOLDINGS, LLC; RICHARD CLARK; JAMES
THIGPEN; JIMMY "STEVE" LOVELL; and OCOEE, LLC, Defendants. BIG
WATER RESORT, LLC; TLC HOLDINGS, LLC; RICHARD CLARK; JAMES
THIGPEN; JIMMY "STEVE" LOVELL; OCOEE, LLC, Third-Party Plaintiffs,
v. M.B. HUTSON, a/k/a M.B. HUDSON, Third-Party Defendant, No.
2:14-cv-01583-DCN (D.S.C.), Judge David C. Norton adopted the
report and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge
Mary Gordon Baker, denying the third-party plaintiffs' motion for
sanctions, granting third-party plaintiffs' motion for summary
judgment, and denying M.B. Hutson a/k/a M.B. Hudson's motion for
summary judgment.

A full-text copy of Judge Norton's May 20, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/3zyT1K from Leagle.com.

The plaintiffs are members of a putative class of over 1,000
individuals who purchased memberships in defendant Big Water
Resort, LLC.  The Big Water Resort, LLC membership agreements
grant the plaintiffs "a right to use all . . . campground
facilities and services" at Big Water Resort (BWR), a recreational
campground and an accommodation located in Clarendon County, South
Carolina and owned by TLC Holdings LLC.  The third-party
plaintiffs Big Water Resort, LLC, TLC Holdings, LLC, Richard Clark
(Clark), James Thigpen (Thigpen), and Jimmy "Steve" Lovell
(Lovell) allegedly had an interest in BWR in various capacities.
Big Water Resort, LLC sold memberships from BWR's opening in 2003
until the it was transferred to third-party defendant Hutson in
December 2010 through a lease-purchase agreement.

The plaintiffs made various allegations regarding this transfer.
They alleged that: (1) Big Water Resort, LLC was insolvent at the
time of the transfer; (2) Hutson did not have the financial
ability to continue its operations; and (3) there was no long term
contract between defendant TLC Holdings, LLC -- the owner of the
property on which BWR is located -- and Big Water Resort, LLC to
ensure that members would have continued access to BWR.  Following
this transaction, the BWR became a public facility and Big Water
Resort, LLC ceased operations.

The plaintiffs, taking issue with this conversion, filed suit in
the United States District Court for th District of Carolina on
April 22, 2014.

After the plaintiffs filed suit, the third-party plaintiffs filed
a third-party complaint against Hutson alleging that Hutson failed
to operate BWR in a manner beneficial to the members.  The third-
party plaintiffs alleged that in December 2010, they sold their
membership interests in Big Water Resort, LLC to Hutson pursuant
to a lease-purchase agreement, making Hutson the sole member of
the LLC.

William Reed, Donna Reed, Bonnie Youmans, Jane Yates, Phillip
Caulder, Plaintiffs, represented by Brady Ryan Thomas --
bthomas@rpwb.com -- Richardson Patrick Westbrook and Brickman,
Carl David Hiller, Finkel Law Firm, Christopher James Moore --
cmoore@rpwb.com -- Richardson Patrick Westbrook and Brickman,
Harry L Goldberg, Finkel Law Firm, Terry Edward Richardson, Jr.
-- trichardson@rpwb.com -- Richardson Patrick Westbrook and
Brickman & William R Padget, Finkel Law Firm.

Big Water Resort LLC, represented by Carlyle Richardson Cromer --
ccromer@turnerpadget.com -- Turner Padget Graham and Laney, John
Smith Wilkerson, III -- jwilkerson@turnerpadget.com -- Turner
Padget Graham and Laney, Jon Rene Josey -- rjosey@turnerpadget.com
-- Turner Padget Graham and Laney, Morgan S Templeton, Richard S
Dukes, Jr. -- rdukes@turnerpadget.com -- Turner Padget Graham and
Laney & R Wayne Byrd -- wbyrd@turnerpadget.com -- Turner Padget
Graham and Laney.

TLC Holdings LLC, Richard Clark, James Thigpen, Jimmy Lovell,
Ocoee LLC, represented by Carlyle Richardson Cromer, Turner Padget
Graham and Laney, John Smith Wilkerson, III, Turner Padget Graham
and Laney, Jon Rene Josey, Turner Padget Graham and Laney, Richard
S Dukes, Jr., Turner Padget Graham and Laney & R Wayne Byrd,
Turner Padget Graham and Laney.

Turner Padget Graham & Laney P.A., Interested Party, represented
by R Wayne Byrd, Turner Padget Graham and Laney.

M. B. Hutson a/k/a M.B. Hudson, ThirdParty Defendant, represented
by Laura Elizabeth Paris -- lpaton@carlockcopeland.com -- Carlock
Copeland Semler and Stair, Matthew Thomas Hemingway --
mhemingway@carlockcopeland.com -- Carlock Copeland and Stair & R
Michael Ethridge -- methridge@carlockcopeland.com -- Carlock
Copeland Semler and Stair.


BMW NORTH AMERICA: Sued Over Faulty i3 Electric Vehicles
--------------------------------------------------------
MLG Automotive Lawon May 18 disclosed that it has filed a national
class action lawsuit against BMW North America, LLC for alleged
defects in the BMW i3 vehicles.  The case Edo Tsoar v. BMW North
America, LLC (Case No. 2:16-cv-03386) was filed on
May 17 in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles.

The lawsuit centers around the BMW i3 "Range Extender" feature.
This option, called REx, outfits the vehicle with a two-cylinder
gasoline engine producing 34 horsepower that switches on when the
battery charge depletes to five percent, giving the vehicle
another 70 miles of range.  BMW claims that the Range Extender
"doubles your electric driving range" from the vehicle's standard
81-mile range.

The lawsuit alleges that in practice, however, when the gasoline
engine kicks in, it doesn't produce enough power to prevent a
dramatic decrease in the vehicle's performance.  As alleged, if
the car is under any kind of significant load (such as going up a
hill, or loaded with passengers), the speed of the car will
dramatically decrease as the battery charge diminishes.  The
lawsuit alleges that this can result in the car slowing to speeds
of 45 miles per hour on the freeway, without warning.

"The BMW i3 Range Extender feature is a dangerous instrumentality
to the owners of the vehicles and to other motorists on the road,"
said Jonathan Michaels, founding member of MLG Automotive Law.
"Having a sudden and unexpected loss of power in a motor vehicle
can result in a catastrophic situation for all those on the road.
These cars are dangerous and should not be driven."

The lawsuit seeks to have the vehicles redesigned and repaired at
BMW's expense, and to halt the sale of all i3 vehicles until
repairs can be made.  The claim also seeks compensation for all
the owners of the vehicles, who were not told of the serious
safety defect.

The case is Edo Tsoar, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. BMW of North America, LLC and Does 1 to 100,
inclusive, Case No. 2:16-cv-03386 (C.D. Col., May 17, 2016).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan A. Michaels, Esq.
      Kathryn J. Harvey, Esq.
      Kristen R. Rodriguez, Esq.
      MLG AUTOMOTIVE LAW, APLC
      A Professional Law Corporation
      2801 W. Coast Highway, Suite 370
      Newport Beach, CA 92663
      Telephone: (949) 581-6900
      Facsimile: (949) 581-6908
      E-mail: jmichaels@mlgautomotivelaw.com
              kharvey@mlgautomotivelaw.com
              krodriguez@mlgautomotivelaw.com


                     About MLG Automotive Law

Located in Newport Beach, California, MLG Automotive Law is a full
service business law firm, focusing on the automotive industry.
MLG Automotive Law has litigated cases against nearly every major
manufacturer, and is counsel on the Volkswagen emissions class
action.  MLG Automotive Law also represents terminated Chrysler
dealers against the U.S. for the 2009 taking of their dealerships,
in violation of the Fifth Amendment.  Follow MLG Automotive Law on
Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter.


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Hayden" Suit Over Pradaxa(R) Drugs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Donald Hayden v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and
Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH, Case No. HHD-CV-16-
6068335-S (Conn. Super. Ct., May 17, 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 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 -

      Russell T. Abney, Esq.
      FERRER, POIROT WANSBROUGH FELLER DANIEL ABNEY & LINVILLE
      2100 RiverEdge Parkway, Suite 720
      Atlanta, GA 30328
      Telephone: (800) 521-4492
      Facsimile: (214) 526-6026
      E-mail: rabney@lawyerworks.com


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Taylor" Suit Over Pradaxa(R) Drugs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Taylor, individually, as representative of the estate and
successor-in-interest of David Taylor, deceased v. Boehringer
Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Boehringer Ingelheim
International GMBH, Case No. HHD-CV-16-6068307-S (Conn., Super.
Ct., May 17, 2016), is an action for damages suffered by David
Taylor 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 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 "Maida" Suit Over Pradaxa(R) Drugs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Frances Maida v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and
Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH, Case No. HHD-CV-16-
6068341-S (Conn. Super. Ct., May 17, 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 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 -

      Russell T. Abney, Esq.
      FERRER, POIROT WANSBROUGH FELLER DANIEL ABNEY & LINVILLE
      2100 RiverEdge Parkway, Suite 720
      Atlanta, GA 30328
      Telephone: (800) 521-4492
      Facsimile: (214) 526-6026
      E-mail: rabney@lawyerworks.com


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Roopcharan" Suit Over Pradaxa(R)
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Roopcharan v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
and Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH, Case No. HHD-CV-16-
6068343-S (Conn. Super. Ct., May 17, 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 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 -

      Russell T. Abney, Esq.
      FERRER, POIROT WANSBROUGH FELLER DANIEL ABNEY & LINVILLE
      2100 RiverEdge Parkway, Suite 720
      Atlanta, GA 30328
      Telephone: (800) 521-4492
      Facsimile: (214) 526-6026
      E-mail: rabney@lawyerworks.com


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Roth" Suit Over Pradaxa(R) Drugs
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kate Roth v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and
Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH, Case No. HHD-CV-16-
6068346-S (Conn. Super. Ct., May 17, 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 -

      Russell T. Abney, Esq.
      FERRER, POIROT WANSBROUGH FELLER DANIEL ABNEY & LINVILLE
      2100 RiverEdge Parkway, Suite 720
      Atlanta, GA 30328
      Telephone: (800) 521-4492
      Facsimile: (214) 526-6026
      E-mail: rabney@lawyerworks.com


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Rybak" Suit Over Pradaxa(R) Drugs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lucille Rybak v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and
Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH, Case No. HHD-CV-16-
6068344-S (Conn. Super. Ct., May 17, 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 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 -

      Russell T. Abney, Esq.
      FERRER, POIROT WANSBROUGH FELLER DANIEL ABNEY & LINVILLE
      2100 RiverEdge Parkway, Suite 720
      Atlanta, GA 30328
      Telephone: (800) 521-4492
      Facsimile: (214) 526-6026
      E-mail: rabney@lawyerworks.com


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Throckmorton" Suit Over Pradaxa(R)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gene Throckmorton v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
and Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH, Case No. HHD-CV-16-
6068302-S (Conn. Super. Ct., May 17, 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 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 -

      Russell T. Abney, Esq.
      FERRER, POIROT WANSBROUGH FELLER DANIEL ABNEY & LINVILLE
      2100 RiverEdge Parkway, Suite 720
      Atlanta, GA 30328
      Telephone: (800) 521-4492
      Facsimile: (214) 526-6026
      E-mail: rabney@lawyerworks.com


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Westfall" Suit Over Pradaxa(R) Drugs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Janna Westfall v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and
Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH, Case No. HHD-CV-16-
6068304-S (Conn. Super. Ct., May 17, 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 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 -

      Russell T. Abney, Esq.
      FERRER, POIROT WANSBROUGH FELLER DANIEL ABNEY & LINVILLE
      2100 RiverEdge Parkway, Suite 720
      Atlanta, GA 30328
      Telephone: (800) 521-4492
      Facsimile: (214) 526-6026
      E-mail: rabney@lawyerworks.com


BOK FINANCIAL: Discovery Underway in Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
BOK Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that discovery is on-going
in a putative class action lawsuit against its bank unit.

On March 3, 2015, the Bank and the Company were named as
defendants in a putative class action alleging (1) that the manner
in which the Bank posted charges to its consumer deposit accounts
was improper from September 1, 2011 through July 8, 2014, the
period after which the Bank and BOK Financial had settled a class
action respecting a similar claim, and before it made changes to
its posting order and (2) that the manner in which the Bank posted
charges to its small business deposit accounts was improper from
July 9, 2009 through July 8, 2014. The Court has denied the Bank's
motion to dismiss the claims as pre-empted by federal law, but
limited the plaintiffs' claim to a only breach of contract action
involving Oklahoma customers.  Discovery is on-going.  Based on
currently available information, management has established an
accrual within a reasonable range of probable losses and
anticipates the claims will be resolved without material loss to
the Company.


BOYD BILOXI: "Bennett" Settlement Agreement Granted in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge William H. Steele of the Southern District of
Alabama, Southern Division, granted in part plaintiff's motion for
preliminary approval of class settlement agreement in the case
JASON BENNETT, etc., Plaintiff, v. BOYD BILOXI, LLC, etc.,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 14-0330-WS-M (S.D. Ala.)

Jason Bennett made a complaint against Boyd Biloxi, LLC (Boyd)
alleging that Boyd violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA), and specifically a regulation promulgated pursuant
thereto. The second amended complaint challenges the defendant's
practice of calling persons, without their prior express written
consent, by means of an automatic telephone dialing system or with
the use of a pre-recorded voice message, to deliver a message
including telemarketing or advertisement as defined by the
regulation. The second amended complaint seeks certification of a
nationwide class of individuals receiving such calls during a
particular period.

The parties have negotiated a settlement, which calls for
certification of a nationwide class and monetary relief to
successful class claimants. Bennett asks the court to made a
conditional certification of the proposed settlement class for
settlement purposes only, a preliminary approval of the proposed
settlement, an approval of notice to the settlement class the
appointment of a class representative and class counsel and
establishment of dates for out-outs, objections and a final
fairness hearing.

Chief District Judge Steele granted plaintiff's motion for
conditional class certification, appointment of class counsel, and
appointment of class representative.

The plaintiff was ordered to file and serve, on or before May 25,
2016, a fully supported motion for approval of the claim form and
approval of the claims administrator. The defendant may join in
the motion. If it does not, the defendant is ordered to file and
serve its response to the motion on or before June 1, 2016.

Plaintiff is ordered to file and serve, on or before June 8, 2016,
a supplemental brief in support of the instant motion that fully
addresses all the concerns identified and all other matters the
plaintiff believes necessary and appropriate to resolution of his
motion. The plaintiff is ordered to attach as exhibits thereto an
amended claim form, an amended notice, a second notice, and an
amended preliminary order of approval, using highlighting,
redlining and/or other clear notations of alterations made to the
original versions. The defendant may join in the filing. If it
does not, the defendant is ordered to file and serve its response
to the plaintiff's filing on or before June 22, 2016.

A copy of Chief District Judge Steele's order dated May 11, 2016,
is available at http://goo.gl/rJPbqmfrom Leagle.com.

Jason Bennett, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by:

     Earl P. Underwood, Jr., Esq.
     John R. Cox, Esq.
     Kenneth J. Riemer, Esq.
     166 Government Street Suite 100
     Mobile, AL 36602
     Telephone: 251 432-9212
     Facsimile: 251 433-7172

Boyd Biloxi, LLC, d/b/a IP Casino Resort and Spa, Defendant,
represented by Laura F. Ashley -- lashley@joneswalker.com --
Matthew C. McDonald -- mmcdonald@joneswalker.com -- at Jones
Walker, LLP


CASCADE DESIGNS: Recalls MSR Striker Probes
-------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 3, 2016
Posting date: May 3, 2016
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Tools and Electrical Products
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-57802

This recall involves two different MSR Striker probes identified
by the following details:

  --- MSR StrikerTM 320 - (SKU 03160) UPC 040818031605, red/grey,
      packaged with tags.
  --- MSR StrikerTM 240 - (SKU 03161) UPC 040818031612,
      yellow/grey, packaged with tags.

The lock button on the Striker probe assembly can fail to engage
and lock the sections in place, failing to create a rigid 240-320
cm long pole. This may render the probe unable to function as
intended and may be difficult to remove or push the full length of
the probe into/from the snow. This may interfere with the rapid
location of an avalanche victim.

Neither Health Canada nor Cascade Designs Inc. has received any
reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to this product
in Canada or in the United States.

Approximately 229 units were sold in Canada and 1385 in the United
States.

Both the MSR StrikerTM 320 probe and the MSR StrikerTM 240 Probe
were sold from September 2014 to January 2016.

Manufactured in Korea.

Distributor: Cascade Designs Inc.
             Seattle
             Washington
             UNITED STATES

Manufacturer: YUNAN Aluminum Co LTD
              Gyounggi-DO
              KOREA, DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF'

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled units and
contact Cascade Designs Inc. for free replacement probe.

For more information, consumers may contact Cascade Designs Inc.
on the company's website or by calling toll free at 1-800-527-1527
from 8:00 am to 4:30 pm PST, Monday to Friday.

Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission's
website.

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

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

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

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
https://is.gd/81xg4P


CELLULAR BIOMEDICINE: "Bonanno" Dismissed With Leave to Amend
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned FRANCIS J. BONANNO, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
CELLULAR BIOMEDICINE GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-
cv-01795-WHO (N.D. Cal.), Judge William H. Orrick granted the
defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint with leave to amend.
The plaintiffs were given 20 days to amend their complaint.

Michelle Jackson, Ervin Windom, Ding Liang, and Beverly Nissenbaum
alleged that Cellular Biomedicine Group, Inc. (CBMG), Wei
"William" Cao, LifeTech Capital, Stephen Dunn, Streetwise Reports,
Institutional Analyst, Inc. (IAI), Roland Perry, Wide World of
Stocks (WWOS), Damon Roberts, John McCamant, SNN, Inc., and Shelly
Kraft participated in a stock promotion scheme designed to
artificially increase CBMG's stock price in order to raise cash
for offerings.  The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants'
nondisclosure of the paid stock promotion campaign violated
sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
15 U.S.C. section 78j(b), and Securities and Exchange Commission
Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. section 240.10b-5.  They alleged that the
defendants' illegal behavior was allegedly exposed in an April 7,
2015 internet posting authored by an anonymous blogger calling
himself the Pump Stopper.  CBMG, Cao, LifeTech, Dunn, and
Streetwise Reports moved to dismiss.

Judge Orrick found that the Pump Stopper report is insufficient to
serve as a corrective disclosure in the case, and granted the
defendants' motions to dismiss.

A full-text copy of Judge Orrick's May 20, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/gblrEZ from Leagle.com.

Francis J. Bonanno, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Pafiti --
jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Jeremy A Lieberman --
jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, C. Dov Berger, Pomerantz,
pro hac vice, & Patrick V. Dahlstrom -- pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com --
Pomerantz LLP.

Michelle Jackson, Ervin D. Windom, Ding Liang, Beverly J.
Nissenbaum, Plaintiffs, represented by Laurence M. Rosen --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. & Jacob
Alexander Goldberg -- jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law
Firm, P.A..

Cellular Biomedicine Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Jonathan B. Gaskin -- jgaskin@kaufholdgaskin.com -- Kaufhold
Gaskin LLP, Adrienne Marie Ward -- award@egsllp.com -- Ellenoff
Grossman & Schole LLP, pro hac vice, Michael J. Sullivan --
msullivan@egsllp.com -- Ellenoff Grossman & Schole LLP, pro hac
vice & Steven Shea Kaufhold -- skaufhold@kaufholdgaskin.com --
Kaufhold Gaskin LLP.

Wei Cao, Defendant, represented by Jonathan B. Gaskin, Kaufhold
Gaskin LLP, Michael J. Sullivan, Ellenoff Grossman & Schole LLP,
pro hac vice & Steven Shea Kaufhold, Kaufhold Gaskin LLP.

Life Tech Capital, Stephen M. Dunn, Defendant, represented by
Gregory Kent Klingsporn -- gkk@jsmf.com -- Jorgenson, Siegel,
McClure & Flegel, LLP, Irwin Weltz -- iweltz@srff.com -- Sichenzia
Ross Friedman Ference LLP, pro hac vice & Nicolas A Flege --
naf@jsmf.com -- Jorgenson, Siegel, McClure & Flegel, LLP.

Streetwise Reports, Defendant, represented by Jahan Pierre Raissi
-- jraissi@sflaw.com -- Shartsis Friese LLP & Roey Rahmil --
rrahmil@sflaw.com -- Shartsis Friese LLP.


CHILDREN'S NATIONAL HEALTH: "Khan" Suit Remanded to State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Theodore D. Chuang granted in part and denied, in part, the
motion to dismiss filed by the defendant in the case captioned
FARDOES KHAN, Plaintiff, v. CHILDREN'S NATIONAL HEALTH SYSTEM,
Defendant, Civil Action No. TDC-15-2125 (D. Md.).

Fardoes Kahn filed the putative class action against Children's
National Health System (CNHS), asserting various statutory and
common law causes of action related to a data breach at a CNHS
hospital.  CNHS moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)
because Khan lacks standing, or, in the alternative, for failure
to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).

Judge Chuang found that Khan lacks standing, but the judge did not
dismiss her claims.  Instead, the case was remanded to state
court.

A full-text copy of Judge Chuang's May 19, 2016 memorandum opinion
is available at https://is.gd/3nKzg6 from Leagle.com.

Fardoes Khan, Plaintiff, represented by Tracy Diana Rezvani --
trezvani@rezvanivolin.com -- Rezvani Volin PC, Kevin Ira Goldberg,
Goldberg Finnegan and Mester LLC & Mila Finkelstein Bartos --
mbartos@finkelsteinthompson.com -- Finkelstein Thompson LLP.

Children's National Health System, Defendant, represented by
Elizabeth Anne Scully -- escully@bakerlaw.com -- Baker and
Hostetler LLP, Douglas L. Shively -- dshively@bakerlaw.com --
Baker and Hostetler LLP, pro hac vice & Paul G Karlsgodt --
pkarlsgodt@bakerlaw.com -- Baker and Hostetler LLP, pro hac vice.


CHOW LAO: Faces "Studdard" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Studdard, Shelby Smith, and Adam Meter v. Chow, Lao, Liew,
LLC d/b/a Hokkaido Japanese Steak and Sushi Bar, Case No. 2:16-cv-
00821-SGC (N.D. Ala., May 17, 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 Japanese Steak and Sushi Bar
located at 607 15th Street East, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35401.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jon C. Goldfarb, Esq.
      Daniel E. Arciniegas, Esq.
      L. William Smith, Esq.
      WIGGINS, CHILDS, PANTAZIS, FISHER, & GOLDFARB LLC
      The Kress Building
      301 19th Street
      North Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 314-0500
      Facsimile: (205) 254-1500
      E-mail: jgoldfarb@wigginschilds.com
              dea@wigginschilds.com


CINTAS CORP: Cal. Ct. App. Affirms Judgment in "Tarantino" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Elena J. Duarte of the Court of Appeals of California,
Third District, Sacramento, affirmed the judgment of the trial
court in the appealed case entitled CHRISTOPHER TARANTINO,
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CINTAS CORPORATION NO. 3, Defendant
and Appellant, No. C077441 (Cal. Ct. App.)

Christopher Tarantino brought suit against his former employer
Cintas Corporation No. 3 (Cintas), asserting a representative
claim pursuant to the Labor Code Private Attorney General Act of
2004 (PAGA) (Lab. Code, Sec. 2698 et seq.) for failure to provide
accurate wage statements and to maintain records of hours worked.

Cintas moved to stay the litigation and to compel individual
arbitration, based on the arbitration clause in Tarantino's
employment agreement.

The trial court denied the motion under the authority of Iskanian
v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLC (2014), which held a pre-dispute
waiver of the employee's right to bring a representative PAGA
action violated public policy.

Cintas appealed and argues that the authority in Iskanian does not
apply because the employment agreement is governed by Ohio law and
even if California law applies, Tarantino validly waived his right
to bring a representative action under the PAGA after the dispute
arose. Cintas further argues that the rule announced in Iskanian
is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and the trial
court's ruling is contrary to California law.

Justice Duarte affirmed the judgment of the trial court.

A copy of Judge Justice Duarte's opinion dated May 10, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/YPkbjXfrom Leagel.com.

The Court of Appeals of California, Third District panel consists
of Acting Presiding Justice Harry E. Hull, Jr. and Justices Elena
J. Duarte and Andrea Lynn Hoch


CLOUGHERTY PACKING: Sued Over Failure to Provide Meal Breaks
------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Ortiz, an individual, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. Clougherty Packing, LLC and Does 1 thru 50,
inclusive, Case No. BC620622 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 17, 2016), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to inform hourly
employees of their right to take meal periods.

Clougherty Packing, LLC operates a food production company located
at 3049 East Vernon Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90058.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric B. Kingsley, Esq.
      Liane Katzenstein Ly, 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
              liane@kingsleykingsley.com


COACH INC: "Esparza" Suit Transferred to South. District New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Deborah Esparza, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Coach Inc. and
Coach Inc. d/b/a Coach Leatheware California, Inc., Case No. 2:15-
cv-09887, was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (Foley Square). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-03677-UA to the proceeding.

The Defendants operate a fashion company based in New York City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Hannah Belknap, Esq.
      Caleb Marker, Esq.
      ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
      2381 Rosecrans Avenue Suite 328
      Manhattan Beach, CA 90245
      Telephone: (877) 500-8780
      Facsimile: (888) 490-7750
      E-mail: hannah.belknap@zimmreed.com
              Caleb.Marker@zimmreed.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Joseph Duffy, Esq.
      MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS LLP
      Spear Tower, One Market
      San Francisco, CA 94105
      Telephone: (415) 442-1000
      Facsimile: (415) 442-1001
      E-mail: joseph.duffy@morganlewis.com


COMPLETE CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Martin" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Craig P. Martin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Complete Credit Solutions, Inc. and John Does 1-25,
Case No. 3:16-cv-02789-MAS-LHG (D.N.J., May 17, 2016), seeks to
stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a
debt.

Complete Credit Solutions, Inc. operates a financial services
company in Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
      MARCUS ZELMAN LLC
      1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
      Ocean, NJ 07712
      Telephone: (732) 695-3282
      Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
      E-mail: ari@marcuszelman.com

CONAGRA FOODS: Recalls Beef Products Due to Misbranding
-------------------------------------------------------
ConAgra Foods Packaged Foods, LLC, a Council Bluffs, Iowa
establishment, is recalling approximately 84,340 pounds of two
beef products due to misbranding and an undeclared allergen, the
U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS) announced. The products were inadvertently
formulated with Worcestershire sauce and may contain fish
(anchovies), a known allergen that is not declared on the product
label.

The frozen beef items were produced between April 13 and April 14,
2016. The following products are subject to recall:

   --- 14-oz. box of "Marie Callender's Salisbury Steak with
       Roasted Potatoes and Home-Style Gravy served with Cheesy
       Broccoli & Cauliflower" with package code of 5014610500
       and packaging date of April 14, 2016.
   --- 76-oz. package of "Molly's Kitchen Macaroni & Beef with
       Tomato Sauce" with package code of 5014610400 and
       packaging date of April 13, 2016.

The products subject to recall bear establishment number "EST.
1058" inside the USDA mark of inspection. The Marie Callender's
item was shipped to retail distribution centers nationwide and the
Molly's Kitchen item was shipped to an institutional customer
nationwide.

The problem was discovered when the establishment became aware of
an error associated with a shipment of Worcestershire sauce. The
Worcestershire sauce was miscoded as Rochester sauce and the
establishment subsequently used the miscoded sauce in the recalled
products.

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

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

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

Consumers with questions about the recall can contact the Consumer
Affairs hotline at (800) 921-7404. Media with questions about the
recall can contact Kristine Mulford, Manager of Communications, at
(630) 857-1420.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and
Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in
English and Spanish and can be reached from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.
(Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety
messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic
Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a
day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem.


COOPER TIRE: Appeal From Case Dismissal Order Underway
------------------------------------------------------
Cooper Tire & Rubber Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the plaintiffs
have filed an appeal of the dismissal order in the federal
securities litigation.

On January 17, 2014, alleged stockholders of the Company filed a
putative class-action lawsuit against the Company and certain of
its officers in the United States District Court for the District
of Delaware relating to the terminated merger agreement with
subsidiaries of Apollo Tyres Ltd. That lawsuit, captioned OFI Risk
Arbitrages, et al. v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., et al., No. 1:14-
cv-00068-LPS, generally alleges that the Company and certain
officers violated the federal securities laws by issuing allegedly
misleading disclosures in connection with the terminated
transaction and seeks, among other things, damages. The Company
and its officers believe that the allegations against them lack
merit and intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously. On July 1,
2015, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' amended complaint and
closed the case. The plaintiffs have filed an appeal of the
dismissal order.


CORESITE REALTY: Denies Allegations in Overtime Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
CoreSite Realty Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a purported class
action lawsuit was filed on July 9, 2015, in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Los Angeles, against the
Company, alleging various employment law violations related to
overtime, meal and break periods, minimum wage, timely payment of
wages, wage statements, payroll records and business expenses.

"The lawsuit is in the early stages and we have filed a responsive
pleading generally denying the allegations," the Company said.

CoreSite is engaged in the business of ownership, acquisition,
construction and operation of strategically located data centers
in eight of the largest and fastest growing data center markets in
the United States, including the Northern Virginia (including
Washington D.C.), New York and San Francisco Bay areas, Chicago,
Los Angeles, Boston, Miami and Denver.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Updates Vegetable Products Recall
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 3, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Microbiological - Listeria
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Costco Wholesale Canada Ltd.
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10572

The food recall warning issued on April 23, 2016 has been updated
to include additional product information.

Costco Wholesale Canada Ltd. is recalling Organic by Nature brand
frozen Organic Butternut Squash and Organic Vegetable Medley from
the marketplace due to possible Listeria monocytogenes
contamination. Consumers should not consume the recalled products
described below.

The following products have been sold by Costco warehouse
locations in British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.

If you suspect you have become ill from eating a recalled product,
the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) recommends contacting
your doctor.

Food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes may not look or
smell spoiled but can still make you sick. Symptoms can include
vomiting, nausea, persistent fever, muscle aches, severe headache
and neck stiffness. Pregnant women, the elderly and people with
weakened immune systems are particularly at risk. Although
infected pregnant women may experience only mild, flu-like
symptoms, the infection can lead to premature delivery, infection
of the newborn or even stillbirth. In severe cases of illness,
people may die.

There have been no reported illnesses in Canada associated with
the consumption of these products, however, there have been
reported illnesses in the United States linked to consuming
products manufactured or processed by the same manufacturer, CRF
Frozen Foods.

This recall was triggered by a recall in another country. The CFIA
is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the
recall of other products. If other high-risk products are
recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food
Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.

  Brand    Common     Size    Code(s) on       UPC
  name     name       ----    product          ---
  -----    ------             ----------
  organic  Organic    2 kg    Best by dates:   8 46358 00067 1
  by       Butternut          From 04.26.16
  nature   Squash             to 04.26.18,
          (frozen)            inclusively
  organic  Organic    2.5 kg  Best by dates:   8 46358 00062 6
  by       Vegetable          From 04.26.16
  nature   Medley             to 04.26.18,
          (frozen)            inclusively

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
https://is.gd/Aduxgt


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Updates Organic Sweet Peas Recall
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 4, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Microbiological - Listeria
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Costco Wholesale Canada Ltd.
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10572

The food recall warning issued on May 3, 2016 has been updated to
include additional product information.

Costco Wholesale Canada Ltd. is recalling Organic by Nature brand
frozen Organic Sweet Peas from the marketplace due to possible
Listeria monocytogenes contamination. Consumers should not consume
the recalled product described below.

The following product has been sold by Costco warehouse locations
in British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.

If you suspect you have become ill from eating a recalled product,
the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) recommends contacting
your doctor.

Food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes may not look or
smell spoiled but can still make you sick. Symptoms can include
vomiting, nausea, persistent fever, muscle aches, severe headache
and neck stiffness. Pregnant women, the elderly and people with
weakened immune systems are particularly at risk. Although
infected pregnant women may experience only mild, flu-like
symptoms, the infection can lead to premature delivery, infection
of the newborn or even stillbirth. In severe cases of illness,
people may die.

There have been no reported illnesses in Canada associated with
the consumption of this product, however, there have been reported
illnesses in the United States linked to consuming products
manufactured or processed by the same manufacturer, CRF Frozen
Foods.

This recall was triggered by a recall in another country. The CFIA
is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the
recall of other products. If other high-risk products are
recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food
Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.

  Brand    Common     Size    Code(s) on       UPC
  name     name       ----    product          ---
  -----    ------             ----------
  organic  Organic    2.5 kg  Best by dates:   8 46358 00061 9
  by       Sweet              From 04.26.16
  nature   Peas               to 04.26.18,
          (frozen)            inclusively

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
https://is.gd/5hvxI9


CHEVROLET: Recalls 2015 Models Due to Crash Risk
------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 3, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Light Truck & Van
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Airbag
Units affected: 1611
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016196TC
ID number: 2016196
Manufacturer recall number: 43430

On certain vehicles, a defect in the occupant classification
system could allow an adult sitting in the front passenger seat to
be classified as a child or an "empty seat". This would suppress
the airbag, which could increase the risk of injury in a crash.
Correction: Dealers will replace the occupant classification
system electronic control unit.

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


CREDIT CONTROL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Genova" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rocco Genova, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Credit Control, LLC, Bureaus Investment Group
Portfolio No. 15, and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:16-cv-02752-PGS-
TJB (D.N.J., May 17, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair
and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

The Defendants operate a credit collection service company
headquartered at 5757 Phantom Dr. Suite 330 Hazelwood, MO 63042.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
      MARCUS ZELMAN LLC
      1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
      Ocean, NJ 07712
      Telephone: (732) 695-3282
      Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
      E-mail: ari@marcuszelman.com

DAIMLER AG: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on May 18 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Daimler AG ("Daimler" or the "Company")
(OTC:DDAIY) (OTC:DDAIF) and certain of its officers.   The class
action, filed in United States District Court, Central District of
California, and docketed under 16-cv-03412, is on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Daimler securities between February 22, 2012
and April 21, 2016 inclusive (the "Class Period").  This class
action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged
violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Daimler securities during
the Class Period, you have until June 28, 2016 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, ext. 9980.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of
shares purchased.

Daimler, through its subsidiaries, develops, produces,
distributes, and sells passenger cars, vans, trucks, and buses
worldwide.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants issued false and misleading statements
about Daimler's compliance with emissions standards and Daimler's
purported eco-friendly BlueTEC diesel engines.

On September 21, 2015, post-market, Transport & Environment
published an article entitled "VW's cheating is just the tip of
the iceberg", compiling emissions data from "respected testing
authorities around Europe", and finding that Daimler's Mercedes-
Benz ("Mercedes") division might sell cars that produce illegal
levels of emissions by using an illegal defeat device.

On this news, shares of DDAIF fell $5.38 per share or
approximately 7% from its previous closing price to close at
$74.30 per share on September 22, 2015, and shares of DDAIY fell
$5.44 per share or approximately 7% from its previous closing
price to close at $74.01 per share on September 22, 2015, damaging
investors.

On February 18, 2016, a press release was issued announcing the
filing of a class-action lawsuit against Mercedes alleging, among
other things, that Mercedes knowingly programmed its diesel
vehicles to emit illegal, dangerous levels of NOx.

On this news, shares of DDAIF fell $2.08 per share or
approximately 3% over the next two days to close at $70.54 per
share on February 19, 2016, and shares of DDAIY fell $2.27 per
share or approximately 3% over the next two days to close at
$70.40 per share on February 19, 2016, damaging investors.

On February 28, 2016, Reuters published an article entitled "EPA
requests information from Mercedes-Benz over emissions levels",
announcing that the EPA had requested information from Daimler in
response to the class-action lawsuit.  On each of these
disclosures, Daimler shares fell sharply, damaging investors.

On this news, shares of DDAIF fell $0.41 per share from its
previous closing price to close at $67.97 per share on February
29, 2016, and shares of DDAIY fell $0.44 per share from its
previous closing price to close at $67.81 per share on February
29, 2016, damaging investors.

On April 7, 2016, Hagens Berman issued a press release announcing
that it amended the class-action lawsuit against Mercedes
alleging, among other things, that Mercedes BlueTEC vehicles
likely contain a "defeat device".

On this news, shares of DDAIF fell $3.76 per share or
approximately 5% from its previous closing price to close at
$67.86 per share on April 7, 2016, and shares of DDAIY fell $1.10
per share or approximately 2% from its previous closing price to
close at $67.58 per share on April 7, 2016, damaging investors.

On April 21, 2016 during aftermarket hours, Daimler issued a press
release entitled "Daimler conducts internal investigation
regarding its certification process related to exhaust emissions
in the United States", announcing that Daimler is investigating
"possible indications of irregularities" regarding its
certification process of exhaust emissions in the United States at
the request of the US Department of Justice.

On this news, shares of DDAIF fell $3.76 per share or
approximately 5% over the next two trading days to close at $67.86
per share on April 7, 2016, and shares of DDAIY fell $1.10 per
share or approximately 2% over the next two trading days to close
at $67.58 per share on April 7, 2016, damaging investors.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.


DEVRY EDUCATION: July 12 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Do you, or did you, own shares of DeVry Education Group, Inc.
(NYSE:DV)?

Did you purchase your shares between February 4, 2011 and
January 27, 2016, inclusive?

Did you lose money in your investment?

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. on May 17 disclosed that a complaint has
been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on behalf of all persons or entities that
purchased the common stock of DeVry Education Group, Inc. ("DeVry"
or the "Company") (NYSE:DV) between February 4, 2011 and January
27, 2016, inclusive (the "Class Period"), alleging violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and
certain of its officers (the "Complaint").

If you purchased shares of DeVry during the Class Period, or
purchased shares prior to the Class Period and still hold DeVry,
and wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Timothy J.
MacFall, Esquire or Peter Allocco of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 2
Righter Parkway, Suite 120, Wilmington, DE 19803 at (888) 969-
4242; by e-mail to info@rl-legal.com or at: https://is.gd/jmeyGc

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements, and omitted
materially adverse facts, about the Company's business, operations
and prospects.  Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the
defendants concealed from the investing public that: (1) 90% of
DeVry University students from a specific year (e.g., graduates
from 2011-2016) who were actively seeking employment did not in
fact land or obtain new jobs in their field of study within six
months of graduation; (2) 90% of DeVry University students since
1975 who were actively seeking employment did not in fact land or
obtain new jobs in their field of study within six months of
graduation; (3) one year after graduation, the average or median
salary of DeVry University graduates with bachelor's degrees was
not in fact 15% higher than the average or median salary of
graduates with bachelor's degrees from all other colleges and
universities; (4) as a result, DeVry overstated its growth,
revenue, and earnings potential by concealing the true employment
prospects of DeVry University graduates to investors and potential
students; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
statements about DeVry's business, operations, and prospects were
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.  As a
result of defendants' alleged false and misleading statements, the
Company's stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the
Class Period.

According to the Complaint, on January 27, 2016, the Federal Trade
Commission filed suit against DeVry and DeVry University accusing
them of deceptively advertising the benefits of obtaining a
bachelor's degree at DeVry University.  Also on January 27, 2016,
the U.S. Department of Education issued DeVry University a Notice
of Intent to Limit DeVry University's participation in programs
authorized pursuant to Title IV of the Higher Education Act of
1965 as amended, 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1070 et seq., after finding that
DeVry was in violation of federal law.

On this news, shares of DeVry dropped over 15%, closing at $20.09
per share on January 27, 2016, on heavy trading volume.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than July 12, 2016.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  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 an absent class member.


DISCOVER BANK: Arbitration Award in "Passmore" Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DISCOVER BANK, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
THERESA M. PASSMORE, Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
LEVY & ASSOCIATES, LLC, et al., Third Party Defendants-Appellees,
No. 2015-L-098 (Ohio Ct. App.), the Court of Appeals of Ohio,
Eleventh District affirmed the judgment of the Lake County Court
of Common Pleas granting motions to confirm an arbitration award
in favor of Discover Bank, Yale R. Levy, and Levy & Associates,
LLC, and dismissing Theresa M. Passmore's counterclaims.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 23, 2016 opinion is available
at https://is.gd/VZZJ52 from Leagle.com.

In July 2010, Discover Bank filed a complaint against Passmore to
collect a credit card debt in the Lake County Court of Common
Pleas.  Passmore filed a counterclaim against Discover Bank and
its counsel, Yale R. Levy of Levy & Associates, LLC.  Passmore
alleged fraud, abuse of process, defamation, civil conspiracy, and
violations of the Federal Debt Collection Practice Act and the
Ohio Consumer Protection Act.  She also asserted class action
allegations on behalf of herself and others similarly situated.

On June 29, 2012, Passmore initiated arbitration proceedings.  In
November 2013, the arbitrator ruled in favor of Discover Bank and
Levy on all claims.  Discover Bank and Levy subsequently filed
motions before the Lake County Court of Common Pleas to confirm
the arbitration award.  On August 6, 2015, the trial court issued
a judgment entry granting the motions and dismissing Passmore's
counterclaims.

Steven A. Friedman -- steven.friedman@squirepb.com -- Squire
Patton Boggs (US) LLP, 4900 Key Tower, 127 Public Square,
Cleveland, OH 44114 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).

Anand N. Misra, The Misra Law Firm, L.L.C., 3659 Green Road, Suite
100, Beachwood, OH 44122; Robert S. Belovich --
rsb@belovichlaw.com -- 9100 South Hills Boulevard, Suite 320,
Broadview Heights, OH 44147 (For Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff-
Appellant).

Boyd W. Gentry -- bgentry@boydgentrylaw.com -- and Zachary P.
Elliott, Law Office of Boyd W. Gentry, LLC, 2661 Commons
Boulevard, Suite 100, Beavercreek, OH 45431 (For Third Party
Defendants-Appellees).


DOW CHEMICAL: To Pay $835 Million Settlement in Second Half 2016
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Dow Chemical Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company expects to
pay the $835 million settlement in the Urethane class action
lawsuit in the second half of 2016.

