CAR_Public/160617.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, June 17, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 121




                            Headlines


29 PRIME INC: Certification of Class Sought in "Marlowe" Suit
AAC HOLDINGS: Seeks Dismissal of Kasper and Tenzyk Cases
AARON'S INC: Motion Requesting Stay Remains Pending
AARON'S INC: "Byrd" Lawsuit Remains Pending
AARON'S INC: Motion to Dismiss "Winslow" Case Remains Pending

AARON'S INC: Class Cert. Bid in "Peterson" Case Remains Pending
AARON'S INC: Scheduling Order Entered in "Foster" Case
ABC TELEVISION: "Muhammed" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
ACE AMERICAN: Certification of 2 Classes Sought in "Morgan" Suit
ACS DATALINE: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Labor Class Action

AIRBNB: CEO to Take Measures After Racial Discrimination Claims
ALL BORO: "Marte" Suit to Recover Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
AMERICAN PROFIT: Wheeler Seeks Certification of FDCPA Class
AVVO INC: Certification of Class Sought in "Vrdolyak" Suit
BANK OF AMERICA: "Genesee County" Sues Over Anti-Trust Violations

BATS GLOBAL: City of Providence Appeal Ongoing
BATS GLOBAL: Lanier Class Action Appeal Ongoing
BLUE CROSS: 6th Cir. Overturns $30 Million Accord
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Sued in Conn. Super. Ct. Over Pradaxa
BOXER PROPERTY: "Shelby" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay

BRONCS INC: "Harris" Sues Over Anti-Trust Violations
CANADA: Forum to Address Bingo Class Action Opt-Out Period Issues
CBE GROUP: C. Perez Files Placeholder Motion to Certify Class
CBS RADIO: Faces Class Action Over Unwanted Text Messages
CELLCEUTIX CORP: NY Court Dismisses Securities Class Action

CHARLES SCHWAB: Appeal in Total Bond Market Fund Case Pending
CHECK-6 INC: "Goodly" Labor Case Transferred to N.D. Okla.
CHIASMA INC: Faces Securities Class Action in Massachusetts
CIGNA CORP: Updates on Amara Cash Balance Pension Plan Litigation
CIGNA CORP: Third Circuit Affirmed Decisions in "Franco"

CLEVELAND INTEGRITY: "Gundrum" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
COMMERCE BANK: "Warren" Case Remains Pending and Stayed
COMMUNITY TRAFFIC: "Demeuse" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
CORYELL COUNTY: Castro Seeks Conditional Class Certification
CREDIT CONTROL: Certification of Class Sought in "Elaine" Class

CVS HEALTH: Bordenet Seeks Certification of Classes and Subclass
DENTSPLY SIRONA: Defending Weinstat and Nathan Case Appeal
DENTSPLY SIRONA: Hearings This Month in "Hildebrand" Case
DENTSPLY SIRONA: Merger Class Actions Withdrawn
DESIGNED RECEIVABLE: Seana Goodson Seeks Certification of Class

DOLGENCORP LLC: "Barfoot" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2709
DOLGENCORP LLC: "Flinn" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2709
DOLGENCORP LLC: "Hill" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2709
DOLGENCORP LLC: "Sisemore" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2709
DOLGENCORP LLC: "Foppe" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2709

DOLGENCORP LLC: "Harvey" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2709
DOLGENCORP LLC: "Wait" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2709
DOLLAR GENERAL: Local Customers Join Oil Marketing Class Action
DOMINO'S PIZZA: Seeks Final Approval of "Kohler" Suit Settlement
DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Appeals N.D. Cal. Ruling in "Nitsch" Suit

EL POLLO LOCO: Working to Memorialize Settlement in Labor Suit
EL POLLO LOCO: Dismissal of Consolidated "Turocy" Action Sought
EMPIRE DISTRICT ELECTRIC: Defending Against Merger Lawsuit
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: 3rd Amended Complaint Filed in N.D. Ill. Suit
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: OPANA(R) ER Lawsuits Pending in N.D. Ill.

F-19 HOLDINGS: Appeal From E.D. Ky. Ruling Filed in "Malik" Suit
FARMER BROS: Aug. 12 Status Conference Set in "Hernandez" Case
FIFTH THIRD: Settlement in Dudenhoeffer Awaits Final Approval
FIFTH THIRD: Parties in Klopfenstein Case Engaged in Discovery
FIRST CITIZENS: Faces "Coroa" Suit in Mass. Superior Court

FIRST HORIZON: Defending Debit Transaction Sequencing Litigation
FITBIT INC: Faces Investor Class Action in California Over IPO
GLOBAL TEL*LINK: Stuart Seeks Certification of Class & Subclasses
H&R BLOCK: Perras Files Appeal in 8th Cir. From W.D. Mo. Ruling
HEALTHWAYS INC: Court Dismissed California Action

HOMEAWAY: Faces Class Action Over VRBO.com Platinum Membership
HORIZON SATELLITES: "Warren" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
HORRY ELECTRIC: Seeks Reimbursement of Class Action Costs
IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Faces Securities Class Action in New Jersey
INDIANA: Ex-BMV Official Fined for Ethics Violation Amid Suit

KANSAS UNIVERSITY: Former Rower Joins Class Action
KTOWN TRANSPORTATION: "Konarski" Suit Deal OK'd, Case Dismissed
LAYNE CHRISTENSEN: "Marquez" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
MDL 2325: Updates on Vaginal Mesh Cases v. Endo
MDL 2521: 2017 Trial in Lidoderm Suit vs. Endo

MDL 2545: 1,111 Testosterone Product Cases v. Endo Pending
MEDPRO GROUP: Carrel Seeks Certification of FLSA Class in Indiana
METRO PARKING: "Mirabal" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
MGM RESORTS: Appellant's Opening Brief Due in July 2016
MIAMI-DADE CTY, FL: Wins Stay for Nine Months in CAIR Class Suit

MICHAEL FOODS: Still Defends Suits v. Egg Producers
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Former UT Player Files Concussion Class Action
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Retired Players Defend "Evans" Suit v. Teams
NATIONAL RECOVERY: Zirogiannis Renews Bid for Class Certification
NESTOR CHAYELE: "Sanchez" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay

NEW YORK: NYC Fire Dept. Faces Electrical Workers' Suit
OLD NATIONAL: Hearing Held to Approve $4.75MM Settlement
OLD REPUBLIC: 10 of 12 Class Actions Dismissed
ORACLE CORP: "Klarfeld" Suit Alleges Accounting Malpractice
ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Wants 2nd Amended SEPTA Complaint Dismissed

PALOS VERDES, CA: Has Until July 6 to Decide on Surfer Gang Fort
PETAL PRODUCTIONS: "Cayuqueo" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
PRECOR INC: Ill. Court Certifies Two Classes in "Mednick" Suit
PROPETRO SERVICES: "Munoz" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
RAYONIER INC: Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Pending

RINGCENTRAL INC: Supply Pro Sorbents Filed Class Action
ROKA BIOSCIENCE: In Settlement Discussions for $3.3 Million
SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Bid to Dismiss "Baker" Suit Due June 29
SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Consumer Class Suits Pending in Calif.
SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Court Vacates on Hearing in "Anderson"

SHERWOOD LUMBER: "Alvarez" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT, Agreed Wages
SIENTRA INC: Plaintiffs Oppose Dismissal of Class Suit
SIENTRA INC: Plaintiffs Urged Court to Remand
SOLARCITY CORP: "Gibbs" Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Call
SOULCYCLE: First-Time Rider Files Class Action Over Injuries

STARTEK WORKFORCE: "Ayala" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
SUPERIOR ENERGY: "Rowe" Suit to Recover Unpaid Back Wages
TALMER BANCORP: Livonia Plaintiff Files Amended Complaint
TALMER BANCORP: Bushansky State Court Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
TALMER BANCORP: 3 Class Suits Pending in E.D. Michigan

TEXTURA CORPORATION: Mediation Scheduled for June 24
THERANOS INC: Sued Over Deceptive Blood Testing Unit Marketing
THREE SEASONS LANDSCAPE: Class Cert. Sought in "Urrutia" Action
TRU-FLEX METAL: Faces Adams Pointe Suit in W.D. Penn.
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Louisiana Businessman Opts Out of Class Action

TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Discovery Underway in "Cohen" Suit
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Donald Trump's Deposition Videos Not Public
TRUSTMARK CORPORATION: Motion to Dismiss Amended Suit Pending
UBER & LYFT: Face Class Suit Over Mass Layoffs in Texas
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: NY Taxi Alliance Suit to Recover Overtime Pay

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Shaver" Suit in S.D. Fla.
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Plaintiffs' Attorney to Reduce Fee Request
UNITED STATES: DHS Settlement to Benefit Autistic Pa. Children
VCA INC: Payments to Class Members to be Disbursed in Late June
VCA INC: Defendants' Opposition to Class Certification Due

VINCENT CARR: Certification of Class Sought in "Saunders" Suit
VISIONWORKS OF AMERICA: Faces "Lenart" Suit in N.D. Ill.
WALT DISNEY: Seeks Appellate Review in No Poach Litigation
WINSTON-SALEM, NC: Kernersville Residents Sue Over Sewer Fees
WOOD GROUP: McLemore Seeks Conditional Certification of Class

YELP INC: Plaintiffs' Ninth Circuit Appeal Remains Pending
YELP INC: $1.1 Million Released to Fund Settlement et al.
ZYNGA INC: Court Has Yet to Enter Schedule in "Lee" Case

* South Africa's Coal Miners Face Silicosis Litigation Threat
* Section 245 Provision to Impact India's Company Law Regime
* Post-GFC Environment Sparks More Class Action in Australia