On February 16, 2006, the Company, among others, received a
subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") as part of a
previously announced antitrust investigation of manufacturers of
polyurethane chemicals, including methylene diphenyl diisocyanate,
toluene diisocyanate, polyether polyols and system house products.
The Company cooperated with the DOJ and, following an extensive
investigation, on December 10, 2007, the Company received notice
from the DOJ that it had closed its investigation of potential
antitrust violations involving these products without indictments
or pleas.

In 2005, the Company, among others, was named as a defendant in
multiple civil class action lawsuits alleging a conspiracy to fix
the price of various urethane chemical products, namely the
products that were the subject of the above described DOJ
antitrust investigation. These lawsuits were consolidated in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (the "District
Court") or have been tolled. On July 29, 2008, the District Court
certified a class of purchasers of the products for the six-year
period from 1999 through 2004 ("plaintiff class"). In January
2013, the class action lawsuit went to trial in the District Court
with the Company as the sole remaining defendant, the other
defendants having previously settled. On February 20, 2013, the
jury returned a damages verdict of approximately $400 million
against the Company, which ultimately was trebled by the District
Court under applicable antitrust laws, less offsets from other
settling defendants, resulting in a judgment entered in July 2013
in the amount of $1.06 billion. The Company appealed this judgment
to the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ("Tenth Circuit" or
"Court of Appeals"), and on September 29, 2014, the Court of
Appeals issued an opinion affirming the District Court judgment.
On October 14, 2014, the Company filed a petition for Rehearing or
Rehearing En Banc (collectively the "Rehearing Petition") with the
Court of Appeals, which was denied on November 7, 2014.

On March 9, 2015, the Company filed a petition for writ of
certiorari ("Writ Petition") with the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking
judicial review by the Supreme Court and requesting that it
correct fundamental errors in the Circuit Court opinion. There
were several compelling reasons why the Supreme Court should have
granted the Writ Petition and the Company believed it was likely
that the District Court judgment would be vacated. Specifically,
the Company's position was that the Tenth Circuit decision
violated the law as expressed by the Supreme Court as set out in
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) ("Wal-
Mart") and Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013)
("Comcast"). The Tenth Circuit also did not follow accepted law
from other federal circuits on dispositive case issues, including
legal precedent from the U.S. First, Second, Third, Fifth, Ninth
and D.C. Circuit Courts. Finally, the Company argued that the
erroneous law applied by the Tenth Circuit was not supported by
any other federal circuit court.

In April 2015, six amici filed amicus briefs in support of the
Company's Writ Petition. On June 8, 2015, the Supreme Court
granted a petition for a writ of certiorari in another case, Tyson
Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, PEG, et al., ("Tyson Foods") (Supreme
Court No. 14-1146), which presented an issue core to the questions
presented in the Company's Writ Petition: whether class-wide
damages can be determined by simply applying the average injury
observed in a sample. The Company's case was considered by the
Supreme Court in conference on June 11, 2015. On June 15, 2015,
the Supreme Court issued its decisions from its conference and did
not rule on the Company's Writ Petition. Subsequently, the Writ
Petition was not listed for further consideration by the Supreme
Court at its weekly conferences.

The Company was advised that this meant that the Supreme Court was
withholding further consideration of the Company's Writ Petition
while it considered the Tyson Foods case on the merits. As a
result, the Company did not expect any further action on its Writ
Petition until sometime in 2016. The Company believed that the
Supreme Court accepted Tyson Foods for the compelling reasons also
advanced by the Company in its Writ Petition and that the Supreme
Court would issue an opinion in Tyson Foods that was favorable to
the Company's case. Accordingly, on August 14, 2015, the Company
filed an amicus brief in Tyson Foods supporting Tyson Foods'
position.

On February 26, 2016, the Company announced a proposed settlement
under which Dow would pay the plaintiff class $835 million, which
includes damages, class attorney fees and post-judgment interest.
The agreement is conditioned upon the Supreme Court holding Dow's
Writ Petition in abeyance and subsequent approval of the class
settlement by the District Court. The proposed settlement will
resolve the $1.06 billion judgment and any subsequent claim for
attorneys' fees, costs and post-judgment interest against Dow. As
a result, in the first quarter of 2016, the Company recorded a
loss of $835 million, included in "Sundry income (expense) - net"
in the consolidated statements of income and reflected in the
Performance Materials & Chemicals segment. On March 7, 2016, the
Supreme Court approved the joint motion to hold Dow's Writ
Petition in abeyance and a motion to approve the settlement is now
pending before the District Court. The Company expects to pay the
$835 million settlement in the second half of 2016.

Dow changed its risk assessment on this matter as a result of new
growing political uncertainties due to events within the Supreme
Court, including Justice Scalia's death, and the increased
likelihood for unfavorable outcomes for businesses involved in
class action lawsuits. Of particular importance was the fact that
Justice Scalia had written the majority opinions in both the Wal-
Mart and Comcast cases. The Company continues to believe that it
was not part of any conspiracy and the judgment was fundamentally
flawed as a matter of class action law.


EASTERN PLATINUM: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Andy McDonnell, Esq., and Michael D. Schafler, Esq., of Dentons,
in an article for Lexology, report that the recent decision in
Bradley v. Eastern Platinum Ltd. saw the Superior Court of Justice
reaffirm the position that the test for statutory leave to bring a
secondary market securities class action "is not a low bar."
Justice Rady, citing the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada
in CIBC v. Green, and Theratechnologies, refused to grant leave as
the claim brought by the plaintiff had no reasonable chance of
success at trial.  A plaintiff must put forth "both a plausible
analysis of the applicable legislative provisions, and credible
evidence in support of the claim"[5]; this proved to be an
impossibility for the plaintiff, given the evidence led by the
defendant.

Where the facts are contentious, as was the case here, the amount
and quality of material submitted by the parties will be
determinative of whether the motion will fail or succeed.  It
seems that such situations provide a real opportunity for a
defendant to stop a class action before it begins, given that the
burden on the plaintiff is substantial.

Facts:

The proposed class action was brought by Mr. Bradley, a pastry
chef from British Columbia and the holder of 2000 shares in
Eastern Platinum Ltd. ("Eastplats"). Eastplats, a Vancouver based
platinum mining company, at the time operated only one mine:
Crocodile River Mine ("CRM").  The mine was located in South
Africa and the shares of Eastplats were listed on the Toronto
Stock Exchange ("TSX"), the Johannesburg Stock Exchange and the
London Stock Exchange's AIM exchange.

In April 2011, Eastplats issued a news release indicating that
production for Q1 of that year had been lower than forecasted. The
reasons given for the poor Q1 performance were:

"The traditional slow start in January combined with the
introduction of revised support methods [emphasis added] resulted
in a significant decrease in production for the quarter."

At the close of the next trading day following the release of this
information, Eastplats' stock price fell sharply on the TSX from
$1.30 to $1.10.  The plaintiff sought leave to commence an action
under the secondary market provisions in Part XXIII.1 of the
Ontario Securities Act ("OSA").  Mr. Bradley alleged that
Eastplats failed to disclose: (i) a complete or partial shutdown
of operations due to a labour dispute, and (ii) the installation
of cement grout packs to shore up CRM's ceiling.  The plaintiff
claimed that together, these two issues caused the decrease in
production and that both were material changes that should have
been disclosed.  As such, Eastplats' share price was artificially
inflated, thereby causing damage to shareholders who invested
during the class period.

As noted, the facts were contentious, and much was made of the
particular support structures used to shore up CRM.  The plaintiff
contended that Eastplats installed cement grout packs ahead of a
planned schedule, which caused the redistribution of manpower and
a significant decrease in productivity.  The defendants however,
claimed that while a new support structure was installed, it was
not a cement grout pack system and had no significant impact on
productivity.

The Motion:

The test to obtain leave under Part XXIII.1 of the OSA is twofold:
the plaintiff must show that the action is brought in good faith
and that the action has a reasonable prospect of success.  The
plaintiff contended he met these requirements by leading
sufficient evidence to meet what he described as "the low
reasonable possibility of success at trial standard" and that the
application was brought in good faith.

Justice Rady began her analysis by noting that the purpose of the
leave provisions under the OSA is to weed out wholly unmeritorious
claims or those brought by coercive design.  Such claims are
brought in the hope that a defendant will be bullied into a quick
settlement, rather than engage in protracted and expensive
litigation.

The Court then noted that, while not required to do so, the
defendants filed voluminous evidence to refute the plaintiff's
claims.  Following the decisions in Green and Theratechnologies
the Court stated that a "robust, meaningful examination and
critical evaluation of the evidence," was required in assessing
whether leave should be granted, and that the test is "not a low
bar as the applicant [had] asserted."

Upon examination, Justice Rady found that the body of
contradictory evidence simply overwhelmed the plaintiff's
position.  In light of this, the Court could not find the
plaintiff's claim to have a plausible prospect for success at
trial and so dismissed the application.

Commentary:

The Superior Court noted that applications brought under these
provisions are now commonly brought with voluminous amounts of
evidence, produced by either or both the plaintiff and defendant.
A defendant may be well advised to meet an application with
compelling evidence, especially in instances where the facts are
disputed. Such preparation will now see a defendant in a real
position of succeeding in ending a class action early.  Similarly,
the interpretation of Green and Theratechnologies, has resulted in
the leave provisions under the OSA becoming a real burden for a
plaintiff to discharge.  A plaintiff should truly examine the
foundations of their claim before moving under these provisions;
real scrutiny at an early stage may save much time and money.  In
some ways, these leave applications seem to be approaching the
summary judgment test, which is an interesting but perhaps not
unwelcome development.


ECOPETROL S.A.: Designation of Legal Representative Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ecopetrol S.A. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company is waiting
for a court to designate a legal representative for the defendants
in the lawsuit related to the BT Energy Challenger.

The Company said, "On October 22, 2014, we were served with a
class action suit against us seeking monetary damages of
approximately COP$7.4 trillion related to an incident that
occurred on August 21, 2014, during the loading operations of the
BT Energy Challenger vessel. The claimants alleged possible damage
to the port area of Ecopetrol's terminal in Covenas, as well as of
marine and submarine areas and beaches that form the geographical
area of the Morrosquillo Gulf. This allegation is currently under
investigation by the Harbor Master of Covenas. Ecopetrol filed a
motion requesting the judge to require the claimants to amend
their claim to more precisely set forth the facts and evidence it
believes establishes Ecopetrol's liability."

"On March 3, 2015, Ecopetrol filed its statement of defense
arguing the exclusive fault of a third party. On October 20, 2015,
the Court denied a class of more than 100 informal traders in the
region because there is no common identity with the initial class
(hotel employees).

"At the date of this report, Ecopetrol is waiting for the Court to
designate a legal representative for the defendants."


ECOPETROL S.A.: Oil Spill Class Action in Probatory Stage
---------------------------------------------------------
Ecopetrol S.A. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a class action lawsuit
related to the Cano Limon - Covenas Crude Oil Pipeline Spill is in
the probatory stage.

On December 11, 2011, the Cano Limon-Covenas oil pipeline ruptured
and caused the spill of approximately 3,267 barrels of crude oil
into the Iscala creek, which connects with the Pamplonita River
that provides water to the city of C£cuta. The incident did not
cause any fatalities or injuries.

"We launched an internal investigation and hired a highly renowned
international consultant to investigate the causes of this
incident. The conclusion of the investigations was that the
rupture occurred as a result of an unusual movement of soil and
the tensioning of the pipeline," the Company said.

"A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ecopetrol S.A. and
against employees of the company, and the First Administrative
Court of Cucuta has jurisdiction to conduct the case, which is in
the probatory stage."


ELI LILLY: Actos(R) Product Liability Suits Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company is named
along with Takeda as a defendant in four purported product
liability class actions in Canada related to Actos, including two
in Ontario (Casseres et al. v. Takeda Pharmaceutical North
America, Inc., et al. and Carrier et al. v. Eli Lilly et al.), one
in Quebec (Whyte et al. v. Eli Lilly et al.), and one in Alberta
(Epp v. Takeda Canada et al.).  The Company promoted Actos in
Canada until 2009.

"We believe these lawsuits are without merit, and we and Takeda
are prepared to defend against them vigorously," the Company said.


ELI LILLY: Defendant in 525 Byetta(R) Product Liability Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company is named
as a defendant in approximately 525 Byetta product liability
lawsuits in the U.S. involving approximately 1,055 plaintiffs.
Approximately 115 of these lawsuits, covering about 630
plaintiffs, are filed in California state court and coordinated in
a Los Angeles Superior Court.

"Approximately 405 lawsuits, covering about 410 plaintiffs, are
filed in federal court, the majority of which are coordinated in a
multi-district litigation in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California. The remaining approximately five
lawsuits, representing about 10 plaintiffs, are in various state
courts," the Company said.

"Approximately 460 of the lawsuits, involving approximately 710
plaintiffs, contain allegations that Byetta caused or contributed
to the plaintiffs' cancer (primarily pancreatic cancer or thyroid
cancer). The federal and state trial courts granted summary
judgment in favor of us and co-defendants on the claims alleging
pancreatic cancer; those rulings are being appealed by the
plaintiffs.

"We are aware of approximately 10 additional claimants who have
not yet filed suit. These additional claims allege damages for
pancreatic cancer or thyroid cancer. We believe these lawsuits and
claims are without merit and are prepared to defend against them
vigorously."


ELI LILLY: Appeal in Cymbalta(R) Product Liability Case Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that an appeal by
plaintiffs in the Cymbalta(R) product liability litigation remains
pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The Company said, "In October 2012, we were named as a defendant
in a purported class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California (Saavedra et al v. Eli Lilly
and Company) involving Cymbalta. The plaintiffs, purporting to
represent a class of all persons within the U.S. who purchased
and/or paid for Cymbalta, asserted claims under the consumer
protection statutes of four states, California, Massachusetts,
Missouri, and New York, and sought declaratory, injunctive, and
monetary relief for various alleged economic injuries arising from
discontinuing treatment with Cymbalta."

"In December 2014, the district court denied the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification. Plaintiffs filed a petition with
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit requesting
permission to file an interlocutory appeal of the denial of class
certification, which was denied.

"Plaintiffs filed a second motion for certification under the
consumer protection acts of New York and Massachusetts. The
district court denied that motion for class certification in July
2015. The district court dismissed the suit and plaintiffs are
appealing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit."


ELI LILLY: Defending 140 Suits Over Cymbalta Injuries
-----------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company is named
in approximately 140 lawsuits involving approximately 1,450
plaintiffs filed in various federal and state courts alleging
injuries arising from discontinuation of treatment with Cymbalta.

The Company said, "Counsel for plaintiffs in the federal court
proceedings filed a petition seeking to have then-filed cases and
an unspecified number of future cases coordinated into a federal
MDL in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California."

"In December 2014, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
(JPML) denied the plaintiffs' petition for creation of an MDL.
Plaintiffs' counsel subsequently filed a second petition seeking
MDL consolidation, which petition was denied by the JPML in
October 2015. There have been approximately 40 individual and
multi-plaintiff cases filed in California state court.  Most of
those cases have been centralized in a California Judicial Counsel
Coordination Proceeding pending in Los Angeles.

"The first individual product liability cases were tried in August
2015 and resulted in defense verdicts against four plaintiffs. The
plaintiff in one of those cases is appealing the verdict. The
other plaintiffs in those cases will not be appealing the
judgment.

"We believe these lawsuits and claims are without merit and are
prepared to defend against them vigorously."


ELI LILLY: Defending 10 Prozac(R) Product Liability Cases
---------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company:

     -- is named as a defendant in approximately 10 U.S. lawsuits
primarily related to allegations that the antidepressant Prozac
caused or contributed to birth defects in the children of women
who ingested the drug during pregnancy.

     -- is aware of approximately 385 additional claims related to
birth defects, which have not yet been filed.

"We believe these lawsuits and claims are without merit and are
prepared to defend against them vigorously," the Company said.


EMULEX CORP: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Shareholders' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Sharkey, writing for The RacetotheBottom.org, reports that in
Varjabedian v. Emulex Corp., No. SACV 15-00554-CJC(JCGx), 2016 BL
21999 (C.D. Cal. Jan 13, 2016), the United States District Court
for the Central District of California granted a motion to dismiss
filed by Emulex Corporation ("Emulex"), Emerald Merger Sub, Inc.
("Merger Sub"), Avago Technologies Wireless Manufacturing, Inc.
("Avago"), and ten members of Emulex's board and management (the
"Individual Defendants") (collectively, "Defendants") against Gary
Varjabedian's ("Plaintiff") complaint.

According to the allegations, Avago acquired Emulex in 2015 after
the two companies reached a merger agreement, under which Merger
Sub was to initiate a tender offer for Emulex's outstanding stock.
Emulex solicited a fairness opinion from its financial advisor,
which found the merger, which produced a 26.4% premium over
Emulex's current stock price, was fair.  Accordingly, Emulex
issued a Recommendation Statement summarizing the findings and
recommending shareholders tender their shares and support the
acquisition.  The Recommendation Statement, however, did not
include a one-page Premium Analysis from the financial advisor's
fairness opinion indicating the Emulex premium was below-average.
Plaintiff filed suit alleging Defendants intended to mislead
Emulex shareholders into believing the proposed merger was a
better deal than it actually was.  Among other claims, Plaintiff
contended Emulex violated Sections 14(e) and 14(d)(4) of the
Exchange Act.

Section 14(e) makes it unlawful to make any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit any material fact necessary to make the
statements made not misleading. 15 U.S.C. 78n(e).  Plaintiff
asserted that a claim under the Section did not require
allegations of scienter.  Assuming scienter was required, the
Plaintiff attempted to meet the requirement in three ways: (1) the
Defendants made misleading statements regarding Emulex premiums
despite having access to contradictory information; (2) the
Defendants knew of the Premium Analysis, and that withholding the
information would mislead investors; and (3) the Individual
Defendants had a motive to commit fraud because they feared for
their jobs if Emulex did not sell quickly.

The court first addressed whether Section 14(e) even required
allegations of scienter.  Relying on case law, statutory
interpretation, and analysis from other jurisdictions, the court
concluded a plaintiff bringing a claim under Section 14(e) is
required to allege scienter.  To determine whether a plaintiff
sufficiently pleaded a strong inference of scienter, the court
utilizes a "dual inquiry."  The court must determine whether the
following are sufficient to create a strong inference of scienter:
(1) any of the plaintiff's allegations, when standing alone; and
(2) any insufficient individual allegations, when combined.

The court found the Plaintiff failed to allege a strong inference
of scienter.  First, the court found the Premium Analysis
suggested the Emulex premium was below the industry average, but
within a range of reasonable outcomes.  Because the Defendants
never represented the premium as above industry average, the court
reasoned these statements were not contradictory.  Second, the
court held Defendants were under no obligation to include every
piece of information regarding the merger in the Recommendation
Analysis, so it was not unreasonable to omit the Premium Analysis.
Finally, the court noted the Individual Defendants rejected
multiple offers for Emulex, and as shareholders, the Individual
Defendants had no motive to sell the company at an unacceptably
low price.

Examining the complaint in its entirety, the court found the
Plaintiff failed to allege scienter under the second prong of the
"dual inquiry".  The court reasoned it was likely the Defendants
legitimately believed the premium to be fair to shareholders, and
the Premium Analysis did not explicitly indicate otherwise.

The Plaintiff also alleged violation of Section 14(d)(4) and Rule
14d-9. Section 14(d)(4), however, does not expressly create a
private right of action.  Thus, the Plaintiff argued the court
should recognize an implied right of action.  The court refused to
do so, holding the statute did not create a federal right in favor
of the plaintiff, and the legislative intent and underlying
purpose of Section 14(d)(4) was not to create a private right of
action, but to reserve enforcement for the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Accordingly, the court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss
the Plaintiff's complaint.


ENDESA AMERICAS: Defending Class Suit in Garzon, Colombia
---------------------------------------------------------
Endesa Americas S.A. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a class action lawsuit
has been filed by residents of the Colombian Municipality of
Garzon, alleging that the construction of the El Quimbo
hydroelectric project has caused the plaintiffs' income from
handicrafts or entrepreneurial activities to decrease by an
average of 30%.

The lawsuit claims the decrease was not considered when the
project's social-economic impact report was drafted. Emgesa has
denied these allegations on the basis that (i) the social-economic
impact report complied with all methodological criteria, including
giving all interested parties the opportunity to be registered in
the report, (ii) the plaintiffs are not residents and therefore,
compensation is allowed only for those whose revenues are, in
their majority, coming from of their activity in the direct area
of influence of the El Quimbo hydroelectric project and (iii)
compensation must not go beyond the "first link" of the production
chain and must be based on the status of the income indicators of
each affected person. A proceeding was filed in parallel by 38
inhabitants of the Municipality of Garzon, who are claiming
compensation for being affected by the El Quimbo hydroelectric
project since they were not included in the social-economic impact
report. A mandatory settlement hearing was unsuccessful. The court
ordered a test, which is currently in the preliminary phase.

In the parallel proceeding, an exception previous of pending
lawsuit was filed, based on the existence of the principal
proceeding. The proposed exception is pending ruling. The amount
involved in this proceeding is estimated to be approximately CPs
93 billion (approximately ThCh$ 20,925,000).


EQUITY TRUST: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Repair Units' Defects
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Pruess v. Equity Trust Company Custodian FBO Account 49907,
Peter Louie, Gene Roland, Radiant Services and Does 1-30, Case No.
RG16816009 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 17, 2016), is brought on behalf
of the tenants who suffered emotional distress, physical injury,
over-payment of rent, and out-of-pocket expenses as a result of
the Defendants' failure and refusal to make repairs of the
habitability defects to premises located at 1625 Chestnut Street,
lower unit, Berkeley, California 94702.

The Defendants own and operate a real estate agency doing business
in the County of Alameda, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Wolff, Esq.
      Chris Beatty, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW WOLFF, PC
      1970 Broadway, Ste. 210
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510) 834-3300
      Facsimile: (510) 834-3377
      E-mail: andrew@awolfflaw.com
              chris@awolfflaw.com


FACEBOOK INC: Averts Class Action Over Message-Scanning Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that a federal judge
in Oakland has declined to certify a damages class in a privacy
lawsuit against Facebook Inc. over its alleged scanning of users'
private messages.

In an order issued on May 18, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton
wrote that many Facebook users suffered "little, if any, harm" as
a result of Facebook's message-scanning practices and that damages
in the case weren't appropriate for class treatment. Hamilton,
however, certified a class seeking injunctive relief under federal
and state privacy laws.

Plaintiffs lawyers led by Michael Sobol at Lieff Cabraser Heimann
& Bernstein sued Facebook after The Wall Street Journal reported
that when users included links to websites in their private
Facebook messages, those links registered as a "Like" for sites
that displayed Facebook's "Like" button.  Plaintiffs claimed that
Facebook's interception and scanning of the messages constituted a
violation of the Federal Wiretap Act, as well as California's
Invasion of Privacy Act.

Judge Hamilton rejected Facebook's motion to dismiss the suit in
December 2014, finding that the company's link-scanning didn't fit
into an exception in the Wiretap Act for communications service
providers to conduct activity within the "ordinary course of
business."  But on class certification, she concluded that the
case could result in an unwarranted windfall to many class members
since the law carries statutory damages of up to $10,000.
"To be clear, it is not the size of an aggregate damages award
that the court finds disproportionate," Judge Hamilton wrote.
"Rather, it is the fact that many individual damages awards would
be disproportionate, and sorting out those disproportionate
damages awards would require individualized analyses that would
predominate over common ones," she wrote.

Mr. Sobol and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher's Christopher Chorba, who
argued the class certification motion for Facebook, didn't
immediately respond to messages on May 19.

In an email, a Facebook spokesperson applauded Hamilton's decision
not to allow plaintiffs to seek damages on a classwide basis.
"The remaining claims relate to historical practices that are
entirely lawful, and we look forward to resolving those claims on
the merits," the spokesperson said.


FITBIT INC: Sued in California Over Misleading Financial Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ana da Luz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. James Park, Eric N. Friedman, Jonathan D. Callaghan,
Steven Murray, Christopher Paisley, William Zerella, Fitbit, Inc.,
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 & Asscociates, Inc., Stifel, Nicolaus & Company,
Incorporated, William Blair & Company, LLC, Citigroup Global
Markets, Inc., RBC Capital Markets, LLC, True Ventures II, LP,
Softbank Princeville Investments, LP, Case No. CGC 16 552062 (Cal.
Super. Ct., May 17, 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.

Fitbit, Inc. manufactures wearable devices that are tailored to
monitor a user's fitness level by tracking various health and
fitness activities to the user.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marc G. Reich, Esq.
      Adam T. Hoover, Esq.
      REICH RADCLIFFE & KUTTLER LLP
      4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 550
      Newport Beach, CA 92660
      Telephone: (949) 975-0512
      Facsimile: (949) 975-0514
      E-mail: mgr@reichradcliffe.com
              adhoover@reichradcliffe.com

         - and -

      Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq.
      LIFSHITZ & MILLER
      821 Franklin Ave., Suite 209
      Garden City, NY 11530
      Telephone: (516) 493-9780
      Facsimile: (516) 280-7376
      E-mail: jml@jclasslaw.com


FLINT, MI: NAACP Files Class Action Over Water Crisis
-----------------------------------------------------
West Bloomfield Patch reports that the NAACP said on May 18 that
it has filed a federal class action lawsuit on behalf of residents
and businesses affected by the Flint water crisis.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court, alleges that the state
of Michigan, many city and state officials and two engineering
firms hired to evaluate water quality in Flint failed to detect
problems and properly treat water that caused extensive lead
contamination in the city while Flint was under supervision of
state-appointed emergency managers.

The plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit include Flint residents
and members of the local branch of the NAACP, whose national
attorneys are working with the firms of Cohen Milstein Sellers and
Toll of Washington, D.C. and the Houston-based firm of Susman
Godfrey.

The complaint seeks property damages, pain and suffering damages,
emotional distress damages, medical monitoring, and other
injunctive relief for affected city residents and businesses to be
determined by the court.

It is the latest in a flurry of lawsuits filed after the city's
100,000 residents were exposed to dangerously high levels of lead
after the city began drawing water from the Flint River in 2014.

It was January of this year before Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder, a
named defendant in the lawsuit, declared a state of emergency in
Flint.

"The people of Flint have been harmed through the failure of state
officials to provide professional and accountable basic services
mandated by federal law and expected by any person living in a
major city," Cornell William Brooks, the national president and
CEO of the NAACP, said in a statement.

"Our organization stands with the citizens of Flint to demand a
clear timeline, deadline and price tag for fixing this crisis as
well as effective remedies for the harms that have already
occurred and complete compensation for each and every victim of
this unimaginable tragedy," he added.

Also named as defendants are six former high-ranking officials
with the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, and three
men who were emergency managers during the prolonged exposure
period.

Two engineering firms hired to analyze water in the city,
Lockwood, Andrews and Newnam Inc. and Veolia North America, also
failed to satisfy their professional duties and affirmatively
worsened the extent of the lead exposure, according to the
complaint.

The 103-page complaint alleges that the officials and companies
supervising the water system failed to properly treat the water
supply for salt and other chemicals, which caused lead to leach
from corroded pipes into the drinking water for years.  Officials
repeatedly denied and dismissed reports of poor water quality and
pipe corrosion before acknowledging widespread failures to act.

The NAACP's Flint Branch and Michigan State Conference have
diligently worked over the last two years to inform the public
about the poisoned water and its potential effects on city
children and residents, and called for federal and state action to
provide relief.

The NAACP and attorneys in the case are planning to host Town Hall
meetings with residents in the near future in Flint to discuss
further action.


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Fuel Economy Label Error
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Muller, writing for Mlive, reports that a Florida man has
filed a class-action lawsuit in federal court in Detroit against
General Motors over the automaker's error on EPA-estimated fuel
economy labels for about 60,000 model-year-2016 SUVs.

The Detroit automaker sent a memo to dealers disclosing mistakes
on window stickers that listed fuel economy at one to two miles
per gallon too high on 2016 Chevrolet Traverse, GMC Acadia and
Buick Enclave SUVs.

The memo told dealers to immediately stop selling the SUVs.

In the lawsuit filed on May 17, Ocoee, Fla. resident
Sean Tolmasoff says he bought a 2016 Chevrolet Traverse on April
23 from David Maus Chevrolet in Sanford, Fla.

He is claiming he and others who bought affected SUVs suffered
losses in vehicle value because of the discrepancy.

"Had Plaintiff and other Class members known the true fuel-economy
ratings of the Class Vehicles at the time of purchase or lease,
they would not have bought or leased the Class Vehicles, or would
have paid substantially less for them," the lawsuit states.

Mr. Tolmasoff's lawsuit also claims GM violated the Michigan
Consumer Protection Act as well as the Florida Deceptive And
Unfair Trade Practices Act because the labels were misleading.
He's demanding a jury trial.

A message seeking comment from his attorneys was left on May 18.

GM has insisted the mislabeling was an accident.

The label, also known as a Monroney sticker, inaccurately showed
fuel economy ratings of 17 miles per gallon-city, 24-highway and
19 combined.  The fuel economy for all-wheel-drive models should
be 15-city, 22-highway and 17 combined. For front-wheel-drive
models: 15-city, 22-highway and 18 combined.

GM said it checked all other vehicle for similar discrepancies but
found no issues.  The company has printed correct stickers, which
were supposed to start arriving at dealerships last week.

The automaker said the overstated fuel economy was due to an
inadvertent "data transmission" for the issue, Automotive News
reported.

The company declined to comment on Mr. Tolmasoff's lawsuit.

But on the sticker issue, a spokesman said GM has been "very clear
and transparent that we made a mistake on the fuel economy label
for the 2016 vehicles."

"We informed the EPA right away and we've been in conversation
with them about the corrective action we're taking," said GM
spokesman Jim Cain.

The case is Sean Tolmasoff, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. General Motors, LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-11747-
MOB-APP (E.D. Mich., May 17, 2016), is brought on behalf of all
current and former owners and lessees of 2016 Chevrolet Traverses,
2016 Buick Enclaves and 2016 GMC Acadias that were marketed and
sold with false fuel-economy ratings.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
      Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq.
      Joseph B. Kenney, Esq.
      MCCUNEWRIGHT LLP
      1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
      Berwyn, PA 19312
      Telephone: (909) 557-1250
      E-mail: jgs@mccunewright.com
              mds@mccunewright.com
              jbk@mccunewright.com

         - and -

      Richard D. McCune, Esq.
      David C. Wright, Esq.
      MCCUNEWRIGHT LLP
      2068 Orange Tree Lane, Suite 216
      Redlands, CA 92374
      Telephone: (909) 557-1250
      Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
      E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com
              dcw@mccunewright.com

General Motors, LLC designs, tests, manufactures, distributes,
warrants, sells, and leases various vehicles under several
prominent brand names, including but not limited to Chevrolet,
Buick, GMC, GM, and Pontiac in this district and throughout the
United States.


GENERAL NUTRITION: Faces "Gennock" Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against General
Nutrition Centers, Inc. and GNC Holdings, Inc.

The case is captioned Ashley Gennock and Daniel Styslinger,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
General Nutrition Centers, Inc. and GNC Holdings, Inc., Case No.
2:16-cv-00633-MRH (W.D. Penn., May 17, 2016).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GENZYME CORP: Dismissal of Consolidated Fabrazyme Suits Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ANITA HOCHENDONER, ET AL., Plaintiffs,
Appellants, v. GENZYME CORPORATION, Defendant, Appellee. PHILIP
ADAMO ET AL., Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. GENZYME CORPORATION,
Defendant, Appellee, Nos. 15-1446, 15-1447 (1st Cir.), the United
States Court of Appeals, First Circuit affirmed the district
court's order of dismissal of the consolidated actions.

The lawsuits, filed on behalf of the named plaintiffs and a
putative class comprising of Fabry Disease patients, arose from
the shortage of Fabrazyme which was solely produced by Genzyme
Corporation.  Fabrazyme is the only enzyme replacement therapy
approved by the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the
treatment of Fabry.

The First Circuit found that only two of the named plaintiffs --
James Mooney and his wife, Laura Kurtz-Mooney -- have plausibly
alleged facts sufficient to demonstrate Article III standing.  The
appellate court thus affirmed the dismissal of the complaints as
to all the other plaintiffs based on their lack of Article III
standing.  However, the First Circuit directed the district court,
on remand, to clarify the judgment so that it will operate without
prejudice as to claims based on the alleged acceleration and
contaminant injuries.

A full-text copy of the First Circuit's May 23, 2016 opinion is
available at https://is.gd/RJ0CkD from Leagle.com.

Matthew L. Kurzweg, with whom Kurzweg Law Offices was on brief,
for appellants.

Robert G. Jones -- robert.jones@ropesgray.com -- with whom Justin
Florence -- justin.florence@ropesgray.com -- Mark S. Gaioni --
mark.gaioni@ropesgray.com -- Cassandra Bolanos --
cassandra.bolanos@ropesgray.com -- and Ropes & Gray LLP were on
brief, for appellee.


GEORGE LOMBARDI: Inmate May Proceed in Forma Pauperis
-----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Ronnie L. White of the Eastern District of Missouri
granted plaintiff's motion in the case WILLIAM WINTWORTH FOSTER,
Plaintiff, v. GEORGE LOMBARDI, et al., No. 4:16CV373 RLW (E.D.
Mo.)

William Wintworth Foster alleges that inmates cannot buy hygiene
items because court filing fees are taken from their accounts,
that religious dietary meals do not contain enough calories, that
there is too much noise in his housing unit, that he has been
denied medical care, that he and other inmates are sleep deprived,
that he has been denied access to the courts, and that he has been
retaliated against for filing grievances.

Foster seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983.

District Judge White granted plaintiff's motion to proceed in
forma pauperis and made plaintiff to pay a partial initial filing
fee of $1.70 within 30 days of the date of order. Plaintiff must
submit an amended complaint within 21 days from the date of order.

A copy of Judge White's memorandum and order dated May 10, 2016,
is available at http://goo.gl/6fX3DWfrom Leagle.com.

William Wintworth Foster, Plaintiff, Pro Se


GOOGLE INC: Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Pay-Per-Click Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for MediaPost, reports that tech companies
headquartered in Silicon Valley could find it harder to fight
class action lawsuits on their home turf than elsewhere in the
country, unless the Supreme Court agrees to review a recent
decision in a lawsuit against Google.

That's according to Google, which made a final pitch for a Supreme
Court hearing in a lawsuit brought by a group of pay-per-click
marketers.

"Without this Court's review, class actions will be easier to
certify in the Ninth Circuit than anywhere else in the nation,"
Google says in papers filed with the Supreme Court.

The company adds that the marketers' class-action would have been
"doomed" if they had brought the case in courts outside of the 9th
Circuit's jurisdiction, like Philadelphia, Richmond, Chicago, or
Miami.  The 9th Circuit covers nine states, including tech hotbeds
California and Washington.

The company wants the Supreme Court to review a decision that
granted pay-per-click marketers class-action status in a long-
running lawsuit. The marketers -- including law firm Pulaski &
Middleman and retailer RK West -- allege that Google placed their
ads on "low quality" sites.

Google says the companies shouldn't be able to proceed as a class
because any damages need to be calculated on a company-by-company
basis.  The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled against
Google on that point, prompting the company to ask the Supreme
Court to hear the matter.

Among other arguments, Google says that the 9th Circuit's decision
conflicts with decisions made by other appeals courts.

The marketers have asked the Supreme Court to reject the case.
They said in a brief filed in April that they proposed a
"reliable, classwide method" of calculating the amount of money
they believe they are owed.

The battle dates to 2009, when the marketers alleged that ads on
Google's AdSense for Domains and AdSense for Errors programs
result in fewer purchases than ads on Google's search results
pages.  Google has since revised its ad policies.


GROUP HEALTH: "Hansen" Suit Remains in District Court
-----------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard A. Jones denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand the
case captioned KAREN HANSEN and BETTE JORAM, Plaintiffs, v. GROUP
HEALTH COOPERATIVE, Defendant, Case No. C15-1436RAJ (W.D. Wash.).
The judge granted in part and denied, in part, the defendant's
motion to dismiss.

On August 3, 2015, Karen Hansen and Bette Joram, filed a class
action complaint against Group Health Cooperative (GHC), in King
County Superior Court.  The plaintiffs alleged that GHC engages in
unfair and deceptive practices, in violation of Washington's
Consumer Protection Act (CPA), through its development and
implementation of coverage determination guidelines that limit the
ability of Washington State psychotherapists to provide mental
health services to GHC plan members.  According to the plaintiffs,
these limitations conflict with Washington's Mental Health Parity
Act.  The Parity Act requires all health plans that provide
medical and surgical service coverage to also provide coverage for
mental health services.  The plaintiffs' complaint did not make a
distinction between GHC's administration of Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA) and non-ERISA plans.

GHC removed the plaintiffs' case to the district court on
September 4, 2015.  The plaintiffs filed their Motion to Remand on
October 5, 2015.  GHC opposed remand and also sought to dismiss
the plaintiffs' complaint by arguing that the plaintiffs' claims
are conflict and expressly preempted under sections 502(a) and
514(a) of ERISA.

Judge Jones agreed that to the extent that the plaintiffs' claims
apply to GHC's administration of ERISA plans, they are, for the
most part, completely preempted.  However, to the extent that
plaintiffs' claims relate to GHC's administration of non-ERISA
plans, the judge held that they are not completely preempted.

A full-text copy of Judge Jones's May 19, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/VpDHBV from Leagle.com.

Karen Hansen, Bette Joram, Plaintiff, represented by Albert H.
Kirby -- ahkirby@soundjustice.com -- SOUND JUSTICE LAW GROUP PLLC.

Group Health Cooperative, Defendant, represented by James Derek
Little -- dlittle@karrtuttle.com -- KARR TUTTLE CAMPBELL & Medora
A Marisseau -- mmarisseau@karrtuttle.com -- KARR TUTTLE CAMPBELL.


GROUPON INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for July 13
--------------------------------------------------------------
Groupon, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a hearing on final
approval of the settlement in the case, In re Groupon, Inc.
Securities Litigation, is scheduled for July 13, 2016.

The Company is currently a defendant in a proceeding pursuant to
which, on October 29, 2012, a consolidated amended class action
complaint was filed against the Company, certain of its directors
and officers, and the underwriters that participated in the
initial public offering of the Company's Class A common stock.
The case is currently pending before the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois: In re Groupon, Inc.
Securities Litigation.

In the first quarter of 2016, the parties entered into a term
sheet to settle the litigation that provides for a settlement
payment to the class of $45.0 million in cash, including
plaintiff's attorneys' fees, in exchange for a full and final
release and also includes a denial of liability or any wrongdoing
by the Company and the other defendants.

On February 1, 2016, the court entered an order staying all
deadlines in the case. On April 7, 2016, the Court entered an
order preliminarily approving the settlement. On April 21, 2016, a
$45.0 million settlement payment was made into an escrow account.
A hearing on final approval of the settlement is scheduled for
July 13, 2016. The Company was fully reserved for the settlement
amount as of March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015.


HAECO AMERICAS: Faces "Linnins" Suit in M.D. North Carolina
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Haeco Americas,
LLC f/k/a Timco Aviation Services, Inc. and Haeco Americas Line
Services, LLC.

The case is captioned David Linnins, Kim Wolfington, Carol
Blackstock, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Haeco Americas, LLC f/k/a Timco Aviation Services, Inc. and
Haeco Americas Line Services, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-00486
(M.D.N.C., May 17, 2016).

The Defendants operate a company that provides commercial jet
maintenance, repair, modification, overhaul and aircraft storage
services from multiple locations in North America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jean Sutton Martin, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JEAN SUTTON MARTIN PLLC
      2018 Eastwood Road Suite 225
      Wilmington, NC 28403
      Telephone: (910) 292-6676
      Facsimile: (888) 316-3489
      E-mail: jean@jsmlawoffice.com


HAWAII: List of Disability Rights Class Members Due Sept. 19
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Susan Oki Mollway issued an order regarding identification
of class members for the case captioned E.R.K., by his legal
guardian R.K.; R.T.D., through his parents R.D. and M.D.; HAWAI'I
DISABILITY RIGHTS CENTER, in a representative capacity on behalf
of its clients and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, State of Hawai'I, Defendant, Civil
10-00436 SOM-KSC (D. Haw.).

The plaintiffs were ordered to provide under seal the final list
of class members no later than September 19, 2016.

A full-text copy of Judge Mollway's May 19, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/ocC9w6 from Leagle.com.

C. K., M. P., N. B., Plaintiffs, represented by Chrystn K.A. Eads
-- ceads@ahfi.com -- Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing, Claire Wong Black
-- cblack@ahfi.com -- Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing, Jason H. Kim,
Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing, Jennifer Visitacion Patricio, Hawaii
Disability Rights Center, Kristin L. Holland -- kholland@ahfi.com
-- Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing, Louis Erteschik, Hawaii Disability
Rights Center, Matthew C. Bassett, Hawaii Disability Rights Center
& Paul Alston -- palston@ahfi.com -- Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing.

R. T. D., R. D., M. D., Plaintiffs, represented by Chrystn K.A.
Eads, Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing,Claire Wong Black, Alston Hunt Floyd
& Ing, Jason H. Kim, Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing, Jennifer Visitacion
Patricio, Hawaii Disability Rights Center,Kristin L. Holland,
Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing, Louis Erteschik, Hawaii Disability Rights
Center, Matthew C. Bassett, Hawaii Disability Rights Center,
Michelle N. Comeau -- mcomeau@ahfi.com -- Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing
& Paul Alston, Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing.

Hawaii Disability Rights Center, Plaintiff, represented by Jason
H. Kim, Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing, Jennifer Visitacion Patricio,
Hawaii Disability Rights Center, Kristin L. Holland, Alston Hunt
Floyd & Ing, Matthew C. Bassett, Hawaii Disability Rights Center,
Paul Alston, Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing & Michelle N. Comeau, Alston
Hunt Floyd & Ing.

E.R. K., Plaintiff, represented by Chrystn K.A. Eads, Alston Hunt
Floyd & Ing,Claire Wong Black, Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing, Jason H.
Kim, Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing, John P. Dellera, John P. Dellera,
Kristin L. Holland, Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing, Louis Erteschik,
Hawaii Disability Rights Center, Matthew C. Bassett, Hawaii
Disability Rights Center, Michelle N. Comeau, Alston Hunt Floyd &
Ing, Paul Alston, Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing & Jennifer Visitacion
Patricio, Hawaii Disability Rights Center.

Department of Education, State of Hawai'i, Defendant, represented
by Adam T. Snow, Department of the Attorney General Education
Division, Carter K. Siu, Department of the Attorney General, Gary
S. Suganuma, Department of the Attorney General Education
Division, Harvey E. Henderson, Jr., Department of the Attorney
General, Holly T. Shikada, Department of the Attorney General,
Kunio Kuwabe, Department of the Attorney General, Ryan W. Roylo,
Department of the Attorney General & Steve K. Miyasaka, Department
of the Attorney General.

Department of Human Service, State of Hawaii, Interested Party,
represented by Candace J. Park, Office of the Attorney General.


HEALTH CARE: Faces Class Action Over BCBS Insurance Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Madison-St. Clair Record reports that attorney David Cates, son of
Presiding Justice Judy Cates of the Fifth District appellate
court, has filed a suit in St. Clair County that mirrors class
action litigation crafted by controversial Chicago attorney
David Novoselsky.

Their target: Health Care Services Corp. as owner of Blue Cross
and Blue Shield on behalf of 16 million policy holders.

Mr. Novoselsky just spent six months on suspension for outrageous
conduct.

According to records of his discipline at the Illinois Attorney
Registration and Discipline Commission (ARDC), Mr. Novoselsky
constantly called a female adversary "bitch" and "whore," among
other epithets.

In open court he falsely accused an adversary of snorting cocaine.

He threatened to have the job of a sheriff's deputy who told him
to lower his voice.

Mr. Novoselsky pointed him out to the judge and said, "Apparently
every time I walk through a courtroom, I'm going to have to deal
with a platoon of sheriff's deputies who seem to think they run
the courthouse."

The judge asked him to proceed on his motion.

"I don't know how we can, your honor, because if I don't argue
properly maybe they'll haul me off in cuffs because they decide
they don't like my argument," Mr. Novoselsky said.

He asked for transfer and said, "I will probably be in on a
federal civil rights action to find out why I have to deal with
garbage like this every time I walk in because your sheriff's
upset."

The judge said that was an insult and Mr. Novoselsky said, "It
should be, your honor."

Mr. Novoselsky faces further discipline on a separate complaint at
the ARDC.

The commission alleges he pursued barred claims, failed to
investigate claims in a complaint, removed a case to federal court
without merit, misrepresented facts at a hearing on sanctions, and
filed meritless pleadings in a guardianship proceeding.

Court records identify Mr. Novoselsky as a Wisconsin citizen with
an Illinois law license and an office in Chicago.

In 2014, when he sought protection from creditors at bankruptcy
court in Milwaukee, bankruptcy judge Pamela Pepper quelled a
verbal riot.

She later wrote that many creditors were former clients who "felt
that the debtor had engaged in misconduct and was not a good
person."

"The court reminded the parties, however, that the Code allowed
people to file for bankruptcy protection regardless of whether
they were 'good guys' or 'bad guys,' and that it contained no
provision for preventing 'bad guys' from filing bankruptcy
petitions," Pepper wrote.

She wrote that she understood that creditors were angry and felt
Mr. Novoselsky had done bad things, but she cautioned them to
maintain a professional tone.

For years Mr. Novoselsky specialized in citizen suits claiming
Cook County politicians rob taxpayers.

He often sued former circuit clerk Dorothy Brown over her
collection of fees, and he sued her for defamation after she said
unpleasant things about him.

On May 10, appellate judges of the U.S. Seventh Circuit in Chicago
granted Ms. Brown immunity against the defamation claim.

In 2012, in Lake County court at Waukegan, Mr. Novoselsky filed
suit on behalf of Harlan Berk against Health Care Services Corp.
as owner of Blue Cross and Blue Shield in Illinois, Texas,
New Mexico, Oklahoma and Montana.

Seeking $25 million in damages, the suit claimed that Mr. Berk
made coinsurance payments that did not reflect the actual rate of
repayment to various providers.

Mr. Novoselsky called for appointment of a receiver to replace the
corporation's board, claiming the directors approved the unlawful
conduct.

Michael Noonan of Waukegan also put his name on the complaint.

Health Care Services removed the action to federal court in
Chicago, and moved to dismiss it for failure to state a claim.

Top class action lawyers Robert Clifford of Chicago and
George Bellas of Park Ridge joined Mr. Novoselsky on the case in
2013, but they could not save it.

District Judge Charles Norgle dismissed it with prejudice in 2014,
finding Mr. Berk sought relief contrary to the express terms of
the insurance plan for which his employer bargained.

"While plaintiff may prefer to have his benefits calculated in
another manner, it is simply not the agreement that his employer
reached with defendant," Judge Norgle wrote.

"Plaintiff has had numerous opportunities to properly plead his
case in the last two years, but he has failed to do so."

Last September, Noonan filed suit in Lake County for
Daryl Hedlin, claiming Health Care Services Corp. improperly
benefited from transactions of subsidiaries.

James Hortsman of Chicago and Jonathan Novoselsky of Waukegan, son
of David, placed their names on the complaint.

David Novoselsky entered an appearance after completing his term
of suspension.

Circuit judge Luis Berrones plans a July 15 hearing on a motion to
dismiss.

Meanwhile, on Oct. 8, Justice Cates filed a complaint with similar
allegations in St. Clair County chancery court, on behalf of Chet
Kelly.

The first page and the last page identified Jonathan Novoselsky as
plaintiff's counsel.

The first page identified Noonan's firm and Mr. Horstman's firm as
plaintiff's counsel, but their names didn't appear on the last
page.

The day after the case was filed, Cates amended the complaint to
remove their firms.

In December, Health Care Services moved to substitute Circuit
Judge Robert LeChien and Chief Judge John Baricevic assigned the
case to Associate Judge Christopher Kolker.

Justice Cates amended the complaint in March, and Health Care
Services counsel Michael Nester of Belleville moved in April to
dismiss it.

"The same parties have begun litigating the same issues related to
the same set of facts in Lake County, and that litigation was
filed first," Mr. Nester wrote.

On April 29 Judge Baricevic entered an order telling the parties
the court would hold oral argument at their request.


HEALTHPORT TECHNOLOGIES: 2nd Cir. Reinstates "Carter" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Amalya L. Kearse of the United States Court of
Appeals, Second Circuit vacated an order dismissing, and remanded,
the case MARISSA CARTER, EVELYN GRYS, BRUCE CURRIER, SHARON
KONING, SUE BEEHLER, MARSHA MANCUSO, JACLYN CUTHBERTSON, as
individuals and as representatives of the classes, Plaintiffs-
Appellants, v. HEALTHPORT TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, THE ROCHESTER GENERAL
HOSPITAL, THE UNITY HOSPITAL OF ROCHESTER, F.F. THOMPSON HOSPITAL,
INC., Defendants-Appellees, Docket No. 15-1072 (2d Cir.)

Plaintiffs are seven individuals, who had been a patient in
Rochester General Hospital (RGH), Unity Hospital of Rochester
(Unity), F.F. Thompson Hospital, Inc. (Thompson) respectively.

HealthPort Technologies, LLC is a for-profit limited liability
company that had contracts with the hospitals and other New York
health care providers to respond to requests for medical records,
and produce such records to patients and other qualified persons.

Between October 2012 and April 2014, each plaintiff, through her
or his counsel, requested medical records from the treating
hospital. In May 2014, plaintiffs commenced an action on behalf of
themselves and a putative class and allege that the fees charged
by HealthPort and paid by plaintiffs substantially exceeded the
cost to produce the requested medical records and included built-
in kickbacks from HealthPort to the respective hospitals. That the
charging of patients' fees in excess of defendants' costs in order
to obtain their medical records violated N.Y. Pub. Health Law
Sections 18(2)(d) and (e), and unjustly enriched defendants at the
ultimate expense of plaintiffs and other class members.

All of the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, each urging
dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) on the ground that plaintiffs lacked
standing, or dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a
claim on which relief can be granted.

The district court granted defendants' motions to dismiss under
Rule 12(b)(1) on the ground that the complaint's allegations were
insufficient to show constitutional standing. Appeal followed.

Circuit Judge Kearse vacated the judgment and remanded the case to
the United States District Court for the Western District of New
York, for further proceedings.

A copy of Circuit Judge Kearse's opinion dated May 10, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/9gYgGBfrom Leagle.com.

STEPHEN G. SCHWARZ, Rochester, New York (Kathryn Lee Bruns, Faraci
Lange, Rochester, New York; Kai H. Richter, Nichols Kaster,
Minneapolis, Minnesota, on the brief), for Plaintiffs-Appellants

JODYANN GALVIN, Buffalo, New York (Hodgson Russ, Buffalo, New
York, on the brief), for Defendants-Appellees HealthPort
Technologies, LLC, The Rochester General Hospital, and The Unity
Hospital of Rochester

ERIC J. WARD, Rochester, New York (Abigail L. Giarrusso, Ward
Greenberg Heller & Reidy, Rochester, New York, on the brief), for
Defendant-Appellee F.F. Thompson Hospital, Inc.

The United States Court of Appeals panel consists of Circuit
Judges Amalya L. Kearse, Jon M. Walker, Jr., and Jose A. Cabranes.


HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Bid to Dismiss Geauga County Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Huntington Bancshares Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29,
2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the
Geauga County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas has not issued a ruling
on Huntington's motion to dismiss the complaint in the MERSCORP
Litigation.

Huntington is a defendant in an action filed on January 17, 2012
against MERSCORP, Inc. and numerous other financial institutions
that participate in the mortgage electronic registration system
(MERS). The putative class action was filed on behalf of all 88
counties in Ohio. The plaintiffs allege that the recording of
mortgages and assignments thereof is mandatory under Ohio law and
seek a declaratory judgment that the defendants are required to
record every mortgage and assignment on real property located in
Ohio and pay the attendant statutory recording fees. The complaint
also seeks damages, attorney's fees and costs. Huntington filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint, which has been fully briefed, but
no ruling has been issued by the Geauga County, Ohio Court of
Common Pleas.

Similar litigation has been initiated against MERSCORP, Inc. and
other financial institutions in other jurisdictions throughout the
country, however, Huntington has not been named a defendant in
those other cases.


HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: "Powell" Parties Engaged in Discovery
------------------------------------------------------------
Huntington Bancshares Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29,
2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the
parties in the case, Powell v. Huntington National Bank, are
currently engaged in discovery.

Huntington is a defendant in a putative class action filed on
October 15, 2013. The plaintiffs filed the action in West Virginia
state court on behalf of themselves and other West Virginia
mortgage loan borrowers who allege they were charged late fees in
violation of West Virginia law and the loan documents. Plaintiffs
seek statutory civil penalties, compensatory damages and
attorney's fees. Huntington removed the case to federal court,
answered the complaint, and, on January 17, 2014, filed a motion
for judgment on the pleadings, asserting that West Virginia law is
preempted by federal law and therefore does not apply to
Huntington. Following further briefing by the parties, the federal
district court denied Huntington's motion for judgment on the
pleadings on September 26, 2014.

On June 8, 2015, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals granted
Huntington's motion for an interlocutory appeal of the district
court's decision. The matter was briefed and oral argument held,
but after the oral argument, the Fourth Circuit dismissed the
appeal as improvidently granted and remanded the case back to the
district court for further proceedings. The parties are currently
engaged in discovery.


HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: To Defend Against FirstMerit Merger Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Huntington Bancshares Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29,
2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that
Huntington is preparing its defense to the complaints in the
FirstMerit Merger Shareholder Litigation.

Huntington is a defendant in five lawsuits filed in February and
March of 2016 in state and federal courts in Ohio relating to the
FirstMerit merger. The plaintiffs in each case are FirstMerit
shareholders and have filed class action and derivative claims
seeking to enjoin the merger. The plaintiffs also claim that the
registration statement filed regarding the merger contained
material omissions and/or misrepresentations and seek the filing
of a revised registration statement, as well as money damages.
Specifically as to Huntington, the plaintiffs claim Huntington
aided and abetted in alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the
FirstMerit board of directors in approving the merger, and in one
complaint, allege that Huntington had direct involvement in making
omissions and/or misrepresentations in the registration statement.
Huntington is preparing its defense to the complaints.


IDREAMSKY TECHNOLOGY: N.Y. Securities Action Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
iDreamSky Technology Limited said in its Form 20-F Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company intends
to vigorously defend against the claim in the securities
litigation in New York.

The Company said, "We and certain of our officers and directors
were named as defendants in three putative securities class action
lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York and one putative securities class action
lawsuit filed in New York state court: Hung v. iDreamSky
Technology Limited, et al., Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-02514
(S.D.N.Y.; filed on April 2, 2015); Griffith v. iDreamSky
Technology Limited, et al., Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-02944
(S.D.N.Y.; filed on April 15, 2015); Jeremias v. iDreamSky
Technology Limited, et al., Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-03484
(S.D.N.Y.) ( filed on May 5, 2015); and Mansour v. iDreamSky
Technology Limited, et al., No. 651340/2015 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County;
filed on April 22, 2015)."

"The complaints in the above-mentioned putative securities class
action lawsuits allege that certain public statements made by our
company during the respective alleged class periods, including our
registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with
our initial public offering, contained material misstatements and
assert claims under the U.S. securities laws.

"On January 15, 2016, the court consolidated these actions in a
single action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, captioned In re iDreamSky Technology Limited
Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-2514 (S.D.N.Y.)
(JPO), and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On March
25, 2016, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended class action
complaint.

"We believe that we have meritorious defenses to the complaint and
we intend to vigorously defend ourselves against the claim."


IMMUCOR TRANSPLANT: Recalls Lifecodes HLA-C eRES SSO Typing Kit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 2, 2016
Posting date: May 16, 2016
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-58394

It has been determined that the threshold set for HLA-C eRES
probes 380, 382, 384 and 385 are set high and may result in false
negative probe results. The probes resolve the following CWD
alleles probe 380 resolves c*03:06, probe 382 resolves c*12:13,
probe 384 resolves c*01:08 and probe 385 resolves c*08:06.

Affected products
A. Lifecodes HLA-C eRES SSO Typing Kit
Lot or serial number: Lot # 10235B
Model or catalog number: 628921

Manufacturer: Immucor Transplant Diagnostics, Inc.
              550 West Avenue
              Stamford
              06902
              Connecticut
              UNITED STATES


INDIANA: 7th Cir. Revives Suit v. Social Services Administration
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Judge Diane P. Wood of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit reversed the judgment of the district
court and remanded the case of KARLA STEIMEL, Plaintiff-Appellant,
and THOMAS MAERTZ, et al., Intervening Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.
JOHN J. WERNERT, Secretary of the Indiana Family and Social
Services Administration, et al., Defendants-Appellees. MICHAEL
BECKEM AND LOIS BECKEM, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. INDIANA FAMILY
AND SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, and JOHN J. WERNERT, Secretary
of the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration,
Defendants-Appellees Nos. 15-2377, 15-2389 (7th Cir.)

The Indiana Family and Social Services Administration (the Agency)
runs three waiver, the Aged and Disabled Medicaid Waiver Program
(A&D waiver), the Community Integration and Habilitation Medicaid
Waiver Program (CIH waiver), and the Family Supports Medicaid
Waiver Program (FS waiver).

The plaintiffs are developmentally disabled people who rely on
Indiana's home- and community-based Medicaid waiver programs.
Karla Steimel suffers from cerebral palsy, while Thomas Maertz has
been diagnosed with both cerebral palsy and mental retardation.
Colton and Cody Cole are twin brothers, both suffering from
cerebral palsy. Timothy Keister has been diagnosed with mental
retardation. Michael and Lois Beckem are siblings, Michael has
been diagnosed with mild mental retardation, and Lois has Down's
syndrome.

Until 2011, the Agency placed many people with developmental
disabilities on the A&D waiver, which has no cap on services
including plaintiffs. Before 2013, the plaintiffs were served
under Indiana's A&D waiver. Under the A&D waiver, they were able
to enjoy community activities such as eating in restaurants,
visiting flea markets, and window-shopping.  Plaintiffs were
shifted to the FS waiver in 2013, under which they may receive
services worth no more than $16,545 annually.

Karla Steimel filed her initial class-action complaint and motion
for class certification on June 14, 2013. Before the court ruled
on that motion, Maertz, the Coles, and Keister moved for leave to
intervene as named plaintiffs, were the district court granted the
intervention motion, but on March 24, 2014 it denied class
certification. The Beckems commenced their separate case on April
30, 2014.

Plaintiffs allege that their forced move to the FS waiver has
dramatically curtailed their ability to participate in community
activities. According to their guardians' affidavits, the
plaintiffs were able to enjoy roughly 40 hours in the community
each week under the A&D waiver. Since their transition to the FS
waiver, their community time has shrunk to 10 to 12 hours per
week.

The parties in both cases filed cross-motions for summary
judgment. The state argued that it should prevail because the
plaintiffs' claims did not even implicate the integration mandate,
while the plaintiffs contended that they were entitled to judgment
because they had shown beyond dispute that the state was violating
the integration mandate. The district court agreed with the state
and granted it summary judgment in both cases on June 9, 2015.
Appeal followed.

Chief Judge Wood reversed the judgment of the district court and
remanded the case for further proceedings. The Seventh Circuit
affirmed the district court's decision in not certifying the
proposed class.

A copy of Chief Judge Wood's order dated May 10, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/Gs1W9lfrom Leagle.com.

The United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit panel consists
of Chief Judge Diane P. Wood and Circuit Judges Michael S. Kanne
and Ilana Diamond Rovner.


INFINITI: Recalls Q70 2016 Models Due to Noncompliance
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 4, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Compliance
Mfr System: Label
Units affected: 32
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016198TC
ID number: 2016198

Certain long-wheelbase (Q70L) models may fail to comply with the
requirements of Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 110 - Tire
Selection and Rims. The compliance labels may bear incorrect Gross
Axle Weight Rating (GAWR) and and Gross Vehicle Weight Rating
(GVWR) information, contrary to the requirements of the standard.
Correction: Revised labels will be mailed to owners along with
instructions for proper installation. If owners are not
comfortable installing the label themselves, they can take the
label to a dealer for installation.

  Make       Model       Model year(s) affected
  ----       ------      ----------------------
  INFINITI   Q70         2016


ITT EDUCATIONAL: Settlement in Indiana Securities Action Approved
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Educational Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a court has
entered a final judgment and order approving the settlement in the
so-called Indiana Securities Litigation and dismissed the case
with prejudice.

The Company said, "On September 30, 2014, a complaint in a
securities class action lawsuit was filed against us, one of our
current executive officers and one of our former executive
officers in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana under the following caption: David Banes, on
Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Kevin M.
Modany, et al. (the "Banes Litigation").

"On October 3, 2014, October 9, 2014 and November 25, 2014, three
similar complaints were filed against us, one of our current
executive officers and one of our former executive officers in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
under the following captions: Babulal Tarapara, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ITT Educational
Services, Inc. et al. (the "Tarapara Litigation"), Kumud Jindal,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
Kevin Modany, et al. (the "Jindal Litigation") and Kristopher
Hennen, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ITT Educational Services, Inc. et al. (the "Hennen
Litigation").

"On November 17, 2014, the Tarapara Litigation and the Jindal
Litigation were consolidated into the Banes Litigation. On January
21, 2015, the Hennen Litigation was consolidated into that
consolidated action (the "Indiana Securities Litigation"). On
December 1, 2014, motions were filed in the Indiana Securities
Litigation for the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel.

"On March 16, 2015, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel. Subsequently, the caption for the Indiana Securities
Litigation was changed to the following: In re ITT Educational
Services, Inc. Securities Litigation (Indiana).

"On May 26, 2015, an amended complaint was filed in the Indiana
Securities Litigation. The amended complaint alleges, among other
things, that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by
knowingly or recklessly making false and/or misleading statements
and failing to disclose material adverse facts about our business,
operations, prospects and financial results. Plaintiffs assert
that the defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme and course of
business and that alleged misstatements and/or omissions by the
defendants caused members of the putative class to purchase our
securities at artificially inflated prices. The amended complaint
includes allegations relating to:

     * the performance of the PEAKS Program and the CUSO Program;

     * our guarantee obligations under the PEAKS Program and the
CUSO Program;

     * our accounting treatment of the PEAKS Program and the CUSO
Program;

     * consolidation of the PEAKS Trust in our consolidated
financial statements;

     * the impact of the PEAKS Program and the CUSO Program on our
liquidity and overall financial condition;

     * our compliance with Department of Education financial
responsibility standards; and

     * our internal controls over financial reporting.

"The putative class period in the Indiana Securities Litigation is
from February 26, 2013 through May 12, 2015. The plaintiffs in the
Indiana Securities Litigation seek, among other things, the
designation of the action as a proper class action, an award of
unspecified compensatory damages against all defendants, interest,
costs, expenses, counsel fees and expert fees, and such other
relief as the court deems proper. On July 14, 2015, to facilitate
the parties' efforts to resolve this action by mediation, the
court granted a joint motion for a stay of proceedings until
October 13, 2015. On October 13, 2015, the court extended the stay
to October 27, 2015. On October 27, 2015, the court further
extended the stay. On November 3, 2015, due to the filing of the
Indiana Settlement, the stay was lifted.

"Following a mediation that began in the third quarter of 2015,
the parties came to an agreement in principle to settle the
Indiana Securities Litigation.

"On November 2, 2015, the parties in the Indiana Securities
Litigation entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement
(the "Indiana Settlement") to resolve the action in its entirety.
Under the terms of the Indiana Settlement, we and/or our insurers
would make a payment of $12,538 in exchange for the release of
claims against the defendants and other released parties, by the
plaintiffs and all settlement class members, and for the dismissal
of the action with prejudice.

"On November 2, 2015, the plaintiffs in the Indiana Securities
Litigation filed the Indiana Settlement and related exhibits with
the court and moved, among other things, for the court to
preliminarily approve the Indiana Settlement, to approve the
contents and procedures for notice to potential settlement class
members, to certify the Indiana Securities Litigation as a class
action for settlement purposes only, and to schedule a hearing for
the court to consider final approval of the Indiana Settlement.

"On November 4, 2015, the court entered an order preliminarily
approving the Indiana Settlement and scheduled a hearing for March
10, 2016 to consider final approval of the Indiana Settlement.
Prior to the March 10, 2016 hearing, potential settlement class
members (all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired our common stock, purchased or otherwise acquired call
options on our common stock, or wrote put options on our common
stock, between February 26, 2013 and May 12, 2015, both dates
inclusive (with limited exclusions)) had an opportunity to exclude
themselves from participating in the Indiana Settlement or to
raise objections with the court regarding the Indiana Settlement
or any part thereof.

"On March 10, 2016, the court entered an order finding that the
Indiana Settlement is fair and reasonable and was entered into in
good faith, and the court stated that a separate order regarding
the Indiana Settlement would follow.

On March 24, 2016, the court entered a final judgment and order
approving the Indiana Settlement and dismissing the Indiana
Securities Litigation with prejudice.

"The Indiana Settlement contains no admission of liability, and
all of the defendants in the Indiana Securities Litigation have
expressly denied, and continue to deny, all allegations of
wrongdoing or improper conduct. Our insurance carriers funded a
combined $25,000 collectively towards the settlement payments for
the Indiana Settlement and the New York Settlement. In the event
that the Indiana Settlement does not receive final approval by the
court or otherwise does not become effective as a result of an
appeal or otherwise, all of the defendants intend to continue to
defend themselves vigorously against the allegations made in the
amended complaint."


ITT EDUCATIONAL: June 23 Final Approval Hearing on Gallien Accord
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Educational Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a court has
scheduled a hearing for June 23, 2016, to consider final approval
of the settlement in the Gallien class action lawsuit.

The Company said, "On December 17, 2013, a complaint was filed
against us in a purported class action in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Los Angeles under the
following caption: La Sondra Gallien, an individual, James
Rayonez, an individual, Giovanni Chilin, an individual, on behalf
of themselves and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v.
ITT Educational Services, Inc., et al. (the "Gallien Litigation").
The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on February 13, 2014.
The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that under
California law, we:

     * failed to pay wages owed;

     * failed to pay overtime compensation;

     * failed to provide meal and rest periods;

     * failed to provide itemized employee wage statements;

     * engaged in unlawful business practices; and

     * are liable for civil penalties under the California Private
Attorney General Act.

The purported class includes recruiting representatives employed
by us during the period of December 17, 2009 through December 17,
2013. The amended complaint seeks:

     * compensatory damages, including lost wages and other
losses;

     * general damages;

     * pay for missed meal and rest periods;

     * restitution;

     * liquidated damages;

     * statutory penalties;

     * interest;

     * attorneys' fees, cost and expenses;

     * civil and statutory penalties;

     * injunctive relief; and

     * such other and further relief as the court may deem
equitable and appropriate.

"Following a mediation that began in the third quarter of 2015,
the parties came to an agreement in principle to settle the
Gallien Litigation on a class-wide basis for $400.

"On October 28, 2015, the parties executed a Stipulation of Class
Action Settlement (the "Gallien Settlement") to document the terms
and conditions of the settlement. In connection with the Gallien
Settlement and subject to court approval, the settlement is based
on claims made with a specific reversion of funds paid back to us,
depending on the number of claims made by settlement class members
for individual settlement payments.

"Under the terms specified in the Gallien Settlement, 55% of a net
settlement amount of approximately $204 must be paid to settlement
class members in the form of individual settlement payments. In
the event the settlement is not approved by the court or otherwise
does not become effective, we intend to continue to defend
ourselves vigorously against the allegations made in the amended
complaint."

On March 11, 2016, the court entered an order preliminarily
approving the Gallien Settlement and scheduled a hearing for June
23, 2016 to consider final approval of the Gallien Settlement.


J.B. HUNT: 9th Cir. Appeal in Drivers' Class Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29,
2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the
plaintiffs' appeal in a class action lawsuit is currently pending.

"We are a defendant in certain class-action lawsuits in which the
plaintiffs are current and former California-based drivers who
allege claims for unpaid wages, failure to provide meal and rest
periods, and other items," the Company said. "During the first
half of 2014, the court in the lead class-action granted judgment
in our favor with regard to all claims. The plaintiffs have
appealed the case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals where it
is currently pending. The overlapping claims in the remaining
action have been stayed pending a decision in the lead class-
action case."


JLING INC: Bid for Conditional Class Cert. of "Ji" Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JUNJIANG JI, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JLING INC. d/b/a SHOWA HIBACHI,
JANNEN OF AMERICA, INC. d/b/a SHOWA HIBACHI, JOHN ZHONG E HU, and
JIA LING HU, Defendants, No. 15-CV-4194 (JMA)(SIL) (E.D.N.Y.),
Judge Steven I. Locke denied the plaintiff's motion for
conditional certification as a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).

A full-text copy of Judge Locke's May 19, 2016 memorandum & order
is available at https://is.gd/7TiZrr from Leagle.com.

Junjiang Ji brought the action against Jling Inc. d/b/a Showa
Hibachi, Jannen of America, Inc. d/b/a Showa Hibachi, John Zhong E
Hu, and Jia Ling Hu, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, alleging, among other things, violations of: (i) the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq.;
and (ii) the New York Labor Law.

Junjiang Ji, Plaintiff, represented by John Troy, Troy &
Associates, PLLC.

Jling Inc., Jannen of America, Inc., John Zhong E Hu, Jia Ling Hu,
Defendants, represented by Jian Hang, Hang & Associates, PLLC &
William M. Brown, Hang & Associates, PLLC.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Wash., Calif. Sue Over Vaginal Mesh Implants
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gene Johnson, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
Washington state and California have sued Johnson & Johnson,
saying that for years the company misrepresented the risks of
vaginal mesh implants it sold to repair pelvic collapse.

In the latest legal actions over the problem-prone devices,
Attorneys General Bob Ferguson of Washington and Kamala Harris of
California on May 24 accused the New Jersey-based health care
giant of neglecting to tell patients and doctors about the risks
and occurrences of dire, sometimes irreversible complications.
Those include urinary dysfunction, loss of sexual function,
constipation and severe pain.

Patients have already filed tens of thousands of lawsuits against
mesh manufacturers, including New Jersey-based Johnson & Johnson,
Massachusetts-based Boston Scientific and Ireland-based Endo
International.  In 2014, Endo said it would pay $830 million to
settle more than 20,000 personal injury lawsuits.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Deep Data Dive Resulted to Big Talcum Verdicts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that when attorney Ted Meadows -- ted.meadows@beasleyallen.com --
first heard about a 2013 verdict finding Johnson & Johnson
negligent for a woman's ovarian cancer, he "put the word out" that
he wanted to start filing lawsuits over talcum powder.  Although
the jury didn't award damages, its decision on liability caught
his attention. The first person to call him was R. Allen Smith,
the plaintiffs lawyer who got the verdict.

For more than 30 years, medical researchers had studied whether
there was a link between talcum powder use in the genital area and
ovarian cancer.  The answer? It depended on whom you asked.

Mr. Meadows, who had just finished handling cases brought by women
alleging the hormone replacement drug Prempro caused their breast
cancer, wanted to take a closer look at the studies, which he said
generally reported a 30 percent increased risk.

"Oftentimes, lawyers shy away from those types of cases because
they want to see something closer to a 100 percent increased
risk," he said.  But Mr. Meadows said he was able to "dig a little
deeper," examine the data behind the studies and find that when
women used the product for long periods of time the risk of
ovarian cancer was in the 100 to 300 percent risk range.

His digging paid off.  This year, juries in two separate trials in
St. Louis found that Johnson & Johnson had failed to warn its
customers that using its baby powder and Shower to Shower product
for feminine hygiene might cause ovarian cancer.  The awards were
substantial: $75 million on Feb. 22 to the family of a woman who
died from the disease and $55 million to a survivor on May 2.

The awards were also big news among the plaintiffs bar.
Mr. Meadows, a principal at Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis
& Miles in Montgomery, and Smith, a solo practitioner in
Ridgeland, Mississippi, were asked to host a plaintiffs bar
conference on May 17 in Charleston, South Carolina, solely about
the litigation.  "I've been on the phone quite a bit,"
Mr. Meadows said.

Johnson & Johnson's lawyers, who have denied the company's
liability, have been quick to criticize the plaintiffs lawyers.
After the latest verdict, Gene Williams -- gmwilliams@shb.com -- a
Houston partner at Shook, Hardy & Bacon, said in an email: "The
evidence presented to the jury misrepresented and distorted the
science regarding talc and ovarian cancer."  Johnson & Johnson
declined to comment for this story.

In a filing this month with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, the company estimated about 1,400 people have claims
over talcum powder, most in about a dozen cases in the same
Missouri state court as this year's verdict -- a venue termed
plaintiff-friendly by tort reformers. (Johnson & Johnson
unsuccessfully has tried to transfer or remove the talcum powder
cases to federal court.) Another 140 are filed in state courts in
New Jersey, where Johnson & Johnson is headquartered.

At the same time, Johnson & Johnson is defending a suit filed in
2014 by the Mississippi Attorney General.  The lawsuit, also
naming Valeant Pharmaceuticals, which purchased Shower to Shower
in 2012, alleges that they intentionally targeted minority women
by failing to warn about ovarian cancer risks on talcum powder
product labels.

The company in its SEC filings said it expects the number of cases
to rise.  So does Mr. Meadows.

"I do think there are a lot of lawyers out there finally ready to
commit and get in and prosecute cases," Mr. Meadows said.

At both trials, Smith and Meadows were armed with more than 20
studies they claim link the genital use of talcum powder to
ovarian cancer. They also told jurors about internal documents
they say prove that Johnson & Johnson had been aware of the link
for decades but failed to warn its customers.

"We presented an even better science case than Allen was able to
put on in Berg, and a better liability case because from looking
at the internal documents we have a better feel of what exactly
went on over the decades," Mr. Meadows said, referring to the 2013
trial on behalf of Deane Berg.

In the most recent trial, Johnson & Johnson lawyer Christy Jones -
- christy.jones@butlersnow.com -- of Butler Snow in Ridgeland,
Mississippi, told the jury that the studies cited by plaintiffs
lawyers showed only "weak associations" and were "at best
inconsistent," according to video coverage by Courtroom View
Network.  The studies were based on statistics, not clinical data,
and were "just looking at the same data multiple times," she said.
Johnson & Johnson's lawyers have cited two other studies they
claim are more accurate.


JOHNSON CONTROLS: Defendant in "Wandel" Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------
Johnson Controls, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a putative class
action lawsuit, Wandel v. Tyco International plc, et al., Docket
No. C-000010-16, was filed on March 1, 2016, in the Superior Court
of New Jersey naming Tyco, the individual members of its board of
directors, the Company and Merger Sub as defendants. The complaint
alleges that Tyco's directors breached their fiduciary duties and
exercised their powers as directors in a manner oppressive to the
public shareholders of Tyco in violation of Irish law by, among
other things, failing to take steps to maximize shareholder value
and failing to protect against purported conflicts of interest.
The complaint further alleges that Tyco, the Company and Merger
Sub aided and abetted Tyco's directors in the breach of their
fiduciary duties. The complaint seeks, among other things, to
enjoin the merger.

"We believe that the allegations in the complaint with respect to
the Company are without merit," the Company said.

On January 24, 2016, Tyco entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Johnson Controls, Inc., a
Wisconsin corporation ("Johnson Controls"), and certain other
parties named therein, including Jagara Merger Sub LLC, a
Wisconsin limited liability company and indirect wholly owned
subsidiary of Tyco ("Merger Sub"). Pursuant to the Merger
Agreement and subject to the terms and conditions set forth
therein, Merger Sub will merge with and into Johnson Controls (the
"Merger"), with Johnson Controls surviving the Merger as an
indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Tyco. At the effective time of
the Merger, Tyco will change its name to "Johnson Controls plc"
and will trade under the ticker symbol "JCI."


JPMORGAN CHASE: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of ERISA Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that plaintiffs in the
ERISA class action are appealing that dismissal.

The Firm has been sued in a consolidated shareholder class action,
a consolidated putative class action brought under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") and seven shareholder
derivative actions brought in Delaware state court and in New York
federal and state courts relating to 2012 losses in the synthetic
credit portfolio managed by the Firm's Chief Investment Office
("CIO"). A settlement of the shareholder class action, under which
the Firm will pay $150 million, has been preliminarily approved by
the court. The putative ERISA class action has been dismissed, and
the plaintiffs are appealing that dismissal. All of the
shareholder derivative actions have been dismissed.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Consumer and ERISA Actions Remain Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the consumer actions
and ERISA actions remain pending.

The Firm previously reported settlements with certain government
authorities relating to its foreign exchange ("FX") sales and
trading activities and controls related to those activities. FX-
related investigations and inquiries by other, non-U.S. government
authorities, including competition authorities, remain ongoing,
and the Firm is cooperating with those matters.

The Firm is also one of a number of foreign exchange dealers
defending a class action filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York by U.S.-based plaintiffs,
principally alleging violations of federal antitrust laws based on
an alleged conspiracy to manipulate foreign exchange rates (the
"U.S. class action"). In January 2015, the Firm entered into a
settlement agreement in the U.S. class action. Following this
settlement, a number of additional putative class actions were
filed seeking damages for persons who transacted FX futures and
options on futures (the "exchanged-based actions"), consumers who
purchased foreign currencies at allegedly inflated rates (the
"consumer actions"), and participants or beneficiaries of
qualified ERISA plans (the "ERISA actions"). Since then, the Firm
has entered into a revised settlement agreement to resolve the
consolidated U.S. class action, including the exchange-based
actions, and that agreement has been preliminarily approved by the
Court. The consumer actions and ERISA actions remain pending.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Defending Class Action in Canada v. FX Dealers
--------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that two class actions were
filed in September 2015in Canada against the Firm as well as a
number of other FX dealers, principally for alleged violations of
the Canadian Competition Act based on an alleged conspiracy to fix
the prices of currency purchased in the FX market. The first
action was filed in the province of Ontario, and seeks to
represent all persons in Canada who transacted any FX instrument.
The second action seeks to represent only those persons in Quebec
who engaged in FX transactions.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Bid to Set Aside Settlement Order Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a motion by certain
merchants and trade associations seeking to set aside the approval
of the class settlement in the Interchange Litigation remains
pending.

A group of merchants and retail associations filed a series of
class action complaints alleging that Visa and MasterCard, as well
as certain banks, conspired to set the price of credit and debit
card interchange fees, enacted respective rules in violation of
antitrust laws, and engaged in tying/bundling and exclusive
dealing. The parties have entered into an agreement to settle the
cases for a cash payment of $6.1 billion to the class plaintiffs
(of which the Firm's share is approximately 20%) and an amount
equal to ten basis points of credit card interchange for a period
of eight months to be measured from a date within 60 days of the
end of the opt-out period. The agreement also provides for
modifications to each credit card network's rules, including those
that prohibit surcharging credit card transactions.

In December 2013, the District Court granted final approval of the
settlement. A number of merchants appealed to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and oral argument was
held in September 2015.

Certain merchants and trade associations have also filed a motion
with the District Court seeking to set aside the approval of the
class settlement on the basis of alleged improper communications
between one of MasterCard's former outside counsel and one of
plaintiffs' outside counsel. That motion remains pending.

Certain merchants that opted out of the class settlement have
filed actions against Visa and MasterCard, as well as against the
Firm and other banks, and those actions are proceeding.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Updates on Benchmark Rate Litigation
----------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co., in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, provided updates on LIBOR
and other benchmark rate investigations and litigation.

JPMorgan Chase has received subpoenas and requests for documents
and, in some cases, interviews, from federal and state agencies
and entities, including the DOJ, the U.S. Commodity Futures
Trading Commission ("CFTC"), the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") and various state attorneys general, as well as
the European Commission ("EC"), the UK Financial Conduct Authority
("FCA"), the Canadian Competition Bureau, the Swiss Competition
Commission and other regulatory authorities and banking
associations around the world relating primarily to the process by
which interest rates were submitted to the British Bankers
Association ("BBA") in connection with the setting of the BBA's
London Interbank Offered Rate ("LIBOR") for various currencies,
principally in 2007 and 2008. Some of the inquiries also relate to
similar processes by which information on rates is submitted to
the European Banking Federation ("EBF") in connection with the
setting of the EBF's Euro Interbank Offered Rates ("EURIBOR") and
to the Japanese Bankers' Association for the setting of Tokyo
Interbank Offered Rates ("TIBOR"), as well as processes for the
setting of U.S. dollar ISDAFIX rates and other reference rates in
various parts of the world during similar time periods. The Firm
is responding to and continuing to cooperate with these inquiries.

The Firm has resolved EC inquiries relating to Yen LIBOR and Swiss
Franc LIBOR. In May 2014, the EC issued a Statement of Objections
outlining its case against the Firm (and others) as to EURIBOR, to
which the Firm has filed a response and made oral representations.
Other inquiries have been discontinued without any action against
JPMorgan Chase, including by the FCA and the Canadian Competition
Bureau.

In addition, the Firm has been named as a defendant along with
other banks in a series of individual and putative class actions
filed in various United States District Courts, in which
plaintiffs make varying allegations that in various periods,
starting in 2000 or later, defendants either individually or
collectively manipulated the U.S. dollar LIBOR, Yen LIBOR, Swiss
franc LIBOR, Euroyen TIBOR and/or EURIBOR rates by submitting
rates that were artificially low or high. Plaintiffs allege that
they transacted in loans, derivatives or other financial
instruments whose values are affected by changes in U.S. dollar
LIBOR, Yen LIBOR, Swiss franc LIBOR, Euroyen TIBOR or EURIBOR and
assert a variety of claims including antitrust claims seeking
treble damages. These matters are in various stages of litigation.

The U.S. dollar LIBOR-related putative class actions and most U.S.
dollar LIBOR-related individual actions were consolidated for pre-
trial purposes in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. The Court dismissed certain claims,
including the antitrust claims, and permitted other claims under
the Commodity Exchange Act and common law to proceed. Certain
plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the antitrust claims, and the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit heard oral
argument on the appeal in November 2015.

The Firm is one of the defendants in a number of putative class
actions alleging that defendant banks and ICAP conspired to
manipulate the U.S. dollar ISDAFIX rates. Plaintiffs primarily
assert claims under the federal antitrust laws and Commodities
Exchange Act.


JUMEI INTERNATIONAL: Securities Action at Preliminary Stages
------------------------------------------------------------
Jumei International Holding Limited said in its Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Jumei
International Holding Limited Securities Litigation remains at its
preliminary stages.

The Company said, "In December 2014, four putative shareholder
class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District
Courts for the Southern District of New York and the Eastern
District of New York against our company, certain current and
former officers and directors of our company, and underwriters in
our initial public offering: Lu v. Jumei International Holding
Limited et al., Civil Action No. 14 CV 9826 (S.D.N.Y.) (filed on
December 11, 2014); Yim v. Jumei International Holding Limited et
al., Civil Action No. 14 CV 7269 (E.D.N.Y.) (filed on December 12,
2014, voluntarily dismissed by plaintiffs on March 9, 2015); Yin
v. Jumei International Holding Limited et al., Civil Action No. 14
CV 9957 (S.D.N.Y.) (filed on December 17, 2014); and Brock v.
Jumei International Holding Limited et al., Civil Action No. 14 CV
9993 (S.D.N.Y.) (filed on December 18, 2014)."

"The complaints in the putative shareholder class action lawsuits
allege that our company's registration statement for our initial
public offering and/or certain subsequent press releases,
financial statements, and other disclosures made by our company
contained material misstatements or omissions in violation of the
federal securities laws.

"On March 9, 2015, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed without
prejudice the putative class action originally filed in the
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Yim v. Jumei
International Holding Limited et al. On June 22, 2015, the
District Court for the Southern District of New York consolidated
the remaining three putative class actions into one action, In re
Jumei International Holding Limited Securities Litigation, Civil
Action No. 14 CV 9826 (S.D.N.Y.), appointed a lead plaintiff and
approved the lead plaintiff's selection of lead counsel.