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motors Faces 1,620 Cases at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Haynes Involved in 3 Suits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Still Defending Suits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Faced 36K Asbestos Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Curtiss-Wright Still Defends Suits at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: HWC Continues to Defend Suits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Unit Faced 258 Suits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Partners Unit Accrues $1.4MM at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Univar Had Less Than 220 Claims Pending at Mar 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: HII Continues to Defend Suits at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleaver-Brooks Wins Summary Judgment
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Special Electric Liable for Failure to Warn
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Orders Expert Disclosure Stricken
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GE's Bid to Exclude Testimony in "Arbogast" OK'd
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 9th Cir. Reverses Summary Judgment in "Botts"

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Amtrak's Bid to Compel Discovery Partially OK'd
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dismissal of City's 3rd-Party Suit Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bare Metal Defense Bars Claims, Court Rules
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Remand "Murray" to State Court Granted
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Massachusetts Insurers Lose Summary Judgment Bid

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judgment vs. Honeywell in "Schwartz" Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: JCSD1 Named Defendant in Asbestos Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NZ Bans Imports of Asbestos-Containing Products
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Judge Recommends Remand of Exposure Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Maine High Court Affirms Summary Judgment Awards

ASBESTOS UPDATE: KiwiRail's Asbestos Headache Continues in Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Dumped Outside Kingsgrove Food Biz
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Woman's Death Caused by Washing Overalls
ASBESTOS UPDATE: More Asbestos Dumped in Chilliwack River Valley
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Irish Bldg Sites Sent Asbestos-filled Materials

ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Fully Fund Share of Pittsburgh Corning Trust
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Ban in US Inches Closer with New Law
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos in Gym Unlikely a Health Risk
ASBESTOS UPDATE: HRL Wins Contamination Contract in NZ
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Changes to WCA Breath of Fresh Air for Victims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Retired Accountant Dies of Asbestos Disease
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Illegal Imports from China Provokes Anger
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Man To Be Arraigned on Removal Charges
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Industry Kept Secret That Products Were Deadly
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Adelaide Co. Under Probe for Asbestos Imports

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mackenzie Council Adopts Disposal Proposal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIG, Travelers Not Liable for Claims Payment
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Labor Union Accused of Hiding Risks at Bakeries
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victim's Family Seeks Answers to Asbestos Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Call for Inquiry Into Dangers at Bldg Site

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found on Mill Run Facility
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 6th Cir. Affirms $10-Mil. Penalty


                            *********


29 PRIME INC: Certification of Class Sought in "Marlowe" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled SHASTA MARLOWE, GREGORY
CHICK, and ADAM RUSSELL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. 29 PRIME, INC., a Nevada corporation; OC
LISTING, INC., a California corporation, LOCAL ZOOM, a California
corporation, TONY REDMAN, and RUSSELL WALLACE, Case No. 3:14-cv-
00550-EDL (N.D. Cal.), seek certification of these classes:

     Class I: All persons in the United States to whom: (a)
              Defendants, and/or third parties acting on
              Defendants' behalf, made one or more non-emergency
              telephone calls; (b) to their cellular telephone
              number; (c) with a prerecorded message; (d) at any
              time between May 6, 2009 and trial.

    Class II: All persons in the United States who: (a) received
              more than one telemarketing call, made by
              Defendants and/or on Defendants' behalf; (b) more
              than 30 days after requesting not to receive
              further telemarketing calls; (c) in a 12-month
              period; (d) on their cellular telephone line or
              residential telephone line; and (e) at any time
              between May 6, 2009 and trial.

   Class III: All individuals in the Commonwealth of
              Massachusetts to whom (a) Defendants or their
              affiliated companies or agents thereof made more
              than one unsolicited telephonic sales calls within
              a twelve month period; (b) by use of a recorded
              message device; (c) at any time between May 6, 2009
              and trial.

    Class IV: All persons in the State of California to whom
              Defendants or their affiliated companies, at any
              time between May 6, 2009 and trial, made one or
              more non-emergency telephone calls, without the
              recipient's prior consent or a prior established
              relationship with the recipient, that did not
              include an unsolicited, natural voice first
              informing the person answering of the name and
              organization of the caller and either the address
              or telephone number of the caller.

Excluded from the Classes are the Defendants, any entity in which
the Defendants have a controlling interest or that has a
controlling interest in Defendants, and Defendants' legal
representatives, assignees, and successors.  Also excluded are the
judge to who this case is assigned, the judge's staff, and any
member of the judge's immediate family.

The Court will commence a hearing on September 6, 2016, at 9:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=G9eFM7mr

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael F. Ram, Esq.
          Matt Malone, Esq.
          RAM, OLSON, CEREGHINO & KOPCZYNSKI LLP
          101 Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-4949
          Facsimile: (415) 433-7311
          E-mail: mram@rocklawcal.com
                  mjm@rocklawcal.com

               - and -

          Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
          Mary B. Reiten, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
          936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
          Seattle, Washington 98103-8869
          Telephone: (206) 816-6603
          Facsimile: (206) 350-3528
          E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
                  mreiten@terrellmarshall.com

               - and -

          Roblin J. Williamson, Esq.
          Kathryn "Kim" Williams, Esq.
          WILLIAMSON & WILLIAMS
          936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
          Seattle, Washington 98103-8869
          Telephone: (206) 446-6230
          Facsimile: (206) 535-7899
          E-mail: roblin@williamslaw.com
                  kim@williamslaw.com

               - and -

          Matthew Kupillas, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP
          One Penn Plaza, 49th Floor
          New York, New York 10119-0165
          Telephone: (212) 594-5300
          Facsimile: (212) 868-1229
          E-mail: mkupillas@milberg.com

               - and -

          David Pastor, Esq.
          PASTOR LAW OFFICE, LLP
          63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor
          Boston, Massachusetts
          Telephone: (617) 742-9700
          Facsimile: (617) 742-9701
          E-mail: dpastor@pastorlawoffice.com

               - and -

          Preston W. Leonard, Esq.
          LEONARD LAW OFFICE, P.C.
          63 Atlantic Avenue, 3d Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 395-1295
          E-mail: pleonard@theleonardlawoffice.com


AAC HOLDINGS: Seeks Dismissal of Kasper and Tenzyk Cases
--------------------------------------------------------
AAC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company seeks
dismissal of the cases, Kasper v. AAC Holdings, Inc. et al. and
Tenzyk c. AAC Holdings, Inc. et al.

On August 24, 2015, a shareholder filed a purported class action
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers.  The plaintiff generally alleges that the Company
and certain of its current and former officers violated Sections
10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and/or
misleading statements and failing to disclose certain information.
On September 14, 2015, a second class action against the same
defendants asserting essentially the same allegations was filed in
the same court.  On October 26, 2015, the court entered an order
consolidating these two described actions into one action.

On April 14, 2016, the Company and the individual defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim.
The Company intends to defend this action vigorously.  At this
time, the Company cannot predict the results of litigation with
certainty and cannot estimate the amount or range of loss, if any.
The Company believes the disposition of this action will not have
a material adverse effect on its consolidated results of
operations or consolidated financial position.


AARON'S INC: Motion Requesting Stay Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------
Aaron's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company's motion
requesting a stay on issuance of class notice remains pending.

In Margaret Korrow, et al. v. Aaron's, Inc., originally filed in
the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, Law Division
on October 26, 2010, plaintiff filed suit on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated alleging that the Company is liable in
damages to plaintiff and each class member because the Company's
lease agreements issued after March 16, 2006 purportedly violated
certain New Jersey state consumer statutes. Plaintiff's complaint
seeks treble damages under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and
statutory penalty damages of $100 per violation of all contracts
issued in New Jersey, and also claims that there are multiple
violations per contract. The Company removed the lawsuit to the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on
December 6, 2010 (Civil Action No.: 10-06317(JAP)(LHG)).

Plaintiff on behalf of herself and others similarly situated seeks
equitable relief, statutory and treble damages, pre- and post-
judgment interest and attorneys' fees. Discovery on this matter is
closed.

On July 31, 2013, the Court certified a class comprising all
persons who entered into a rent-to-own contract with the Company
in New Jersey from March 16, 2006 through March 31, 2011. In
August 2013, the Court of Appeals denied the Company's request for
an interlocutory appeal of the class certification issue.

On October 4, 2013, the Company also filed a motion to allow
counterclaims against all newly certified class members who may
owe legitimate fees or damages to the Company or who failed to
return merchandise to the Company prior to obtaining ownership.

On August 14, 2015, the Company filed a motion for partial summary
judgment seeking judicial dismissal of a portion of the claims in
the case. The motion filed October 4, 2013 to allow counterclaims
was denied by the magistrate judge on June 30, 2014, and that
decision was confirmed by the District Court on November 30, 2015.

On December 23, 2015, the Company filed a motion requesting
permission for an interlocutory appeal of the denial of the motion
to add counterclaims to the United States Third Circuit Court of
Appeals, which also remains pending. On February 23, 2016, the
Court granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion for
partial summary judgment filed August 14, 2015, dismissing
plaintiff's claims that the pro-rate violated the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act, but denying summary judgment on the claim that
Aaron's Service Plus violated the same act. On March 7, 2016, the
Company moved for limited reconsideration of that ruling.

On March 24, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion for approval of
issuance of class notice. The Company has filed a motion
requesting a stay on issuance of class notice pending the ruling
on the request for limited reconsideration of the partial summary
judgment ruling and the request for interlocutory review of the
denial of the motion to add counterclaims filed on December 23,
2015. That motion remains pending.


AARON'S INC: "Byrd" Lawsuit Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------
The case, Crystal and Brian Byrd v. Aaron's, Inc., Aspen Way
Enterprises, Inc., John Does (1-100) Aaron's Franchisees and
Designerware, LLC, remains pending, Aaron's, Inc. said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016.