"On October 16, 2015, the lead plaintiff filed -- purportedly on
behalf a class of persons who allegedly suffered damages as a
result of their trading activities related to our ADSs between May
16, 2014 and November 19, 2014 -- a Consolidated Amended
Complaint, which advances similar allegations as the previously
filed complaints, and alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. Sections 77k and 77o and
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
15 U.S.C. Sections 78(b) and 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.10b-5.

"On March 22, 2016, we and the underwriters in our initial public
offering filed a joint motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended
Complaint.

"The action remains at its preliminary stages. We believe the case
is without merit and intend to defend the actions vigorously."


KBR INC: Discovery in Securities Litigation to Continue in 2016
---------------------------------------------------------------
KBR, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2016, that discovery is expected to
continue in 2016 in the case, In re KBR, Inc. Securities
Litigation.

The Company said, "Lead plaintiffs, Arkansas Public Employees
Retirement System and IBEW Local 58/NECA Funds, seek class action
status on behalf of our shareholders, alleging violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
against the Company, our former chief executive officer, our
current and former chief financial officers, and our former chief
accounting officer, arising out of the restatement of our 2013
annual financial statements, and seek undisclosed damages. The
case is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, Master File No. 14-cv-01287. "

"We filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint for
failure to plead particularized facts supporting a strong
inference of scienter on the part of the individual defendants and
the motion was denied on September 3, 2015."

"We intend to continue to vigorously defend against these claims.
Discovery in the case has begun and is expected to continue in
2016. At this early stage, we are not yet able to determine the
likelihood of loss, if any, arising from this matter."


LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: Judge Extends Defendants' Response Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William H. Orrick of the Northern District of
California entered a stipulation and order extending defendants'
response deadline in the case PETE J. MANGER, On Behalf of Himself
and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. LEAPFROG
ENTERPRISES, INC., JOHN BARBOUR, WILLIAM B. CHIASSON, THOMAS J.
KALINSKE, E. STANTON MCKEE, RANDY O. RISSMAN, CADEN WANG, and
STEPHEN M. YOUNGWOOD, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-01161(N.D.
Cal.)

On March 9, 2016, Plaintiff filed a complaint and alleges
violations of the federal securities laws by LeapFrog Enterprises,
Inc. and certain of its former officers and directors. Upon
commencement of the action, an initial case management conference
was set for June 7, 2016, at 2:00 p.m.

Counsel for the undersigned parties agree that deferring the
response deadlines for all defendants until after the court
appoints a lead plaintiff and lead counsel pursuant to the Reform
Act is prudent and will conserve party and judicial resources. The
parties further agree that an initial case management conference,
attendant deadlines, and related ADR procedures are premature and
should be deferred until the initial case management conference is
reset.

Judge Orrick approved a stipulation that the named defendants
agree to accept service, through counsel, to the extent they have
not yet been served. The named defendants shall have no obligation
to respond to the complaint until after the Court appoints a lead
plaintiff and lead counsel.

Counsel for the named defendants will meet and confer with the
court-appointed lead counsel within 14 days after the court makes
its appointment to discuss a schedule for filing of any amended
complaint and defendants' responses, including their currently
anticipated motion to dismiss.

The case management conference that is presently scheduled for
June 7, 2016 will be vacated and shall be reset in connection with
the setting of the briefing schedule on defendants' anticipated
motion to dismiss. The related deadlines, including ADR
requirements, shall be deferred until after an initial case
management conference is reset.

A copy of Judge Orrick's stipulation and order dated May 10, 2016,
is available at http://goo.gl/DTbVElfrom Leagle.com.

Pete J. Manger, Plaintiff, represented by:

     Barbara Ann Rohr, Esq.
     Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
     James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
     Faruqi and Faruqi, LLP
     685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Telephone: 212-983-9330

Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc., Defendants, represented by Mark R.S.
Foster -- mfoster@mofo.com -- at Morrison & Foerster LLP


M&T BANK: Fact Discovery Stayed in Wilmington Trust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
M&T Bank Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that in the case, In Re
Wilmington Trust Securities Litigation (U.S. District Court,
District of Delaware, Case No. 10-CV-0990-SLR), the Court issued
an order staying fact discovery.

Beginning on November 18, 2010, a series of parties, purporting to
be class representatives, commenced a putative class action
lawsuit against Wilmington Trust Corporation, alleging that
Wilmington Trust Corporation's financial reporting and securities
filings were in violation of securities laws. The cases were
consolidated and Wilmington Trust Corporation moved to dismiss.
The Court issued an order denying Wilmington Trust Corporation's
motion to dismiss on March 20, 2014. Fact discovery commenced. On
April 13, 2016, the Court issued an order staying fact discovery
in the case pending completion of the trial in U.S. v. Wilmington
Trust Corp., et al.


MASERATI: Recalls Quattroporte 2014 Models Due to Crash Risk
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 3, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Suspension
Units affected: 884
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016195TC
ID number: 2016195
Manufacturer recall number: 303

On certain vehicles, a bolt that attaches the rear tie-rod to the
hub carrier assembly may not have been torqued to specification.
This could cause the bolt to loosen, which could result in noise
from the rear of the vehicle. Over time, this could lead to
separation of the tie-rod from the hub carrier, affecting steering
control and increasing the risk of a crash causing injury and/or
damage to property. Correction: Dealers will inspect tie-rod to
hub carrier attaching bolts and will repair as necessary.

  Make       Model           Model year(s) affected
  ----       ------          ----------------------
  MASERATI   QUATTROPORTE    2014, 2014


MDL 2626: Motion to Dismiss in Contact Lens Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April
29, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that in the
Contact Lens antitrust class actions, the defendants' motion to
dismiss is pending in district court.

Beginning in March 2015, a number of civil antitrust class action
suits were filed by purchasers of contact lenses against B&L,
three other contact lens manufacturers, and a contact lens
distributor, alleging that the defendants engaged in an
anticompetitive scheme to eliminate price competition on certain
contact lens lines through the use of unilateral pricing policies.
The plaintiffs in such suits alleged violations of Section 1 of
the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1, and of various state antitrust
and consumer protection laws, and further alleged that the
defendants have been unjustly enriched through their alleged
conduct. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief
and, where applicable, treble, punitive and/or other damages,
including attorneys' fees.

By order dated June 8, 2015, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District
Litigation centralized the suits in the Middle District of
Florida, under the caption In re Disposable Contact Lens Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 3:15-md-02626-HES-JRK, before U.S. District
Judge Harvey E. Schlesinger.  After the Class Plaintiffs filed a
corrected consolidated class action complaint on December 16,
2015, the defendants jointly moved to dismiss those complaints.
The defendants' motion to dismiss is currently pending in the
district court, and the actions are currently in discovery.  The
Company intends to vigorously defend all of these actions.


MONEY STORE: 2nd Cir. Affirms Class Cert. Denial in "Garrido"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit affirmed the
judgment of the district court in the case captioned LINDA U.
GARRIDO and JOHN GARRIDO, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, RUTH ANN GUTIERREZ and
LORI JO VINCENT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE MONEY STORE, TMS MORTGAGE, INC.,
HOMEQ SERVICING CORP., Defendants-Appellees, MOSS, CODILIS,
STAWIARSKI, MORRIS, SCHNEIDER & PRIOR, LLP, OCWEN LOAN SERVICING,
LLC, WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., BARCLAYS CAPITAL REAL ESTATE, INC.,
JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS 1-3, as successors in interest to The Money
Store, TMS Mortgage, Inc. and HomEq Servicing Corp., Defendants,
No. 15-1891 (2nd Cir.).

Linda and John Garrido appealed the February 2, 2015, denial of
their motion for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(b)(3), which merged into the judgment of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The
judgment dismissed with prejudice the Garridos' claims against the
defendants-appellees.  The Garridos alleged common-law fraud in
connection with the defendants-appellees' debt collection
practices.

The Garridos sought to certify a class of all borrowers on loans
owned or serviced by the defendants-appellees who were charged
attorneys' fees and expenses that the defendants-appellees had not
yet paid to their attorneys, from January 2001 to the present;
they contended that the defendants-appellees committed fraud by
representing (falsely) to borrowers that such reimbursement was
due, before making such remuneration to counsel.  The district
court determined that the Garridos did not satisfy the commonality
requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2); the adequacy of
representation requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4); or the
predominance requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3).

A full-text copy of the Second Circuit's May 23, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/maDkby from Leagle.com.

Paul S. Grobman, The Law Offices of Paul Grobman, New York, New
York, for Appellants.

Daniel A. Pollack -- dpollack@mccarter.com -- Edward T. McDermott
-- emcdermott@mccarter.com -- Anthony Zaccaria --
azaccaria@mccarter.com -- Minji Kim -- mikim@mccarter.com --
McCarter & English, LLP, New York, New York, for Appellees.


MT. GOX: Bitcoin Class Action to Be Dismissed on June 17
--------------------------------------------------------
Jordan Pearson, writing for Motherboard, reports that for years,
roughly 100 Canadians have been trying to reclaim the money that
they lost when Mt. Gox -- at one time the largest bitcoin exchange
in the world -- went under, and took their funds with it.

On May 18, the law firm representing those Canadians in a class
action lawsuit announced that the case will be dismissed on
June 17.

Unless the individuals in the dismissed class action suit decide
that they still wish to pursue a case against Mt Gox's embattled
CEO Mark Karpeles or the company's former bank, Tokyo-based
Mizuho, their chance to get their money back has come and gone.

"In Canada, if you lose a case then you pay the winner's cost, and
in this case the cost would have been in the millions of dollars,"
Ted Charney, the Toronto-based lawyer handling the case, told
Motherboard.

At the outset of the case in 2014, the class action sought $500
million CAD in compensation from Mt Gox, its parent company
Tibanne KK, Karpeles, Mizuho, and site founder Jed McCaleb.
Recently, however, it started to look like they wouldn't get more
than $1 million, Mr. Charney said.

A class action lawsuit against Mizuho is ongoing in the US, and in
March a federal judge in Chicago rejected Mizuho's claim that the
case should be moved to Japan. In the US, losers in class action
cases do not have to pay the winner's fees, Mr. Charney said.

"I regret the fact that we won't be able to get recovery for all
the Canadians who used the exchange," Mr. Charney continued, "but
unfortunately the realities of this litigation, with everybody
going bankrupt, and the remaining parties being in Japan, made it
very problematic."

The Mt Gox saga has become something of a legend in bitcoin, since
it marked both the currency's high point in terms of its monetary
value, and its worst collapse.

With Canada's only class action lawsuit against the company set to
be dismissed in just a few weeks' time, Mt Gox will be little more
than a painful memory for the Canadians who have been waiting for
years to have their day in civil court.


MULTI-FINELINE ELECTRONIX: Faces Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased shares of Multi-Fineline
Electronix, Inc. ("Multi-Fineline") prior to the February 4, 2016
merger announcement.  You are hereby notified that a securities
class action lawsuit has been commenced in the USDC for the
Central District of California, Southern Division. To get more
information go to:

          lk.9nl.com/multi-fineline-electronix

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

On February 4, 2016, Multi-Fineline announced it had entered a
merger agreement wherein Suzhou Dongshan Precision Manufacturing
Co., Ltd. would acquire all the outstanding shares of Multi-
Fineline for $23.95 per share in cash.  The complaint alleges that
the CEO of Multi-Fineline, Reza Meshgin, and Roy Chee Keong Tan,
Group CFO of United Engineers Limited, which holds more than 60%
of Multi-Fineline's outstanding shares, ran the sales process and
negotiations in order to further their personal agendas.  In
particular, the complaint alleges that Meshgin steered the process
towards a deal with Suzhou in order to maintain his position of
CEO with the post-merger entity.  As a result of the defendants'
actions, the complaint alleges, Multi-Fineline rejected superior
bids and accepted Suzhou's inferior proposal, severely
undervaluing Multi-Fineline and harming investors.

If you suffered a loss in Multi-Fineline you have until July 18,
2016 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff.

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


NDG COFFEE: "Sanchez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Antelmo Bruno Sanchez, Adrian Bruno Guerrero, Felipe, Bruno
Guerrero, and Victor Cesar Bruno Guerrero, on behalf of themselves
and other similarly situated employees v. NDG Coffee Shop, Inc.,
doing business as Big Nick's Pizza and Burger Joint, and Dimitrios
Galanopoulos, and Niko Galanopoulus, Case No. 1:16-cv-03688
(S.D.N.Y., May 17, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wages and overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate Big Nick's Pizza and Burger Joint located
at 70 West 71st Street, New York, New York 10023.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
      CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
      708 Third Avenue - 6th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone (212) 209-3933
      Facsimile (2 12)209-7102
      E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com


NV-ALEXANDER: Sued Over Failure to Repair Units' Defects
--------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Law v. Adam A. Corkins, Richard P. Rushton, Sujendra K.
Mishra, Austin P. Tichenor, Chris Brown, Edward Ortega, NV-
Alexander Mason Endowment, and Does 1-30, Case No. RG16816012
(Cal. Super. Ct., May 17, 2016), is brought on behalf of the
tenants who suffered emotional distress, physical injury, over-
payment of rent, and out-of-pocket expenses as a result of the
Defendants' failure and refusal to make repairs of the
habitability defects to the premises located at 2639 Durant
Avenue, Room 1, Berkeley, California 94704.

The Defendants own and operate a real estate agency doing business
in the County of Alameda, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Wolff, Esq.
      Chris Beatty, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW WOLFF, PC
      1970 Broadway, Ste. 210
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510) 834-3300
      Facsimile: (510) 834-3377
      E-mail: andrew@awolfflaw.com
              chris@awolfflaw.com


OLERUP SSP: Recalls OLERUP SSP HLA-A Kits
-----------------------------------------
Starting date: May 4, 2016
Posting date: May 24, 2016
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-58510

In kits of A*01, lots 41V, 35X and 83Y, the A*01:04N allele is not
amplified by primer-mix 5 as stated in product documentation. The
false negative amplification for the A*01 kit yields a revised
reactivity pattern for the A*01:04n allele that is identical to
A*01:01 alleles.

Affected products
A. OLERUP SSP HLA-A
Lot or serial number: 35X
                      41V
                      83Y
Model or catalog number: 101.411-06U
                         101.411-24

Manufacturer: Olerup SSP AB
              Franzengatan 5
              Stockholm, Sweden, 11251


OPPENHEIMER HOLDINGS: Underwriters' Motion to Dismiss Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------
Oppenheimer Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Underwriter
Defendant's motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit has been
granted in full.

On May 15, 2015, plaintiffs IBEW Local No. 58 Annuity Fund and
Electrical Workers Pension Trust Fund of IBEW Local No. 58,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed
an Amended Class Action Complaint ("CAC") relating to EveryWare
Global, Inc. ("EveryWare") in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio. The CAC names as defendants certain
current and former officers and directors of EveryWare, Monomoy
Capital Partners, L.P. and certain of its affiliates, as well as
Oppenheimer & Co. Inc., CJS Securities, Inc., Telsey Advisory
Group, LLC, Imperial Capital, LLC and BTIG, LLC (collectively, the
"Underwriter Defendants"), Plaintiffs allege that, among other
things, the Registration Statement issued in connection with a
secondary offering of EveryWare's stock on or about September 16,
2013 contained misrepresentations and omissions of material facts.

In the secondary offering, the Underwriter Defendants sold
1,750,000 shares of EveryWare stock to the public at a price of
$11.50 per share. The CAC alleges claims against the Underwriter
Defendants for violations of Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the
Securities Act. Plaintiffs purport to bring their action on behalf
of a class comprising all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired EveryWare securities between May 21, 2013 and
May 16, 2014. The CAC seeks an award of unspecified compensatory
damages, interest and attorneys' fees and costs.

On August 14, 2015, the Underwriter Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the CAC. The Underwriter Defendants, including
Oppenheimer, believe they have meritorious defenses to the CAC. On
March 30, 2016 the Underwriter Defendant's motion to dismiss was
granted in full and the case was dismissed with prejudice.


PAPA JOHN'S: Recalls Ready-To-Eat Salads Due to Listeria
--------------------------------------------------------
Papa John's Salads and Produce, a Tolleson, Ariz. establishment,
is recalling approximately 373 pounds of ready-to-eat salad with
chicken products that may be adulterated with Listeria
monocytogenes, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety
and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The Signature Cafe Citrus Kale Salad with Chicken items were
produced from May 10 through May 17, 2016. The following products
are subject to recall:

  --- 7.5-oz. plastic packages of "Signature Caf‚ Citrus Kale
      Salad with Chicken - Dress with Lemon, Salt and Pepper"
      with "Use By" dates of May 17 through May 24, 2016. The
      packages will have the following UPC code of 2113008148.

The products subject to recall bear establishment number "P-40280"
inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items were shipped to
retail locations in Colorado, Idaho, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska,
New Mexico, South Dakota and Wyoming.

The problem was discovered on May 19, 2016, when the establishment
was notified by SunOpta that its sunflower kernel products used in
Papa John's Salads and Produce products were involved in a recall
due to possible contamination with Listeria monocytogenes. There
have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to
consumption of these products.

SunOpta's recall can be found at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm502184.htm.

Consumption of food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes can
cause listeriosis, a serious infection that primarily affects
older adults, persons with weakened immune systems, and pregnant
women and their newborns. Less commonly, persons outside these
risk groups are affected.

Listeriosis can cause fever, muscle aches, headache, stiff neck,
confusion, loss of balance and convulsions sometimes preceded by
diarrhea or other gastrointestinal symptoms. An invasive infection
spreads beyond the gastrointestinal tract. In pregnant women, the
infection can cause miscarriages, stillbirths, premature delivery
or life-threatening infection of the newborn. In addition, serious
and sometimes fatal infections in older adults and persons with
weakened immune systems. Listeriosis is treated with antibiotics.
Persons in the higher-risk categories who experience flu-like
symptoms within two months after eating contaminated food should
seek medical care and tell the health care provider about eating
the contaminated food.

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

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

Media and consumers with questions regarding the recall can
contact Brandy Rousselle, Consumer Relation's Manager, at (480)
894-6885 ext. 125.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and
Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in
English and Spanish and can be reached from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.
(Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety
messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic
Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a
day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem.


PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY: Faces Suit Over Athletes' Safety
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Samuels, James Boyd, and Eric Ravotti, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Pennsylvania State
University, Big Ten Conference, and The National Collegiate
Athletic Association, Case No. 1:16-cv-05270 (N.D. Ill., May 17,
2016), seeks to obtain redress for all persons injured by the
Defendants' reckless disregard for the health and safety of
generations of Penn State student athletes.

The Pennsylvania State University is a university located at 201
Old Main, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802.

Big Ten Conference is a collegiate athletic conference with its
principal office located 5440 Park Place, Rosemont, Illinois 60018
and with member institutions in over fourteen states, including
Illinois.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is an unincorporated
association with its principal office located at 700 West
Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46206.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jay Edelson, Esq.
      Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
      Benjamin S. Thomassen, Esq.
      EDELSON PC
      350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor
      Chicago, IL 60654
      Telephone: (312) 589-6370
      Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
      E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
              brichman@edelson.com
              bthomassen@edelson.com

         - and -

      Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
      EDELSON PC
      329 Bryant Street
      San Francisco, CA 94107
      Telephone: (415) 234-5342
      Facsimile: (415) 373-9495
      E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com

         - and -

      Jeff Raizner, Esq.
      RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
      2402 Dunlavy Street
      Houston, TX 77006
      Telephone: (844) 456-4823
      Facsimile: (713) 554-9098
      E-mail: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com

         - and -

      John Driscoll, Esq.
      THE DRISCOLL FIRM, P.C.
      211 North Broadway, 40th Floor
      St. Louis, MO 63102
      Telephone: (314) 932-3232
      E-mail: john@thedriscollfirm.com


PERRIGO COMPANY: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP ("BLB&G") on May 18
disclosed that it filed a securities class action lawsuit on
behalf of its client Roofers' Pension Fund ("Roofers") against
Perrigo Company plc ("Perrigo" or the "Company"), and the
Company's former Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") Joseph C. Papa
(collectively "Defendants").  The action, which is filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, asserts claims
under Sections 10(b), 14(e), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), 15 U.S.C. Secs. 78j(b), 78n(e),
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 Perrigo common stock between April 21, 2015 and May 11,
2016, inclusive (the "Class Period").  This action is also brought
on behalf of all investors in Perrigo common stock as of November
13, 2015, which was the deadline for Perrigo investors to tender
their shares in connection with a tender offer made by Mylan N.V.
("Mylan").

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.  Perrigo is a manufacturer of
generic drugs and over-the-counter healthcare products.

On April 8, 2015, competing drug manufacturer Mylan approached the
Perrigo Board of Directors with an offer to purchase Perrigo for
$205 per share, representing a nearly 30% premium to the Company's
total market capitalization.  Mylan's approach was well received
by investors, and the price of Perrigo stock increased to as high
as $215 per share in intraday trading on April 8.

However, beginning on April 21, 2015, and continuing throughout
the Class Period, Perrigo publicly rejected Mylan's offer and
falsely told investors that the offer substantially undervalued
Perrigo and its growth prospects, and that the offer did not take
into account the full benefits of the Company's acquisition of
Omega Pharma N.V. ("Omega").  Even though Mylan subsequently
raised its offer to approximately $235 per share, over the next
six months, Perrigo continued to engage in a public campaign to
convince shareholders to reject Mylan's proposal.  Convinced by
Perrigo's strong opposition to Mylan's tender offer, on November
13, 2015, the majority of the Company's shareholders declined to
tender their shares making the tender offer a failure.  Moreover,
Defendants' misrepresentations caused Perrigo shares to trade at
artificially inflated prices throughout the Class Period.

The truth began to be revealed on February 18, 2016, when Perrigo
reported fourth quarter 2015 revenue, margins, earnings, and cash
flow that were all lower than investors had been led to expect,
and decreased earnings guidance for 2016.  The Company also
announced the sudden need to restructure parts of the Omega
business, and that it would need to take a $185 million impairment
charge related to Omega's assets.  Then, on April 22, 2016,
Reuters reported that Perrigo's longtime CEO, Papa, would be
appointed as the new CEO of competing pharmaceutical company
Valeant Pharmaceuticals.  Days later, on April 25, 2016, Perrigo
confirmed that CEO Papa was, in fact, resigning to become the new
CEO of Valeant.  The Company also drastically lowered its earnings
guidance for 2016 and announced weak preliminary first-quarter
2016 results.  The Company attributed its poor financial
performance to increased competitive pressures and weaker than
expected performance within Omega.  Then, on May 12, 2016, Perrigo
announced a first quarter net loss of $0.93 per share (which the
Company later revised to a loss of $2.34 per share), which the
Company largely attributed to an additional $467 million
impairment charge relating to the Omega acquisition.  These
disclosures caused a material decline in the price of Perrigo
stock.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff for the Class, you must
file a motion with the Court no later than July 18, 2016, which is
the first business day on which the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey is open that is 60 days after the
publication date of May 18, 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.

Roofers 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 212-554-1493, or via e-mail 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.


PETER LUGER: Sued Over Americans with Disabilities Act Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanie Riley, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Peter Luger, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-02500 (E.D.N.Y.,
May 17, 20160, is brought against the Defendant for violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Peter Luger, Inc. owns and operates a restaurant located at 178
Broadway Brooklyn, N.Y. 11211.

Amanie Riley is a pro se plaintiff.


PHILIPS MEDICAL: Recalls ICT Systems
------------------------------------
Starting date: May 2, 2016
Posting date: May 16, 2016
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type III
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: Healthcare Professionals, General Public, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-58402

IMR cardiac - irregular appearance of contrast in vessels, missing
image annotation's in cct, halo artifacts, incorrect Z annotation
on plan box for coronal/sagittal surviews, unintended change of
acquisition timing on scan ruler, bolus tracker does not trigger
as expected, system unresponsive when paused, system becomes
unresponsive during timed scan, unplanned results during multi-
phase pulmo series, may cause a system crash, communication errors
between host computer & gantry, incorrect phase tolerance for
cardiac step & shoot, error when auto ROI placement outside
patient anatomy, no "go" when HR is outside of acceptable range,
console unresponsive when gantry cancels scan, unable to match Z
locations on prescan and 4D CT scan, pin wheel artifact using
0.67mm slice width, tracker scan halted with fdom. (please contact
manufacturer for details regarding reasons for recall)

Affected products: A. BRILLIANCE 40/64 SLICE CT SYSTEM
Lot or serial number: All lots
Model or catalog number: 4550 110 09021

Manufacturer: Philips Medical Systems (Cleveland) Inc.
              595 MINER ROAD
              CLEVELAND
              Ohio
              UNITED STATES

B. BRILLIANCE ICT SYSTEM-SYSTEM
Lot or serial number: All lots
Model or catalog number: 728306

Manufacturer: Philips Medical Systems (Cleveland) Inc.
              595 MINER ROAD
              CLEVELAND
              Ohio
              UNITED STATES

C. BRILLIANCE ICT SP SYSTEM-MAIN
Lot or serial number: All lots
Model or catalog number: 728311

Manufacturer: Philips Medical Systems (Cleveland) Inc.
              595 MINER ROAD
              CLEVELAND
              Ohio
              UNITED STATES

D. INGENUITY CT SYSTEM
Lot or serial number: All lots
Model or catalog number: 728323
                         728326

Manufacturer: Philips Medical Systems (Cleveland) Inc.
              595 MINER ROAD
              CLEVELAND
              Ohio
              UNITED STATES


PHILIPS HEALTHCARE: Recalls Duradiagnost Products
-------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 3, 2016
Posting date: May 16, 2016
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type III
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-58416

A firmware anomaly inside the detector (PX4343RG) can cause the
detector to appear ready for acquisition on very short time
intervals while it actually is not, resulting in not correctly
acquiring the x-ray image.

Affected products: DURADIAGNOST
Lot or serial number: SN150002
Model or catalog number: 9897-010-02021

Manufacturer: PHILIPS HEALTHCARE (SUZHOU) CO., LTD
              NO. 258, ZHONG YUAN ROAD
              SUZHOU
              215024
              CHINA


PHOENIX OF INDIANA: Summary Judgment in Insurance Suit Vacated
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-
Appellant, v. ARNOLD CHAPMAN and C.T. PHOENIX OF INDIANA, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees, No. 1-15-0919 (Ill. App. Ct.), the Appellate
Court of Illinois, First District vacated the entry of summary
judgment in favor of a class action plaintiff and remanded the
case for further proceedings.

In 2008, Arnold Chapman brought a class action lawsuit against
Cincinnati Insurance Company's (Cincinnati) insured, C.T. Phoenix
of Indiana, Inc. (Phoenix), for violating the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.  Cincinnati denied coverage to Phoenix based on an
exclusion added when the policy was renewed in 2006.  Chapman and
Phoenix settled the underlying matter for $4.9 million.  Chapman
then sought to recover from Phoenix's insurer, Cincinnati.
Cincinnati instituted an action for a determination of its rights
and obligations under the insurance agreement with Phoenix.  After
the close of discovery, both parties moved for summary judgment.
The parties disagreed about which state's law would govern the
insurance agreement between Cincinnati and Phoenix.  After
briefing, the circuit court determined there was no conflict
between Indiana and Illinois, and therefore Illinois's law, as the
forum state, would apply.  Based on the application of Illinois
law, the circuit court found that Cincinnati failed to provide 30
days' advance notice of the new exclusion and therefore the
exclusion was invalid.  Based on the invalidity of the exclusion,
the circuit court entered summary judgment in favor of Chapman.

On appeal, the Appellate Court of Illinois found that the circuit
court erred when it determined that no actual conflict existed
between Indiana and Illinois laws regarding the notice
requirements when an exclusion is added to an insurance contract
upon renewal.  The appellate court determined that an actual
conflict exists, and the relevant choice-of-law factors require
the use of Indiana law to determine the validity of the exclusion.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 23, 2016 opinion is available
at https://is.gd/GRBzwb from Leagle.com.


PINNACLE WEST: Petition for Rehearing En Banc Denied
----------------------------------------------------
Pinnacle West Capital Corporation and Arizona Public Service
Company said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2016, that the plaintiffs' Petition for
Rehearing En Banc has been denied.

On September 8, 2011 at approximately 3:30 PM, a 500 kilovolt
("kV") transmission line running between the Hassayampa and North
Gila substations in southwestern Arizona tripped out of service
due to a fault that occurred at a switchyard operated by APS.
Approximately ten minutes after the transmission line went off-
line, generation and transmission resources for the Yuma area were
lost, resulting in approximately 69,700 APS customers losing
service.

On September 6, 2013, a purported consumer class action complaint
was filed in Federal District Court in San Diego, California,
naming APS and Pinnacle West as defendants and seeking damages for
loss of perishable inventory and sales as a result of interruption
of electrical service.  APS and Pinnacle West filed a motion to
dismiss, which the court granted on December 9, 2013.  On January
13, 2014, the plaintiffs appealed the lower court's decision.  On
March 2, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit unanimously affirmed the District Court's decision. The
plaintiffs filed a Petition for Rehearing En Banc, which was
denied on April 11, 2016.


PORTLAND GENERAL: Appeal Filed in Trojan Investment Case
--------------------------------------------------------
Portland General Electric Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29,
2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the
plaintiffs in the Trojan Investment Recovery Class Actions have
appealed the Circuit Court dismissal to the Court of Appeals for
the State of Oregon.

In 1993, PGE closed the Trojan nuclear power plant (Trojan) and
sought full recovery of, and a rate of return on, its Trojan costs
in a general rate case filing with the OPUC. In 1995, the OPUC
issued a general rate order that granted the Company recovery of,
and a rate of return on, 87% of its remaining investment in
Trojan.

Numerous challenges and appeals were subsequently filed in various
state courts on the issue of the OPUC's authority under Oregon law
to grant recovery of, and a return on, the Trojan investment. In
2007, following several appeals by various parties, the Oregon
Court of Appeals issued an opinion that remanded the matter to the
OPUC for reconsideration.

In 2008, the OPUC issued an order (2008 Order) that required PGE
to provide refunds of $33 million, including interest, which were
completed in 2010. Following appeals, the 2008 Order was upheld by
the Oregon Court of Appeals in February 2013 and by the Oregon
Supreme Court (OSC) in October 2014.

In 2003, in two separate legal proceedings, lawsuits were filed in
Marion County Circuit Court (Circuit Court) against PGE on behalf
of two classes of electric service customers. The class action
lawsuits seek damages totaling $260 million, plus interest, as a
result of the Company's inclusion, in prices charged to customers,
of a return on its investment in Trojan.

In August 2006, the OSC issued a ruling ordering the abatement of
the class action proceedings. The OSC concluded that the OPUC had
primary jurisdiction to determine what, if any, remedy could be
offered to PGE customers, through price reductions or refunds, for
any amount of return on the Trojan investment that the Company
collected in prices.

The OSC further stated that if the OPUC determined that it can
provide a remedy to PGE's customers, then the class action
proceedings may become moot in whole or in part. The OSC added
that, if the OPUC determined that it cannot provide a remedy, the
court system may have a role to play. The OSC also ruled that the
plaintiffs retain the right to return to the Circuit Court for
disposition of whatever issues remain unresolved from the remanded
OPUC proceedings. In October 2006, the Circuit Court abated the
class actions in response to the ruling of the OSC.

In June 2015, based on a motion filed by PGE, the Circuit Court
lifted the abatement and in July 2015, the Circuit Court heard
oral argument on the Company's motion for Summary Judgment.
Following oral argument on PGE's motion for summary judgment, the
plaintiffs moved to amend the complaints. PGE opposed the request
to amend. On February 22, 2016, the Circuit Court denied the
plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint and on March 16, 2016,
the Circuit Court entered a general judgment that granted the
Company's motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims by
the plaintiffs. However, on April 14, 2016, the plaintiffs
appealed the Circuit Court dismissal to the Court of Appeals for
the State of Oregon.

PGE believes that the October 2, 2014 OSC decision and the recent
Circuit Court decisions have reduced the risk of a loss to the
Company in excess of the amounts previously recorded and discussed
above. However, because the class actions remain subject to
appeal, management believes that it is reasonably possible that
such a loss to the Company could result. As these matters involve
unsettled legal theories and have a broad range of potential
outcomes, sufficient information is currently not available to
determine the amount of any such loss.


PRIDE COMMUNICATIONS: Must Pay $3,336 for Hodge & LeBlanc Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge James C. Mahan of the District of Nevada granted in
part and denied in part plaintiff's motion to enter judgment in
the case ANTHONY KISER, Plaintiff(s), v. PRIDE COMMUNICATIONS,
INC. and CRAIG LUSK, Defendants, Case No. 2:11-CV-165 JCM (VCF)
(D. Nev.)

On January 13, 2015, the court entered final approval of the class
action settlement plan and the terms therein, based partly upon
the parties' representations that the settlement administrator's
distribution of the notice of class action settlement was carried
out pursuant to the stipulated settlement plan and constituted the
best notice practicable under the circumstances.

The parties later realized the settlement administrator had not
properly carried out the notice of class action settlement process
and filed a stipulation to resolve the issues. The parties agreed
that Rust Consulting (Rust), the settlement administrator, would
mail a further notice of settlement and claim form to class
members Preston LeBlanc and Nathan Hodge. The parties agreed
further that defendants shall provide to Rust the funds needed, if
any, to pay the foregoing claims of class members Preston LeBlanc
and Nathan Hodge.

On September 10, 2015, Rust communicated to the parties that it
had completed the supplemental notice and claim process directed
by the court's June 15, 2015, order. Rust advised that both
LeBlanc and Hodge had completed claim forms. Rust asked defendants
to deposit a total of $3,336.40 with Rust to be distributed to
LeBlanc and Hodge.

Counsel for Pride informed Rust that Pride does not believe
LeBlanc and Hodge were proper members of the class in this matter
because they held managerial or supervisory positions. Pride has
refused to fund the distributions based on its argument that Hodge
and LeBlanc are not proper members of the class.

Kisser moves the court to enter a judgment against defendants and
order them to comply with the order granting final approval of the
class settlement, as amended by the order granting the parties'
stipulation that defendants would provide to Rust the funds
needed. Plaintiff also filed a motion for leave to remit payments
to certain class members.

Judge Mahan granted in part and denied in part plaintiff's motion
to enter judgment against defendants. Defendants are ordered to
provide Rust with $3,336.40 to satisfy the claims of Hodge and
LeBlanc within 10 days upon entry of judgment. Plaintiff's motion
for leave to remit payments to certain class members is granted.

A copy of Judge Mahan's order dated May 11, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/XjOpKifrom Leagle.com.

Anthony Kiser, Plaintiff, represented by:

     Christian James Gabroy, Esq.
     Gabroy Law Offices
     170 S Green Valley Pkwy #280
     Henderson, NV 89012
     Telephone: 702-259-7777

          - and -

     Leon Marc Greenberg, Esq.
     Dana Sniegocki, Esq.
     Leon Greenberg Professional Corporation
     633 S 4th St #4
     Las Vegas, NV 89101
     Telephone: 702-383-6369

Fabion Garro, Ivaylo Dininski, Wesley Wagner, Wesley Wagner,
Andrei Ioan Oprea, Andrei Ioan Oprea, Jose Maldonado-Montoya,
Brian K Izumi, Raul Cortes, Marco Diaz, and Julio Fernandez,
Plaintiffs, represented by:

     Leon Marc Greenberg, Esq.
     Dana Sniegocki, Esq.
     Leon Greenberg Professional Corporation
     633 S 4th St #4
     Las Vegas, NV 89101
     Telephone: 702-383-6369

Defendants, represented by Caryn S. Tijsseling -- cst@lge.net --
at Lemons, Grundy & Eisenberg; Howard E. Cole -- hcole@lrrc.com
-- Jennifer Hostetler -- at Lemons, Grundy & Eisenberg

Cox Communications Las Vegas, Inc., Interested Party, represented
by Annette A. Idalski -- annette.idalski@chamberlainlaw.com -- at
Chamberlain, Hrdlicka, White, Williams & Martin; Kathleen Marie
Paustian -- at Law Office of Kathleen M. Paustian


PROCTER & GAMBLE: Court Narrows Claims in Flushable Wipes Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jesse M. Furman granted in part and denied, in part, the
defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint in the case captioned
CITY OF PERRY, IOWA, Plaintiff, v. PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, et
al., Defendants, No. 15-CV-8051 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y.).

The city of Perry, Iowa, brought a putative class action against
six leading manufacturers of so-called "flushable wipes": Procter
& Gamble Company (P&G), Kimberly-Clark Corporation (Kimberly-
Clark), Nice-Pak Products, Inc. (Nice-Pak), Professional
Disposables International, Inc. (PDI), Tufco Technologies Inc.
(Tufco), and Rockline Industries (Rockline).  Perry alleged that,
contrary to the defendants' representations, the wipes are not
actually "flushable" because they do not degrade after being
flushed down a toilet.  Instead, the wipes remain intact, creating
clogs in and causing other damage to municipal sewer systems,
wastewater treatment plants, and public buildings.  Perry
contended that it has suffered damages as a result of the harm to
its water systems and public buildings, and asserted claims  --
on behalf of itself and a putative class of similarly situated
municipalities  --  against the defendants for declaratory relief
and various state-law causes of action, including breach of
warranty, misrepresentation, and nuisance.  The defendants moved
to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rules 8 and 12(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Judge Furman dismissed all of Perry's claims against the
defendants Tufco and PDI, as well as Perry's declaratory judgment
(Count One), breach of implied warranty of fitness for a
particular purpose (Count Four), fraudulent misrepresentation
(Count Five), nuisance (Count Seven), and negligence per se (Count
Eight) claims.  By contrast, Perry's breach of express warranty
(Count Two), breach of implied warranty of merchantability (Count
Three), and negligent misrepresentation (Count Six) claims
survived the defendants' motion.

A full-text copy of Judge Furman's May 19, 2016 opinion and order
is available at https://is.gd/s0RYZD from Leagle.com.

City of Perry, Iowa, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin David Elga
-- belga@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert and Laduca LLP, Brian O.
Marty, Hudson, Mallaney, Shindler & Anderson, P.C., J. Barton
Goplerud, Hudson, Mallaney, Shindler & Anderson, P.C., Jonas
Palmer Mann, Audet & Partners, LLP, Michael Andrew McShane, Audet
& Partners LLP & Charles Joseph LaDuca -- charlesl@cuneolaw.com
-- Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP.

Procter & Gamble Company, Defendant, represented by Emily Johnson
Henn -- ehenn@cov.com -- Covington & Burling LLP, Henry Liu --
hliu@cov.com -- Covington & Burling, L.L.P. & Michael C. Nicholson
-- mcnicholson@cov.com -- Covington & Burling LLP.

Kimberly-Clark Corporation, Defendant, represented by Eamon Paul
Joyce -- ejoyce@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP, Daniel Adam Spira
-- dspira@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin, LLP & Kara Lynn McCall --
kmccall@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP.

Nice-Pak Products, Inc., Defendant, represented by Courtney
Elizabeth Scott -- cscott@tresslerllp.com -- Tressler, LLP,
Jennifer Lynn Mesko -- jennifer.mesko@tuckerellis.com -- Tucker
Ellis LLP, John Quincy Lewis -- john.lewis@tuckerellis.com --
Tucker Ellis LLP, Karl Andrew Bekeny --
karl.bekeny@tuckerellis.com -- Tucker Ellis LLP & Michael James
Ruttinger -- michael.ruttinger@tuckerellis.com -- Tucker Ellis
LLP.

Rockline Industries, Defendant, represented by Jerry W Blackwell -
- blackwell@blackwellburke.com -- Blackwell Burke P.A., Mary S.
Young -- myoung@blackwellburke.com -- Blackwell Burke P.A., S.
Jamal Faleel -- jfaleel@blackwellburke.com -- Blackwell Burke
P.A., Paul J Rutigliano -- pjr@msf-law.com -- Meister Seelig &
Fein LLP & Sean Timothy Burns -- sburns@cmk.com -- Carroll,
McNulty & Kull, LLC.


PULPDENT CORPORATION: Recalls Opaquers Due to Noncompliance
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 2, 2016
Posting date: May 16, 2016
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type III
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-58396

Opaquer does not have a Health Canada license and was sold into
Canada through a clerical error.

Affected products: A. Opaquer
Lot or serial number: All lots
Model or catalog number: OP1
                         OP2
Manufacturer: Pulpdent Corporation
              80 OAKLAND STREET P.O. BOX 780
              WATERTOWN
              02472
              Massachusetts
              UNITED STATES


RANDSTAD INHOUSE: "Ortiz" Settlement Deal Has Initial Okay
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ADAN ORTIZ, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. RANDSTAD INHOUSE
SERVICES, L.P., a Delaware Limited Partnership; and DOES 1-50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 13-cv-05050-MMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Maxine M. Chesney granted the motion filed by Adan Ortiz for
conditional certification of a settlement class, preliminary
approval of the parties' proposed settlement, approval of the
notice to be sent to the class about the settlement and the forms
of the Claim Form and Request for Exclusion Form; approval of
class representative and class counsel; and the setting of a date
for the hearing on final approval of the settlement.

The following persons were certified as class members solely for
the purpose of entering a settlement in this matter: "All non-
exempt or hourly persons employed by Defendant Randstad InHouse
Services, L.P. ("Defendant" or "Randstad") in California who
supply services to third party clients (as temporary placement
employees and external talents) from October 29, 2009 to the date
when the Court grants and enters the Preliminary Approval Order."

Judge Chesney appointed Ortiz as class representative, Shaun
Setareh of the Setareh Law Group as class counsel, and CPT Group
as claims administrator.

A full-text copy of Judge Chesney's May 20, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/R2oi5R from Leagle.com.

In the lawsuit, Ortiz claimed that Randstad has violated a number
of wage and hour laws.  In particular, Ortiz claimed, among other
things, that Randstad failed to pay minimum wages, failed to pay
overtime wages, failed to pay for all time worked, improperly
rounded work time, failed to provide meal and rest breaks, failed
to pay wage premiums for missed meal or rest breaks, failed to
provide accurate paystubs and failed to timely pay all final
wages.

Adan Ortiz, Plaintiff, represented by Chaim Shaun Setareh, Setareh
Law Group & Thomas Alistair Segal, Setareh Law Group.

Yuliana Serna Munoz, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Nourmand
-- mnourmand@nourmand.com -- The Nourmand Law Firm, APC.

Randstad North America, L.P., Defendant, represented by John L.
Barber -- john.barber@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis, D'Amato,
Brisbois & Bisgaard, Alison Marie Miceli --
alison.miceli@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brsibois Bisgaard & Smith
LLP, Derek Stanley Sachs -- derek.sachs@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis
Brisbois Bisgaard Smith & Rachel Juyoung Lee --
rachel.lee@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and Smith
LLP.


RAYMOND JAMES: Faces "Shaw" Suit Over Financial Structure
---------------------------------------------------------
James B. Shaw, Johannes Eijmberts and Lome Morris, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Raymond James
Financial, Inc., Raymond James & Associates, People's United
Financial, Inc., People's United Bank, Ariel Quiros, William
Stenger, Joel Burstein and Frank Amigo, Case No. 5:16-cv-00129-gwc
(D. Ver., May 17, 2016), is an action for damages as a result of
the Defendants' practice of designing the financial structure for
the Jay Peak Resort of a fraudulent scheme that operated in a
Ponzi-like manner.

Raymond James & Associates, Inc. operates a diversified holding
company providing financial services to individuals, corporations
and municipalities through its subsidiary companies that engage
primarily in investment and financial planning, in addition to
investment banking and asset management.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Patrick J. Bernal, Esq.
      WITTEN, WOOLMINGTON, CAMPBELL, & BERNAL, PC
      4900 Route 7A, P.O. 2748
      Manchester Center, VT 05255-2748
      Telephone: (802) 362-2560
      Facsimile: (802) 362-71 09
      E-mail: pjb@wittenetal.com

         - and -

      Kathleen M. Donovan-Maher, Esq.
      Steven J. Buttacavoli, Esq.
      Mark A. Delaney, Esq.
      Daryl Andrews, Esq.
      Nathaniel L. Orenstein, Esq.
      Steven L. Groopman, Esq.
      Corey W. Silva, Esq.
      BERMAN DEV ALERIO
      One Liberty Square
      Boston, MA 02109
      Telephone: (617) 542-8300
      Facsimile: (617) 542-1194
      E-mail: kdonovanmaher@bermandevalerio.com
              sbuttacavoli@bermandevalerio.com
              mdelaney@berrmandevalerio.com
              dandrews@bermandevalerio.com
              norenstein@bermandevalerio.com
              sgroopman@bermandevalerio.com
              csilva@bermandevalerio.com


SANOFI SA: Judge Narrows Claims in Local 690 Union's Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Kevin McNulty of the District of New Jersey grantee
in part and denied in part defendants' motions to dismiss in the
case PLUMBERS' LOCAL UNION NO. 690 HEALTH PLAN, Plaintiff, v.
SANOFI, S.A., SANOFI US SERVICES INC., SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S., LLC,
GENZYME CORPORATION, FIDIA FARMACEUTICI S.P.A., FIDIA PHARMA USA
INC., ACCENTURE PLC (ACN), DELOITTE LLP, CHRISTOPHER A.
VIEHBACHER, DENNIS URBANIAK, RAYMOND GODLESKI, THOMAS C.
VALENTINE, DOE DEFENDANTS A-Z, ABC CORPORATIONS AA-ZZ, AND XYZ
PARTNERSHIPS AND ASSOCIATIONS AAA-ZZZ, Defendants, No. 15-cv-956
(KM)(MAH) (D.N.J.)

Local Union No. 690 Health Plan (Local 690) is a third party payor
(TPP) that reimburses its members for the cost of drugs. Local 690
is located in Pennsylvania.

Sanofi S.A. is a French corporation headquartered in Paris. It is
a pharmaceutical company that manufactures, markets, and sells
prescription pharmaceuticals. Sanofi US Services Inc. is a wholly
owned subsidiary of Sanofi, S.A., incorporated in Delaware and
headquartered in New Jersey. It conducts business throughout the
United States for Sanofi, S.A.. Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC, is a
wholly owned subsidiary of Sanofi, S.A., headquartered in New
Jersey that conducts business in the United States for Sanofi,
S.A.

Fidia Farmaceutici S.p.A. is an Italian corporation headquartered
in Italy. It owned the rights to the drug Hyalgan, and until 2011
it licensed to Sanofi, S.A. the right to market Hyalgan in the
U.S. Fidia Pharma USA Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Fidia
Italy, incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in New Jersey.

Genzyme Corporation is a biotech company, headquartered in
Massachusetts, which was acquired by Sanofi, S.A. in 2011. Genzyme
manufactures, markets, and sells Synvisc, a competitor drug of
Hyalgan.

Accenture PLC (ACN) is an Irish corporation headquartered in
Ireland that provides consulting services globally. Accenture
maintains two New Jersey offices.

Deloitte LLP is headquartered in New York and provides various
services through its wholly own subsidiaries.

Christopher Viehbacher was CEO of Sanofi, S.A., from 2008 until
2014. Dennis Urbaniak was employed by defendants as the Vice
President of the U.S. diabetes business unit and is a resident of
New Jersey. Raymond Godleski was employed by defendants as the
Assistant Vice President of Special Projects and worked as a
supervisor in the U.S. diabetes marketing unit and  is also a
resident of New Jersey. Thomas C. Valentine is a former Sanofi
sales representative and manager who reside in California.

Local 690 brought a class action suit against Sanofi US Services
Inc., Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC, Sanofi, S.A., Genzyme Corporation,
Fidia Farmaceutici S.p.A., Fidia Pharma USA Inc., Accenture PLC
(ACN), Deloitte LLP, Christopher A. Viehbacher, Dennis Urbaniak,
Raymond Godleski, and Thomas C. Valentine.

The suit complains of two separate schemes, both allegedly harming
Local 690 in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Local 690 allege that
all Sanofi defendants, both Fidia defendants, Genzyme, and the
individual defendants allegedly provided free samples of the drugs
Hyalgan and Synvisc to doctors and providers to convince them to
buy and administer these drugs, resulting in higher reimbursement
costs for Local 690 and the rest of the class and all Sanofi
defendants, Viehbacher, Urbaniak, and Godleski, allegedly entered
into contracts with Deloitte and Accenture that appeared proper,
but were in fact kickbacks to induce them to cause retail
pharmacies to switch to Sanofi diabetes drugs.

Local 690 made a first amended complaint and asserts violations of
New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. Section 56:8-1, et seq.,
violations of Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law, 73 P.S. Section 201-1, et seq., unjust enrichment,
disgorgement and conspiracy, concert of action, or aiding and
abetting.

Before the courts are the motion to dismiss the original complaint
by Sanofi US, Viehbacher, Urbaniak, and Godleski:

     -- A motion to dismiss the first amended complaint by Sanofi
        US, Genzyme, Viehbacher, Urbaniak, and Godleski.

     -- A motion to dismiss the first amended complaint by
        Deloitte.

     -- A motion to dismiss the first amended complaint by
        Accenture.

     -- A motion to dismiss, joining the previous motions to
        dismiss the 1AC, by Valentine.

     -- A motion to dismiss the first amended complaint by Fidia
        USA and a motion to dismiss the 1AC by Sanofi, S.A., for
        lack of personal jurisdiction under Fed R. Civ. P.
        12(b)(2).

Judge McNulty denied the motion to dismiss the original complaint.
Also, the judge denied Sanofi, S.A.'s motion to dismiss for lack
of personal jurisdiction, with leave to refile if a second amended
complaint is filed and Sanofi, S.A., is still named as a
defendant. The remaining motions to dismiss are granted because
the first amended complaint fails to state a claim, pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The dismissal is without prejudice to
the filing of a second amended complaint within 60 days.

A copy of Judge McNulty's opinion dated May 11, 2016, is available
at http://goo.gl/xAQdFMfrom Leagle.com.

Plumbers' Local Union No. 690 Health Plan, Plaintiff, represented
by:

     Donald E. Haviland, Jr., Esq.
     HAVILAND HUGHES
     201 S. Maple Way, Suite 110
     Ambler, PA 19002
     Telephone: 215-609-4661
     Facsimile: 215-392-4400

Sanofi-Aventis U.S., Inc., Christopher A. Viehbacher, Dennis
Urbaniak, Raymond Godleski, Sanofi, S.A., Sanofi US Services,
Inc., Genzyme Corporation, Defendants, represented by:

     Liza M. Walsh, Esq.
     Katelyn O'Reilly, Esq.
     Tricia B. O'Reilly, Esq.
     WALSH PIZZI O'REILLY FALANGA LLP
     Centre Square, East Tower
     1500 Market Street, 12th Floor
     Philadelphia, PA 19102
     Telephone: 215-665-5621
     Facsimile: 215-569-8228

Fidia Pharma USA, Defendant, represented by David R. King --
dking@herrick.com -- Jason Anthony D'Angelo --
jdangelo@herrick.com -- Ronald J. Levine -- rlevine@herrick.com
-- at HERRICK, FEINSTEIN LLP

Accenture PLC, Defendant, represented by Brian M. English --
benglish@tompkinsmcguire.com -- at TOMPKINS, MCGUIRE, WACHENFELD &
BARRY, LLP

DELOITTE, LLP, Defendant, represented by Mark A. Berman --
mberman@hdrbb.com -- at HARTMAN DOHERTY ROSA BERMAN & BULBULIA, PC

Thomas C. Valentine, Defendant, represented by Robert A. Vort --
rvort@vortlaw.com ?- at Robert A. Vort Law Office


SIEMENS HEALTHCARE: Recalls ADVIA Centaur TnI-Ultra Assay
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 4, 2016
Posting date: May 24, 2016
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type III
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: Hospitals, Healthcare Professionals, General Public
Identification number: RA-58522

An urgent field safety notice (UFSN) has been issued by Siemens
informing the customers of the biotin interference in the ADVIA
Centaur TnI-Ultra assay. In date lots of ADVIA Centaur TnI-Ultra
exhibit a greater than 10% change in results in samples with
biotin levels up to 10 ng/mL (41 nmol/L). The instructions for use
states that specimens that have up to 10 ng/mL (41 nmol/L) of
biotin demonstrate =10% change in results.

Affected products
A. ADVIA CENTAUR SYSTEM-TROPONIN I ULTRA (TNI-ULTRA) ASSAY
Lot or serial number: More than 20 numbers, contact manufacturer.
Model or catalog number: 02789602
                         02790309

Manufacturer: Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics Inc.
              511 Benedict Ave
              Tarrytown
              10591
              New York
              UNITED STATES

B. ADVIA CENTAUR CP SYSTEM-TROPONIN I ULTRA (TNI-ULTRA) ASSAY
Lot or serial number: More than 20 numbers, contact manufacturer.
Model or catalog number: 02789602
                         02790309

Manufacturer: Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics Inc.
              511 Benedict Ave
              Tarrytown
              10591
              New York
              UNITED STATES


SIEMENS MEDICAL: Recalls Ultrasound Operating Software
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 2, 2016
Posting date: May 16, 2016
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type III
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Hospitals, Healthcare Professionals
Identification number: RA-58400

While imaging with a transesophageal (TEE) transducer (z6ms, v5ms,
or v7m), the operator may lose the ability to control the color
region of interest, the pulsed wave or continuous wave Doppler
gate or cursor, the M-Mode cursor, the 2D field of view, or the
res region of interest with the trackball.

Affected products:
A. ACUSON SC2000 ULTRASOUND - OPERATING SOFTWARE
Lot or serial number: 402544
                      402618
Model or catalog number: 4.0

Manufacturer: Siemens Medical Solutions USA Inc.
              685 East Middlefield Road
              California
              UNITED STATES


SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS: Sued in Cal. Over Porter Ranch Gas Leak
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mel Mitchell and Beverly Mitchell, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Southern California Gas Company,
Sempra Energy, and Does 1-100, Case No. BC620639 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
May 17, 2016), arises from the Defendants' negligent and willful
actions and inactions, which resulted in a massive natural gas
leak at Socal Gas' Aliso Canyon Facility next to and underneath
the Porter Ranch residential community.

The Defendants operate a company that provides natural gas to the
region of Southern California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      R. Craig Clark, Esq.
      Dawn M. Berry, Esq.
      CLARK LAW GROUP
      205 West Date Street
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619)239-1321
      Facsimile: (888) 273-4554


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Class Cert., Summary Judgment Bids Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that these motions are
pending in a class action lawsuit against its unit, AirTran, as
well as Delta Air Lines in Georgia:

     -- defendants' motions for summary judgment,
     -- plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and
     -- motions to exclude the opinions of experts.

A complaint alleging violations of federal antitrust laws and
seeking certification as a class action was filed against Delta
Air Lines, Inc. and AirTran in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta on May 22, 2009.
The complaint alleged, among other things, that AirTran attempted
to monopolize air travel in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman
Act, and conspired with Delta in imposing $15-per-bag fees for the
first item of checked luggage in violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act. The initial complaint sought treble damages on behalf
of a putative class of persons or entities in the United States
who directly paid Delta and/or AirTran such fees on domestic
flights beginning December 5, 2008.

After the filing of the May 2009 complaint, various other nearly
identical complaints also seeking certification as class actions
were filed in federal district courts in Atlanta, Georgia;
Orlando, Florida; and Las Vegas, Nevada. All of the cases were
consolidated before a single federal district court judge in
Atlanta. A Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed in the
consolidated action on February 1, 2010, which broadened the
allegations to add claims that Delta and AirTran conspired to
reduce capacity on competitive routes and to raise prices in
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. In addition to treble
damages for the amount of first baggage fees paid to AirTran and
to Delta, the Consolidated Amended Complaint seeks injunctive
relief against a broad range of alleged anticompetitive
activities, as well as attorneys' fees.

On August 2, 2010, the Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims that
AirTran and Delta had violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act; the
Court let stand the claims of a conspiracy with respect to the
imposition of a first bag fee and the airlines' capacity and
pricing decisions. On June 30, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion
to certify a class, which AirTran and Delta have opposed. The
parties engaged in extensive discovery, and discovery has now
closed.

On June 18, 2012, the parties filed a Stipulation and Order that
plaintiffs have abandoned their claim that AirTran and Delta
conspired to reduce capacity. On August 31, 2012, AirTran and
Delta moved for summary judgment on all of plaintiffs' remaining
claims, but discovery disputes between plaintiffs and Delta
delayed further briefing on summary judgment.

On August 5, 2015, the Court entered an order granting class
certification, which was vacated on August 17, 2015, to permit
further briefing. Thereafter, the parties filed motions to exclude
the opinions of the other parties' experts on class certification
and on the merits.

On January 8, 2016, the parties completed briefing on defendants'
motions for summary judgment, plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, and the motions to exclude the opinions of experts,
and those motions have been submitted to the Court for decision.
AirTran denies all allegations of wrongdoing, including those in
the Consolidated Amended Complaint, and intends to defend
vigorously any and all such allegations.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Consolidated Complaint Filed in Airfare Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the time for airline
defendants to respond to the consolidated amended complaint has
not yet expired.

On July 1, 2015, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
putative classes of consumers alleging collusion among the
Company, American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, and United Airlines
to limit capacity and maintain higher fares in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Since then, a number of similar
class action complaints were filed in the United States District
Courts for the Central District of California, the Northern
District of California, the District of Columbia, the Middle
District of Florida, the Southern District of Florida, the
Northern District of Georgia, the Northern District of Illinois,
the Southern District of Indiana, the Eastern District of
Louisiana, the District of Minnesota, the District of New Jersey,
the Eastern District of New York, the Southern District of New
York, the Middle District of North Carolina, the District of
Oklahoma, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Northern
District of Texas, the District of Vermont, and the Eastern
District of Wisconsin.

On October 13, 2015, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District
Litigation centralized the cases to the United States District
Court in the District of Columbia.

On March 25, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended
Complaint in the consolidated cases alleging that the defendants
conspired to restrict capacity from 2009 to present. The
plaintiffs seek to bring their claims on behalf of a class of
persons who purchased tickets for domestic airline travel on the
defendants' airlines from July 1, 2011 to present. They seek
treble damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and
expenses.

The time for defendants to respond to the Consolidated Amended
Complaint has not yet expired. The Company denies all allegations
of wrongdoing and intends to vigorously defend these civil cases.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: To Defend Against Airfare Suits in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company was named
as a defendant in a putative class action filed on July 8, 2015,
in British Columbia, Canada alleging that the Company, Air Canada,
American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, and United Airlines colluded
to restrict capacity and maintain higher fares for Canadian
citizens traveling in the United States and for travel between the
United States and Canada. Similar lawsuits were filed in Ontario,
Quebec and Saskatchewan. The time for the Company to respond to
the complaints has not yet expired. The Company denies all
allegations of wrongdoing and intends to vigorously defend these
civil cases in Canada.


SPECIALIZED CANADA: Recalls Headlights and Taillights
-----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 4, 2016
Posting date: May 4, 2016
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Sports/Fitness
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Burn Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-58056

Specialized Flux headlights and taillights and Specialized Stix
headlights and taillights are lights intended to be mounted on a
bicycle handlebar or seat post with the supplied hardware and used
while riding.

Flux headlights have a round, metal mounting system that fits both
flat and drop handlebars.  "Flux" is printed on the side of the
black, rectangular-shaped lights and on the bottom of the pewter-
colored aluminum casing. Flux taillights have a pewter-colored
base with a 110-lumen light on the top. The "Specialized" logo is
printed on top of the taillights.

Stix headlights are black with a 70-lumen light (Stix Sport) or a
105-lumen light (Stix Comp). "Stix" is printed in white letters on
the end of the headlight.

Specialized Flux and Stix headlights and taillights with the
following UPC codes, printed on the product packaging, are
included in this recall:

  Product Description                      UPC
  -------------------                      ---
  Specialized Flux Expert Headlight        719676120898
  Specialized Flux Elite Headlight         719676120881
  Specialized Flux Expert Taillight        719676120874
  Specialized Stix Comp Headlight          888818044092
  Specialized Stix Comp Taillight          888818043996
  Specialized Stix Sport Headlight         888818044047
  Specialized Stix Sport Taillight         888818043989
  Specialized Stix Sport Headlight and     888818084470
  Taillight Combo

The headlights and taillights can overheat, posing fire and burn
hazards.

Neither Health Canada nor Specialized has received any reports of
consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these lights
in Canada.

Outside of Canada, Specialized has received four reports of Flux
headlights or taillights overheating and two reports of Stix
headlights expanding and bursting. No injuries have been reported.

Approximately 6,568 affected lights were sold in Canada to
Authorized Specialized Retailers.

The recalled products were sold from June 2014 to February 2016.

Manufactured in China.

Distributor: Specialized Canada Inc.
             Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue
             Quebec
             CANADA

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled headlights
and taillights.

Stix lights and Flux Expert taillights: Consumers should return
all Stix lights and Flux Expert Taillights to an Authorized
Specialized Retailer for replacement.

Flux headlights: Consumers should return all Flux Expert and Elite
Headlights to an Authorized Specialized Retailer for a firmware
upgrade.

For more information, consumers can contact Specialized toll free
at 1-800-465-8887, Monday through Friday from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm
EST, by email or visit the firm's website.

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

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

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

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
https://is.gd/hniIZm


SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Still Defends Harkness Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29,
2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the
Company continues to defend the Harkness Class Action.

On December 5, 2014, Boeing filed a complaint in Delaware Superior
Court, Complex Commercial Litigation Division, entitled The Boeing
Co. v. Spirit AeroSystems, Inc., No. N14C-12-055 (EMD). Boeing
seeks indemnification from Spirit for (a) damages assessed against
Boeing in International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and
Agricultural Workers of America v. Boeing Co., AAA Case No. 54 300
00795 07 (the "UAW Arbitration"), which was brought on behalf of
certain former Boeing employees in Tulsa and McAlester, Oklahoma,
and (b) claims that Boeing allegedly settled in Society of
Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace v. Boeing Co.,
Nos. 05-1251-MLB, 07-1043-MLB (D. Kan.) (the "Harkness Class
Action").

Spirit Holdings, Spirit and certain Spirit retirement plan
entities were parties to the Harkness Class Action, but all claims
against the Spirit entities were subsequently dismissed. Boeing's
Complaint asserts that the damages assessed against Boeing in the
UAW Arbitration and the claims settled by Boeing in the Harkness
Class Action are liabilities that Spirit assumed under an Asset
Purchase Agreement between Boeing and Spirit, dated February 22,
2005 (the "APA").

Boeing asserts claims for breach of contract and declaratory
judgment regarding its indemnification rights under the APA.
Boeing alleges that, under the UAW Arbitration decision, Boeing
has paid more than $13.0 million of a liability Boeing estimates
to have a net present value of $39.0 million. In regard to the
Harkness Class Action, Boeing has announced that the district
court has approved a settlement in an amount of $90.0 million. In
addition to the amounts related to the UAW Arbitration and
Harkness Class Action, Boeing seeks indemnification for more than
$10.0 million in attorneys' fees it alleges it expended to defend
the UAW Arbitration and Harkness Class Action.

On December 24, 2014, the parties filed a joint stipulation
extending Spirit's deadline to move, answer or otherwise respond
to Boeing's complaint until February 12, 2015. Spirit timely
answered the complaint.

Spirit intends to defend vigorously against the allegations in
this lawsuit. Management believes the resolution of this matter
will not materially affect the Company's financial position,
results of operations or liquidity.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.


SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Awaits Appeals Court Decision in Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29,
2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the
appeal in a class action lawsuit has been fully briefed and
argued, but the Court of Appeals has not yet issued a decision.

On June 3, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was commenced
against the Company, Jeffrey L. Turner, and Philip D. Anderson in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. The court-
appointed lead plaintiffs -- two pension funds that claim to
represent a class of investors in the Company's stock -- filed an
amended complaint on April 7, 2014, naming as additional
defendants Spirit's Vice President of the B787 Program Terry J.
George and former Senior Vice President of Oklahoma Operations
Alexander K. Kummant. The amended complaint alleges that
defendants engaged in a scheme to artificially inflate the market
price of the Company's stock by making false statements and
omissions about certain programs' performance and costs. It
contends that the alleged scheme was revealed by the Company's
accrual of $590.0 million in forward loss charges on October 25,
2012. The lead plaintiffs seek certification of a class of all
persons other than defendants who purchased Holdings securities
between May 5, 2011 and October 24, 2012, and seek an unspecified
amount of damages on behalf of the putative class.

In June 2014, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the claims
set forth in the amended complaint. On May 14, 2015, the District
Court granted Spirit's motion to dismiss and dismissed the matter
with prejudice. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on June
11, 2015.  The appeal has been fully briefed and argued, but the
Court of Appeals has not yet issued a decision.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against these
allegations, and management believes the resolution of this matter
will not materially affect the Company's financial position,
results of operations or liquidity.


STATE FARM: Court Won't Reconsider Prior Orders in "Thompson"
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JOHN THOMPSON and LEIGH ANN THOMPSON,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant,
Civil Action No. 5:14-CV-32 (MTT) (M.D. Ga.), Judge Marc T.
Treadwell denied the following motions:

          -- the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the
             court's order denying their supplemental motion for
             class certification under Rule 23(b)(2); and

          -- the defendant State Farm's motion for
             reconsideration of the court's order granting in
             part and denying in part the plaintiffs' motion for
             class certification under Rule 23(b)(3).

A full-text copy of Judge Treadwell's May 19, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/1cfhNk from Leagle.com.

JOHN THOMPSON, LEIGH ANN THOMPSON, Plaintiff, represented by Adam
P Princenthal -- adam@princemay.com -- Princenthal & May, LLC, C
COOPER KNOWLES, Law Office of C. Cooper Knowles, LLC, CLINTON W
SITTON, JAMES C BRADLEY -- jbradley@rpwb.com -- MATTHEW A NICKLES
-- mnickles@rpwb.com -- MICHAEL J BRICKMAN -- mbrickman@rpwb.com
-- NINA FIELDS BRITT -- nfields@rpwb.com -- & RICHARD KOPELMAN.

STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant, represented by
Thomas W. Curvin -- tom.curvin@sutherland.com -- Sutherland,
Asbill & Brennan, Tracey K. Ledbetter --
tracey.ledbetter@sutherland.com -- Valerie S. Sanders --
valerie.sanders@sutherland.com -- Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan &
STACEY M MOHR -- stacey.mohr@sutherland.com -- SUTHERLAND ASBILL &
BRENNAN LLP.


TALK FUSION: Jurisdiction Issue Forces Judge to Vacate Hearing
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Larry Alan Burns of the Southern District of
California vacated the hearing date in the case of DENNIS GRAY,
Plaintiff, v. TALK FUSION, INC. et al., Defendants, Case No.
15cv2665-LAB (JLB) (S.D. Cal.)

Dennis Gray a California resident claims that defendants are
involved in a fraudulent pyramid scheme that defendants disguised
as a business opportunity.

Defendants Robert Reina, Talk Fusion, Inc. and Talk Fusion
Worldwide, Inc. are resident or are located in the Middle District
of Florida. The fourth, Mane World Promotions, Inc., is located in
Oregon. None are alleged to have any offices or other permanent
operations in the District or in California.

Defendants cited and relied on the standards for personal
jurisdiction discussed in Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A.
v. Brown Daimler AG v. Bauman, while on the other hand plaintiff
cited and relied on older Ninth Circuit standards that
Goodyear and Daimler have explained are invalid and failed to
discuss or even mentioned the two cases.

On calendar for May 16, 2016, was a hearing on motions to dismiss,
to transfer venue, and to stay. Defendants have also moved ex
parte for oral argument on these motions.

Judge Burns vacated the May 16 hearing and ordered plaintiff to
file supplemental briefing addressing the factual basis for
general or specific personal jurisdiction over each defendant, in
light of Goodyear and Daimler.

No later than May 26, 2016, plaintiff must file his memorandum of
points and authorities, not longer than seven pages. Defendants
may file a joint reply brief, subject to the same page limit, by
June 2, 2016.

A copy of Judge Burns's order dated May 11, 2016, is available at
http://goo.gl/Hc20C2from Leagle.com.

Dennis Gray, Plaintiff, represented by Geoff Spreter --
geoff@spreterlaw.com -- at Spreter Law Firm, APC

Talk Fusion, Inc. and Talk Fusion Worldwide, Inc., Defendants,
represented by Edward Joseph Kuchinski -- ekuchinski@sbwlegal.com
-- Mahlon Herbert Barlow, III -- mbarlow@sbwlegal.com -- at
Sivyer, Barlow & Watson, PA; Lawrence B. Steinberg --
LSteinberg@buchalter.com -- at Buchalter Nemer

Robert Reina, Defendant, represented by Lawrence B. Steinberg --
LSteinberg@buchalter.com -- at Buchalter Nemer

Mane World Promotions, Inc., Defendant, represented by Frederick L
Wilks -- fwilks@hodelwilks.com -- at Hodel Wilks LLP


TARGET CORP: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in Minnesota
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP ("Robbins Geller") on May 18
disclosed that a class action has been commenced on behalf of an
institutional investor in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota on behalf of purchasers of Target
Corporation ("Target") common stock during the period between
February 27, 2013 and May 19, 2014 (the "Class Period").

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from May 17, 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 Evan J. Kaufman 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/target/

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 Target and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Target operates general merchandise discount stores throughout the
United States.  On January 13, 2011, Target announced that it
would expand its retail operations into Canada, with plans to open
between 100 and 150 stores in the country during 2013 and 2014.

The complaint alleges that beginning on February 27, 2013, and
continuing throughout the Class Period, defendants painted a rosy
picture of Target's expansion into Canada, including issuing
strong financial and operational guidance for fiscal 2013.
Target's Canadian operations, however, encountered problems from
the start.  When Target's Canadian results began to underperform
investors' expectations, defendants made a series of reassuring
statements about Target's new Canadian stores and operations,
including statements regarding its supply chain infrastructure and
information technology systems; the Company's current and
projected operations in Canada; and the Company's outlook and
prospects for all operations, including those in Canada.
Defendants also reassured investors that Target's expansion into
Canada was progressing in a fashion similar to that experienced by
the Company when it opened new stores in the United States.  As a
result of these positive statements, Target stock traded at
artificially inflated prices, reaching as high as $73.50 per share
during the Class Period.

According to the complaint, however, defendants' Class Period
statements regarding Target's Canadian expansion efforts and
operations were materially false and misleading and/or failed to
disclose the following adverse facts that defendants knew or
recklessly disregarded: (a) at the time of the opening of its
first group of stores in Canada, Target had significant problems
with its supply chain infrastructure, distribution centers, and
technology systems, as well as inadequately trained employees; (b)
these problems caused significant, pervasive issues, including
excess inventory at distribution centers and inadequate inventory
at retail locations; (c) this excess inventory at distribution
centers and lack of inventory at retail locations forced Target to
heavily discount products and incur heavy losses; and (d) these
supply-chain and personnel problems were not typical of newly
launched locations in Target's traditional U.S.-based market.

On August 21, 2013, Target announced disappointing results for the
second quarter of 2013, causing Target's stock price to decline by
$2.45 per share, or 3.6%.  On November 21, 2013, Target released
downbeat results for the third quarter of 2013, including news
that the Company's Canadian segment had suffered a drop in
operating margin from rates exceeding 30% in prior quarters to
only 14.8% due to the need to aggressively discount merchandise.
On this news, Target's stock price declined by $2.30 per share, or
3.5%.  On May 5, 2014, Target announced that its CEO, the
architect of the Company's Canadian expansion, would leave the
Company effective immediately, without any clear successor.  On
this news, Target's stock price fell $2.14 per share, or 3.4%.

Then on May 20, 2014, prior to the market opening, news reports
circulated that Target had fired its President of Canadian
operations.  This abrupt termination revealed that the string of
weak results from Target's Canadian operations was not simply a
result of growing pains associated with normal store openings, but
rather was due to severe operational issues.  On this news, the
price of Target stock fell another $1.68 per share, or 2.9%, to
close at $56.61 per share.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Target 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 10 offices, Robbins Geller --
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/-- advises U.S. and international
institutional investors in securities litigation and portfolio
monitoring.  Robbins Geller has obtained many of the largest
securities class action recoveries in history and was ranked first
in both the total amount and number of shareholder class action
recoveries in ISS's SCAS Top 50 report for the last two years.


THERMOMIX: Class Action Mulled Over Machine-Related Injuries
------------------------------------------------------------
ninemsn reports that a Melbourne mum is among a group of nearly a
dozen people considering a class action against Thermomix after
the all-in-one device exploded in her face, badly burning her and
her baby daughter.

Heidi Brennan, a paramedic from Aspendale Gardens, was cooking
with her baby daughter Caitlin on her hip when her Vorwerk
Thermomix TM31 began making an odd sound, prompting her to turn
off the machine.

A Melbourne mum is among a group of nearly a dozen people
considering a class action against Thermomix after the all-in-one
device exploded in her face, badly burning her and her baby
daughter.

Heidi Brennan, a paramedic from Aspendale Gardens, was cooking
with her baby daughter Caitlin on her hip when her Vorwerk
Thermomix TM31 began making an odd sound, prompting her to turn
off the machine.

Ms. Brennan received a deep burn on her shoulder and one of her
eyes, which could have threatened her livelihood.

"The lid hit the roof and the Thermomix sprayed boiling hot water
all over us," Ms. Brennan told News Corp on May 18 of the
incident, which occurred in April 2014.

Baby Caitlin -- then 16 months old -- received a deep burn on her
little arm, while her mum sustained first-degree burns to her
shoulder and one eye.

"If it affected my vision, that would have been my job,"
Ms. Brennan said, adding that Thermomix "didn't really care" when
she phoned to complain.

Now she's among 10 people who have contacted law firm Slater and
Gordon to explore the possibility of a class action over the
dangers of the $2000 appliance -- and the group may yet grow
considerably.

According to Choice, about 87 Thermomix-related injuries have been
reported, a figure that has shocked Slater and Gordon's senior
public liability lawyer, Barrie Woollacott.

"That was a real surprise," Mr. Woollacott said.

"We didn't really have any concept as to those sorts of numbers.
It increases the prospects of a class action going ahead."

Thermomix in Australia Pty Ltd is yet to comment on the potential
litigation.


TROPICAL BIOMEDICS: Faces "Spiegel" Suit Over Company Management
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven J. Spiegel, derivately on behalf of Tropical Biomedics,
Inc., and individually as a shareholder of Tropical Biomedics,
Inc., and on behalf of all shareholders similarly situated v.
Louis Paradise and Tropical Biomedics, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-
03680 (S.D.N.Y., May 17, 2016), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to manage and operate the Company in accordance with
the corporate governance requirements and standard of Delaware
General Corporation Law and the organizational and governance
documents of the Company, including without limitation its
shareholders' agreement.

Tropical Biomedics, Inc. is a manufacturer of transdermal pain and
inflammation relief products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven Jay Spiegel, Esq.
      Spiegel Legal, LLC
      148 North Main Street
      Florida, NY 10921
      Telephone: (845) 651-5000
      Facsimile: (845) 651-5111
      E-mail: steven@spiegellegal.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces TCPA Class Action in Illinois
------------------------------------------------------
Roy Strom, writing for Law.com, reports that Uber Technologies
Inc. was hit with another class action on May 23 alleging the
ride-hailing firm's text messages to potential drivers violate the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, a claim Uber has had some
success defeating in previous cases.

The latest lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.  The company has faced a number of
similar lawsuits in the Northern District of California and in
other federal courts.  In some cases, it has been able to convince
judges that the messages it sends are not advertisements, but
employment offers.

While text messages advertising services require "prior express
written consent" from recipients, employment solicitations don't
require consent to be in writing.

Charles Johnson, who says he downloaded the Uber app but never
used it, seeks in his lawsuit to certify a class of U.S. residents
who received one or more text messages from Uber without giving
the company consent.

One message Mr. Johnson received from Uber read, "You're invited
to drive Uber.  No schedule.  No boss.  Sign up now and get a $500
bonus," according to the suit.

The case seeks $500 or $1,500 in damages for each text message
Uber sent that violated the TCPA.

Uber did not return an email seeking comment.

The plaintiff's lawyer, Phillip Bock -- phil@classlawyers.com --
of Bock, Hatch, Lewis & Oppenheim in Chicago, did not return a
voicemail message seeking comment.

Uber succeeded in defeating the certification of a class in at
least two cases in Northern California last year.  In those cases,
U.S. District Judges Edward Chen and Jon Tigar held that Uber's
messages were not telemarketing, which requires a sender has
"express written consent" to send the message.  Instead, the
judges said the messages soliciting drivers were offering
employment, which only required Uber to have "express consent"
from the recipients.

The judges found that the recipients had given their consent to
Uber by providing the company their phone numbers.

Although he dismissed claims brought by potential drivers who
completed Uber's application, Judge Tigar allowed claims to move
forward on behalf of a second class of plaintiffs who had not
completed the application. Parties in that case remain in
discovery.

Uber faces a similar lawsuit in the Northern District of Georgia.
In an answer to that complaint filed this month, Uber asserted 17
affirmative defenses, including that the messages were not
"advertising."

Uber is also currently defending itself against a TCPA class
action in Chicago federal court related to text messages it sent
to users to confirm their account.  A plaintiff said she never
provided Uber her number or attempted to sign up for the service
before she received texts asking her to confirm an account.

In a motion asking for a ruling in its favor, Uber said that
lawsuit failed to prove a portion of the law that requires the
messages to be sent through an automated system.

The latest lawsuit filed in Chicago said Uber's texts should be
considered telemarketing and that the plaintiff never gave his
written consent to receive the messages.

"Uber never clearly and conspicuously disclosed to (p)laintiff
that he had consented to receive automated text calls from Uber --
because he never so consented -- or that he was not required to
consent to such calls in order to purchase goods or services from
Uber," the lawsuit reads.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Liss-Riordan Responds to Settlement Objections
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Hancock, writing for The Recorder, reports that the
Massachusetts labor lawyer accused of selling out thousands of
Uber drivers by agreeing to an $84 million settlement shot back at
her critics on May 20.

In a formal response to the settlement's objectors filed with the
court, Shannon Liss-Riordan of Lichten & Liss-Riordan took digs at
both the qualifications and motivations of fellow plaintiffs'
attorneys who have called for her to be thrown off the case
against Uber Technologies Inc.

"Notably, some of the loudest objections to this settlement come
from lawyers who do not practice in this field (of independent
contractor misclassification, wage and hour law, or even
employment law), including a 'celebrity lawyer,' and other
attorneys whose practice areas focus on products liability and
personal injury," Ms. Liss-Riordan wrote.

That appeared to be a reference to Los Angeles attorney
Mark Geragos of Geragos & Geragos, who once represented
Michael Jackson, and New York lawyer Hunter Shkolnik, whose online
bio touts his experience as a personal injury lawyer with a
background "primarily in the area of drug, automobile, heavy truck
and aviation related product liability actions."

Both Messrs. Shkolnik and Geragos are representing clients in
separate cases against Uber that could be affected by the
settlement, and have called for Liss-Riordan to be removed as
class counsel in the lawsuits she has brought against the company.

"Now, these lawyers have jumped into the fray to second guess
counsel's careful decision-making.  Some might suggest that they
have done so out of their own self-interest, since no reasonable
attorney could seriously argue that a $100 million settlement, in
the face of multiple risks that could mean recovering nothing, is
inadequate," Ms. Liss-Riordan wrote, referring to the maximum
value of the settlement if Uber goes public or jumps in valuation.

"Others might suggest that these same attorneys would have settled
for a fraction of this amount were they given the opportunity, and
that Uber drivers are tremendously fortunate to have experienced
counsel negotiating on their behalves," she added.

As for the demands that she be removed, Ms. Liss-Riordan dismissed
those as "hyperbolic accusations and personal attacks" that are
"possibly sanctionable."  She also said they have no merit, since
they object primarily on the basis that the monetary deal is only
a fraction of the $852 million she estimated could potentially be
recovered in her cases against the company.
Quoting case law, Ms. Liss-Riordan wrote that it is well-settled
that a cash deal amounting to only a fraction of the potential
recovery "does not per se render the settlement inadequate or
unfair."

Ms. Liss-Riordan's 54-page brief otherwise reiterates many of her
rationales for agreeing to settle, including the risk posed by the
pending review of a ruling on the enforceability of Uber's
arbitration clause at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.

She also responded to objections made directly by Uber drivers,
emphasizing that the "vast majority" of the 2,500 drivers who have
contacted her office have expressed support for the deal, while
only 22 have expressed disappointment to the court.

In a separate declaration, Ms. Liss-Riordan also addressed an
objection filed by one of her named plaintiffs, San Francisco Uber
driver Douglas O'Connor.  But that portion she redacted out of
what she said is concern for his personal privacy.

Mr. O'Connor is now being represented by Mr. Geragos and Brian
Kabateck of Kabateck Brown Kellner.  In an email, Mr. Geragos
highlighted the employment cases his firm has litigated against
Zillow Group Inc. and Ascent Media Group as evidence of his
credentials.  "This complete lack of investigation by purported
counsel for workers is exhibit A in why we are objecting," he
said.

Mr. Shkolnik also shot back.  In an email, he said Ms.
Liss-Riordan's "lack of knowledge of our extensive class action
experience and successes on behalf of class members where we
actually obtained real and tangible benefits for class members in
high profile cases further explains her inability to understand
how badly she sold out these class members.  It is truly
shameful."

UNDER ARMOUR: Shareholder Class Action Settlement Approved
----------------------------------------------------------
Under Armour, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a court has granted
final approval of the settlement in the shareholder class action
lawsuit.

Following the Company's announcement of the creation of the Class
C stock, par value $0.0003 1/3 per share, four purported class
action lawsuits were brought against the Company and the members
of the Company's Board of Directors on behalf of the stockholders
of the Company, the first of which was filed on June 18, 2015.
These lawsuits were filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City,
Maryland (the "Court"), and were consolidated into one action, In
re: Under Armour Shareholder Litigation, Case No. 24-C-15-003240.
The lawsuits generally alleged that the individual defendants
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with approving the
creation of the Class C common stock, as well as in connection
with recommending for approval by stockholders certain governance
related changes to the Company's charter.

On February 29, 2016, the Court granted its final approval of the
settlement terms in the lawsuit. Under the terms of the
settlement, following the initial distribution of the Class C
common stock, the Company has agreed to issue additional
consideration to the holders of Class C common stock in the form
of a dividend with a value of $59 million, which will be payable
in the form of the Company's Class A common stock, Class C common
stock, cash or a combination thereof, to be determined at the sole
discretion of the Company's Board of Directors.  This dividend
must be authorized by the Board of Directors within approximately
60 days following the initial distribution of the Class C common
stock, which occurred on April 7, 2016.

Additionally, the settlement agreement includes certain non-
monetary remedies, including an amendment to the Confidentiality,
Non-Competition and Non-Solicitation Agreement between the Company
and Kevin A. Plank, the Company's Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer, and an agreement that the Company's Board of Directors
will undertake certain considerations when using more than a
specified amount of shares of Class C common stock as
consideration in certain acquisition transactions.


UNITED STATES: Scheduling Conference in "Garcia" Moved to July 27
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe of the Eastern District of
California granted the parties' stipulation in the case GUADALUPE
L. GARCIA, JR., et al., Plaintiffs, v. THOMAS J. VILSACK,
Secretary THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Defendant,
Case No. 1:16-CV-00282-AWI-BAM (E.D. Cal.)

Plaintiff Gloria P. Moralez and defendant Thomas J. Vilsack
through their undersigned counsel and subject to the court's
approval, stipulates that Moralez may file a fourth amended
complaint, which shall serve as her operative pleading. Defendant
shall have up to and including June 13, 2016, to file his initial
response to the fourth amended complaint.

Magistrate Judge McAuliffe granted plaintiff's request for leave
to file a fourth amended complaint. On or before May 13, 2016,
plaintiff shall file her fourth amended complaint, attached as
Exhibit 1 to the stipulation, as a separate entry in the docket
for purposes of clarifying the record. On or before June 13, 2016,
defendant shall file his initial response to the fourth amended
complaint.

The initial scheduling conference is continued from May 24, 2016
to July 27, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 8, before Judge
Barbara A. McAuliffe. A joint scheduling conference report,
carefully prepared and executed by all counsel, shall be
electronically filed in full compliance with the requirements set
forth in the order setting mandatory scheduling conference, one
(1) full week prior to the scheduling conference. The parties are
encouraged to appear at the mandatory scheduling conference by
telephone by arranging a one-line conference call and then adding
the court at (559) 499-5789.