In Crystal and Brian Byrd v. Aaron's, Inc., Aspen Way Enterprises,
Inc., John Does (1-100) Aaron's Franchisees and Designerware, LLC,
filed on May 16, 2011, in the United States District Court,
Western District of Pennsylvania (Case No. 1:11-CV-00101-SPB),
plaintiffs alleged that the Company and its independently owned
and operated franchisee Aspen Way Enterprises ("Aspen Way")
knowingly violated plaintiffs' privacy in violation of the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA") and the Computer
Fraud Abuse Act and sought certification of a putative nationwide
class. Plaintiffs based these claims on Aspen Way's use of a
software program called "PC Rental Agent." Although the District
Court dismissed the Company from the original lawsuit on March 20,
2012, after certain procedural motions, on May 23, 2013, the Court
granted plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a third amended
complaint, which asserted the claims under the ECPA, common law
invasion of privacy, added a request for injunction, and named
additional independently owned and operated Company franchisees as
defendants. Plaintiffs filed the third amended complaint, and the
Company moved to dismiss that complaint on substantially the same
grounds as it sought to dismiss plaintiffs' prior complaints.
Plaintiffs seek monetary damages as well as injunctive relief.

Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on July 1,
2013, and the Company's response was filed in August 2013. On
March 31, 2014, the United States District Judge dismissed all
claims against all franchisees other than Aspen Way Enterprises,
LLC. The Court also dismissed claims for invasion of privacy,
aiding and abetting, and conspiracy against all defendants. In
addition, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify the
class. Finally, the Judge denied the Company's motion to dismiss
the violation of ECPA claims. Plaintiffs requested and received
immediate appellate review of these rulings by the United States
Third Circuit Court of Appeals. On April 10, 2015, the Court of
Appeals reversed the denial of class certification on the grounds
stated by the District Court, and remanded the case back to the
District Court for further consideration of that and the other
elements necessary for class certification. The District Court has
not issued a new ruling on those matters.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.


AARON'S INC: Motion to Dismiss "Winslow" Case Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company's motions
to dismiss and strike certain allegations in the case by Michael
Winslow and Fonda Winslow remain pending.

In Michael Winslow and Fonda Winslow v. Sultan Financial
Corporation, Aaron's, Inc., John Does (1-10), Aaron's Franchisees
and Designerware, LLC, filed on March 5, 2013 in the Los Angeles
Superior Court (Case No. BC502304), plaintiffs assert claims
against the Company and its independently owned and operated
franchisee, Sultan Financial Corporation (as well as certain John
Doe franchisees), for unauthorized wiretapping, eavesdropping,
electronic stalking, and violation of California's Comprehensive
Computer Data Access and Fraud Act and its Unfair Competition Law.
Each of these claims arises out of the alleged use of PC Rental
Agent software. The plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief and
damages in connection with the allegations of the complaint.
Plaintiffs are also seeking certification of a putative California
class. Plaintiffs are represented by the same counsel as in the
above-described Byrd litigation.

In April 2013, the Company timely removed this matter to federal
court. On May 8, 2013, the Company filed a motion to stay this
litigation pending resolution of the Byrd litigation, a motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim, and a motion to strike
certain allegations in the complaint. The Court subsequently
stayed the case. The Company's motions to dismiss and strike
certain allegations remain pending.

On June 6, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion to lift the stay,
which was denied on July 11, 2015.


AARON'S INC: Class Cert. Bid in "Peterson" Case Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification in the case, Michael Peterson v. Aaron's,
Inc. and Aspen Way Enterprises, Inc., remains pending.

In Michael Peterson v. Aaron's, Inc. and Aspen Way Enterprises,
Inc., filed on June 19, 2014, in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia (Case No. 1:14-cv-01919-TWT),
several plaintiffs allege that they leased computers for use in
their law practice. The plaintiffs claim that the Company and
Aspen Way knowingly violated plaintiffs' privacy and the privacy
of plaintiffs' legal clients in violation of the ECPA and the
Computer Fraud Abuse Act. Plaintiffs seek certification of a
putative nationwide class. Plaintiffs based these claims on Aspen
Way's use of PC Rental Agent software. The plaintiffs claim that
information and data obtained by defendants through PC Rental
Agent was attorney-client privileged. The Company has filed a
motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint. On June 4, 2015,
the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss all claims
except a claim for aiding and abetting invasion of privacy.
Plaintiffs then filed a second amended complaint alleging only the
invasion of privacy claims that survived the June 4, 2015 court
order, and adding a claim for unjust enrichment. The Company filed
a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, and on September
16, 2015, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim. The only remaining claim
against the Company is a claim for aiding and abetting invasion of
privacy.

Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on March 18,
2016. The Company responded in opposition to that motion, which
remains pending.


AARON'S INC: Scheduling Order Entered in "Foster" Case
------------------------------------------------------
Aaron's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that in Foster v. Aaron's,
Inc., filed on August 21, 2015, in the United States District
Court in Phoenix, Arizona (No. CV-15-1637-PHX-SRB), the plaintiff
in this putative class action alleges that the Company violated
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by placing
automated calls to customer references, or otherwise violated the
TCPA in the manner in which the Company contacts customer
references. The Company's initial responsive pleading was filed on
October 7, 2015. A Scheduling Order was entered on January 26,
2016.


ABC TELEVISION: "Muhammed" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------
Ali Muhammed, Marvelous Solano-Rodriguez, Felix Moreno and Winston
Blackwood, Ferdie Headlam and Ded Nicaj individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ABC Television,
Inc; ABC, Inc,  ABC Family, Inc., Marvel Entertainment, LLC,
Netflix, Inc., The Walt Disney Company, PRODCO, INC., FTP
Productions, LLC, Mark/Gordon Company, Inc. and John Does 1-20,
Case No. 1:16-cv-04133 (S.D. N.Y., June 2, 2016), seeks minimum
wages, overtime pay, damages, reasonable attorney fees, interest
and any other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New
York Labor Laws.

Plaintiffs worked for Defendants as parking production assistants,
securing sets, lots and streets for the production of TV shows.

ABC is owned by media conglomerate, Walt Disney Co. and is
broadcast via cable.

Marvel Entertainment is a movie and TV production outfit based in
Burbank, CA.

NetFlix is a streaming on-demand over-the-internet
pay/subscription video streaming site.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     James Vagnini, Esq.
     VALLI KANE & VAGNINI LLP
     600 Old Country Road
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Tel: (516) 203-7180
     Fax: (516) 706-0248
     Email: jvagnini@vkvlawyers.com


ACE AMERICAN: Certification of 2 Classes Sought in "Morgan" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Morgan moves the Court for an order certifying the case
entitled STEPHEN MORGAN, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, a
Pennsylvania Corporation, Case No. 3:16-cv-00705-BJD-MCR (M.D.
Fla.), as a class action.  The Plaintiff seeks to certify these
classes;

    (a) All insureds that purchased optional insurance coverages
        in connection with car rentals from Appointed Agents of
        ACE American Insurance Company in the State of Florida,
        within the applicable statute of limitations preceding
        the filing of this action to the date of class
        certification, and who incurred additional charges in
        excess of the advertised premium and/or premiums
        specified in the policy and as fixed by the insurer, for
        optional insurance coverages (the "Florida Excess Fee Car
        Rental Class").


    (b) All insureds that purchased optional insurance coverages
        in connection with car rentals from Appointed Agents of
        ACE American Insurance Company Customers in Florida,
        within the applicable statute of limitations preceding
        the filing of this action to the date of class
        certification, and who incurred additional sales tax on
        fees in excess of the advertised premium and/or premiums
        specified in the policy and as fixed by the insurer, for
        optional insurance coverages (the "Florida Sales Tax Car
        Rental Class").

The Plaintiff also asks the Court to (i) allow for the Parties to
engage in discovery on class-wide issues; (ii) grant him leave to
file a full memorandum in support of his Motion for Class
Certification upon the conclusion of class-wide discovery; (iii)
grant his Motion for Class Certification or, alternatively, grant
said motion in its entirety after the close of class-wide
discovery and full briefing of the issues presented; and (iv)
provide all other and further relief that the Court deems
equitable and just.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=QifymWhG

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edmund A. Normand, Esq.
          NORMAND LAW, PLLC
          62 W. Colonial St. Suite 209
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 603-6031
          E-mail: ed@ednormand.com


ACS DATALINE: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Labor Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles employment law lawyers at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug &
Bhowmik filed a class action lawsuit alleging that ACS Dataline LP
failed to pay their California hourly employees the correct amount
of overtime wages and allegedly failed to provide their California
employees with meal and rest periods in accordance with the
California Labor Code.

According to the Complaint, ACS Dataline, LP, operates as a
subsidiary of ACS Communications, Inc.  The Complaint also states
that Black Box Corporation acquired ACS Communications, Inc. in
2008.

The ACS Dataline, LP/Black Box Network Services lawsuit, Case No.
BC617159 is currently pending in the Los Angeles County Superior
Court for the State of California.

According to the class action complaint the company allegedly paid
their non-exempt employees non-discretionary bonus wages based on
their performance for the company.  The Complaint claims that the
non-discretionary bonus wages received by Black Box employees
should have been included in the employees' hourly rates for the
purposes of paying the correct overtime wages.  As a result of the
alleged illegal overtime calculations conducted by Black Box
Network Services, the class action Complaint claims other non-
exempt employees working for the company were also not correctly
paid all their overtime wages.

The Complaint also seeks penalties relating to alleged missed meal
breaks because allegedly Black Box Network Services did not have a
policy to provide their employees with thirty (30) minute
uninterrupted meal breaks prior to their fifth (5th) hour of work.