A copy of Judge McAuliffe's order dated May 11, 2016, is available
at http://goo.gl/xHfQs0from Leagle.com.

Thomas J Vilsack, Defendant, represented by Joseph Frueh, United
States Attorney's Office

GLORIA MORALEZ, Plaintiff, represented by Michael J. Farrell --
michael.farrell@stinson.com -- Michael E. Tucci --
michael.tucci@stinson.com -- at Stinson Leonard Street LLC;
Phillip Lawrence Fraas


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Suit by Allergan Shareholder Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. continues to defend
the Allergan shareholder class action, Valeant said in its Form
10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
April 29, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015.

On December 16, 2014, Anthony Basile, an alleged shareholder of
Allergan filed a lawsuit on behalf of a putative class of Allergan
shareholders against the Company, Valeant, AGMS, Pershing Square,
PS Management, GP, LLC, PS Fund 1 and William A. Ackman in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Basile
v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., et al., Case No.
14-cv-02004-DOC).

On June 26, 2015, lead plaintiffs the State Teachers Retirement
System of Ohio, the Iowa Public Employees Retirement System and
Patrick T. Johnson filed an amended complaint against the Company,
Valeant, J. Michael Pearson, Pershing Square, PS Management, GP,
LLC, PS Fund 1 and William A. Ackman.  The amended complaint
alleges claims on behalf of a putative class of sellers of
Allergan securities between February 25, 2014 and April 21, 2014,
against all defendants contending that various purchases of
Allergan securities by AGMS were made while in possession of
material, non-public information concerning a potential tender
offer by the Company for Allergan stock, and asserting violations
of Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act and rules promulgated by the
SEC thereunder and Section 20A of the Exchange Act. The amended
complaint also alleges violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act against Pershing Square, PS Management, GP, LLC, William A.
Ackman and J. Michael Pearson. The amended complaint seeks, among
other relief, money damages, equitable relief, and attorneys' fees
and costs.

On August 7, 2015, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint in its entirety, and, on November 9, 2015, the court
denied that motion.  The Company intends to vigorously defend
these matters.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Oral Argument Held in Salix Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April
29, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that oral
argument was scheduled to be held May 19, 2016, in the Salix
shareholder class action.

Following the announcement of the execution of the Merger
Agreement with Salix, between February 25, 2015 and March 12,
2015, six purported stockholder class actions were filed
challenging the Salix Acquisition. All of the actions were filed
in the Delaware Court of Chancery, and alleged claims against some
or all of the board of directors of Salix (the "Salix Board"), the
Company, Salix, Valeant and Sun Merger Sub, Inc. ("Sun Merger
Sub").  On March 17, 2015, the Court consolidated the actions
under the caption Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. Shareholder
Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No.10721-CB.

On September 25, 2015, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.  The
operative complaint alleges generally that the members of the
Salix Board breached their fiduciary duties to stockholders, and
that the other defendants aided and abetted such breaches, by
seeking to sell Salix through an allegedly inadequate sales
process and for allegedly inadequate consideration and by agreeing
to allegedly preclusive deal protections.  The complaint also
alleges that the Schedule 14D-9 filed by Salix in connection with
the Salix Acquisition contained inaccurate or materially
misleading information about, among other things, the Salix
Acquisition and the sales process leading up to the Merger
Agreement. The complaint seeks, among other things, money damages
and unspecified attorneys' and other fees and costs.

Defendants' Motions to Dismiss were fully briefed as of February
19, 2016.  The Court has scheduled oral argument for May 19, 2016.
Salix and the Company are vigorously defending this consolidated
matter.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Settlement Approval Hearing Held
---------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April
29, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a
hearing was scheduled for April 29 to approve a settlement reached
in the Synergetics shareholder class actions.

On September 1, 2015, Valeant entered into a merger agreement,
whereby it would acquire all shares of Synergetics USA, Inc.
("Synergetics"). The merger was announced on September 2, 2015.
Following the announcement of the merger, four putative
stockholder class actions were filed challenging the merger. Three
of these actions were filed in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of
the State of Missouri and name as defendants all members of the
Synergetics Board of Directors, Synergetics, Valeant and Blue
Subsidiary Corp. (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Valeant). Those
actions are captioned as follows: Murphy, et al. v. Synergetics
USA Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1511-CC00778 (filed September 15, 2015
and amended September 23, 2015 (the "Murphy Action")); Glorioso,
et al., v. Synergetics USA Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1511-CC00803
(filed September 23, 2015 (the "Glorioso Action")); and
Scarantino, et al. v. Synergetics USA Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1511-
CC00810 (filed September 28, 2015 (the "Scarantino Action"))
(collectively, the "Missouri Actions"). The fourth action,
captioned Nilsen, et al. v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International,
et al., C.A. No. 11552-VCL (the "Delaware Action," and together
with the Missouri Actions, the "Actions") was filed on September
28, 2015, in the Delaware Court of Chancery and named as
defendants all members of the Synergetics Board of Directors,
Valeant, and Blue Subsidiary Corp.

The Actions generally allege that the members of the Synergetics
Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to Synergetics
stockholders by, among other things, conducting a flawed process
in considering the transaction, agreeing to an inadequate offer
price, providing incomplete and misleading information to
Synergetics stockholders, and accepting unreasonable deal
protection measures in the merger agreement that allegedly
dissuaded other potential bidders from making competing offers.
The Actions also allege that Valeant and Blue Subsidiary Corp.
aided and abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The
Missouri Actions sought, among other things, an order enjoining
consummation of the merger, rescission of the merger or awarding
damages to members of the class, and an award of fees and
expenses. The Delaware Action sought, among other things, an order
awarding damages to members of the class, and an award of fees and
expenses.

On October 2, 2015, Synergetics, each member of the Synergetics
Board of Directors, Valeant, and Blue Subsidiary Corp. entered
into a Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU") with the plaintiffs
in the Actions, which sets forth the parties' agreement in
principle for a settlement of the Actions on the basis of the
additional disclosures made in a supplement to the Schedule 14D-9
filed with the SEC on October 2, 2015.

The MOU contemplates that the parties 1) would stipulate to the
certification of the consolidated Missouri Actions as a class
action, consisting of a mandatory non opt-out class, that includes
any and all persons who held Synergetics shares (excluding
defendants, and their immediate family members, and any successors
in interest thereto) at any time during the period beginning on
September 1, 2015, through October 15, 2015 (the date of
consummation of the merger), and 2) shall seek to enter into a
stipulation of settlement providing for the release of, among
other things, certain claims relating to the Actions, the merger
and disclosures made in connection therewith, subject to approval
of the Circuit Court of St. Charles County in the State of
Missouri.

On October 8, 2015 the Delaware Court of Chancery unilaterally
dismissed the Delaware Action. In October 2015, the Missouri
Actions were consolidated into the Murphy Action. In January 2016,
the parties engaged in confirmatory discovery, including
additional documents produced by Defendants and conducting two
depositions.

Thereafter, the parties negotiated and reached agreement on a
stipulation of settlement and ancillary settlement documents,
which were filed with the Court on April 25, 2016. A hearing with
the Court was scheduled for April 29, 2016. The parties continue
to negotiate attorneys' fees. Any amounts payable by the Company
in this matter is expected to be nominal.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Consolidate Pending
---------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April
29, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that
motions to consolidate four securities class action lawsuits
against the Company and to appoint a lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiff's counsel remain pending.

From October 22, 2015 to October 30, 2015, four putative
securities class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey against the Company and certain current
or former officers and directors.  Those four actions, captioned
Potter v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. et al. (Case
No. 15-cv-7658), Chen v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International,
Inc. et al. (Case No. 15-cv-7679), Yang v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc. et al. (Case No. 15-cv-7746), and Fein v.
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. et al. (Case No. 15-
cv-7809), all assert securities fraud claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of
putative classes of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
Valeant stock during various time periods between February 28,
2014 and October 21, 2015.  The allegations relate to, among other
things, allegedly false and misleading statements and/or failures
to disclose information about the Company's business and
prospects, including relating to drug pricing, the Company's use
of specialty pharmacies, and the Company's relationship with
Philidor.

On December 21, 2015, several plaintiffs filed motions to
consolidate the four actions and appoint a lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiff's counsel to prosecute all claims.  Those motions remain
pending.  The Company believes the actions are without merit and
intends to defend itself vigorously.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Canadian Securities Actions Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April
29, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that
securities class action lawsuits in Canada are ongoing.

In 2015, six putative class actions were filed and served against
the Company in Canada in the provinces of British Columbia,
Ontario and Quebec.  These actions are captioned: (a) Alladina v.
Valeant, et al. (Case No. S-1594B6) (Supreme Court of British
Columbia) (filed November 17, 2015); (b) Kowalyshyn v. Valeant, et
al. (CV-15-540593-00CP) (Ontario Superior Court) (filed November
16, 2015); (c) Kowalyshyn et al. v. Valeant, et al. (CV-15-541082-
00CP (Ontario Superior Court) (filed November 23, 2015); (d)
O'Brien v. Valeant et al. (CV-15-543678-00CP) (Ontario Superior
Court) (filed December 30, 2015); (e) Catucci v. Valeant, et al.
(Court File No. 540-17-011743159) (Quebec Superior Court) (filed
October 26, 2015); and (f) Rousseau-Godbout v. Valeant, et al.
(Court File No. 500-06-000770-152) (Quebec Superior Court) (filed
October 27, 2015).  The Alladina, Kowalyshyn, O'Brien, Catucci and
Rousseau-Godbout actions also name, among others, certain current
or former directors and officers of the Company. The Rosseau-
Godbout action was subsequently stayed by the Quebec Superior
Court by consent order.

Each of the five remaining actions alleges violations of Canadian
provincial securities legislation on behalf of putative classes of
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of the
Company for periods commencing as early as January 1, 2013 and
ending as late as November 16, 2015.

The alleged violations relate to, among other things, alleged
misrepresentations and/or failures to disclose material
information about the Company's business and prospects, relating
to drug pricing, the Company's policies and accounting practices,
the Company's use of specialty pharmacies and, in particular, the
Company's relationship with Philidor. The Alladina, Kowalyshyn and
O'Brien actions also assert common law claims for negligent
misrepresentation, and the Alladina claim additionally asserts
common law negligence, conspiracy, and claims under the British
Columbia Business Corporations Act, including the statutory
oppression remedies in that legislation. The Catucci action
asserts claims under the Quebec Civil Code, alleging the Company
breached its duty of care under the civil standard of liability
contemplated by the Code.

The Company is aware of two additional putative class actions that
have been filed with the applicable court but which not yet been
served on the Company.  These actions are captioned: (i) Okeley v.
Valeant, et al. (Case No. S-159991) (Supreme Court of British
Columbia) (filed December 2, 2015); and (ii) Sukenaga v Valeant et
al. (CV-15-540567-00CP) (Ontario Superior Court) (filed November
16, 2015), and the factual allegations made in these actions are
substantially similar to those outlined above.  The Company has
been advised that the plaintiffs in these actions do not intend to
pursue the actions.

The Company expects that certain of these actions will be
consolidated or stayed prior to proceeding to motions for leave
and certification and that no more than one action will proceed in
any jurisdiction.  In particular, on April 8, 2016, motions were
heard by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to determine which
of the actions filed in that court will proceed.

The Company believes that it has viable defenses to each of the
actions, and in each case intends to defend itself vigorously.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Updates on Solodyn(R) Antitrust Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April
29, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, provided
updates on the Solodyn(R) antitrust class action lawsuits.

Beginning in July 2013, a number of civil antitrust class action
suits were filed against Medicis, the Company and various
manufacturers of generic forms of Solodyn, alleging that the
defendants engaged in an anticompetitive scheme to exclude
competition from the market for minocycline hydrochloride extended
release tablets, a prescription drug for the treatment of acne
marketed by Medicis under the brand name, Solodyn.  The plaintiffs
in such suits alleged violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the
Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1, 2, and of various state
antitrust and consumer protection laws, and further alleged that
the defendants have been unjustly enriched through their alleged
conduct. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief
and, where applicable, treble, multiple, punitive and/or other
damages, including attorneys' fees.

By order dated February 25, 2014, the Judicial Panel for
Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") centralized the suits in the
District of Massachusetts, under the caption In re Solodyn
(Minocycline Hydrochloride) Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:14-
md-02503-DJC, before U.S. District Judge Denise Casper.  After the
Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs and the End-Payor Class
Plaintiffs each filed a consolidated amended class action
complaint on September 12, 2014, the defendants jointly moved to
dismiss those complaints.

On August 14, 2015, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss with respect to claims brought under Sherman Act, Section
2 and various state laws but denied the motion to dismiss with
respect to claims brought under Sherman Act, Section 1 and other
state laws.  The Company was dismissed from the case, but the
litigation continues against Medicis and the generic manufacturers
as to the remaining claims.  The actions are currently in
discovery.

On March 26, 2015, and on April 6, 2015, while the motion to
dismiss the class action complaints was pending, two additional
non-class action complaints were filed against Medicis by certain
retail pharmacy and grocery chains ("Individual Plaintiffs")
making similar allegations and seeking similar relief to that
sought by Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs.  Those suits have
been centralized with the class action suits in the District of
Massachusetts.

Following the Court's August 14, 2015 decision on the motion to
dismiss, the Individual Plaintiffs each filed amended complaints
on October 1, 2015, and Medicis answered on December 7, 2015.  A
third non-class action was filed by another retail pharmacy
against Medicis on January 26, 2016, and Medicis answered on March
28, 2016. The Company intends to vigorously defend all of these
actions.


VANTIV INC: Class-Action Deal in "Nguyen" Has Initial Okay
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned TUAN NGUYEN, individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. VANTIV,
INC., VANTIV HOLDING, LLC; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendant,
No. 3:15-cv-02436-LB (N.D. Cal.), Judge Laurel Beeler granted Tuan
Nguyen's unopposed motion for preliminary approval of a proposed
class-action settlement.

Under the settlement agreement, the defendants will fund a common
fund of $2 million to resolve claims, pay approximately $85,000
for notice and claims administration, pay an enhancement award of
up to $10,000, and pay fees of no more than $500,000 and actual
costs, now estimated as $25,000.  This results in an estimated
net-claims fund of $1,380,000.

Judge Beeler 1) conditionally certified the class for settlement
purposes only, 2) preliminarily approved the settlement,
authorized notice as set forth in his order, and gave leave to
file the First Amended Complaint for settlement purposes only, 3)
approved the notice plan, 4) appointed the class representative,
class counsel, and claims administrator, 5) ordered the procedures
in the order (including all dates in the chart), and 6) ordered
the parties and the claims administrator to carry out their
obligations in the settlement agreement.

A full-text copy of Judge Beeler's May 19, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/BC8GBy from Leagle.com.

Nguyen, on behalf of himself and other California residents, sued
Vantiv Holding, LLC, alleging that it recorded telephone calls
that he and other consumers made to its toll-free customer-service
lines without notice to or consent by the callers.  Nguyen claimed
that this violates California Penal Code Sections 632.7 and 632,
which prohibit recording of calls without consent.

Tuan Nguyen, Plaintiff, represented by Eric A. Grover --
eagrover@kellergrover.com -- Keller Grover LLP.

Vantiv LLC, Vantiv Inc., Vantiv Holding LLC, Defendants,
represented by Joseph A. Castrodale -- jcastrodale@beneschlaw.com
-- Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff LLP, pro hac vice, David
D. Pope -- dpope@beneschlaw.com -- Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan &
Aronoff LLP, Gregory J. Phillips -- gphillips@beneschlaw.com --
Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff LLP, pro hac vice & Jeffrey
E. Faucette -- jeff@skaggsfaucette.com --  Skaggs Faucette LLP.


VECTOR GROUP: 3 Class Suits Pending v. Liggett
----------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that three actions were
pending for which either a class had been certified or plaintiffs
were seeking class certification where Liggett is a named
defendant as of March 31, 2016. Other cigarette manufacturers are
also named in these actions.

Plaintiffs' allegations of liability in class action cases are
based on various theories of recovery, including negligence, gross
negligence, strict liability, fraud, misrepresentation, design
defect, failure to warn, nuisance, breach of express and implied
warranties, breach of special duty, conspiracy, concert of action,
violation of deceptive trade practice laws and consumer protection
statutes and claims under the federal and state anti-racketeering
statutes. Plaintiffs in the class actions seek various forms of
relief, including compensatory and punitive damages,
treble/multiple damages and other statutory damages and penalties,
creation of medical monitoring and smoking cessation funds,
disgorgement of profits, and injunctive and equitable relief.
Defenses raised in these cases include, among others, lack of
proximate cause, individual issues predominate, assumption of the
risk, comparative fault and/or contributory negligence, statute of
limitations and federal preemption.

In November 1997, in Young v. American Tobacco Co., a purported
personal injury class action was commenced on behalf of plaintiff
and all similarly situated residents in Louisiana who, though not
themselves cigarette smokers, allege they were exposed to
secondhand smoke from cigarettes that were manufactured by the
defendants, including Liggett, and suffered injury as a result of
that exposure. The plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified
amount of compensatory and punitive damages. No class
certification hearing has been held. In 2013, plaintiffs' filed a
motion to stay the case and that motion was granted.

In February 1998, in Parsons v. AC & S Inc., a purported class
action was commenced on behalf of all West Virginia residents who
allegedly have personal injury claims arising from exposure to
cigarette smoke and asbestos fibers. The complaint seeks to
recover $1,000,000 in compensatory and punitive damages
individually and unspecified compensatory and punitive damages for
the class. The case is stayed due to the December 2000 bankruptcy
of three of the defendants.

Although not technically a class action, in In Re: Tobacco
Litigation (Personal Injury Cases), a West Virginia state court
consolidated approximately 750 individual smoker actions that were
pending prior to 2001 for trial of certain "common" issues.
Liggett was severed from trial of the consolidated action. After
two mistrials, in May 2013, the jury rejected all but one of the
plaintiffs' claims, finding in favor of plaintiffs on the claim
that ventilated filter cigarettes between 1964 and July 1, 1969
should have included instructions on how to use them. The issue of
damages was reserved for further proceedings. The court entered
judgment in October 2013, dismissing all claims except the
ventilated filter claim. The judgment was affirmed on appeal and
remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

In April 2015, the plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of
certiorari to the United States Supreme Court which subsequently
declined review. In July 2015, the trial court ruled on the scope
of the ventilated filter claim and determined that only 30
plaintiffs have potentially viable claims against the non-Liggett
defendants, which may be pursued in a second phase of the trial.
The court intends to try the claims of these plaintiffs in six
consolidated trials, each with five plaintiffs. The trial court
set the first date for the consolidated trials for January 9,
2017.

With respect to Liggett, the trial court requested that Liggett
and plaintiffs brief whether any claims against Liggett survive
given the outcome of the first phase of the trial. A hearing was
scheduled for May 23, 2016. If the case proceeds against Liggett,
it is estimated that Liggett could be a defendant in less than 25
of the remaining individual cases.


VECTOR GROUP: 15 Engle Progeny Cases for Trial Thru March 2017
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that there were 15 Engle
progeny cases scheduled for trial through March 31, 2017, where
Liggett (and/or the Company) is a named defendant as of March 31,
2016. Trial dates are, however, subject to change.

Engle Case. In May 1994, Engle was filed against Liggett and
others in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The class consisted of all
Florida residents who, by November 21, 1996, "have suffered,
presently suffer or have died from diseases and medical conditions
caused by their addiction to cigarette smoking." In July 1999,
after the conclusion of Phase I of the trial, the jury returned a
verdict against Liggett and other cigarette manufacturers on
certain issues determined by the trial court to be "common" to the
causes of action of the plaintiff class. The jury made several
findings adverse to the defendants including that defendants'
conduct "rose to a level that would permit a potential award or
entitlement to punitive damages." Phase II of the trial was a
causation and damages trial for three of the class plaintiffs and
a punitive damages trial on a class-wide basis before the same
jury that returned the verdict in Phase I.

In April 2000, the jury awarded compensatory damages of
$12,704,000 to the three class plaintiffs, to be reduced in
proportion to the respective plaintiff's fault. In July 2000, the
jury awarded approximately $145,000,000,000 in punitive damages,
including $790,000,000 against Liggett.

In May 2003, Florida's Third District Court of Appeal reversed the
trial court and remanded the case with instructions to decertify
the class. The judgment in favor of one of the three class
plaintiffs, in the amount of $5,831,000, was overturned as time
barred and the court found that Liggett was not liable to the
other two class plaintiffs.

In July 2006, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the decision
vacating the punitive damages award and held that the class should
be decertified prospectively, but determined that the following
Phase I findings are entitled to res judicata effect in Engle
progeny cases: (i) that smoking causes lung cancer, among other
diseases; (ii) that nicotine in cigarettes is addictive; (iii)
that defendants placed cigarettes on the market that were
defective and unreasonably dangerous; (iv) that defendants
concealed material information knowing that the information was
false or misleading or failed to disclose a material fact
concerning the health effects or addictive nature of smoking; (v)
that defendants agreed to conceal or omit information regarding
the health effects of cigarettes or their addictive nature with
the intention that smokers would rely on the information to their
detriment; (vi) that defendants sold or supplied cigarettes that
were defective; and (vii) that defendants were negligent. The
Florida Supreme Court decision also allowed former class members
to proceed to trial on individual liability issues (using the
above findings) and compensatory and punitive damage issues,
provided they filed their individual lawsuits by January 2008.

In December 2006, the Florida Supreme Court added the finding that
defendants sold or supplied cigarettes that, at the time of sale
or supply, did not conform to the representations made by
defendants. In October 2007, the United States Supreme Court
denied defendants' petition for writ of certiorari.
Pursuant to the Florida Supreme Court's July 2006 ruling in Engle,
which decertified the class on a prospective basis, and affirmed
the appellate court's reversal of the punitive damages award,
former class members had until January 2008 in which to file
individual lawsuits.

As a result, Liggett and the Company, and other cigarette
manufacturers, were sued in thousands of Engle progeny cases in
both federal and state courts in Florida. Although the Company was
not named as a defendant in the Engle case, it was named as a
defendant in substantially all of the Engle progeny cases where
Liggett was named as a defendant.

Engle Progeny Settlement. In October 2013, the Company entered
into a settlement with approximately 4,900 Engle progeny
plaintiffs and their counsel. Pursuant to the terms of the
settlement, Liggett agreed to pay a total of approximately
$110,000,000, with approximately $61,600,000 paid in a lump sum
and the balance to be paid in installments over 14 years, starting
in February 2015.

In exchange, the claims of over 4,900 plaintiffs were dismissed
with prejudice against the Company and Liggett. Due to the
settlement, in 2013 the Company recorded a charge of $86,213,000,
of which $25,213,000 is related to certain payments discounted to
their present value using an 11% annual discount rate. The Company
recorded a charge of $643,000 in the first quarter of 2015 for
additional cases joining the settlement and the restructuring of
certain payments related to several previously settled cases. The
installment payments total approximately $48,000 on an
undiscounted basis. The Company's future payments will be
approximately $3,400,000 per annum through 2028, with a cost of
living increase beginning in 2021.

Notwithstanding the comprehensive nature of the Engle Progeny
Settlement, approximately 255 plaintiffs' claims remain
outstanding. Therefore, the Company and Liggett may still be
subject to periodic adverse judgments which could have a material
adverse affect on the Company's consolidated financial position,
results of operations and cash flows.


VECTOR GROUP: Liggett Legal Costs Total $4.1MM at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that for the three months
ended March 31, 2016, Liggett incurred tobacco product liability
legal expenses and costs totaling $4,171,000.

Since 1954, Liggett and other United States cigarette
manufacturers have been named as defendants in numerous direct,
third-party and purported class actions predicated on the theory
that cigarette manufacturers should be liable for damages alleged
to have been caused by cigarette smoking or by exposure to
secondary smoke from cigarettes. The cases have generally fallen
into the following categories: (i) smoking and health cases
alleging personal injury brought on behalf of individual
plaintiffs ("Individual Actions"); (ii) lawsuits by individuals
requesting the benefit of the Engle ruling ("Engle progeny
cases"); (iii) smoking and health cases primarily alleging
personal injury or seeking court-supervised programs for ongoing
medical monitoring, as well as cases alleging that use of the
terms "lights" and/or "ultra lights" constitutes a deceptive and
unfair trade practice, common law fraud or violation of federal
law, purporting to be brought on behalf of a class of individual
plaintiffs ("Class Actions"); and (iv) health care cost recovery
actions brought by various foreign and domestic governmental
plaintiffs and non-governmental plaintiffs seeking reimbursement
for health care expenditures allegedly caused by cigarette smoking
and/or disgorgement of profits ("Health Care Cost Recovery
Actions").

With the commencement of new cases, the defense costs and the
risks relating to the unpredictability of litigation increase. The
future financial impact of the risks and expenses of litigation
are not quantifiable. For the three months ended March 31, 2016
and 2015, Liggett incurred tobacco product liability legal
expenses and costs totaling $4,171,000 and $2,555,000,
respectively.

                           *     *     *

Vector Group Ltd. also disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report that
judgments have been entered against Liggett and other industry
defendants in Engle progeny cases. A number of the judgments have
been affirmed on appeal and satisfied by the defendants. As of
March 31, 2016, 24 Engle progeny cases where Liggett was a
defendant at trial resulted in verdicts. Fifteen verdicts were
returned in favor of the plaintiffs (although in two of these
cases (Irimi and Cohen) the court granted defendants' motion for a
new trial) and nine in favor of Liggett. In four of the cases,
punitive damages were awarded against Liggett (although in
Calloway, the punitive damages award was reversed and remanded to
the trial court). In certain cases, the judgments were entered
jointly and severally with other defendants and Liggett may face
the risk that one or more co-defendants decline or otherwise fail
to participate in the bonding required for an appeal or to pay
their proportionate or jury-allocated share of a judgment. As a
result, Liggett under certain circumstances may have to pay more
than its proportionate share of any bonding or judgment related
amounts. Several of the judgments remain on appeal.

Except regarding the cases where an adverse verdict was entered
against Liggett and that remain on appeal, management is unable to
estimate the possible loss or range of loss from the remaining
Engle progeny cases as there are currently multiple defendants in
each case and, in most cases, discovery has not occurred or is
limited. As a result, the Company lacks information about whether
plaintiffs are in fact Engle class members (non-class members'
claims are generally time-barred), the relevant smoking history,
the nature of the alleged injury and the availability of various
defenses, among other things. Further, plaintiffs typically do not
specify their demand for damages.

Although Liggett has generally been successful in managing
litigation, litigation is subject to uncertainty and significant
challenges remain, including with respect to the remaining Engle
progeny cases. There can be no assurances that Liggett's past
litigation experience will be representative of future results.
Judgments have been entered against Liggett in the past, in
Individual Actions and Engle progeny cases, and several of those
judgments were affirmed on appeal and satisfied by Liggett. It is
possible that the consolidated financial position, results of
operations and cash flows of the Company could be materially
adversely affected by an unfavorable outcome or settlement of any
of the remaining smoking-related litigation. Liggett believes, and
has been so advised by counsel, that it has valid defenses to the
litigation pending against it, as well as valid bases for appeal
of adverse verdicts. All such cases are, and will continue to be,
vigorously defended, however, Liggett has entered into settlement
discussions in individual cases or groups of cases, where Liggett
has determined it was in its best interest to do so, and it may
continue to do so in the future, including the remaining Engle
progeny cases. In October 2013, Liggett announced a settlement of
the claims of over 4,900 Engle progeny plaintiffs (see Engle
Progeny Settlement below).

As of March 31, 2016, Liggett (and in certain cases the Company)
had, on an individual basis, settled 174 Engle progeny cases for
approximately $5,982 in the aggregate. Three of those settlements
occurred in the first quarter of 2016.


VENTAS INC: Settlement in HCT Acquisition Suit Approved
-------------------------------------------------------
Ventas, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the settlement in the
litigation relating to the HCT Acquisition has been approved.

The Company said, "In the weeks following the announcement on June
2, 2014 of our agreement to acquire American Realty Capital
Healthcare Trust, Inc. ("HCT"), a total of 13 putative class
actions were filed by purported HCT stockholders challenging the
transaction. Certain of the actions also purport to bring
derivative claims on behalf of HCT. Among other things, the
lawsuits allege that the directors of HCT breached their fiduciary
duties by approving the transaction and that we and our
subsidiaries, Stripe Sub, LLC and Stripe OP, LP, aided and abetted
this purported breach of fiduciary duty. The complaints seek
injunctive relief and damages."

"Ten of these actions were filed in the Circuit Court for
Baltimore City, Maryland and consolidated under the caption In re:
American Realty Capital, Healthcare Trust, Inc. Shareholder &
Derivative Litigation, Case No. 24-C-14-003534. A settlement and
release were approved by the Court and on March 22, 2016 judgment
was entered. The time for appeal has expired. The settlement terms
required HCT to make certain additional disclosures related to the
merger, which were set forth in HCT's Current Report on Form 8-K
dated January 2, 2015 and no financial payment other than
attorneys' fees will be made to the plaintiffs. This settlement
and release also covers two actions that were filed in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, County of New York, and one action
was filed in the United States District Court of Maryland.

"On August 24, 2015, the plaintiffs in the Maryland state court
action submitted a stipulation of settlement to the court executed
by the parties and moved for preliminary approval of the
settlement. The plaintiffs in the Maryland federal action agreed
to allow the settlement to proceed through the state court and did
not submit an additional stipulation to the federal court.

"On December 10, 2015, the Circuit Court for Baltimore City,
Maryland entered a preliminary approval order that, among other
things, directed notice be sent to members of the class of HCT
stockholders and scheduled a settlement hearing for March 15,
2016. At the March 15, 2016 hearing, the Circuit Court determined
that the terms of the settlement were fair, reasonable, adequate,
and in the best interests of the class, and entered an order and
judgment releasing all claims that could be brought by or on
behalf of any HCT stockholder related to the HCT acquisition. On
March 22, 2016, the judgment was entered and the time for appeal
has expired."


WELLS FARGO: Settles Class Action Over Rotten Bond Issues
---------------------------------------------------------
Madison-St. Clair Record reports that one of Madison County's
oldest class action ended on May 9, when Wells Fargo Bank settled
a 15 year old negligence claim over rotten bond issues.

Wells Fargo and class representative William Tennison of Arkansas
canceled a trial that Circuit Judge Barbara Crowder would have
started on May 16.

Wells Fargo stood as the last of many defendants, and
Mr. Tennison stood as the last of many plaintiffs.

Mr. Tennison sought $34 million plus interest on behalf of all who
bought bonds for nursing homes that a developer in Chicago
sponsored.

Mr. Tennison claimed he invested $365,000, and lost all of it.

Three cities in Wisconsin issued bonds in 1996 and 1997, and three
cities in Michigan issued bonds in 1998.

The Wisconsin Health and Educational Facilities Authority hired
Norwest Bank, a predecessor to Wells Fargo, as indenture trustee.

The Michigan cities hired Norwest through economic development
corporations.

The developer, Malachi Corporation, defaulted on all the bonds in
1998.

Bond buyers filed suit in Madison County in 2001, against the
underwriter, banks, accountants, lawyers, Malachi Corporation
directors, and others.

William Lucco of Edwardsville represented the plaintiffs, in
association with the high profile firm of Motley Rice in Mount
Pleasant, S.C.

They alleged a Ponzi scheme in which Malachi Corporation met
payments on each bond with proceeds of bond issues that followed.

No plaintiff alleged any connection to Madison County, but that
held true for many of the class actions flooding the court.

For years, discovery dragged on and some defendants settled.

In 2010, former circuit judge Daniel Stack certified a class
across 38 states alleging negligence and recklessness.

He rejected claims of fraud, conspiracy, and securities
violations.

Last year Mr. Tennison settled claims of the class for $300,000
from Fifth Third Bank, $150,000 from the Indianapolis accounting
firm of Blue and Company, and $75,000 from the St. Louis law firm
of Gilmore and Bell.

That left Wells Fargo as sole defendant.

Wells Fargo asked Judge Crowder to certify questions about Judge
Stack's class certification to Fifth District appellate judges,
but she declined last June.

"While it is an attractive offer to try to fend this complex
dispute off to the appellate court, an order will not make this
dispute less complex," Judge Crowder wrote.

She will hold a hearing on plaintiffs' motion for class settlement
at 1:30 p.m. on June 26.


ZIMMER GMBH: June 28 Durom Cup Settlement Approval Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Were you, or a family member, implanted with a Zimmer Durom(R) Hip
Implant in Canada?

This notice may affect your rights.  Please read carefully.
Class action lawsuits were initiated in Canada regarding
allegations that the Zimmer Durom hip implant, or "Durom Cup," was
defective, and that it failed prematurely. Specifically, a class
action was certified by the British Columbia court on September 2,
2011 in Jones v. Zimmer GMBH et al, and by the Ontario court on
September 24, 2014 in McSherry v. Zimmer GMBH et
al.  A proposed class action is also active in Quebec as Major v.
Zimmer GMBH, and was authorized for settlement purposes on
May 6, 2016.

The Defendants, while not admitting liability, have agreed to a
settlement of these lawsuits.  The Defendants have also consented
to the authorization of Major as a class action; the Jones Action
and McSherry Action already having been certified.  For a copy of
the settlement agreement, or for more information, please contact
Class Counsel listed below.

Who is Eligible to Participate in the Settlement?

The settlement applies to all persons who were implanted with the
Durom Cup in Canada who have not opted out of the Jones, McSherry,
or Major actions and/or who have affirmatively opted
into the Jones action, and their estates and family members.

The Terms of Settlement

The settlement provides compensation to class members who timely
submit all forms and documentation required under the Settlement
Agreement, less deductions for legal fees.  The settlement also
provides for payment to public health insurers.  Please refer to
the settlement agreement, which is available on the website of
Class Counsel, for specific terms and conditions.

Court Hearings and Your Right to Participate

Motions to approve the settlement agreement are scheduled to be
heard by the British Columbia Court in Vancouver on June 28, 2016,
the Ontario Court in Toronto on July 14, 2016, and the
Quebec Court in Montreal on June 28, 2016.  Class Counsel will
also ask the courts to approve an award of fees and disbursements
for their work in connection with Jones, McSherry, and Major
during the hearings.

Class members who do not oppose the settlement need not appear at
the hearings or take any other action at this time to indicate
their desire to participate in the settlement.  All class
members have the right to present arguments to the courts as
regards the settlement, or to object to the settlement, by
delivering a written submission to Class Counsel on or before June
23, 2016.  A class member who wishes to object to the settlement
shall provide in his or her objection:

   (a) The full name, current mailing address, fax number,
telephone number, and email address of the person who is
objecting;

   (b) A brief statement of the nature and reasons for the
objection;

   (c) A declaration that the person believes he or she is a
member of the Class and the reason for that belief including, if
available, the catalogue and lot numbers of his/her Durom Cup; and

   (d) Whether the person intends to appear at the relevant
Approval Hearing or intends to appear by counsel, and if by
counsel, the name, address, telephone number, fax number, and
email address of counsel, and (e) A declaration under the penalty
of perjury that the foregoing information is true and correct.

No class members may be required to pay costs arising from the
class action or their submission of their opposition to the
Settlement.

For Quebec Residents Only: Excluding Yourself from the Class
Action

If you are a resident of Quebec who has not already opted into the
Jones action and you wish to exclude yourself from the Major
action, you must deliver a written submission declaring your
intention to opt out of the class action to the Clerk of the
Superior Court of Quebec and Class Counsel by registered or
certified mail at the addresses below on or before June 23, 2016.
Your submission must include your name and address.  If you
exclude yourself from the class action, you will not be entitled
to receive compensation under the settlement agreement.  If you
previously opted into the class in the Jones action, you are
entitled to compensation in connection with your Durom Cup only as
provided in the settlement agreement.  For all other class
members, the deadline for you to have excluded yourself from these
lawsuits has already expired.

Montreal Courthouse Trudel Johnston Lesperance
Clerk of the Superior Court of Quebec
Court file number: 500-17-081863-147
1, Notre-Dame East
Montreal (Quebec) H2Y 1B6

Trudel Johnston Lesperance
Class Counsel in the Major Action
750 Cote de la Place d'Armes
Suite 90
Montreal (Quebec) H2Y 2X8

For Additional Information and a Copy of the Settlement Agreement:

Class Counsel in the Jones and McSherry Actions

Klein Lawyers LLP
Suite 400
1385 West 8th Avenue
Vancouver, BC V6H 3V9
Telephone: 604-874-7171
Facsimile: 604-874-7180
www.callkleinlawyers.com

Class Counsel in the Major Action:

Trudel Johnston Lesperance
Suite 90
750 Cote de la Place d'Armes
Montreal, QC H2Y 2X8
Telephone: 514-871-8385
Fax: 514-871-8800
www.tjl.quebec


* Australia Bars US Court Assistance for Oral Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------
John Emmerig, Esq. -- jemmerig@jonesday.com -- Anthony Muratore,
Esq. -- amuratore@jonesday.com -- and Michael Legg, Esq. --
mlegg@jonesday.com -- of Jones Day, in an article for Mondaq,
report that by way of anti-suit injunctions against the applicant
and a class member in class action proceedings, the Federal Court
has restrained parties from making formal applications pursuant to
28 USC Sec. 1782 to gather evidence through oral discovery in US
District Courts.

Parties to Australian proceedings should be wary of using foreign
procedures to gather evidence without the Australian court's prior
knowledge and consent, in particular where the court has a
particular supervisory role (such as in class actions) that may be
undermined by an application in a foreign jurisdiction.
Background

In Jones v Treasury Wine Estates Limited [2016] FCAFC 59, Justices
Gilmour, Foster and Beach were required to rule on an
interlocutory application in class action proceedings filed by the
respondent, Treasury Wine Estates ("TWE"), seeking orders in the
nature of anti-suit injunctions in relation to US proceedings
against the applicant, Jones, and a member of the relevant class,
Utah Retirement Systems ("URS").

The proceedings involved allegations of misleading or deceptive
conduct and contraventions of the continuous disclosure provisions
of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), specifically TWE's alleged
failure to disclose to the market that inventory levels of wine
held by its US distributors were materially excessive, which in
turn affected its profitability.  To gather evidence, the
applicant filed proceedings in the US District Court for the
Southern District of New York, and URS filed proceedings in the US
District Court for the Northern District of California seeking an
order pursuant to 28 USC Sec. 1782 of the US Code titled
"Assistance to foreign and international tribunals and to
litigants before such tribunals" for the obtaining of oral
discovery (also referred to as a "deposition") from current and
former senior executives of TWE.

28 USC Sec. 1782 provides:

The district court of the district in which a person resides or is
found may order him to give his testimony or statement or to
produce a document or other thing for use in a proceeding in a
foreign or international tribunal, including criminal
investigations conducted before formal accusation.  The order may
be made pursuant to a letter rogatory issued, or request made, by
a foreign or international tribunal or upon the application of any
interested person and may direct that the testimony or statement
be given, or the document or other thing be produced, before a
person appointed by the court . . . .  The order may prescribe the
practice and procedure, which may be in whole or part the practice
and procedure of the foreign country or the international
tribunal, for taking the testimony or statement or producing the
document or other thing.  To the extent that the order does not
prescribe otherwise, the testimony or statement shall be taken,
and the document or other thing produced, in accordance with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  A person may not be compelled
to give his testimony or statement or to produce a document or
other thing in violation of any legally applicable privilege.

Specifically, URS sought orders for discovery by way of oral
questions from Sandra LeDrew, the managing director of TWE's
Americas Division, and Alejandro Escalante, the Vice President of
Financial Planning & Analysis, Sales Division of TWE's Americas
Division.  Jones sought an order for discovery by way of oral
questions from Stephen Brauer, a former manager of TWE's Americas
Division. In response, the US District Court for the Northern
District of California made orders pursuant to 28 USC Sec. 1782
permitting the issue of subpoenas to Ms. LeDrew and Mr. Escalante
for the taking of a deposition, and the US District Court for the
Southern District of New York made an order for Mr. Brauer to show
cause why a similar order should not be made.

Jones and URS gave undertakings not to take further steps in or
consequential upon the US proceedings until the determination of
the application for an anti-suit injunction before the Federal
Court of Australia.

The Judgment

Jurisdiction. In its judgment, the Court briefly commented on the
nature of the jurisdiction for the grant of an anti-suit
injunction as operating in personam to restrict a party from
conducting proceedings in a foreign court.  It has a basis both in
the inherent power of the Court to protect its own processes once
they have been set in motion (in this case through the
commencement of class action proceedings by the applicant) and
also in the equitable jurisdiction of the Court.  TWE relied on
both sources of power; however the Court concluded that it was
sufficient to establish jurisdiction under the first ground.

Protection of the Federal Court's Processes. The Court considered
in-depth the overarching purpose of the civil practice and
procedure regime provided by the Federal Court of Australia Act
1976 (Cth) ("FCA Act"), the Federal Court Rules 2011 and Practice
Note CM5: to facilitate the just resolution of disputes according
to law and as quickly, inexpensively and efficiently as possible.
The judges commented on how the legislation, in particular section
37M, emphasizes the importance of judge-controlled litigation, and
also suggests that ancillary proceedings "may not be conducive" to
these aims except in rare cases.

Their Honours stated that while they theoretically have the power
to order oral discovery of the kind which was being sought in the
US proceedings by virtue of the provisions of the FCA Act, the
present question did not require such as order to be made, and
they considered that such a power would only be exercised in a
"most exceptional case".  Rather, the question was whether Jones's
and URS's conduct in seeking to invoke the powers of a foreign
court to obtain compulsory oral discovery, without the docket
judge's knowledge or approval, was permissible.  In particular,
the fact that this was a class action was relevant, because case
management of such proceedings has a particular significance given
the Court's supervisory role.  However, the fact that the
proceedings were being case managed did not provide a basis in
itself for restraining the parties from seeking orders under 28
USC Sec. 1782.

The Court concluded that the applications in the US District
Courts were made in order to obtain the benefit of procedures that
would not usually be available in the Federal Court of Australia.
While there may be circumstances where it would endorse an
application by a party under 28 USC Sec. 1782, in the present case
the fact that Jones's and URS's conduct in invoking the US
proceedings without notice and without the Court's approval
undermined the Court's case management and supervision of the
class action.  As such, the US proceedings were inconsistent with
the overarching purpose of the civil practice and procedure regime
under which the Federal Court operates.

Additionally, their Honours emphasised that "what is vital is that
this Court's proceedings and its pre-trial processes are solely
subject to supervision by this Court, particularly where one is
dealing with a class action which invokes the Court's supervisory
role".  In any situation where an order for a deposition under 28
USC Sec. 1782 is made, it would therefore necessarily need to be
obtained with notice to the other party, and with the Court's
prior knowledge and approval.  The circumstances in which approval
might be granted would be exceptional, and their Honours
considered that it was "neither necessary nor helpful" to
contemplate what scenarios might warrant such endorsement in the
present judgment.

Therefore, their Honours ordered that Jones and URS:

Be restrained from taking any further step in furtherance of, or
in connection with, the US proceedings; and
Be restrained from taking, or causing to be taken, or
participating in the taking of any oral deposition of the TWE
executives who were the subject of the applications under 28 USC
Sec. 1782.

Issues Raised

Scope of the Decision. It is uncertain how far the implications of
this case will reach with respect to the rationale for the Court's
judgment, for two reasons:

First, their Honours commented that while the Court does not, in
general, exercise any control over the manner in which a party
lawfully obtains the evidence which it will need to support its
case, this does not give a party the right to circumvent the
Court's control and supervision of the proceedings before it.
However, it is unclear as to what specific actions by a party will
constitute circumvention.  It may be that a distinction can be
made between formal processes in foreign jurisdictions where an
order is sought from a foreign court, such as the present
situation, and informal means of gathering evidence, which would
potentially fall outside the Court's jurisdiction to intervene in
the evidence-gathering process.

Secondly, their Honours did not discuss the relevance of the fact
that the subject of the 28 USC Sec. 1782 applications was a
subsidiary of a party to the proceedings (TWE).  There is a
question of whether the Court would be willing to restrain a party
from making foreign applications to gather evidence from
independent third parties, which again turns on the scope of the
decision.  It is likely that the rationale of retaining the
Federal Court as the sole supervisor of the proceedings would
again serve as justification for restraining a party from
gathering evidence from third parties under the foreign procedure.
Moreover, the Federal Court has recently affirmed the position
that documents in the possession of a subsidiary are not in the
"control" of its parent for the purposes of discovery, which
demonstrates that even where it could not itself compel the
officers of the subsidiary to provide evidence it will still
restrain a 28 USC Sec. 1782 application, because such an
application would still fall outside the Court's management of the
case.

Use of Depositions in Australia. Their Honours stated that the
Federal Court has, theoretically, the power under the FCA Act to
order oral discovery of the US kind due to the broad nature of
sections 23, 33ZF and 37P. However, such a power would be
exercised only in "an exceptional case".  This is a softening of
previous judicial positions where it was said that in the Federal
Court, "compulsory oral discovery is not available against either
parties or non-parties".3

The Court also stated that it is unlikely that section 46 of the
FCA Act could be used for oral discovery, notwithstanding its
apparent width.  Section 46 was specifically amended to allow the
evidence on commission procedure that it embodies to be employed
in relation to discovery.  The Court's view may have been the
result of a focus on the purpose behind the amendment, which was
to give effect to recommendations made by the Australian Law
Reform Commission to permit "pre-trial oral examination about
discovery".  Section 46 was meant to facilitate the locating of
documents and resolution of discovery disputes.  Oral discovery
aimed at obtaining information relevant to the dispute the subject
of proceedings is a broader purpose.  However, the text of section
46 does not reflect the more limited purpose.

Implications

This case has demonstrated that parties to proceedings in an
Australian court should be wary of making formal applications for
discovery to a foreign court without the prior knowledge and
consent of the Australian court, regardless of whether the
discovery is of a kind that is available under the Australian
court's procedures.  In particular, it highlights the Federal
Court's reluctance to allow actions by parties that are
inconsistent with the overarching purpose of the FCA Act,
especially where the Court has a particular role in the management
of the case (as in class actions).  At the very least, if a party
wishes to gather evidence using a procedure outside those
prescribed by the FCA Act (or equivalent state legislation for
state matters), it should make the Australian court aware of this
fact and seek supporting orders.


* Law Firms See Big Spike in Class Actions in Australia
-------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Coade, writing for Lawyers Weekly, reports that law firms
are seeing a big increase in class actions, with many of their
major clients alert to the risks of potential suit, a litigation
partner has said.

"From a substantive perspective, class actions have unquestionably
grown into the fastest-growing species of litigation in Australia
in the last decade," Jason Betts, a commercial litigation partner
at Herbert Smith Freehills, told Lawyers Weekly.

Having acted in the majority of Australia's largest shareholder
class actions, Mr. Betts believes big clients are more mindful of
a landscape where the risk of class actions is real.

"I have no hesitation in saying that class action risks, in all of
its forms, are one of the top three issues that boards concern
themselves with, prepare for, discuss and address," Mr. Betts
said.

"This is no longer a worst-case scenario, this is a business
reality in Australia and it needs to be practically considered as
part of the operations of any company."

This growth was triggered by the "seminal" 2006 High Court
decision in Campbells Cash and Carry Pty Limited v Fostif Pty Ltd,
which legitimized third-party funding litigation in Australia.

By majority decision, the court said that litigation funding was
not an abuse of process or contrary to public policy.

Mr. Betts acted for the Metcash parties in the case at first
instance.  In his view, Australia's class action system was under-
utilized prior to the Fostif ruling.

"Australia's class actions system was fairly under-utilized
because the economic incentives just didn't add up," Mr. Betts
said.

"[Previously] a lawyer couldn't take the risk of prosecuting the
action in the promise of any recovery at the end of the day.  A
funder emerged to fill this lacuna in the economic equation for
class actions and as a result we've seen -- I'd say exponential
-- but at the very least, steady growth."

Mr. Betts points to three other important factors that have
contributed to the growth of class action "mega litigation" in
Australia.

He cites more players in the funding market, new and expanding
plaintiff law practices as well the developing desire to discover
new ground as major factors.

According to Mr. Betts, it is those promoters, funders and
plaintiffs pushing "new horizons" in class action litigation who
are shaping the new landscape.

"Over the last 10 years leading case structure has been
shareholder class action litigation against listed corporate
entities in respect to corporate governance issues," Mr. Betts
said.

"But we've seen a number of other areas explored -- cartel
conduct; large product liability; and consumer class actions like
the bank-fees-type litigation. I also see a possible class action
litigation trend emerging in respect of environmental toxic
torts."

Herbert Smith Freehills recently hosted panel events in Sydney and
Melbourne which offered insights into class action lifecycles and
an outlook for the future.

Jason Betts holds the title of Lawyers Weekly Dispute Resolution
and Litigation Partner of the Year for 2016.


* Silicosis Class Action Settlement Value Approximately R500MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
According to Mineweb's Warren Dick, updates to the part on
previous settlements have been made following correspondence with
Richard Meeran from Leigh Day Attorneys.

What does the judgment mean?

In a landmark judgment that will be regarded as a victory for
social justice, the South Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg on
Friday, May 13, paved the way for a class-action lawsuit to
proceed against 30 gold mining companies named as respondents in
the so-called silicosis case.  The companies comprise some of the
giants in the industry, including Anglo American, AngloGold
Ashanti, Harmony and Gold Fields.

Compensation for the victims and dependents of deceased miners had
been brought against the companies by an alliance of lawyers,
Richard Spoor, Charles Abrahams and the Legal Resources Centre.
Key to obtaining justice for such a large group of people, the
lawyers representing the mineworkers argued, that class action was
the only way this could be meaningfully achieved.

"This decision by the High Court is a crucial step in the path to
justice for potentially hundreds of thousands of mine workers and
the families of deceased mineworkers who contracted silicosis and
tuberculosis due to their employment in poorly maintained working
environments of the gold mining industry of South Africa," said
Charles Abrahams, one of the senior lawyers.  "We continue to
believe it is the only feasible method for sick gold mine workers
to have access to justice."

But hold on, what is silicosis and pulmonary tuberculosis, and how
is it contracted?

To paraphrase the definition provided in the judgment, silicosis
is a disease that affects the lungs and respiratory system and is
contracted through the inhalation of crystalline silica dust which
is present in underground gold mines. The dust is created through
mining activities that include blasting, drilling and the
transportation of material.

Once inhaled, the dust particles settle in a part of the lung
called the alveolus, where they then attack the lung tissue
resulting in scarring or fibrosis of the lungs.  The scarring
irreversibly damages the lungs, impairing its normal functioning
to the point in many cases of being fatal.

Silicosis is both latent and progressive.  Latent in the fact that
it can take as long as fifteen years to display symptoms, and
progressive in that it gets worse with time.

Pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) is a bacterial lung disease which can
be treated successfully and cured if detected early. The infection
is caused by a bacterium known as mycobacterium tuberculosis
complex.  The judgment stated it is accepted that there is an
association between excessive respirable silica dust and TB.  But
silica dust is not the only factor that increases the risk of
contracting TB, other factors include tobacco smoking, HIV, and
cramped and poor living conditions.

So the case did not establish guilt or liability?

No.  That will come later.  This particular judgment dealt with
the matter of whether the use of a class action suit was
appropriate for achieving the ends of justice, in this case, for
the aggrieved mineworkers.  The judges agreed.

But at the heart of the matter involving blame and liability is
whether mining companies willfully or knowingly allowed workers to
work in poorly ventilated environments without any suitable
protection, thereby making them susceptible to contracting
silicosis, which caused pain and suffering and which could have
eventually lead to death.  It is on this principle that the case
draws parallels with the practices of big tobacco companies that
continued to sell product they knew could be harmful, even fatal
to the consumer.

The scientific link between underground gold mining and the
contracting of silicosis appears to be a slam dunk.  As cited in
the judgment, from as early as 1902 several Commissions of Enquiry
were established to investigate the causes and prevalence of
silicosis.  "These commissions recommended that dust control and
dust elimination measures be introduced."

This contention is ultimately what will be decided in a court at a
later date, should the parties not reach a settlement.

How many workers were/are affected?

This is where things get complex.  The judges provided a range of
potential class members that varied between 17 000 to 500 000.
Gold mining in South Africa was and is big business, and was and
is still extremely labor intensive.  The time horizon includes any
employee that worked for a cumulative period of at least two years
at one of the country's underground gold mines at any point after
12 March 1965.

Figuring out how many people were affected and who may join the
suit is going to be very difficult to establish.  Because of the
migrant labor system in place for much of this time, many of the
workers that have been affected come from rural areas as widely
spread apart as the Eastern Cape, Lesotho, Swaziland, Malawi and
Mozambique.  Also consider that the medical facilities in many of
these places are remote, which means capturing even basic
information like that furnished on a death certificate may not
have been possible.

No-one really knows how many claimants there will be.

Is there any legal precedent for this?

No, nothing has reached trial before.  But there have been two
settlements surrounding silicosis.

In Qhubeka vs. Anglo American South Africa and AngloGold Ashanti,
which was brought by Richard Meeran from Leigh Day Solicitors, a
UK-based law firm, the mining companies elected to settle earlier
this year for an amount of R500 million.  There were 4 365 former
employees that were represented in the claim, equating to a
settlement of roughly R114 000 per individual on an aggregate
basis.

Update: The settlement value of approximately R500m is regardless
of the number of confirmed silicosis cases within the 4,365.  The
amount of the allocation of the total compensation to individual
claimants will depend primarily on: the proportion of the group
who are found to have silicosis and if so of what severity; the
severity of silicosis of the individual in question.  Mr. Meeran
expects that up to 60% of the group may be confirmed as having
silicosis.  So based on an estimated model of 60% of the 4 365
claimants having silicosis, this raises the average compensation
per individual to R190 000.

The settlement also excludes additional statutory compensation
workers can claim through the Occupational Diseases in Mines and
Works Act (ODIMWA) which is R47,500 for stage 1 and R105,000 for
stage 2.  In other settlements, the compensation figure has been
reduced to take account of the ODIMWA award.


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Briefing Underway in "Major"
---------------------------------------------
Briefing is under way in the case Major v. Lorillard Tobacco Co.,
according to Reynolds American Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2016.

The Company states, "On July 30, 2014, in Major v. Lorillard
Tobacco Co. (Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, Cal., filed 2011), the
jury awarded the plaintiff approximately $17.74 million in
compensatory damages on the negligence and strict liability claims
and found the plaintiff 50% at fault, Lorillard Tobacco 17% at
fault, and RJR Tobacco and another manufacturer collectively 33%
at fault. Punitive damages were not at issue. RJR Tobacco and the
other manufacturer had been dismissed prior to trial. The
plaintiffs alleged that as a result of the use of the defendants'
products and exposure to asbestos, the decedent, William Major,
suffered from lung cancer, and sought an unspecified amount of
damages. In August 2014, the trial court entered an initial final
judgment of approximately $3.9 million against Lorillard Tobacco.
On July 1, 2015, the trial court entered an amended final judgment
in the amount of approximately $3.78 million in compensatory
damages, approximately $135,000 in costs, approximately $1.9
million in prejudgment interest, and post-judgment interest from
August 25, 2014 in the amount of approximately $1,100 per day.
Lorillard Tobacco appealed from the original and amended
judgments, which appeals have been consolidated. On October 20,
2015, the appellate court granted RJR Tobacco's motion to
substitute itself for Lorillard Tobacco. Briefing is underway."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/KURXLO


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Suits Remain Pending Against IDEX at March 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
IDEX Corporation continues to defend itself against asbestos-
related personal injury lawsuits, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2016.

The Company states, "The Company and five of its subsidiaries are
presently named as defendants in a number of lawsuits claiming
various asbestos-related personal injuries, allegedly as a result
of exposure to products manufactured with components that
contained asbestos. These components were acquired from third
party suppliers, and were not manufactured by the Company or any
of the defendant subsidiaries. To date, the majority of the
Company's settlements and legal costs, except for costs of
coordination, administration, insurance investigation and a
portion of defense costs, have been covered in full by insurance,
subject to applicable deductibles. However, the Company cannot
predict whether and to what extent insurance will be available to
continue to cover these settlements and legal costs, or how
insurers may respond to claims that are tendered to them. Claims
have been filed in jurisdictions throughout the United States.
Most of the claims resolved to date have been dismissed without
payment. The balance have been settled for various insignificant
amounts. Only one case has been tried, resulting in a verdict for
the Company's business unit. No provision has been made in the
financial statements of the Company, other than for insurance
deductibles in the ordinary course, and the Company does not
currently believe the asbestos-related claims will have a material
adverse effect on the Company's business, financial position,
results of operations or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Company's Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/0EXboo


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EMI Sued Over Hayes Asbestos Exposure
------------------------------------------------------
Pete Bryant, writing for Get West London, reported that the son of
a worker at the music giant in Hayes claims his father was not
warned about the deadly substance that left him in agony before
his untimely death

A grieving son who blames his dad's death on asbestos exposure
while he was working for Hayes-based music industry giants EMI has
launched a High Court bid for more than œ150,000 in damages.

Paul Griffin claims his father, John, breathed in the killer
substance while working in EMI's research and development
department.

The asbestos is said to have wrecked the latter years of John's
life before he died in November 2013, aged 83.

He had been suffering for months from mesothelioma, a cancer of
the lining of the lungs notorious for beiong incurable and the
agony suffered by its victims.

Left to grieve was his widow, Freda, and his son is now suing EMI
Ltd, of Kensington High Street, as executor of his estate.

A document issued in London by the family's barrister, Simon
Kilvington, claims that John was never warned about the dangers of
asbestos.

He worked for EMI, or its corporate predecessors, between 1962 and
1963 and 1965 and 1966 and was "constantly exposed" to asbestos
without any respiratory protection.

He was diagnosed with cancer in the summer of 2013 and suffered
"intense pain", fatigue and breathlessness before he died.

The writ claims that the disease not only robbed Mr Griffin of his
health but shortened his life by four years.

Paul, who lives in Godalming, who is suing on behalf of his mother
and his father's estate, says the claim is worth "in excess of
œ150,000".

EMI's defence to the claim was not available from the court and
the contents of the writ have yet to be tested in evidence before
a judge.

In April, a retired security guard from Hillingdon, who worked at
sites across west London, appealed for help from former colleagues
as he demanded answer on how he was exposed to asbestos that left
him with terminal lung cancer.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit Filed vs. Chevron, Texaco
-----------------------------------------------
David Yates, writing for Southeast Texas Record, reported that the
Provost Umphrey Law Firm is seeking to investigate the merits of a
potential asbestos lawsuit against Chevron USA and Texaco.

Through PU attorney Keith Hyde, Diana Wyble filed a petition to
perpetuate the testimony of Harry Doyle on May 20 in Jefferson
County District Court.

According to the petition, Doyle was diagnosed with lung cancer.
His disease is expected to progress and prove fatal.

The petition will notify Chevron and Texaco that a gross
negligence and wrongful death lawsuit will be filed alleging his
condition was the result of asbestos exposure during his
employment with Texaco.

The petitioner is asking the court to authorize the petition to
perpetuate Doyle's testimony.

Judge Gary Sanderson, 60th District Court, has been assigned to
the case.

Case No. B-198507


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. High Court Reinstates Verdict for Workers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Baker-Dennis, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that the California Supreme Court ruled that an asbestos supplier
is responsible for failing to warn end users about the dangers of
a manufacturer's product.

William Webb sued raw asbestos supplier Special Electric Company
after he was diagnosed with mesothelioma in January of 2011,
caused by inhaling asbestos fibers while he was working for a pipe
supply company as a warehouseman and truck driver.

Special Electric Company was the broker who sold crocidolite
asbestos  --  the most toxic form of asbestos, which is several
times more likely to cause cancer  --  to Johns-Manville
Corporation, according to court records.

Johns-Manville owned and operated a chrysotile asbestos mine in
Quebec, and also made an asbestos cement pipe known as "transite
pipe."

For 10 years, Webb says he handled transite pipe that contained
trace amounts of crocidolite asbestos as part of his job while
working for Pyramid Pipe & Supply Co.

The pipe he handled was manufactured by using recycled broken or
damaged bits of other products that contained crocidolite asbestos
fiber. The end pipe product contained about 20 percent of the
scraps.

In making deliveries to job sites, Webb claims he was not told the
product he was handling posed a risk for cancer nor was he advised
to wear a respirator. The pipes were also not packed with a
warning label about the dangers posed when handled, according to
court records.

A jury found Special Electric 18 percent liable for negligence and
failure to warn, but did not find the company liable for supplying
a defective product and apportioned the remaining fault to Johns-
Manville and other entities.

Before judgment was entered, Special Electric was granted its
request for a ruling in its favor, regardless of the jury's
verdict, after it insisted that a supplier should not be held
liable for not warning end users about the dangers of its product.

In reviewing that decision, five of the seven California Supreme
Court justices ruled that the decision to overturn the jury's
verdict cannot stand.

"Because substantial evidence supports the jury's verdict, and
Special Electric did not have a complete defense as a matter of
law, the entry of [judgment notwithstanding the verdict] was
unjustified," Justice Carol Corrigan wrote for the majority.

Citing the elements of the sophisticated intermediary doctrine  --
under which a supplier can discharge its duty to warn if it sells
to a sufficiently sophisticated buyer or provides adequate
warnings  --  the majority point out that the supplier bears the
burden to show an intermediary was adequately warned of the
hazards associated with a product, and that the risks were
understood and would be passed on to the end user.

"The goal of products liability law is not merely to spread the
risk but also 'to induce conduct that is capable of being
performed.' The sophisticated intermediary doctrine serves this
goal by recognizing a product supplier's duty to warn but
permitting the supplier to discharge this duty in a responsible
and practical way," Corrigan wrote. "It appropriately and
equitably balances the practical realities of supplying products
with need for consumer safety."

Special Electric never presented that argument to the jury, the
majority of California's high court ruled.

The company also did not meet its burden to show that Johns-
Manville knew of the acute risk associated with crocidolite
asbestos it supplied or that it would warn end users, the justices
found.

"Although the record clearly shows Johns-Manville was aware of the
risks of asbestos in general, no evidence established it knew
about the particularly acute risks posed by crocidolite asbestos
Special Electric supplied," Corrigan wrote. "In addition,
plaintiffs presented evidence that at least one Special Electric
salesperson told customers crocidolite was safer than other types
of asbestos fiber, when the opposite was true." (Emphasis in
original).

Two justices  --  Tani Cantil-Sakauye and Ming Chin  --  agreed
with the majority that evidence supports the jury's verdict
against Special Electric, but disagreed with the majority's
holding that "a supplier of hazardous materials may satisfy its
duty to warn end users by relying on an intermediary where the
supplier fails to warn the intermediary of the dangers and knows
only that the intermediary 'should be' rather than 'is actually'
aware of the dangers."

"Because a requirement that a supplier convey warnings to a direct
purchaser imposes only a minimal burden, no policy reason exists
to allow suppliers to rely on intermediaries even if the suppliers
do not know the intermediaries actually know of the dangers.
Neither the cases nor the principles the majority cites support
its holding," Cantil-Sakauye wrote in a concurring and dissenting
opinion, in which Chin joined.

Responding to the decision, Special Electric attorney Edward Hugo
of Hugo Parker LLP in San Francisco said, "We are pleased that the
Supreme Court has formally adopted the sophisticated intermediary
doctrine in California and articulated the elements of the defense
in a clear fashion so that it may be applied, uniformly, going
forward."

Webb's attorney Ted Pelletier, based in San Anselmo, Calif., did
not immediately respond to a request for comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Jury Awards $3.2MM to Plaintiffs
----------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a New York jury has awarded
$3.2 million at the conclusion of an asbestos-related trial,
finding that valve manufacturer Jenkins Brothers Co. was 50
percent liable for the decedent's mesothelioma.

The New York Supreme Court for Schenectady County jury reached the
verdict on May 18. Judge Richard T. Aulisi presided over the
trial.

The plaintiffs asserted the claims on behalf of Scott Shays,
contending that his service as a machinist's mate in the U.S. Navy
and Vermont National Guard caused him to work with asbestos-
containing products, including gaskets, packing, and external
insulation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Probe Launched After Firm Dumps Asbestos
---------------------------------------------------------
Jersey Evening Post reported that specialists have been called out
and two bays at the incinerator closed after asbestos was dumped
at the site.

The Health and Safety Inspectorate launched an investigation after
the potentially deadly material was tipped onto the floor near the
bulky-waste facility.

Both bays will remain closed until the inspectorate gives the go-
ahead for specialist contractors to remove the material. Several
builders have claimed that the closure of two out of the four bays
has caused disruption and delays when disposing of waste.

The asbestos was brought to the site in a mixed load by the plant
hire and excavation firm Brian Blandin Ltd -- it is not known
where in the Island the waste was brought from.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Congress Reaches Deal to Overhaul Chemical Laws
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Daly, writing for The Associated Press, reported that a
bipartisan agreement reached by U.S. House of Representatives and
Senate negotiators would set new safety standards for asbestos and
other dangerous chemicals, including tens of thousands that have
gone unregulated for decades.

A bill to be voted on would offer new protections for pregnant
women, children, workers and others vulnerable to the effects of
chemicals such as formaldehyde and styrene used in homes and
businesses every day.

If enacted into law, the bill would be the first significant
update to the Toxic Substances Control Act since the law was
adopted in 1976.

The bill, more than three years in the making, has won the backing
of both industry officials and some of the Capitol's most liberal
lawmakers, including senators Barbara Boxer and Edward Markey.

The bill also has the support of conservatives such as senators
David Vitter and James Inhofe.

"This is a political Halley's Comet" that may not be seen again
for many years, said Markey, a former opponent of the bill who
signed onto it in recent weeks after changes were made to ensure
that states that regulate chemicals closely can continue to do so.

Markey called the bill "a special piece of legislation" that
finally updates one of the major environmental laws approved
during the 1970s.

The agreement announced merges bills that the House and Senate
passed last year.

Negotiations had stalled in recent weeks, as lawmakers struggled
over a provision that allows states to continue regulating toxic
chemicals. The proposal announced declares that any state law or
rule in place before April 22 would not be pre-empted by federal
law. The proposal also would allow states to work on regulations
while federal rules are being developed, a process that can take
years.

Boxer, who had opposed earlier versions of the bill, said the
proposal protects the rights of California, Massachusetts and
other states that aggressively regulate chemicals "to continue
their critical work to protect their citizens from harmful toxic
chemicals." States that do not regulate chemicals closely would
follow the federal standard.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce said in a statement that the measure
"goes a long way to providing businesses with much needed clarity
and certainty by facilitating a more predictable federal
regulatory program" for chemicals.

Richard Denison, a senior scientist for the Environmental Defense
Fund, called the bill a "significant victory for public health,"
noting that it will require safety reviews for thousands of
chemicals already in use and mandate greater scrutiny of new
chemicals before they can be sold.

"While not perfect, this will be a dramatic improvement over
current law," Denison said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Port Authority Removes Asbestos from Offices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Giambroni, writing for Morning Journal News, reported that the
Columbiana County Port Authority is making some improvements to
its headquarters, including removing asbestos from the boiler room
in the basement.

Penny Traina, the port authority's new CEO, reported at the
meeting they recently discovered some of the boiler room and
boiler system was insulated with asbestos. She advised the other
building tenants of the situation and put together a plan to have
the material safely removed.

On her recommendation, the board agreed to hire Howland Co. of
Youngstown to remove the asbestos and clean the boiler room for
$9,730. Mid-Atlantic Environmental Consultants of Gibsonia, Pa.,
was hired for an additional $2,695 to monitor the air for fugitive
asbestos during the week-long remediation process.

Board member Brian Kennedy also reported they were replacing 70
light fixtures at port authority headquarters with energy
efficient LED lighting, which is expected to save them $1,680 per
year. The cost is $3,171, which means the switch would pay for
itself in less than two years.

The port authority is applying to American Electric Power's Ohio
2016 Energy Star grant program for funding to help offset the
cost.

In other business port authority legal counsel Tim Brookes
reported three vacant properties on Danbury Avenue in Wellsville
were recently donated to them. Brookes learned the lots belonged
to the Bill Foulks estate and contacted estate officials to
determine if they would be interested in donating them, which they
were. Although the port authority has no immediate need for the
properties, which are a combined acre in size, Brookes said they
may come in handy if nearby Marathon Petroleum decides to expand
again.

Larry Heck of Pier 48 Stevedoring, the company that operates the
port authority's Wellsville river terminal, made a 30-minute
presentation to board, updating them on what they have been up to
since being awarded the contract in 2012. He said while they have
been very busy unloading various materials from barges, business
has slowed lately, due largely to the significant decline in oil
and gas development.

"But I've been at this long enough to know this is just a cycle"
and the regional oil and gas boom will eventually return, he said.

Traina reported she and county development director Tad Herold,
who also serves on the port authority board, will host another
roundtable event, but this time for township officials. They
hosted a similar event several weeks ago for mayors from local
cities and villages and it was very well attended and received.

Like the mayors' roundtable, the township version will include
representatives from regional development organizations to inform
participants about what state and federal grant and loan programs
are available.

The township roundtable will be held at the historic train depot
on South Market Street in Lisbon at 7 p.m. June 15.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Policyholders Can Choose Insurers to Pay Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth M. Gorenberg, Esq. -- kenneth.gorenberg@btlaw.com -- at
Barnes & Thornburg LLP, in an article for The National Law Review,
wrote that Businesses facing asbestos or environmental claims may
be encouraged by a decision from New York's highest court earlier
this month. This new decision allows the policyholder to choose
which of many policy periods should initially be responsible for
the policyholder's asbestos litigation, work its way up that
particular coverage tower and then select another period and
another as may be necessary. See In re Viking Pump, Inc. and
Warren Pumps, LLC, Insurance Appeals, No. 59 (NY May 3, 2016). The
policyholder does not have to prorate its claims equally among its
many years of possible coverage. Id.

The problem is all too familiar

Your company may already be in a similar situation. If not,
imagine your company faces numerous lawsuits by individuals
alleging they were recently diagnosed with asbestos-related
illnesses caused by their work with your company's products many
years or even decades ago, or your company is being pursued for
environmental contamination that allegedly occurred over a long
period of time. Your company has records of its historical general
liability and excess policies. For some of those years, your
company has tens of millions of dollars of available coverage. For
other years, there is little if any coverage available, the
following can happen for any number of reasons:

in early years your company had no insurance or purchased low
limits

policies had been exhausted by prior claims

some of the insurers are now insolvent

in later years asbestos or environmental liabilities were clearly
excluded

Can you recover under the policies from the "good" years and avoid
the "bad" years? Or do you have to prorate your liabilities across
the "good" and "bad" years, leaving your company with minimal
insurance recoveries for the "bad" years?

Joint and several liability is based on the insuring agreement to
pay "all sums"

Your company probably can maximize its insurance recovery if the
governing jurisdiction takes the "all sums" approach. This
analysis focuses on the insuring clause of a standard policy,
which typically provides:

The company will pay on behalf of the insured all sums which the
insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages?

Courts adopting this approach hold that this language makes all
the insurers for multiple years jointly and severally liable for
"all sums" that the policyholder is obligated to pay in damages
and in defense costs. Therefore, the policyholder can choose one
primary policy to pay "all sums" and intentionally not touch its
primary policies in other years. After the limit of the selected
policy has been paid, the policyholder proceeds vertically through
its coverage tower for that policy period. After all the limits of
all the policies in that period have been paid, the policyholder
can select another period and move vertically through those
policies. And so on. The policyholder can defer or maybe even
disregard entirely the policy periods where it has less coverage
available. Some states allow the selected insurers to bring
contribution actions against carriers that issued policies in
other periods, but the policyholder in an "all sums" jurisdiction
does not have to pursue any such allocation.

Pro rata allocation is a legal fiction to limit coverage to injury
or damage during policy period

To avoid joint and several liability, insurance companies tend to
focus on policy provisions stating that it only covers injury or
damage during the policy period. In reality, it's often impossible
to determine the extent of injury or damage that occurred in
particular period. Even if there is only one asbestos disease
claim against the policyholder, the disease process typically
takes many years to progress from exposure to diagnosis, with an
immeasurable amount of injury happening in any particular year.
When there are multiple asbestos claims, the problem is
compounded. Similarly, in an environmental matter, there's usually
no way to measure how damage occurred in any given year, from the
period when releases were happening, through the years when
contaminants were migrating, to the point when a governmental
agency or private claimant seeks a remedy. The New York court in
Viking Pump recognized that the pro rata approach is a legal
fiction because it allocates equal amounts to each year, despite
the virtual impossibility that the losses for each year really are
equal. The result is often detrimental to a policyholder, which
will bear its own costs to the extent that the per-year allocation
exceeds its available coverage for any given year.

New York moves from pro rata to joint and several ? sort of

- See more at: http://www.natlawreview.com/article/new-york-lets-
policyholders-choose-which-insurers-must-pay-all-sums-claims-
spanning#sthash.ogiS8KmJ.dpuf

New York Lets Policyholders Choose Which Insurers Must Pay "All
Sums" For Claims Spanning Many Years

New York law tends to favor insurance companies on many coverage
issues. In Consolidated Edison Co. of NY v. Allstate Ins. Co., 98
NY2d 208 (2002), New York's highest court adopted the pro rata
allocation method that insurers prefer. Now, in Viking Pump, the
court has seemingly switched sides by applying the "all sums"
method that allows the policyholder to choose among multiple
policy periods for which the insurers are jointly and severally
liable. The court did not, however, reverse itself outright.
Rather, it focused on "anti-stacking" or "non-cumulation"
provisions in the policies, which it did not consider in its 2002
Con Ed decision. In general, this clause says that when a loss is
covered not only by that policy but in policies for earlier or
later years, the policyholder gets only one of those limits and
can't stack them up for more coverage. The court recognized that
this provision means there must actually be coverage under
policies for more than one year, and therefore it applied the "all
sums" doctrine in Viking Pump. The court cautioned that Con Ed
remains good law and that each case should be decided on the
policies and other facts involved.

Several other courts that have adopted pro rata allocation have
recognized the inconsistency when the policy has an "anti-
stacking" or "non-cumulation" clause. Those courts typically hold
the clause unenforceable and continue to apply pro rata
allocation. The New York court concluded that doing so would
violate the rule of contract construction that all terms must have
meaning. In order to preserve the "anti-stacking" clause, the "all
sums" joint and several liability rule must apply instead of pro
rata allocation.

Where are we headed?

Policyholders should be pleased with the Viking Pump result, but
its reliance on the "anti-stacking" clause seems flawed. For
context, consider that the insurance industry tends to draft and
incorporate a new policy provision as a direct response to an
expanding coverage risk in existing policy language. That appears
to be what happened when insurance companies began to use "anti-
stacking" provisions. The New York court in Viking Pump suggested
that "anti-stacking" changed the meaning of the insuring agreement
to pay "all sums." That can't be right. The same insuring
agreement language appears in many policies, with and without
"anti-stacking" clauses, and that language should always have the
same meaning. By inserting "anti-stacking" provisions, insurance
companies recognized that "all sums" is unallocable. Pro rata
allocation can never be ordered in the face of an "all sums"
insuring agreement, even if there is no "anti-stacking" provision.
At least the Viking Pump court is headed in the right direction.
As a prominent jurisdiction that often favors insurance companies,
New York may have just taken its first step in leading a broader
rejection of pro rata allocation and holding insurers jointly and
severally liable under the "all sums" language of their policies.

- See more at: http://www.natlawreview.com/article/new-york-lets-
policyholders-choose-which-insurers-must-pay-all-sums-claims-
spanning#sthash.ogiS8KmJ.dpuf



ASBESTOS UPDATE: States Split Take-Home Blame
---------------------------------------------
Peter Hayes, writing for Bloomberg News, reported that as high
courts on the East and West Coasts ponder premises owners' duty to
people exposed to toxic substances brought home on a worker's
clothing, the states remain divided over whether to allow such
claims, and if so, by whom.

Plaintiffs' and defense counsel agree that as the workers directly
exposed to asbestos have died off, an increasing percentage of
asbestos suits are being brought by plaintiffs indirectly exposed,
at home.

While defense counsel say take-home exposure suits threaten
"limitless liability," plaintiffs' attorneys say a focus on the
method of exposure is misplaced.

Spouses are the most common plaintiffs in third party take-home
actions, but suits have also been filed by other family members --
children, nephews and grandchildren -- and in at least one case, a
worker's girlfriend.

That lawsuit, brought by the girlfriend of an employee who
allegedly brought beryllium home on his work clothes, was recently
argued before the New Jersey Supreme Court, in Schwartz v.
Accuratus Corp., N.J., No. 076195, argued 4/25/16 (31 TXLR 393,
4/28/16).

Bright Lines, Vehicles

"We're just beginning to see more of these claims being asserted,"
defense counsel Carter Strang with Tucker Ellis LLP in Cleveland
told Bloomberg BNA.

"Until courts draw a bright line, these will continue," he said.

"Where do you cut off liability?" asked Professor Lester Brickman
-- a critic of asbestos lawsuits -- at the Benjamin N. Cardozo
School of Law in New York.

"When you expand liability, what about fourth parties?" he asked.
"What if a maid who launders asbestos-laden clothes lives with a
man in another house and he gets mesothelioma?"

But plaintiffs' counsel see the "limitless liability" argument as
an attempt to evade responsibility.

"The premise of the defense argument is 'we may sicken so many
people there will be no end to it,'?" asbestos plaintiffs' attorney
Jonathan Ruckdeschel with the Ruckdeschel Law Firm in Ellicott
City, Md., told Bloomberg BNA.

"Everybody agrees that if you're spewing pollutants you're
responsible for them. But defendants say that if the vehicle on
which the pollutant leaves the factory is the workers' clothes
then they're not liable. That doesn't make any sense," Ruckdeschel
said.

Patchwork of Rulings

Tennessee, Louisiana, New Jersey and Washington are among the
states that have recognized a premises owner's obligation to
household members.

But courts in Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, New
York, Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania and Kentucky haven't found a duty.

California courts have allowed premises owner suits by third
parties, but the state's appeals courts split on the issue.

The California Supreme Court is set to consider premises owner
duty in Haver v. BNSF Ry. Co., Cal., No. S219919 as well as
product manufacturer duty in Kesner v. S.C. (Pneumo Abex), Cal.,
No. S219534 (30 TXLR 460, 5/7/15). The cases have been
consolidated for oral argument and placed on the September 2016
calendar.

The Arizona Court of Appeals is considering a take-home asbestos
suit brought by the child of a worker in a case set for oral
argument May 25, Quiroz v. Alcoa, Ariz. Ct. App., No. 15-0083,
argument scheduled 5/25/16.

"The divide is over the issue of ?foreseeability,'?" Professor
Brickman said.

"Courts that reject expanding a duty, such as New York, view duty
as independent of foreseeability," Brickman said. " The states
that chose foreseeability as the standard for determining take-
home liability end up finding liability."

"But the words ?duty' and ?foreseeability' are really ways of the
judges expressing their personal preference," he said. "Courts are
giving rhetorical reasons for scope of liability."

Will Accuratus Expand Liability?

The New Jersey Supreme Court, in Olivo v. Owens-Illinois Inc., 895
A. 2d 1143 (2006), ruled that a spouse's suit could proceed
because it was foreseeable that asbestos might be brought home on
a worker's clothing. The court in Accuratus is now weighing
whether Olivo extends to the girlfriend of a worker who brought
beryllium home on his work clothes.

During oral argument April 25, the court in Accuratus asked
whether a "family" includes a non-married couple.

"The problem is where do you draw the line?" defense attorney
William A. Ruskin with Gordon & Rees in New York asked.

"Do you draw the line at family members? Should a bus driver be
able to sue if workers from the Exxon plant get on a bus? What
about a babysitter?"

"Plaintiffs argue that duty should be determined by what is
foreseeable. But by that measure, it's limitless," Ruskin told
Bloomberg BNA.

"I don't think the issue that's important with take-home cases is
about non-traditional families," he said.

"If this was a married gay couple, I wouldn't foreclose a remedy.
What's important is whether take-home exposure cases --
particularly premises owner -- should be expanded in ways courts
seem to be expanding this," Ruskin said.

No Slippery Slope

Ruckdeschel, however, says the fear of limitless liability is
unfounded.

"The law has a mechanism against the slippery slope -- the well-
developed law of causation in toxic torts," he said.

"What does it matter if Mrs. Johnson is a wife or a nurse? If she
can establish exposure, why shouldn't they be liable?"

"Necessarily, the defendants are conceding that causation is
established, but they should get a walk anyway," Ruckdeschel said.

"They're asking for a windfall that shifts the burden from the
wrong-doer to the sick person and ultimately to the taxpayers," he
said.

Silica, Talc and PCBs

Attorneys say take-home suits comprise a greater percentage of
asbestos litigation than they did 15 years ago, but quantifying
the suits by exposure type is difficult.

"There are fewer total asbestos suits being filed. But as the more
heavily-exposed workers have died, what we're seeing now are wives
and children who had a longer and lighter exposure with a longer
latency period getting sick," Ruckdeschel said.

"I believe there has been an uptick in take-home cases, but it is
not yet a dramatic one," said defense attorney William Anderson
with Crowell and Moring in Washington, D.C.

The number of filings by take-home plaintiffs is difficult to
track because courts don't report their asbestos case dockets in
that way, Anderson said.

"The trend line for mesothelioma would indicate that as a greater
percentage of persons with the disease increasingly are women
(because the asbestos-exposed male worker cohort is aging out), we
will see more female and thus more take-home cases," Anderson
said.

As asbestos litigation continues, attorneys say the universe of
take-home liability may be expanding.

While the bulk of premises liability take-home cases have been
asbestos suits, similar claims could also be brought for other
toxins.

"It could be possible to make these claims in silica cases,"
Anderson said. "And if talc cases take off, we could see those
becoming take-home as well."

"We could see take-home suits for silica, talc and PCBs," Strang
agreed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Haughton Pensioner Dies from Asbestos Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
Staffordshire Newsletter reported that a pensioner from Haughton
died from asbestos exposure, an inquest has heard.

Alan Hands, 76, of Station Road, Haughton, died on November 23,
2015, from bronchopneumonia, pulmonary fibrosis and ischaemic
heart disease.

An inquest held in Cannock heard Mr Hands had been exposed to
asbestos dust when working for GKN plc screws and fasteners Ltd,
based in Redditch, between 1961 and 1981. He worked on HGV truck
break lines.

A provisional damages claim was made against the company in 2010
and Mr Hands had been receiving an industrial pension. The claim
allows for a further one to be made.

Calcified pleural plaques were found in his body, indicating
asbestos exposure, and it was noted that pulmonary fibrosis could
be related to his previous occupation.

Mr Hands was admitted to County Hospital in Stafford on November
16 suffering from confusion, shortness of breath and coughing. He
died on November 23.

South Staffordshire coroner Andrew Haigh said: "There was a
history of a job around about 20 years and during that time Alan
was exposed to asbestos dust. He was not exposed anywhere else. He
developed lung disease and made successful claim. The company
accepted he had been exposed.

"On the balance of probabilities it's likely that asbestos has
been a causative factor in Alan's condition and that exposure is
likely to have been in the work place. This was a work-related
death."

He recorded a conclusion of industrial disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oregon Court Ruling Upends Asbestos Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mark B. Tuvim, Esq. -- mtuvim@gordonrees.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP,
in an article Lexology.com, wrote that the Oregon Court of Appeals
has held in a case of first impression that the "bare metal"
defense is not applicable under Oregon law. McKenzie v. A.W.
Chesterton Co., 277 Or App 728 (2016). Under this defense, which
courts in many other states have applied, a manufacturer whose
product does not contain asbestos (i.e., is "bare metal") is not
liable for harms caused by asbestos-containing replacement parts
supplied by others. By bucking the national trend, it is likely
that the ruling will increase the number of asbestos cases filed
in Oregon. The decision is based on Oregon statute, which may
limit its applicability to Oregon, but it is also based on the
Restatement, which may make it influential elsewhere as well.