If you think your company is violating the California Labor Code
and would like to know if you qualify to make a claim, please
contact an experienced California labor lawyer today by calling
(800) 568-8020.

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik is an employment law firm with
offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los
Angeles, Riverside and Chicago that dedicates its practice to
helping employees, investors and consumers fight back against
unfair business practices, including violations of the Labor Code
and Fair Labor Standards Act.


AIRBNB: CEO to Take Measures After Racial Discrimination Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Victoria M. Massie, writing for Vox Technology, reports that
Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky said his company plans to "take swift
action" after multiple accusations of racial discrimination and
transphobia by customers.

"In the next months, we will be revisiting the design of our site
from end to end to see how we can create a more inclusive
platform," Mr. Chesky announced at the annual Open Air conference
on June 8.  "We're open to ideas.  It's a really, really hard
problem, and we need help solving it."

Instead of the standard method of booking hotel rooms through a
travel website, Airbnb hosts must approve guests before their stay
is confirmed.  This step in the process, however, is open to being
influenced by hosts' potential biases.

Racial discrimination claims surfaced on social media last July
when Quirtina Crittenden, a black woman, chronicled her experience
with discrimination using the hashtag #AirbnbWhileBlack.  Rental
properties consistently denied her request on the grounds that
they were booked, though those listings remained available on
their corresponding calendar.

In May, the hashtag went viral on social media when users like
Gregory Selden shared similar experiences.  Mr. Selden filed a
class-action lawsuit against the $25 billion company for failing
to ensure "full and equal enjoyment" of company services.

Additionally, on June 5, writer and producer Shadi Petosky
publicly shared a rejection she'd received from an Airbnb host in
the past after disclosing that she is a transgender woman.  The
host was not removed until nearly a year later.

Airbnb's sharing economy model has not been able to avoid
discrimination.  A 2016 Harvard Business School working paper
found Airbnb hosts were 16 percent more likely to deny guests with
stereotypically African-American-sounding names than those with
stereotypically white-sounding names, even when the profiles were
identical.

But Airbnb's failure to act in a timely fashion may literally cost
it.  The paper also noted that hosts who reject African-American
guests find replacements for the property only 35 percent of the
time.

Two new startups have also surfaced in reaction to the
controversy: Noirebnb and Noirbnb.  The similarities between their
names may cause confusion, but both companies have the same
fundamental mission.

"We decided racism and discrimination were still happening so it
was pretty much up to us to solve the issue," Noirbnb co-founder
Stefan Grant told USA Today.

Airbnb has yet to unveil specifics about how it plans to move
forward to redress discrimination complaints.  Laura Murphy, the
former head of the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington,
DC, legislative office, was reportedly tapped by the company to
help with its review.  Airbnb is also working to recruit
underrepresented minorities in computer and data science.

"We want to move this forward," Mr. Chesky said.  But when guests
like Mr. Grant are quickly creating their own independent
solutions to Airbnb's discrimination problem, Airbnb can't afford
to take its time to fix the same issue.


ALL BORO: "Marte" Suit to Recover Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rafael Marte, on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. All Boro Community Adult Day Care LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:16-cv-04121 (S.D.N.Y., June 2, 2016), seeks recover
unpaid overtime wages and spread-of-hours pay under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Laws.

Defendant operates a day care center where Plaintiff works as a
driver. Marte claim to be denied overtime pay and worked through
legitimate rest periods.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Helen F. Dalton, Esq.
     HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     69-12 Austin Street
     Forest Hills, NY 11375
     Tel: (718) 263-9591
     Fax: (718) 263-9598
     Email: avshalumovr@yahoo.com


AMERICAN PROFIT: Wheeler Seeks Certification of FDCPA Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled EVAN WHEELER v. AMERICAN
PROFIT RECOVERY, INC., et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-00368-RLW (E.D.
Mo.), asks the Court to certify this class:

     All consumers who were sent both Tier I '101 and '201
     letters by APR regarding AB Credit Union accounts during the
     time period of February 2, 2014 to May 20, 2016.

The Defendants violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act,
the purpose of which is to stop the abusive, deceptive and unfair
debt collection practices by many debt collectors, the Plaintiff
contends.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=66i4BK2R

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradford B. Lear, Esq.
          Todd C. Werts, Esq.
          Sander C. Sowers, Esq.
          LEAR WERTS LLP
          2003 W. Broadway, Suite 107
          Columbia, MO 65203
          Telephone: (573) 875-1991
          Facsimile: (573) 875-1985
          E-mail: lear@learwerts.com
                  werts@learwerts.com
                  sowers@learwerts.com


AVVO INC: Certification of Class Sought in "Vrdolyak" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned JOHN VRDOLYAK, individually
and on behalf of those similarly situated v. AVVO, INC., Case No.
1:16-cv-02833 (N.D. Ill.), files his amended motion to certify a
class of similarly situated individuals, defined as:

     All individuals licensed to practice law in the State of
     Illinois for whom Avvo, Inc., without consent, created a
     profile page on its website and on which Avvo, Inc., without
     consent, placed advertising material from other attorneys,
     individuals, or entities.

Excluded from the Class are: (1) Defendant, Defendant's agents,
subsidiaries, parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in
which Defendant or its parents have a controlling interest, and
those entities' current and former employees, officers, and
directors; (2) the Judge to whom this case is assigned and the
Judge's immediate family; (3) any person who executes and files a
timely request for exclusion from the Class; (4) any persons who
have had their claims in this matter finally adjudicated and/or
otherwise released; and (5) the legal representatives, successors
and assigns of any such excluded person.

Mr. Vrdolyak further asks that he be appointed the representative
of the Class, and that Zimmerman Law Offices, P.C., be appointed
counsel for the Class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=tbGFC35P

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
          Sharon A. Harris, Esq.
          Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          77 West Washington Street, Suite 1220
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 440-0020
          Facsimile: (312) 440-4180
          E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com
                  sharon@attorneyzim.com
                  nick@attorneyzim.com


BANK OF AMERICA: "Genesee County" Sues Over Anti-Trust Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Genesee County Employees Retirement System, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bank of America
Corporation, Bank of America, N.A., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner
& Smith Incorporated, Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC, Barclays
Capital Inc., BNP Paribas, S.A., BNP Paribas Securities Corp.,
Citigroup, Inc., Citibank, N.A., Citigroup Global Markets Inc.,
Citigroup Global Markets Limited, Credit Suisse AG, Credit Suisse
Group AG, Credit Suisse International, Credit Suisse Securities
(USA) LLC, Deutsche Bank AG, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. , The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Goldman, Sachs & Co., Goldman Sachs
Bank USA, Goldman Sachs Financial Markets, L.P., Goldman Sachs
International, HSBC Bank PLC, HSBC Bank USA, N.A., HSBC Securities
(USA) Inc., Icap Capital Markets LLC, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.,
J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, J.P.
Morgan Securities PLC, Morgan Stanley, Morgan Stanley Bank, N.A.,
Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Morgan Stanley Capital Services LLC,
Morgan Stanley Derivative Products Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co.
International PLC, Morgan Stanley Bank International Limited, The
Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC, Royal Bank of Scotland PLC, RBS
Securities Inc., Tradeweb Markets LLC, UBS AG and UBS Securities
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-04089 (S.D. N.Y., June 1, 2016),
seeks treble damages and injunctive relief for violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

Defendants are the primary incumbent dealers of interest rate
swaps in the United States and collectively dominate the market.
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' anticompetitive conduct in
the market for interest rate swaps lack the price transparency and
effective competition of accepting bids and offers from anonymous
market participants to match that of willing buyers and sellers at
a competitive real-time price.

The Defendants are represented by:

     Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq.
     Jay L. Himes, Esq.
     David J. Goldsmith, Esq.
     Karin E. Garvey, Esq.
     Robin A. Van Der Meulen, Esq.
     Matthew J. Perez, Esq.
     LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
     140 Broadway
     New York, NY 10005
     Tel: (212) 907-0700
     Fax: (212) 818-0477
     Email: gasciolla@labaton.com
            jhimes@labaton.com
            dgoldsmith@labaton.com
            kgarvey@labaton.com
            rvandermeulen@labaton.com
            mperez@labaton.com

          - and -

     Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
     Terence S. Ziegler, Esq.
     Kimberly A. Justice, Esq.
     KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
     280 King of Prussia Road
     Radnor, PA 19087
     Tel: (610) 667-7706
     Fax: (610) 667-7056
     Email: jmeltzer@ktmc.com
            tziegler@ktmc.com
            kjustice@ktmc.com


BATS GLOBAL: City of Providence Appeal Ongoing
----------------------------------------------
Bats Global Markets, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the appeal in a
securities class action lawsuit by the City of Providence, Rhode
Island, is pending.

On April 18, 2014, the City of Providence, Rhode Island filed a
securities class action lawsuit in the Southern District of New
York against Bats and Direct Edge, as well as 14 other securities
exchanges. The action purports to be brought on behalf of all
public investors who purchased and/or sold shares of stock in the
United States between April 18, 2009 and the present on a
registered public stock exchange (Exchange Defendants) or a United
States-based alternate trading venue and were injured as a result
of the misconduct detailed in the complaint, which includes
allegations that the defendants committed fraud through a variety
of business practices associated with, among other things, what is
commonly referred to as high frequency trading.

On May 2, 2014 and May 20, 2014, American European Insurance
Company and Harel Insurance Co., Ltd. each filed substantially
similar class action lawsuits against the Exchange Defendants
which were ultimately consolidated with the City of Providence,
Rhode Island securities class action lawsuit.

On June 18, 2015, Judge Jesse Furman of the Southern District of
New York held oral argument on the pending Motion to Dismiss and
thereafter, on August 26, 2015, the Court issued an Opinion and
Order granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, dismissing the
Complaint in full.

Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of the dismissal on September
24, 2015 and its appeal brief on January 7, 2016.  Respondent's
brief was filed on April 7, 2016.

Given the preliminary nature of the proceedings, the Company is
unable to estimate what, if any, liability may result from this
litigation. However, the Company believes that the claims are
without merit and intend to litigate the matter vigorously.

Bats Global Markets, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries (the
Company or Bats) is a global financial technology company that
provides trade execution, market data, trade reporting,
connectivity and risk management solutions to brokers, market
makers, asset managers and other market participants, ultimately
benefiting retail and institutional investors across multiple
asset classes. The Company's asset classes comprise listed cash
equity securities in the United States (U.S.) and Europe, listed
equity options in the United States, and institutional spot
foreign currency (FX) globally. The Company is headquartered in
the Kansas City, Missouri, area with additional offices in New
York, New York, Chicago, Illinois, San Francisco, California,
London, United Kingdom (U.K.), and Singapore.


BATS GLOBAL: Lanier Class Action Appeal Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------
Bats Global Markets, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the appeal in a
securities class action lawsuit by Harold R. Lanier is pending.

On May 23, 2014 and May 30, 2014, Harold R. Lanier filed three
class action lawsuits in the Southern District of New York against
Bats and other securities exchanges.  The complaints were
identical in all substantive respects, but each related to the
dissemination of market data under a different market system --
(i) the NASDAQ UTP Plan Market System; (ii) the OPRA Market
System; and (iii) the Consolidated Quotation System and the
Consolidated Tape System.  Each of the actions purported to be
brought on behalf of all subscribers who entered into contracts
with the exchanges for the receipt of market data and were injured
as a result of the misconduct detailed in the complaints, which
includes allegations that the defendants did not provide market
data services in a non-discriminatory manner or provide
subscribers with "valid" data (i.e., data that is accurate and not
stale).

On January 16, 2015, Judge Katherine Forrest of the Southern
District of New York held oral argument on the pending Motion to
Dismiss and thereafter, on April 28, 2015, the Court filed an
Opinion and Order granting the exchange defendants' Motion to
Dismiss, terminating all three class action lawsuits with
prejudice.

On May 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of the
dismissal and on September 1, 2015, Appellant filed its appeal
brief. Respondent's brief was filed on November 24, 2015 and
Appellant's reply brief was filed on December 8, 2015.

Oral argument was held on March 3, 2016. Given the preliminary
nature of the proceedings, the Company is unable to estimate what,
if any, liability may result from this litigation. However, the
Company believes that the claims are without merit and intend to
litigate the matter vigorously.

Bats Global Markets, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries (the
Company or Bats) is a global financial technology company that
provides trade execution, market data, trade reporting,
connectivity and risk management solutions to brokers, market
makers, asset managers and other market participants, ultimately
benefiting retail and institutional investors across multiple
asset classes. The Company's asset classes comprise listed cash
equity securities in the United States (U.S.) and Europe, listed
equity options in the United States, and institutional spot
foreign currency (FX) globally. The Company is headquartered in
the Kansas City, Missouri, area with additional offices in New
York, New York, Chicago, Illinois, San Francisco, California,
London, United Kingdom (U.K.), and Singapore.


BLUE CROSS: 6th Cir. Overturns $30 Million Accord
-------------------------------------------------
Kevin Koeninger, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that overturning a $30 million settlement, the Sixth Circuit
balked at the comprehensive seal in a case where Michigan's
largest health insurer faces price-fixing allegations the court
called credible.

The case against Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan holds "keen
and legitimate interest" for millions of Michigan citizens that
price-fixing harms, but a federal judge in Detroit agreed to seal
most substantive filings, according to the June 7 ruling.

Writing for a three-judge panel, U.S. Circuit Judge Raymond
Kethledge notes that this seal covered "nearly 200 exhibits and an
expert report upon which the parties based a settlement agreement
that would determine the rights of those millions of citizens."

Blue Cross reached the $30 million deal in June 2014, settling a
class action that echoed the claims a 2010 federal complaint by
the U.S. Department of Justice.

Against claims that its agreements with health care providers
raise customer rates, Blue Cross faced the possibility of $13.7
billion in damages.

Judge Kethledge notes that class members who objected to the
settlement faced a problem showing why, however, since "most of
the key documents were either heavily redacted or . . . completely
sealed."

Kethledge said U.S. District Judge Page Hood nevertheless
"approved the settlement without meaningful scrutiny of the
settlement's fairness to unnamed members of the class."

Joined by Judges Eugene Edward Siler Jr. and Deborah Cook,
Kethledge vacated approval of the settlement, as well as the
orders to seal.

An attorney for the class members that objected to the settlement
called the opinion "well-reasoned.

"We continue to have very serious concerns about the fairness of
the proposed settlement," Varnum attorney Bryan Walters, of Grand
Rapids, said in an email. "We look forward to the opportunity to
review the record on behalf of over 25 businesses we represent who
objected to the settlement."

The scathing opinion calls the reasons that the parties gave in
seeking the seal "brief, perfunctory, and patently inadequate."

"In sealing all these documents and exhibits, the parties and the
district court plainly conflated the standards for entering a
protective order under Rule 26 with the vastly more demanding
standards for sealing off judicial records from public view,"
Kethledge wrote.

"One can only conclude that everyone in the district court was
mistaken as to which standard to apply," the judge added. "But one
point is unmistakable: on the showings set forth in this record,
every document that was sealed in the district court was sealed
improperly."

Blue Cross argued that confidential medical information justified
the seal, but Kethledge disagreed.

"Here again we see the standards for protective orders and sealing
conflated: that a mere protective order restricts access to
discovery materials is not reason enough, as shown above, to seal
from public view materials that the parties have chosen to place
in the court record," the judge wrote (emphasis in original). "And
as to materials actually in the record, our review of the sealed
materials reveals scarcely any 'confidential patient-health
information,' which is unsurprising given that such information
would be irrelevant to the antitrust issues presented in this
case."

Undercutting the possibility that the error of the seal was
harmless, Kethledge noted that the "class members cannot
participate meaningfully in the process contemplated by Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) unless they can review the bases of
the proposed settlement and the other documents in the court
record."

On remand, the lower court must conduct a "vigorous examination of
the settlement's fairness."

Kethledge also raised concerns about the lower court's approval of
$10 million in fees for the class counsel. Calling the "rates
claimed by class counsel are exceedingly high," the ruling points
to some of the paralegals charging $228 per hour.

"Class counsel provided no backup whatsoever -- no time records,
no descriptions of work done -- in support of their hours spent
working on the case," the ruling states. "Instead, class counsel
provided the district court with a single page of documentation
for each firm, listing only the employee names, titles, rates,
hours, and -- by multiplying the rates and hours -- the total
lodestar for that firm. The documentation of fees in this case
should have only heightened the district court's concerns about
whether the settlement is fair to unnamed members of the class."

Daniel Small with Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, of Washington,
D.C., serves as co-lead counsel for the class.

Constantine Trela Jr., with Sidley Austin in Chicago, represents
Blue Cross.

The firms have not returned requests for comment.

The case captioned, SHANE GROUP, INC., et al., Plaintiffs-
Appellees, v. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN, Defendant-
Appellee, Nos. 15- 1544/1551/1552 (6th Cir.).


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Sued in Conn. Super. Ct. Over Pradaxa
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Boehringer Ingelheim
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. captioned Elma Simione, and other similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, the Defendants,
Case No. HHD-CV-16-6068876-S (Conn. Super. Ct., June 7, 2016).

The lawsuits seek compensatory, consequential and punitive
damages, as a result of Defendants' reckless disregard for safety
of patients, to whom Pradaxa (TM) was promoted and sold for use,
and as a direct and proximate consequence of Defendants' reckless
disregard for patient safety, in violation of the Connecticut
Products Liability Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants negligently designed
and formulated Pradaxa (TM) and its packaging, labeling,
prescribing information and patient medication guide which
rendered Pradaxa (TM) defective.

The Defendants were engaged in the business of designing,
licensing, manufacturing, distributing, selling, marketing, and/or
introducing into interstate commerce, either directly or
indirectly through third parties or related entities, the
prescription anticoagulant drug sold under the name Pradaxa (TM),
throughout the State of Connecticut. Pradaxa (TM) helps to prevent
platelets in blood from sticking together and forming a blood
clot.

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 -

          Rosemarie Riddell, Esq.
          MARTIN, HARDING & MAZZOTTI LLP
          1222 Troy-Schenectady Road
          Niskayuna, NY 12309
          Telephone 518-862-1200
          Facsimile 518-724 0386
          E-mail: rosemarie.bogdan@1800law1010.com


BOXER PROPERTY: "Shelby" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------
Sherry Shelby, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Boxer Property Management Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-01549 (S.D. Tex., June 1, 2016), seeks
to recover overtime compensation, other wages, liquidated damages,
attorney fees, litigation expenses, costs of court, pre-judgment
and post-judgment interest and injunctive relief under the
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Boxer Property Management Corporation is a Houston-based
commercial real estate investment and management company where
Plaintiff worked as onsite leasing agents. Plaintiff was falsely
classified as exempt for purposes of overtime and was denied
overtime compensation.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Rhonda H. Wills, Esq.
     Genevieve B. Estrada, Esq.
     WILLS LAW FIRM
     1776 Yorktown, Suite 570
     Houston, TX 77056
     Telephone: (713) 528-4455
     Facsimile: (713) 528-2047


BRONCS INC: "Harris" Sues Over Anti-Trust Violations
----------------------------------------------------
Richard Harris, Jr., individually and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BRONCS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2:16-cv-00728-MRH (W.D. Pa., June 2, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid back wages due, liquidated damages, costs of this action
including attorney fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest
and such other and further relief as may be necessary under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Broncs, Inc. provides third party services to the oil and gas
industry, including frac stacks, manifolds, pipe racks, and
flowback services throughout the United States where Plaintiff was
employed as a flowback operator in and around Pennsylvania, West
Virginia and Texas. He claims to be denied overtime compensation.

The Defendants are represented by:

     Sharon Carson, Esq.
     Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq.
     Camille Fundora, Esq.
     Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
     BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
     1622 Locust Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Tel: (215) 875-3053
     Fax: (215) 875-4604
     Email: sschalman-bergen@bm.net


CANADA: Forum to Address Bingo Class Action Opt-Out Period Issues
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Shalapata, writing for The Windsor Square, reports that the
action against Windsor and Tecumseh regarding the over billing of
charity bingos is not certified and the opt out period has closed
as of May 16.  All the charities that did not officially opt out
of the action are officially included as plaintiffs against the
municipalities.

The action charges that Windsor and Tecumseh have been charging
excessive lottery licensing and administration fees and assert
that the fess have become a form of unconstitutional taxation. The
extent of the action goes back to 1990.

The two municipalities launched an aggressive opt-out campaign
that included multi-media presentations, billboard ads, radio ads,
and newspaper ads.  The court determined that the campaign
contained misinformation and caused undue influence.

The court has stated that any charities that opted out of the
action may reconsider their decision and could still opt back in,
though the method by which they would do this has yet to be
arranged.  At last count, three charities opted out of the class
action lawsuit.

For their part, Windsor and Tecumseh have decided not to
publically discuss the action or the opt out campaign.

The City of Windsor and Town of Tecumseh are pleased at the high
level of community engagement and discussion that has occurred
about the important issues associated with the lawsuit.

Various issues concerning the opt-out period remain before the
courts and will be addressed by the parties in that forum in the
coming weeks.  While the courts consider the various remaining
issues, the City and Town will not be commenting until there are
further developments.


CBE GROUP: C. Perez Files Placeholder Motion to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
Catherine Perez moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint of the lawsuit titled CATHERINE PEREZ, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. THE CBE GROUP,
INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-00703-RTR (E.D. Wisc.).

Ms. Perez further asks that the Court both stay the motion for
class certification and to grant her (and the Defendant) relief
from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and
requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the
motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence.  Damasco
v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled,
Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015).

As the Motion to Certify is a placeholder motion as described in
Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with
unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when a one
paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should suffice
until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiff asserts.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=fc0qpHG8

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
                  jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com


CBS RADIO: Faces Class Action Over Unwanted Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------------
Becky Yerak, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that a Wisconsin
woman filed a text spam lawsuit against CBS Radio, alleging that
its WSCR-AM 670 The Score station in Chicago sent unwanted
messages that cost her time on her prepaid cellphone.

The lawsuit, which seeks class-action status, was filed on June 7
in the U.S. District Court in the eastern district of Wisconsin.

Class members could be eligible for up to $1,500 for each call or
text that violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which
was enacted in response to a growing number of complaints over
telemarketing practices.

Lead plaintiff Elaine Bonin of Franklin, Wis., detailed in the
lawsuit at least four incidents earlier this year in which she
received text messages about the Chicago Bears, Super Bowl,
Chicago Bulls and Chicago White Sox despite having "no interest in
Chicago sports" and never having agreed to allow CBS or 670 The
Score to contact her on her TracFone cellphone.

TracFones are prepaid wireless phones in which the user buys
"minutes" that are loaded onto the phone, and are then deducted
when the person talks on the phone or sends or gets texts, the
lawsuit said.

Each unsolicited text message from CBS cost Bonin "0.3 minutes" of
her TracFone allotment, the lawsuit said.

Class members should be anyone in the United States who, on or
after June 7, 2012, got a nonemergency text message from or on
behalf of CBS to a cellphone through the use of an automatic phone
dialing system or a prerecorded voice, and who didn't provide
their cellphone number or who revoked earlier consent, the lawsuit
said.

The class size is believed to be, at minimum, in the hundreds and
potentially in the thousands, the lawsuit said.

Kristina Quintos, spokeswoman for CBS Radio/670 The Score, said
the complaint is being reviewed.  "We take seriously our
responsibility to adhere to all government requirements regarding
cell phone messaging," she said.

Ms. Bonin's lawyer, John Blythin, of Cudahy, Wis., couldn't be
reached for immediate comment.


CELLCEUTIX CORP: NY Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cellceutix Corporation (the "Company"), a clinical stage
biopharmaceutical company developing innovative therapies with
oncology, dermatology, anti-inflammatory and antibiotic
applications, on June 9 disclosed that, on June 8, the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the
Company's motion to dismiss the securities class action lawsuit
brought against the Company by a plaintiff represented by the
Rosen Law Firm.

The ruling dismisses all claims against Cellceutix, denies the
plaintiff's request to file an amended complaint, and orders that
the case be closed.  Writing on behalf of the Court in a 39-page
ruling, the Honorable Judge Katherine Polk Failla dismissed the
lawsuit in its entirety (Case 1:15-cv-07194-KPF), concluding:
For the reasons stated in this Opinion, Defendants' motion to
dismiss Plaintiff's SAC [Second Amended Complaint] is GRANTED.
Plaintiff has requested leave to replead, without presenting any
concrete means of remedying the deficiencies identified in this
Opinion.  Because Plaintiff has previously been given leave to
replead, and because the Court finds that any further repleading
would be futile, Plaintiff's request is DENIED. See Loreley Fin.
(Jersey) No. 3 Ltd. v. Wells Fargo Sec., LLC, 797 F.3d 160, 190
(2d Cir. 2015) (identifying futility as a proper ground for
denying leave to replead); see generally United States ex rel.
Ladas v. Exelis, Inc., - F.3d -, No. 14-4155-cv, 2016 WL 3003674,
at *9 (2d Cir. May 25, 2016).  The Clerk of Court is directed to
terminate all pending motions, adjourn all remaining dates, and
close this case.

"We are extremely pleased with Judge Failla's decision," commented
attorney Michael J. Sullivan, lead counsel for Cellceutix and
former U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts.  "From the
outset, of this case, it was our opinion that the claims were both
meritless and frivolous, so we were gratified that after careful
consideration, to see Judge Failla agree to dismiss this case in
its entirety.  An anonymous libelous article caused this case to
be filed.  The author intended and in fact caused the price of
Cellceutix's stock to decline.  This type of manipulation of
publicly traded stock is illegal and causes harm to companies and
investors.  We continue to work with regulators, prosecutors and
law enforcement to assist in identifying the anonymous individuals
and organizations intent on manipulating the value of a company's
stock by publishing dishonest articles in online forums, and other
venues. Such 'short and distort' tactics are illegal, detrimental
to our securities markets, and must stop."

"We are extremely pleased with the ruling," stated Leo Ehrlich,
Chief Executive Officer of Cellceutix.  "I greatly appreciate the
work of the Ashcroft Law Firm.  They never wavered in their
support, and put forth a zealous defense of our Company against
these baseless claims.  Frivolous class action lawsuits are a huge
burden on the biotech industry, negatively impacting shareholders
and patients alike.  Not only is a company materially damaged, but
promising treatments and cures under development are put at
greater risk of not making it to market. These actions caused
significant damage to our Company and shareholders.  We hope that
the dismissal of this case and all its ramifications sends a
powerful signal to others to think twice about pursuing such
actions."

The Court's opinion dismissing the lawsuit can be found on
https://is.gd/Z5QMRq

                  About The Ashcroft Law Firm

The Ashcroft Law Firm -- http://ashcroftlawfirm.com-- was founded
by former U.S. Attorney General, Governor and Senator John
Ashcroft, and has offices in Boston, MA, Washington, DC, St.
Louis, MO, and Austin, TX. See http://ashcroftlawfirm.com/for
more information.


CHARLES SCHWAB: Appeal in Total Bond Market Fund Case Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal related to the Total Bond Market Fund Litigation is
ongoing, The Charles Schwab Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6,
2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016.

On August 28, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of investors in the Schwab Total Bond Market Fund(TM). The
lawsuit, which alleged violations of state law and federal
securities law in connection with the fund's investment policy,
named CSIM, Schwab Investments (registrant and issuer of the
fund's shares) and certain current and former fund trustees as
defendants. Allegations include that the fund improperly deviated
from its stated investment objectives by investing in
collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs) and investing more than
25% of fund assets in CMOs and mortgage-backed securities without
obtaining a shareholder vote. Plaintiff seeks unspecified
compensatory and rescission damages, unspecified equitable and
injunctive relief, costs and attorneys' fees. Plaintiff's federal
securities law claim and certain of plaintiff's state law claims
were dismissed.

On August 8, 2011, the court dismissed plaintiff's remaining
claims with prejudice. Plaintiff appealed to the Ninth Circuit,
which issued a ruling on March 9, 2015 reversing the district
court's dismissal of the case and remanding the case for further
proceedings. Plaintiff filed a fourth amended complaint on June
25, 2015, and in decisions issued October 6, 2015 and February 23,
2016, the court dismissed all claims with prejudice. Plaintiff has
appealed to the Ninth Circuit, where the case is again pending.


CHECK-6 INC: "Goodly" Labor Case Transferred to N.D. Okla.
----------------------------------------------------------
A labor dispute captioned Joseph Goodly, on behalf of himself and
other persons similarly situated v. Check-6 Inc., Yarema Sos,
Brian Brurud, Dennis Romano, S. Eric Benson, Laura Owen and John
Dillon, Case No. 4:16-cv-00334-GKF-PJC (E.D. La., March 7, 2016),
was transferred to the N.D. Okla. on June 3, 2016.