Background

Paul McKenzie served on WWII-era aircraft carriers as a fireman
and boilerman in the course of a 20-year naval career that ended
in 1972. He changed packing, internal gaskets, and external
insulation in and around pumps manufactured and sold to the U.S.
Navy by defendant Warren Pumps when the carriers were built.
Warren had shipped original asbestos-containing gaskets, packing,
and insulation with some pumps as "a complete package," but these
had all been replaced by the time Mr. McKenzie served on these
vessels. The trial court granted Warren's summary judgment motion
based on Plaintiff's failure to offer evidence that Warren had
manufactured or supplied to the Navy the replacement products to
which Plaintiff claims her husband had been exposed.

The Court's Analysis

The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed based on the Oregon strict
liability statute, ORS 30.920, and in particular two provisions of
that statute: (1) that strict liability applies if "[t]he product
is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without
substantial change in the condition in which it is sold or
leased[;]" and (2) that the statute "shall be construed in
accordance" with Comments a through m of the Restatement (Second)
of Torts, sec. 402A (1965). Plaintiff argued that Warren
reasonably knew that the replacement products would contain
asbestos, because that is what the Navy required, and that
therefore the pumps were not substantially changed between their
delivery to the Navy and Mr. McKenzie's service decades later. The
court rejected Warren's argument that the relevant "unreasonably
dangerous products" for purposes of ORS 30.920 were the asbestos-
containing replacement products of others to which Mr. McKenzie
had actually been exposed, and held that a jury could conclude
that Warren should have reasonably known that the pumps were
expected to and did reach users like Mr. McKenzie without
substantial change in the condition in which they were sold even
though the replacement asbestos-containing gaskets, packing, and
external insulation that Mr. McKenzie encountered were
manufactured and supplied by others. The court relied in part on
Restatement comment (d), which recognized the expected replacement
of component parts through wear and tear.

McKenzie expressly declined to follow decisions from other states,
including the supreme courts of neighboring Washington State
(Simonetta v. Viad Corp., 165 Wash.2d 341, 197 P.3d 127 (2008),
and Braaten v. Saberhagen Holdings, 165 Wash.2d 373, 198 P.3d 493
(2008)) and California (O'Neil v. Crane Co., 53 Cal.4th 335, 266
P.3d 987 (2012)), which applied the "bare metal" defense to
exonerate equipment defendants from liability. McKenzie concluded
that Oregon precedent was inconsistent with the "bare metal"
defense, and that the opinions from other states "appear to derive
the bare-metal defense either from a limitation on a
manufacturer's or seller's duty to warn that is contrary to the
comments in section 402A of the Restatement or else based upon the
jurisdiction's own common law, developed without regard to the
comments to section 402A which may be consistent with their
respective common law but were not with Oregon statutes."

The Court of Appeals similarly reversed Warren's summary judgment
on Plaintiff's negligence claim. As with the strict liability
claim, the court rejected Warren's argument that it was the
asbestos dust from replacement parts which had allegedly harmed
decedent ? not any asbestos from products it had originally
supplied with the pumps ? and that any failure to warn about
asbestos-containing products originally supplied with its pump was
therefore not the "but for" cause of Mr. McKenzie's asbestos-
related condition. McKenzie ruled that negligence in Oregon is
based on foreseeability, and noted that Warren failed to establish
that its failure to warn about asbestos in replacement parts did
not play a part in Mr. McKenzie's injury. Because the Navy
required the use of asbestos-containing gaskets, packing, and
external insulation in or on its pumps, a jury could find it to
have been foreseeable that replacement component parts would
contain asbestos, thereby triggering a duty to warn.

Likely Effects of This Opinion

There is clearly the potential under McKenzie for more equipment
claims in Oregon that might otherwise be brought elsewhere. For
example, craftsmen working in southern Washington State often also
work on jobs in northern Oregon. McKenzie also makes summary
judgment less likely (perhaps even unlikely) in cases with no
product identification issues ? for example, once a plaintiff
shows evidence of asbestos exposure while working with a
defendant's product, it now seems to make no difference whether
the asbestos was in the defendant's product or a product
manufactured or supplied by someone else.

That said, the scope of the decision may still be limited. A
primary focus of the opinion was the foreseeability based on Navy
regulations that replacement gaskets, packing, and external
insulation would also contain asbestos. Such foreseeability may
not be as clear in private industry, without such government
regulations or MilSpecs. Further, Oregon currently has a cap on
non-economic damages of $500,000 in wrongful death cases, which
has historically limited the number of cases generally brought in
Oregon to those with no alternative jurisdiction. The Legislature
has considered increasing that limit to $1.5 million, which would
make the cap less of a hindrance, but has taken no such action to
date.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sac State Library Closes for Asbestos Fixes
------------------------------------------------------------
Shirin Rajaee, writing for CBS13.com, reported that Sac State's
main library will be closed for moths to fix a potentially
dangerous situation.

The building will be closed starting on to remove asbestos.

Library dean Amy Kautz says the asbestos abatement is critical
right now mainly because it was getting in the way of much-needed
improvements. It was also necessary in order to maintain a safe
environment.

The campus has contracted with a licensed abatement specialist and
a third-party expert to oversee the project and see that it's done
in a way that will prevent any exposure to students and staff.

"We can't add any electricity," said Kautz. "We can't work on the
ceiling; we can't do plumbing electrical or add additional
requirements to improve the student experience as long as it's
asbestos there."

An asbestos consultant familiar with the project said off-camera
that since the asbestos is contained above the panels of the
ceiling with no direct exposure, the health risk is minimal.

But is still raises concern with students like Malik Alhaidari.

"It makes me wonder about other buildings. I've been here for four
years, god knows what I could have been exposed to," he said.

The estimated cost of the project is $1.2 million.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Find Closes Central Coast Ambo Station
----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Noone, writing for Central Coast Gosford Express Advocate,
reported that paramedics fear response times could blowout with
potentially fatal consequences after the Central Coast's largest
ambulance station was closed because of deadly asbestos.

The NSW Ambulance Service immediately evacuated the region's
headquarters after it was "advised there is a potential risk that
employees and visitors to Point Clare ambulance station may have
been exposed to asbestos" an email sent to paramedics across the
state read.

"NSW Ambulance has worked to immediately evacuate staff from the
premises, contain the site and isolate the affected areas," the
email read.

"SafeWork NSW has been advised and further testing and air
monitoring will be undertaken of the affected areas and vehicles
by licensed asbestos assessors and accredited hygienists."

Point Clare paramedics have been relocated to Ettalong, Terrigal
and Bateau Bay stations.

At least four ambulances and up to a dozen vehicles including
patient transport vans and fast response 4WDs, usually driven by
station officers, are languishing inside the parking bay because
of fears they too may have been contaminated.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Canada Prime Minister Commits to Ban Asbestos
--------------------------------------------------------------
Beth Swantek, writing for Asbestos.com, reported that Canadian
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau recently announced what labor and
public health groups have spent years waiting to hear about the
nation's asbestos epidemic.

"We've actually made the commitment that we are moving forward on
a ban," Trudeau said. "We know that its impact on workers far
outweighs any benefits that it might provide."

Trudeau made the comment in response to a trade union leader's
question while speaking at Canada's Building Trades Union policy
conference in Ottawa, according to the Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation (CBC) news agency.

While the country no longer exports asbestos, Canada still imports
products that contain the deadly fiber, including construction
materials and automotive friction materials.

Second Federal Initiative Against Asbestos

Trudeau's comments follow an April 1 declaration from Public
Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) prohibiting the use of
asbestos products in new construction and renovation of federal
buildings.

The federal department's announcement came in response to public
outcry in February after CBC revealed PSPC was still using
asbestos products to build new government buildings.

"We have heard the concerns expressed by Canadians over the
continued use of asbestos," Minister of Public Services and
Procurement Judy Foote said in an email to CBC officials.

Foote added the agency was in the process of creating an inventory
of owned and leased buildings to identify those containing
asbestos.

National Day of Mourning Highlights Asbestos-Related Deaths

One Toronto woman feels a ban is about 60 years late.

Michelle Cote's father, a former boilermaker, has mesothelioma, a
fatal cancer definitively linked to asbestos exposure.

Cote expressed her frustration over Canada's lagging policy to
outlaw asbestos in a news conference on April 28, which marks the
country's National Day of Mourning. The holiday commemorates
workers killed or injured on the job.

"This is absolutely incomprehensible to me that we're putting
everyone at risk. We need to stop it," Cote told the assembled
crowd as she cried.

Cote told the crowd asbestos remains the leading cause of work-
related deaths in Canada  --  more than 60 years after it was
identified as a carcinogen.

The Ontario-based Occupational Cancer Research Centre reports
asbestos may be responsible for more than 2,000 new cases of
cancer annually.

Even with a nationwide ban, Cote fears people will continue to be
exposed to asbestos in future years because of its presence in
buildings.

Labor Leaders Push for Immediate Action

Canadian Labour Congress president Hassan Yussuff hopes to
expedite the ban.

He wrote to ministers of labor, industry and science, urging them
to announce a plan for a comprehensive ban before Parliament wraps
for the summer.

The CLC is the largest labor organization in Canada, involving
dozens of national and international unions. Its recommendations
for the ban include:

   -- Legislation banning the use, import and export of all
asbestos-containing products

   -- A national registry of all public buildings containing
asbestos

   -- A national registry of all workers diagnosed with asbestos-
related conditions

"It's imperative that this government take the message and do the
right thing. The right thing is not going to disrupt our economy,
nor is it going to create challenges that this government can't
manage," Yussuff said.

News Agency Creates National Inventory of Asbestos

As Canadians await an official ban, CBC created an unofficial
national registry of federal buildings that contain asbestos.

The news agency launched an inquiry that revealed at least 24
federal departments and agencies own buildings contaminated with
the toxic mineral. It shared the results in an interactive map on
its website.

Some of the departments that provided a list of affected buildings
include:

Corrections Canada
Parks Canada
The Canada Revenue Agency
Natural Resources Canada
Global Affairs
Library and Archives Canada
Health Canada
The National Research Council
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Additional federal agencies reported they don't keep track of
buildings that contain asbestos or are working on an inventory
they will later submit.

After Trudeau spoke at the policy conference, his officials
confirmed the Prime Minister's Office is reviewing its asbestos
strategy, including the possibility of a national ban.

If an official ban is approved in Canada, the nation will join
more than 55 countries that have already outlawed asbestos. The
World Health Organization calls for the use of safer alternatives.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victoria Man Given $100K Asbestos Cleanup Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reported that a man has been
forced to pay almost $100,000 to clean up demolition waste and
asbestos he illegally dumped across three Victorian farms.

The Environment Protection Authority launched an investigation
into the illegal dumping on West Wimmera farms following an
anonymous tip-off from a member of the public last November.

It would have cost the man about $15,000 to dispose of the waste
legally, but the enforced clean-up, including fines, has cost him
$95,000, the EPA said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Released in Fire Near Germany Border
--------------------------------------------------------------
Janene Pieters, writing for NL Times, reported that a large fire
destroyed a market in Katwijk.  The municipality believes that
asbestos was released in the fire and three homes were evacuated
as a precaution.

According to the Telegraaf, the fire started around 10:45 p.m. in
the so-called Free Market on Korte Ooijen. Three halls located
next to each other were completely destroyed. A fourth hall also
sustained damage.

Firefighters managed to get the fire under control and are still
working on extinguishing it.

The municipality believes that asbestos was released, but it is
unclear whether it spread throught he area.

The market was open every Saturday and consisted of about 1,500
stalls.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Denham Man's Family Seeks Info on Asbestos Death
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Herbert, writing for Get Bucks, reported that the the family
of a former university lecturer are searching for answers into his
death following a cancer diagnosis two years ago.

Martin Gaylard, from Denham, died aged 77 in March 2014 after he
was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a cancer of the lining of the
lung caused by asbestos exposure.

Now his family have launched an appeal for former colleagues of
his at Brunel University to come forward and provide any
information to support their search about how Mr Gaylard was
exposed to the dust.

Mr Gaylard was diagnosed in May 2013 after feeling increasingly
unwell and breathless since December 2012.

The father-of-two worked at a range of companies across the UK,
including W T Avery Limited as a graduate trainee engineer, before
moving to Brunel University in 1962 as an assistant lecturer in
both the Acton and Uxbridge campuses where he remained until his
retirement in 2000.

He spent a considerable amount of time in his vibrations lab and
was also responsible for supervising placement of students where
would visit them at site twice a year.

His widow, Elsbeth, and children, Alexei and Oliver, have
instructed specialist asbestos related disease lawyers at Irwin
Mitchell to help their fight for justice.

Elsbeth said: "The whole family are still in complete shock and to
know he died from an asbestos-related illness is heart-breaking.

"It was horrible to see him suffer in such a way. We now need to
know how this happened, and whether anything could have been done
to put a stop to his death.

"We're really hoping those who he worked with might be able to
help give us more information so that we can determine what caused
his terrible illness."

Joanne Jefferies, a lawyer representing the family, said:
"Mesothelioma is an aggressive and incurable cancer and has
devastating consequences for sufferers and their loved ones.
Sadly, despite employers knowing how dangerous it is, many in the
past did not do enough to manage the risks of asbestos exposure to
protect their employees.

"Because the illness is linked to exposure to asbestos decades ago
it can sometimes be difficult to find information on the working
conditions the victims have endured."

A spokesperson for Brunel University said: "The university can
confirm Mr Gaylard started working for Brunel College on September
1 1962 before becoming a lecturer at Brunel University. "He
retired September 30 1999 although it seems he continued to work
part time until September 30 2001. At this point the University
can provide no further comment."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Denial of Sanctions Sought by Company Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Madison-St. Clair Record reported that St. Clair County Circuit
Judge Stephen McGlynn properly denied sanctions that an asbestos
removal company sought against the Illinois Department of Public
Health, Fifth District appellate judges ruled on May 10.

They rejected an appeal from Lake Environmental Inc., which
claimed the department vindictively litigated a claim it knew it
would lose.

Justice James Moore wrote that reasonable judicial minds could
differ about whether continuing to defend the case amounted to
sanctionable conduct.

Presiding Justice Melissa Chapman and Justice Thomas Welch
concurred.

Chapman and Welch reversed a position they took in 2014, when they
and Justice Stephen Spomer declared McGlynn's decision invalid
because he didn't explain it.

Chapman and Welch changed their stance because all seven Justices
of the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that McGlynn didn't have to
explain.

The Supreme Court remanded the case to the Fifth District last
September, with instructions to determine whether McGlynn abused
his discretion.

Moore, who joined the court by appointment on Spomer's retirement,
wrote that the court couldn't say McGlynn abused his discretion.

In 2008, the Department of Public Health issued an emergency order
halting Lake Environmental's asbestos removal at Scott Air Force
Base due to violations of regulations.

The department pulled Lake Environmental from its list of approved
contractors.

After quick remediation, the department dismissed the proceedings
voluntarily.

The department sued Lake Environmental in 2010, seeking monetary
penalties, but McGlynn granted summary judgment to Lake
Environmental.

McGlynn invoked "res judicata," finding the department should have
sought penalties in the administrative proceedings it dismissed.

In 2011, the department revoked Lake Environmental's asbestos
abatement license based on the violations at Scott.

Lake Environmental petitioned for review of the revocation, and
McGlynn reinstated the license pending further proceedings at the
department.

Lake Environmental then moved for sanctions, arguing the
department should have known res judicata would bar its claims.

It further claimed the continued defense of the revocation
violated Supreme Court Rule 137, which prohibits pleadings for
improper purpose.

McGlynn held a hearing and issued an order stating only that he
denied the motion.

Lake Environmental moved for reconsideration and Circuit Judge
Robert Haida denied it in 2013, without explanation.

On appeal, in 2014, the Fifth District followed Second District
decisions holding that a judge who denies sanctions must explain
the decision.

The Supreme Court reversed the Fifth District decision and wiped
out the Second District precedents.

Chief Justice Rita Garman wrote, "Rule 137 expressly requires that
the circuit court provide an explanation of its decision any time
it imposes sanctions under the rule.

"The rule does not address any such requirement when the court
denies a motion for sanctions.

"The rule is designed to discourage frivolous filings, not to
punish parties for making losing arguments."

Garman wrote that it is logical to provide explanations when
imposing sanctions, to make clear to future litigants what conduct
will not be tolerated.

She also wrote that the Court wouldn't review possible abuse of
discretion, instructing the Fifth District to do that.

Back at the Fifth District, Moore couldn't find a case where a
reviewing court in Illinois reversed a circuit court order denying
sanctions.

He wrote that the department dismissed its proceedings to allow
asbestos abatement at Scott to recommence.

He wrote that although McGlynn found the department could have
pursued additional action within those proceedings, applying res
judicata in that context was a matter of first impression in
Illinois.

Assistant attorney general John Schmidt represented the
department, and David Antognoli of Goldenberg Heller in
Edwardsville represented Lake Environmental.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Shifts Approach to Exclusion Liability
-------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Yuen, Esq. -- justin.yuen@deacons.com.hk -- at Deacons, in
an article for Lexology.com, wrote that in Persimmon Homes Ltd and
others v Ove Arup & Partners Ltd and another [2015] EWHC 3573
(TCC), England's Technology and Construction Court was tasked with
interpreting limitation and exclusion clauses in a contract
relating to consultancy engineering services. The case reaffirms
that the courts will uphold exclusion and limitation clauses, as
long as they are drafted in such a way that the parties'
intentions are clearly expressed.

The Exclusion and Limitation of Liability Clause

The Claimant developers claimed that the Defendant consultants had
failed to identify and notify them of asbestos contamination of
the land to be purchased by the Claimant. The Defendant relied on
an exclusion and limitation of liability clause in the contract
appointing it, which read as follows:

"The Consultant's aggregate liability under this Agreement whether
in contract, tort (including negligence), for breach of statutory
duty or otherwise (other than for death or personal injury caused
by the Consultant's negligence) shall be limited to œ12,000,000.00
(twelve million pounds) with the liability for pollution and
contamination limited to œ5,000,000.00 (five million pounds) in
the aggregate. Liability for any claim in relation to asbestos is
excluded."

Preliminary Issues

Preliminary issues before the Court included whether the words
"Liability for any claim in relation to asbestos is excluded" had
the effect of excluding liability for the claim and, if not,
whether the Defendant's liability would be limited to
œ5,000,000.00.

The Court held that the words ?Liability for any claim in relation
to asbestos is excluded" did have the effect of excluding
liability for the claim. The court said that had it found that
those words did not exclude liability, it would have found that
liability was limited to œ5,000,000.00.

Shift in Court's approach

In coming to its conclusion, the Court said that there has been a
shift in the courts' approach to limitation and exclusion clauses
because it has been increasingly recognised that parties to
commercial contracts are and should be left free to apportion and
allocate risks and obligations, as they see fit, particularly
where insurance may be available to one or both of the parties to
cover the risks being allocated. Further, Parliament had chosen
not to extend the application of the Unfair Contract Terms Act
1977 to commercial contracting parties of equal bargaining
strength. The Court also referred to the fact that allocation of
risks in construction contracts has been commonplace in standard
building contracts for years.

The Court said that when interpreting an exclusion or limitation
of liability clause, the Court's task is essentially the same as
when it interprets any other contractual provision: it is to
identify what a reasonable person, having all the background
knowledge which would reasonably have been available to the
parties, would have understood the parties to have meant. The
Court said that in pursuing that task, the commercial or
contractual context may make it improbable that one party would
have agreed to assume responsibility for the relevant negligence
of another, so that clear words are needed.

Comment

The holding of the English Court is not surprising and is
consistent with the general approach of modern courts respecting
freedom of contract. Such approach can also be seen from the
judgments in Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El
MakdessiandParkingEye Limited v Beavis,reported on in our previous
article, where the English Supreme Court made it clear that in
relation to a negotiated contract between properly advised parties
of comparable bargaining power, the strong initial presumption
must be that the parties are themselves the best judges of what is
legitimate in a provision dealing with the consequences of a
breach.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Enters $5MM Verdict in Mar-Dustrial Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that an Oregon jury has awarded
$5 million to asbestos plaintiffs at the conclusion of a trial
against gasket supplier Mar-Dustrial, finding the lone remaining
defendant at the time of the verdict 22 percent liable for the
plaintiff's injuries.

Judge Jerry B. Hodson of the Oregon Circuit Court for Multnomah
County presided over the six-day trial, which ended on May 12
after one day of jury deliberations.

Plaintiffs Charles Eastridge and his wife, Pat, asserted the
claims, contending that Charles Eastridge's work at a planer mill
required him to work with dry kilns and boilers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Feared After Jerusalem Market Fire
------------------------------------------------------------
Times Of Israel reported that dozens of firefighters struggled to
contain a fire that broke out in Jerusalem's Givat Shaul
neighborhood, as the heat wave afflicting Israel entered its
second day.

The blaze broke out in a wholesale market and ignited the asbestos
roofs of several buildings, raising the risk of hazardous
substances spreading from the site. Flames consumed a thicket of
woods and threatened a local synagogue and the nearby Israel
Electric Corporation building.

The Jerusalem Fire Department said special units were dispatched
to the scene to monitor the possible spread of airborne asbestos.

No injuries were reported, but authorities said several buildings
and vehicles sustained damage from the fire. Videos of the
incident show worshipers at the Keter Synagogue removing the Torah
and other holy books from the building as flames approached.

Police temporarily closed Route 1, the main Tel Aviv-Jerusalem
highway, after the flames neared it.

Some 15 firefighting teams, two planes and a firefighter crane
truck battled the flames for three hours before reporting they
were under control.

The fire came as the country was hit by an unusually fierce heat
wave, with temperatures in Jerusalem soaring to a sweltering 38øC
(100øF).

Firefighters were also working to douse a blaze near the northern
city of Zichron Yaakov. Route 2 between the Pardes and Zichron
junctions was closed to traffic after heavy smoke severely
impaired visibility on the highway.

Earlier in the day, a brush fire near the city of Beit Shemesh,
about a 30-minute drive west of Jerusalem, burned more than 500
dunams (124 acres) of forest. Firefighters managed to put out the
fire, and no injuries were reported.

In light of the severe heat wave, the Israel Fire and Rescue
Services Commissioner Shimon Ben-Ner issued an order barring the
lighting of fires, including barbecues, from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m.
Monday. Those caught violating the order could be fined up to NIS
70,000 or face up to six months in prison.

The unseasonable weather in recent days was blamed for sparking a
number of brushfires and other smaller blazes that saw several
roads closed and prompted the evacuation of entire neighborhoods.

Blazes were reported in several areas around Jerusalem, including
between the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Shuafat and Pisgat
Ze'ev in the north of the city, as well as near the village of Abu
Ghosh, west of Jerusalem.

Residents of Beit Shemesh and Kfar Yona, near Netanya, were
temporarily evacuated from their homes as firefighters took on
large blazes in those areas. Other fires were reported at a Petah
Tikva kindergarten, in an orchard outside Netanya, and in the Neve
Sha'anan neighborhood of Haifa.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Weitz Pushes for Access to Cancer Research
-----------------------------------------------------------
Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C. said it agrees with Vice President Joe
Biden that the lives of more cancer victims could be saved if
cancer researchers were able to more freely access published
studies and, most importantly, their underlying data.

The nationally known personal injury and mass tort law firm said
it believes publishers of medical journals should make cancer
research data available at no cost to any cancer researcher who
wishes to view them.

Currently, cancer researchers are generally only able to read the
published studies if they pay for them, and have virtually no
access to the data supporting the studies, Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C.
said.

Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C. said its views mirror Vice President
Biden's recent calls, including, most recently at an April 20
cancer research conference in New Orleans, for such free access.

Shared Data Benefits Mesothelioma Patients:

Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C. said this desire to see cancer research
improved is particularly timely because May is National Cancer
Research Month in the U.S.

"We believe cancer research is incredibly important," the law firm
said. "It is important to the lives of the 1.6 million people who
the American Cancer Society estimates will be diagnosed in 2016
with one of more than 200 different types of cancer.

"Improved cancer research is also important to the approximately
14.5 million individuals who the American Association for Cancer
Research classifies as cancer survivors.

"Better cancer research is particularly important to many of our
clients. They are battling mesothelioma, one of the most
aggressive of all cancers."

Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C. said the plight of individuals with
mesothelioma is distressing because the cancer strikes only as a
result of exposure to the toxic mineral asbestos.

"Mesothelioma is something that need never have happened to our
clients," the law firm said. "While mesothelioma is incurable, it
is totally preventable by avoiding exposure to asbestos. Such
exposure occurred only because companies that manufactured and
sold products containing asbestos were reckless in failing to warn
workers of the hazard."

Cancer Research Critically Important to Veterans:

Weitz & Luxenberg noted that many stricken by mesothelioma became
exposed to asbestos during their service in the U.S. Navy and
other branches of the armed forces.

"We lament that, on this upcoming Memorial Day, while we honor the
fallen veterans that sacrificed their lives to protect our
country, so many who served have fallen victim to this fatal
cancer that need never have attacked them," the law firm said.

Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C. explained that many warships built before
the 1970s were laden with asbestos to provide fireproofing and
insulation in crew quarters, galleys, engine rooms, boiler rooms,
gun turrets, magazines and other vital areas.

Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C. said it is on behalf of veterans and all
other mesothelioma patients that it is throwing its full support
behind National Cancer Research Month and behind President Barack
Obama's plans for a "cancer moonshot" effort.

The White House announced in February that it wants nearly $1
billion spent over the next two years on cancer research as part
of this moonshot initiative, Weitz & Luxenberg said.

"We join the president and vice president in their expressed
desire to make America the country that cures cancer once and for
all," the law firm announced.

About Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C.:

Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C. is among the nation's leading and most
readily recognized personal injury and consumer protection law
firms. Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C.'s numerous litigation areas
include: mesothelioma, defective medicine and devices,
environmental pollutants, products liability, consumer protection,
accidents, personal injury, and medical malpractice. Victims of
consumer fraud are invited to rely on Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C.'s
more than 25 years of experience handling such cases. You can
contact the firm's Client Relations department at 800-476-6070 or
at info@weitzlux.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: TasWater Workers Handling Asbestos w/o Training
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kieran Jones, writing for ABC News, reported that TasWater workers
are not being trained properly in the safe handling of asbestos,
the union representing them says.

Tasmania has more than 1,700 kilometres of water pipes which were
made using asbestos, representing a quarter of the state's water
pipe network.

Trevor Gauld from the Communications, Electrical and Plumbing
Union (CEPU) said regional workers were not well-equipped to deal
with the ageing infrastructure.

"We're seeing situations where asbestos is not handled properly,
it's not baggaged properly, it's not disposed of properly," Mr
Gauld.

Taswater's manager of urban networks Tony Willmott said the claims
would be investigated.

"That is concerning, as I said we are committed to zero harm and
we want to make sure all our staff are adequately trained," Mr
Willmott said.

"To my knowledge all of our staff that are dealing with asbestos
are adequately trained. We have a dedicated team which looks after
that compliance."

Union critical of lack of mapping data

The union said staff were also in danger of mishandling the
potentially deadly substance because they did not know the full
layout of the network.

"I'm still talking to guys in some of those remote or outlying
depots where there are no comprehensive asbestos registers in
their workplace. Workers have not been trained in the safe
identification," Mr Gauld said.

"There are still large portions of Taswater's assets and
infrastructure that they don't even know what exists in the
ground, they have never identified it and never tracked it
properly.

"Dial before you dig is going to be useless. It's a matter of
people sticking a crow bar in the ground and hoping for the best
and that's not acceptable in 2016."

Taswater denied the accusations, and Mr Willmott said it provided
a comprehensive network map to workers.

"We have a G.I.S. [geographical mapping] system which maps all of
our assets, and they denote where the pipes are and what pipe
types they are," he said.

"Our team works very hard to make sure we've got accurate
information for our staff in the field."

People 'ambivalent' over asbestos

The Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency warned there were
significant dangers if the substance was not handled properly.

"The consequences of not putting in the safeguards at the time the
work's done has a payback 15, 20 years down the track when you
find yourself with an incurable asbestos cancer," chief executive
Peter Tighe said.

"It's something you can't really see at the time, and that's the
problem with asbestos, people tend to become ambivalent to the
material.

"It is a deadly substance and you do need to manage it properly."

TasWater said it was spending $100 million per year on asset
management, but could not say what percentage of that is spent on
asbestos removal.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Discovery Closes NZ Council Offices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Myles Hume, writing for The Press, reported that a surprise
asbestos discovery has closed part of the Hurunui District Council
offices and will hike renovation costs, its mayor says.

The toxic building material was found in the council's Amberley
offices early into a new refurbishment project, Hurunui district
mayor Winton Dalley said.

The offices of Dalley and chief executive Hamish Dobbie, have been
affected, along with the council chambers, the north wing office
block and reception.

The discovery prompted the council to immediately seal off the
older part of the offices and relocate staff. A public alert was
made.

Dalley said air testing found there was no asbestos risk to staff
or the public before the renovation. It was only discovered early
into refurbishment works and the council took immediate action.

The asbestos removal would include areas not previously earmarked
for renovation, he said.

Dalley expected renovation costs to increase as a result, but he
did not know by how much. He did not know the overall project
cost, referring that to Dobbie who could not be reached for
comment.

"We have taken a pragmatic move to remove all the asbestos from
the entire building . . . clearly there will be some more costs,
but it makes no sense not to completely remove all asbestos from
the building. It has to be done sooner or later.

"I don't anticipate there will be rate increases. We do have a
capital and property budget for repairs and maintenance. I haven't
had any indication from staff we are looking at anything
significant in the way of changing our budgets."

The renovation was planned to build a modern, open-plan, design
able to accommodate Environment Canterbury staff as well.

Ad Feedback

In an online statement, the council said professional asbestos
removers were brought in and had been following "strict industry
protocols".

Items removed from the offices would be wrapped and sealed before
being disposed of. The decontamination work is expected to take
between four and six weeks. After that, the refurbishment work
would continue and the building would be safe for staff to return.

Customer service staff have relocated to the Hurunui Memorial
Library, a few hundred metres from the council building in Carters
Rd. The service would run alongside library staff.

Dalley said council meetings could be held in halls in the
district.

Hurunui District Council customer and information services team
leader Naomi Woodham said customers may need to book appointments
while staff worked under different roofs.

"It may be a bit of a change for some of our customers that are
used to popping in on the off-chance of seeing the mayor or a
staff member without an appointment.

"Because staff are now working from different locations we are
strongly advising that customers give us a call first."

Customer services staff would provide normal services during
regular library opening hours, including late night opening on
Thursday until 6pm and Saturdays 9am-1pm.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lethal Asbestos Present in 70K in Ireland Homes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Rutherford, writing for Belfast Telegraph, reported that
almost 70,000 Housing Executive properties in Northern Ireland
have asbestos.

The cancer-causing fibres are present in nearly three-quarters of
dwellings, figures have revealed.

The details emerged after a Freedom of Information request by
online blog Beyond the Pillars. Asbestos was used extensively as a
building material between the 1950s and mid-1980s.

It is now banned, but remains in many schools, hospitals, offices
and factories.

It becomes dangerous when disturbed and, if inhaled, its fibres
can cause lung problems such as the fatal mesothelioma and
debilitating asbestosis.

Every year around 4,000 people die from mesothelioma and asbestos-
related lung cancer across the UK.

Beyond the Pillars found asbestos is present in 69,747 Housing
Executive properties across Northern Ireland.

That is equivalent to 71.43% of the Housing Executive's 98,000
stock.

Graham Dring from the Asbestos Victims' Support Groups Forum UK
said asbestos was a common problem for housing associations.

"We do know there are issues with asbestos in a lot of local
authority housing," he said. "It was widely used, particularly in
post-war housing, continuing into the Sixties, Seventies and
Eighties.

"The long-term policy has got to be getting asbestos out of
properties.

"Things like fires or accidental damage in any building containing
asbestos carry the risk of exposure to tenants and their families.

"Therefore it is best to eradicate asbestos from the properties,
although we recognise this cannot happen overnight."

The Housing Executive said asbestos had been treated at 1,397
properties since 2011 at a cost of œ297,863. The highest number of
properties is in the Coleraine area -- 198 at a cost of œ33,224

In south Belfast a further œ33,420 was spent treating 175
properties.

A Housing Executive spokesperson said: "The Housing Executive has
a programme in place to manage asbestos in all of its properties.
As part of that, we inspect all of our properties.

"We advise all of our tenants of the process and what happens if
asbestos is found and if any action is required. This also
includes advice around house sales and home improvements.

"We would stress that the asbestos in the majority of our
properties is low-risk, i.e. it is present in floor or roof tiles,
soffits etc. Asbestos only poses a risk if it is disturbed.

"Our tenants are advised that they should not be making changes to
their properties without approval from the Housing Executive, at
which stage we will check if asbestos survey details are
available. If not, we will acquire a survey relevant to the works

"All our surveys are risk-assessed and asbestos is only removed
when it is deemed likely to cause a risk to the occupants or any
other visitor."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. App. Reverses Judgment in "Sutherland"
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit, reversed the
trial court's judgment, and remanded the action styled ELIZABETH
GAILYNE SUTHERLAND v. ALMA PLANTATION, L.L.C., ANCO INSULATIONS,
INC., ARROWOOD INDEMNITY COMPANY, EAGLE INC. F/K/A EAGLE ASBESTOS
& PACKING COMPANY CO. INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, TAYLOR-SEIDENBACH, INC., AND
THE MCCARTY CORPORATION, No. 2015-CA-1136, for further
proceedings.

This appeal arises from the death of Mrs. Elizabeth Gailyne
Sutherland, plaintiffs Brian J. Chustz, individually and as
executor of the estate, James S. Chustz, David K. Chustz, and
Nicholas K. Sutherland's mother, from mesothelioma. Decedent
alleged that she was exposed to asbestos when she laundered her
first husband's work clothes and while cleaning their home. The
sugar mill where decedent's first husband worked part-time filed a
motion for partial summary judgment contending that there was no
foreseeable duty to protect the decedent, as a wife of a part-time
electrician's helper working as an independent contractor in the
mill. The trial court granted the summary judgment finding that
the plaintiffs would be the more likely party to seek appellate
review of the judgment.

This court found that the trial court erroneously granted Alma's
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment because factual issues remain
that would assist in determining whether Alma owed Mrs. Sutherland
a duty.

A full-text copy of the Decision dated May 4, 2016 is available at
https://is.gd/fYuUdm from Leagle.com.

Eric R. Nowak, Shirin E. Harrell, Esq. -- HARRELL & NOWAK, LLC,
650 Poydras Street, Suite 2107, New Orleans, LA 70130-6198, AND
Charles Valles, Esq. -- HARRELL & NOWAK, LLC,  Brett M. Powers,
Esq. -- DuBOSE LAW FIRM, PLLC, 5646 Milton Street, Suite 321,
Dallas, TX 75206, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS, ELIZABETH
GAILYN SUTHERLAND, JAMES CHUSTZ, JR., DAVID CHUSTZ, BRIAN CHUSTZ,
AND NICHOLAS SUTHERLAND.

Andrew L. Plauche', Jr., Esq. -- Aplauche@pmpllp.com -- Kenan S.
Rand, Jr., Esq. -- Krand@pmpllp.com -- James K. Ordeneaux, Esq. --
Jordeneaux@pmpllp.com -- Katelyn W. Harrell, Esq. --
Kharrell@pmpllp.com -- PLAUCHE' MASELLI PARKERSON L.L.P., 701
Poydras Street, Suite 3800, New Orleans, LA 70139-3800, AND Gary
A. Bezet, Esq. -- gary.bezet@keanmiller.com  -- KEAN, MILLER, LLP,
Gayla M. Moncla, Esq. ? gayla.moncla@keanmiller.com -- KEAN,
MILLER, LLP,  Barrye P. Miyagi, Esq. ?
barrye.miyagi@keanmiller.com -- KEAN, MILLER, LLP, Robert E.
Dille, Esq. ? robert.dille@keanmiller.com -- KEAN, MILLER, LLP,
Gregory M. Anding, Esq. ? gregory.anding@keanmiller.com -- KEAN,
MILLER, LLP, Allison N. Benoit, Esq. --
allison.benoit@keanmiller.com -- KEAN, MILLER, LLP, 400 Convention
Street, Suite 700, Baton Rouge, LA 70821, COUNSEL FOR
DEFENDANT/APPELLEE, ALMA PLANTATION, L.L.C.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio App. Partially Affirms "Blandford" Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County,
affirmed the trial court's judgment in part (with respect to
strict liability), and reverse in part (with respect to negligent
failure to warn) in the case styled ESTATE OF IAN W. BLANDFORD, ET
AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. A.O. SMITH CORPORATION, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES, No. 103030, 2016-Ohio-2835.

Plaintiffs-appellants, the estate of Ian W. Blandford and Donna
Blandford, appeal the trial court's judgment granting summary
judgment to defendant-appellee, The Edward R. Hart Company.
Appellants raise a single assignment of error that the trial court
erred by entering an order granting summary judgment in favor of
Hart where genuine issues of material fact existed as to its
liability as a supplier.

The court found that genuine issues of material fact remain
regarding whether Hart was negligent for failing to warn about the
dangers of asbestos.

The case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.

A full-text copy of the Journal Entry and Opinion dated May 5,
2016 is available at https://is.gd/cRE1EZ from Leagle.com.

Anthony Gallucci, Esq. --  Kelley & Ferraro, L.L.P., Brian R.
Herberth, Esq. --  Kelley & Ferraro, L.L.P., William D. Mason,
Esq. -- Kelley & Ferraro, L.L.P., 127 Public Square, 220 Key
Tower, Cleveland Ohio 44114, Attorneys for Appellants.

Kurt S. Siegfried, Esq., James N. Kline, Esq., Bruce P. Mandel,
Esq., Robert E. Zulandt, Esq., Ulmer & Berne, L.L.P., 1660 West
2nd Street, Suite 1100, Cleveland, Ohio 44113, Attorneys for
Appellee


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio App. Reverses Judgment in "Watkins"
---------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County,
reversed the trial court's judgment in the case BARBARA WATKINS,
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF GLENN F. WATKINS,
DECEASED, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. AFFINIA GROUP, ET AL. DEFENDANTS,
[Appeal By Honeywell International, Inc.],  No. 102538, 2016-Ohio-
2830.

Defendant-appellant, Honeywell International Inc., appealed a
judgment, rendered after a jury trial, in favor of plaintiff-
appellee, Barbara Watkins, individually and as executor of the
estate of Glenn Watkins. Honeywell raised the following four
assignments of error:

   (1) The trial court committed reversible error by permitting
plaintiff's causation experts to testify, over defendant's
objections in limine renewed during trial, that (1) each or every
exposure of asbestos is a substantial contributing cause of
pleural mesothelioma; (2) if a person develops mesothelioma and
there is evidence of any asbestos exposure from a product
(regardless of fiber or dose), then the disease was caused by
asbestos from the identified products; (3) plaintiff's
mesothelioma was caused by exposure to brake dust.

   (2) The trial court committed reversible error when it gave the
jury a cautionary instruction during trial over defendant's
objection which, contrary to R.C. 2307.954(B), stated that a
plaintiff receives only partial compensation from bankruptcy trust
claims and that the usual rules of evidence and proof of causation
have been eased with respect to these claims.

   (3) The trial court committed reversible error by permitting
plaintiff's expert witnesses, over defendant's in limine objection
renewed at trial, to testify concerning a publication entitled
Asbestos Exposure Causes Mesothelioma, But Not This Asbestos
Exposure: An Amicus Brief to the Michigan Supreme Court by Laura
S. Welch, et al., Int. J. Occup. Environ. Health 2007; 13:318-27,
both because the article is hearsay for which there is no valid
exception to its exclusion and pursuant to Evid.R. 403, the
article should have been excluded because any probative value
contained in the article was substantially outweighed by one of
three dangers: unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or
misleading the jury.

   (4) The trial court committed reversible error by denying
defendant's motion for directed verdict as to plaintiff's
statutory claim for design defect, because plaintiff failed to
offer any evidence as required by R.C. 2307.75(F) that a feasible
alternative formulation existed with respect to the asbestos
utilized in the defendant's brakes at issue.

The trial court did not properly execute its duty as gatekeeper
because, without a hearing, the court could not independently
examine and evaluate the reliability of Drs. Arthur L. Frank's and
James A. Strauchen's expert testimony. Therefore, their testimony
was admitted in error.

A full-text copy of the Opinion dated May 5, 2016 is available at
https://is.gd/fcFTki from Leagle.com.

Steven G. Blackmer, Esq. -- sblackmer@willmanlaw.com --  Willman &
Silvaggio, Melanie M. Irwin, Esq. ? mirwin@willmanlaw.com --
Willman & Silvaggio, One Corporate Center, 5500 Corporate Drive,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15237, Michael W. Weaver, McDermott Will
& Emery, L.L.P., 227 West Monroe St., Chicago, IL 60606, Attorneys
for Appellant.

Christopher J. Hickey, Kevin E. McDermott, Esq. --
kevin.mcdermott@kmcdermottlaw.com -- McDermott & Hickey, L.L.C.,
20525 Center Ridge Road, Suite 200, Rocky River, Ohio 44116;
Jerome H. Block, Donald P. Blydenburgh, Levy Konigsberg, L.L.P.,
800 Third Avenue, 11th Floor, New York, New York 10022, Attorneys
for Appellee.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Prison Officials Issued Summons in Inmate Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the Complaint styled NOU THAO, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA PRISON
INDUSTRY AUTHORITY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-01098-PJH,
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, ordered the clerk to issue a
summons and the United States Marshal will serve, without
prepayment of fees, copies of the complaint with attachments and
copies of this order on the following defendants, who apparently
work in the Prison Industries Section of San Quentin State Prison
(CAL-PIA): Joe Dobie, Gary Loredo, Brad Smith, Jeremy Young, and
Philip Early.

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed a pro se civil rights
complaint under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.  He has been granted leave
to proceed in forma pauperis.  Plaintiff states that he was
exposed to lead paint and asbestos while working in a prison
facility.

A full-text copy of the Order of Service dated April 22, 2016 is
available at https://is.gd/rg8eZr from Leagle.com.

Nou Thao, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


                            *********

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  * * *