Goodly was employed by Defendants as a coach on a day-rate basis
and thus denied overtime pay.

Check-6, Inc. is into crew resource management training for the
oil and gas industry world wide.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     George B. Recile, Esq.
     Preston L. Hayes, Esq.
     Matthew A. Sherman, Esq.
     Patrick R. Follette, Esq.
     Barry W. Sartin, Esq.
     CHEHARDY, SHERMAN, WILLIAMS, MURRAY, RECILE, STAKELUM &
      HAYES, LLP
     One Galleria Blvd., Suite 1100
     Metairie, LA 70001
     Telephone: 504.833.5600
     Facsimile: 504.833.8080


CHIASMA INC: Faces Securities Class Action in Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on June 9 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been against Chiasma, Inc. ("Chiasma" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ:CHMA) and certain of its officers.  The class action,
filed in United States District Court, District of Massachusetts,
and docketed under 16-cv-11082, is on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
Chiasma securities between July 15, 2015 and April 17, 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") and the Securities Act of 1933 (the
"Securities Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased securities during the Class
Period, you have until August 8, 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.

Chiasma, a late-stage biopharmaceutical company, focuses on
developing and commercializing oral forms of therapies for
patients suffering from orphan diseases.  Chiasma was founded in
2001 and is headquartered in Newton, Massachusetts.

The Company's lead product candidate is oral octreotide, or
Mycapssa, for the treatment of acromegaly, a condition that
results in the body's production of excess growth hormone.  As of
June 2015, prior to Chiasma's IPO, the Company had completed a
multinational Phase 3 clinical trial of Mycapssa and submitted a
new drug application ("NDA") to the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") seeking approval for marketing and sale of
Mycapssa.

On or about July 15, 2016, Chiasma completed its IPO, issuing 6.4
million shares and raising net proceeds of approximately $102
million.

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 made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Chiasma's Phase 3 clinical
trial methodology for Mycapssa was not sufficient to demonstrate
efficacy and secure FDA approval; (ii) Chiasma's supervision of
its suppliers was not sufficient to prevent deficiencies that
would delay FDA approval of Mycapssa; and (iii) as a result of the
foregoing, Chiasma's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On April 18, 2016, before the market opened, the Company announced
that the FDA had issued a Complete Response Letter regarding its
NDA for Mycapssa, stating that the FDA did not believe the
Company's application had provided substantial evidence of
efficacy to warrant approval and advising Chiasma that it would
need to conduct another clinical trial in order to overcome this
deficiency.  The FDA expressed concerns regarding certain aspects
of the company's single-arm, open-label Phase 3 clinical trial and
strongly recommended that the company conduct a randomized,
double-blind and controlled trial that enrolls patients from the
United States and be of sufficiently long duration to ensure that
control of disease activity is stable at the time point selected
for the primary efficacy assessment.  In addition, the FDA advised
that, during a recent site inspection, certain deficiencies were
conveyed to the representative of one of Chiasma's suppliers that
would need to be resolved before approval.

On this news, Chiasma's share price fell $6.42, or 63.13%, to
close at $3.75 on April 18, 2016.

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


CIGNA CORP: Updates on Amara Cash Balance Pension Plan Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cigna Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company provided
updates on Amara cash balance pension plan litigation.

In December, 2001, Janice Amara filed a class action lawsuit in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut against
Cigna Corporation and the Cigna Pension Plan (the "Plan") on
behalf of herself and other similarly situated Plan participants
affected by the 1998 conversion to a cash balance formula.  The
plaintiffs allege various violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), including that the Plan's
cash balance formula discriminates against older employees; that
the conversion resulted in a wear-away period (when the pre-
conversion accrued benefit exceeded the post-conversion benefit);
and that the Plan communications contained inaccurate or
inadequate disclosures about these conditions.

In 2008, the District Court (1) affirmed the Company's right to
convert to a cash balance plan prospectively beginning in 1998;
(2) found for plaintiffs on the disclosure claim only; and (3)
required the Company to pay pre-1998 benefits under the pre-
conversion traditional annuity formula and post-1997 benefits
under the post-conversion cash balance formula.  The Second
Circuit upheld this decision.  From 2008 through the present, this
case has undergone a series of court proceedings that resulted in
the original District Court order being largely upheld.  In 2015,
the Company submitted to the District Court its proposed method
for calculating the additional pension benefits due to class
members and plaintiffs responded in August 2015.

In January 2016, the District Court ordered the method of
calculating the additional pension benefits due to class members.
The court order left several aspects of the calculation of
additional plan benefits open to interpretation.  The parties
continue to work towards obtaining agreement around differences in
interpretation.  The timing of the resolution of these differences
remains uncertain.  Once resolved, the Plan will be amended to
comply with the agreed-upon interpretation of the District Court's
order and the benefits will begin to be paid.  The Company's
reserve for this litigation remains reasonable at March 31, 2016
based on a calculation consistent with the Company's
interpretation of the court order.


CIGNA CORP: Third Circuit Affirmed Decisions in "Franco"
--------------------------------------------------------
Cigna Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Third Circuit
affirmed on May 2, 2016, the District Court's decisions denying
class certification for the claims asserted by members, the
granting of summary judgment on the individual plaintiffs' claims,
as well as the dismissal of the antitrust claims.

In April 2004, the Company was sued in a number of putative
nationwide class actions alleging that the Company improperly
underpaid claims for out-of-network providers through the use of
data provided by Ingenix, Inc., a subsidiary of one of the
Company's competitors.  These actions were consolidated into
Franco v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, et al.,
pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
The consolidated amended complaint, filed in 2009 on behalf of
subscribers, health care providers and various medical
associations, asserted claims related to benefits and disclosure
under ERISA, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
("RICO") Act, the Sherman Antitrust Act and New Jersey state law
and seeks recovery for alleged underpayments from 1998 through the
present.  Other major health insurers have been the subject of, or
have settled, similar litigation.

In September 2011, the District Court (1) dismissed all claims by
the health care provider and medical association plaintiffs for
lack of standing; and (2) dismissed the antitrust claims, the New
Jersey state law claims and the ERISA disclosure claim.  In
January 2013 and again in April 2014, the District Court denied
separate motions by the plaintiffs to certify a nationwide class
of subscriber plaintiffs.  The Third Circuit denied plaintiff's
request for an immediate appeal of the January 2013 ruling.  As a
result, the case is proceeding on behalf of the named plaintiffs
only.

In June 2014, the District Court granted the Company's motion for
summary judgment to terminate all claims, and denied the
plaintiffs' partial motion for summary judgment.  In July 2014,
the plaintiffs appealed all of the District Court's decisions in
favor of the Company, including the class certification decision,
to the Third Circuit.  On May 2, 2016, the Third Circuit affirmed
the District Court's decisions denying class certification for the
claims asserted by members, the granting of summary judgment on
the individual plaintiffs' claims, as well as the dismissal of the
antitrust claims.  However, the Third Circuit also reversed the
earlier dismissal of the providers' ERISA claims.  The Company
will continue to vigorously defend its position.


CLEVELAND INTEGRITY: "Gundrum" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------
Eric Gundrum and Michael King, individually and on behalf of all
persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Cleveland Integrity
Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00369 (W.D. Wis., June
2, 2016), seeks overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
reasonable attorney fees and costs and expenses, pre-judgment
interest and such other and further relief pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Cleveland Integrity Services, Inc. provides third party inspection
services for the construction and maintenance of oil and natural
gas transmission, midstream and gathering lines, facility
construction, meter runs and many other types of oil and gas
construction throughout the United States where Gundrum and King
were employed as pipeline inspectors, performing and reviewing
inspections on gas pipelines.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Sharon Carson, Esq.
     Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq.
     Camille Fundora, Esq.
     Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
     BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
     1622 Locust Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Tel: (215) 875-3053
     Fax: (215) 875-4604
     Email: sschalman-bergen@bm.net


COMMERCE BANK: "Warren" Case Remains Pending and Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------
The case, Cassandra Warren, et al v. Commerce Bank, remains
pending and stayed, Commerce Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016.

On August 15, 2014, a customer filed a class action complaint
against the Bank in the Circuit Court, Jackson County, Missouri.
The case is Cassandra Warren, et al v. Commerce Bank (Case No.
1416-CV19197).  In the case, the customer alleges violation of the
Missouri usury statute in connection with the Bank charging
overdraft fees in connection with point-of-sale/debit and
automated-teller machine cards. The class was certified and
consists of Missouri customers of the Bank who may have been
similarly affected.

The case has been stayed pending the final outcome of a similar
case in which a ruling has been made in favor of the bank
defendant. The Company believes that the stay will remain in
effect until any appeals in the similar case have run their
course.  The Company believes the Warren complaint lacks merit and
will defend itself vigorously. The amount of any ultimate exposure
cannot be determined with certainty at this time.


COMMUNITY TRAFFIC: "Demeuse" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------
Timothy Demeuse, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Community Traffic Control, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-651 (E.D. Wis., June 2, 2016), seeks
relief for unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
costs, attorney fees, and/or any such other relief for violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Community Traffic Control, LLC is a Wisconsin Limited Liability
Company with its principal place of business at 4701 West Mill
Road, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53218 providing traffic control
services for roadway construction projects. Demeuse worked in
preparing construction zones on public roads and highways. He
claims to have been denied overtime pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
     Summer H. Murshid, Esq.
     Timothy P. Maynard, Esq.
     HAWKS QUINDEL S.C.
     PO Box 442
     Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442
     Telephone: 414-271-8650
     Fax: 414-271-8442
     E-mail: ljohnson@hq-law.com
             smurshid@hq-law.com
             tmaynard@hq-law.com


CORYELL COUNTY: Castro Seeks Conditional Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled AMBROCIO BENITO CASTRO, et
al., on behalf of himself and other persons similarly situated v.
CORYELL COUNTY TRADESMEN, LLC and CC LABOR, LLC and BRANDON
ISAACKS and BRENT ISAACKS and PAUL ISAACKS and RONALD FRANKS
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, LLC and ROY ANDERSON CORP and TRAVELERS
CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY OF AMERICA, Case No. 2:15-cv-03641-
NJB-SS (E.D. La.), move for conditional class certification,
judicial notice, and for disclosure of the names and addresses of
potential opt-in plaintiffs.

The Action arises from a "generally applicable rule, policy, or
practice" pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=H6KbrtvJ

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
          Emily A. Westermeier, Esq.
          THE COSTALES LAW OFFICE
          3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: (504) 534-5005
          E-mail: costaleslawoffice@gmail.com
                  emily.costaleslawoffice@gmail.com

               - and -

          William H. Beaumont, Esq.
          WILLIAM BEAUMONT LAW
          3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: (504) 483-8008
          E-mail: whbeaumont@gmail.com


CREDIT CONTROL: Certification of Class Sought in "Elaine" Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned DAWN ELAINE, for herself
and a class v. CREDIT CONTROL LLC, LVNV FUNDING LLC, RESURGENT
CAPITAL SERVICES LP, and ALEGIS GROUP LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-01271-
WB (E.D. Pa.), moves for certification of a class defined as:

     all individuals with Pennsylvania addresses to whom Credit
     Control, LLC sent a letter on behalf of (A) Resurgent, (B)
     LVNV or (C) both of them, in a window envelope that
     displayed an account number above the address, which was
     sent on or after March 11, 2014 and on or before March 31,
     2015.

Ms. Elaine also seeks for her appointment as class representative,
and for the appointment of Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin,
LLC, and Sabatini Law Firm, LLC, as counsel for the class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=8QGlqLzE

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Francis R. Greene, Esq.
          EDELMAN COMBS LATTURNER & GOODWIN LLC
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com
                  fgreene@edcombs.com

               - and -

          Carlo Sabatini, Esq.
          SABATINI LAW FIRM, LLC
          216 N. Blakely St.
          Dunmore, PA 18512
          Telephone: (570) 341-9000
          Facsimile: (570) 504-2769
          E-mail: ecf@bankruptcypa.com


CVS HEALTH: Bordenet Seeks Certification of Classes and Subclass
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled PATRICIA BORDENET,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CVS
HEALTH CORPORATION, Case No. 1:16-cv-06103 (N.D. Ill.), submits
her motion for class certification pursuant to Damasco v.
Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011).

The Plaintiff and the members of the proposed Classes purchased
from the Defendant the product CVS Aftersun Aloe Vera Moisturizing
Gel, previously called CVS 100% Pure Aloe Vera Gel, for personal
use and not for resale.  The Defendant's claims that its Product
contains "aloe vera," and that the Product contains "100% "PURE"
aloe vera are false, and its Product label is misleading, the
Plaintiff alleges.  The Plaintiff proposes these class
definitions:

     National Class: All persons in the United States who
     purchased the Product.

     Consumer Fraud Multi-State Class: All persons in the States
     of California, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan,
     Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, and Washington
     who purchased the Product.

     Illinois Subclass: All persons in the State of Illinois who
     purchased the Product.

The Plaintiff anticipates that the proposed class definitions may
change after discovery more precisely defines the contours of the
classes.  The Plaintiff asks the Court for leave to submit a brief
and other evidence in support of the Motion after discovery about
the class elements has been completed.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=LXxupKpw

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Jason Thompson, Esq.
          Lance Young, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, 17th Floor
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
                  lyoung@sommerspc.com

               - and -

          Nick Suciu III, Esq.
          BARBAT, MANSOUR & SUCIU PLLC
          1644 Bracken Rd.
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302
          Telephone: (313) 303-3472
          E-mail: nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Donald J. Enright, Esq.
          Lori G. Feldman, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
          1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 524-4290
          E-mail: denright@zlk.com
                  lfeldman@zlk.com

               - and -

          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          Patrick S. Almonrode, Esq.
          JTB LAW GROUP
          155 2nd Street, Suite 4
          Jersey City, NJ 07302
          Telephone: (877) 561-0000
          E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
                  patalmonrode@jtblawgroup.com


DENTSPLY SIRONA: Defending Weinstat and Nathan Case Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
Dentsply Sirona Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company is
defending against the appeal filed in the case by Marvin Weinstat
and Richard Nathan.

On June 18, 2004, Marvin Weinstat, DDS and Richard Nathan, DDS
filed a class action suit in San Francisco County, California
alleging that the Company misrepresented that its Cavitron(R)
ultrasonic scalers are suitable for use in oral surgical
procedures. The Complaint seeks a recall of the product and refund
of its purchase price to dentists who have purchased it for use in
oral surgery. The Court certified the case as a class action in
June 2006 with respect to the breach of warranty and unfair
business practices claims. The class that was certified is defined
as California dental professionals who, at any time during the
period beginning June 18, 2000 through September 14, 2012,
purchased and used one or more Cavitron(R) ultrasonic scalers for
the performance of oral surgical procedures on their patients,
which Cavitrons(R) were accompanied by Directions for Use that
"Indicated" Cavitron(R) use for "periodontal debridement for all
types of periodontal disease." The case went to trial in September
2013, and on January 22, 2014, the San Francisco Superior Court
issued its decision in the Company's favor, rejecting all of the
plaintiffs' claims. The plaintiffs have appealed the Superior
Court's decision, and the appeal is now pending. The Company is
defending against this appeal.


DENTSPLY SIRONA: Hearings This Month in "Hildebrand" Case
---------------------------------------------------------
Dentsply Sirona Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a Court has scheduled
further hearings for June 2016 in the case by Carole Hildebrand,
DDS and Robert Jaffin.

On December 12, 2006, a Complaint was filed by Carole Hildebrand,
DDS and Robert Jaffin, DDS in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(the Plaintiffs subsequently added Dr. Mitchell Goldman as a named
class representative).  The case was filed by the same law firm
that filed the Weinstat case in California.  The Complaint asserts
putative class action claims on behalf of dentists located in New
Jersey and Pennsylvania. The Complaint seeks damages and asserts
that the Company's Cavitron(R) ultrasonic scaler was negligently
designed and sold in breach of contract and warranty arising from
misrepresentations about the potential uses of the product because
it cannot assure the delivery of potable or sterile water.
Following grant of a Company Motion and dismissal of the case for
lack of jurisdiction, the plaintiffs filed a second complaint
under the name of Dr. Hildebrand's corporate practice, Center City
Periodontists, asserting the same allegations (this case is now
proceeding under the name "Center City Periodontists"). The
plaintiffs moved to have the case certified as a class action, to
which the Company has objected and filed its brief. The Court
subsequently granted a Motion filed by the Company and dismissed
plaintiffs' New Jersey Consumer Fraud and negligent design claims,
leaving only a breach of express warranty claim, in response to
which the Company has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. The
Court held three days of hearings in January 2016 on plaintiffs'
class certification motion. The Court has scheduled further
hearings in the matter for June 2016.


DENTSPLY SIRONA: Merger Class Actions Withdrawn
-----------------------------------------------
Dentsply Sirona Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that on October 2, 2015 and
October 5, 2015, the Company and its wholly-owned subsidiary
Dawkins Merger Sub Inc. ("Merger Sub") were served with two
separate putative class action complaints filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware by purported stockholders of
Sirona Dental Systems, Inc. ("Sirona") against the members of
Sirona's Board of Directors, the Company, and Merger Sub. The
Complaints allege that the Company and Merger Sub aided and
abetted and/or assisted Sirona's Board members in breaching their
fiduciary duties to Sirona's stockholders in connection with the
Agreement and Plan of Merger entered into between the Company and
Sirona on September 15, 2015. The plaintiffs subsequently withdrew
the two cases in December 2015 and April 2016.


DESIGNED RECEIVABLE: Seana Goodson Seeks Certification of Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled SEANA GOODSON, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DESIGNED
RECEIVABLE SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 2:15-cv-03308-JVS-JPR (C.D.
Cal.), moves the Court to certify a class consisting of:

     All persons within the United States who had or have a
     number assigned to a cellular telephone service, who
     received at least one call using an automatic telephone
     dialing system and/or an artificial or prerecorded voice
     from Defendant or its agent between May 1, 2015 and present
     for debt collection purposes, who received such a call where
     Defendant's customer account records indicate that prior to
     any subsequent calls that said persons revoked consent to be
     contacted on their phone by Defendant, as identified by one
     or more of the following terms in Defendant's electronic
     customer account records: "DNC" "GHA" "PIF" "Do Not Contact"
     "Paid In Full" or "Good Home Address."

The Plaintiff moves the Court for appointment of the Plaintiff as
Class Representative, and for appointment of the Plaintiff's
attorneys as Class Counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=wpa7GYdf

The Court will commence a hearing on August 8, 2016, at 1:30 p.m.,
to consider the Motion.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          324 S. Beverly Dr., #725
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
                  abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com


DOLGENCORP LLC: "Barfoot" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2709
-------------------------------------------------------
Bradford Barfoot and Leonard Karpeichik, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Dolgencorp L.L.C., a Kentucky corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
1:15-cv-24662, was transferred from U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri (Kansas City). The Western District
Court assigned Case No. 4:16-cv-00520-GAF to the proceeding.

Dolgencorp is a variety store located in Goodlettsville,
Tennessee.

The "Barfoot" case is being consolidated with MDL 2709 in re:
Dollar General Corp. Motor Oil Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on June 2, 2016. These
actions share factual questions arising from Dollar General's
marketing and sales of certain company-branded motor oils designed
for use with automobile engines manufactured before 1988 (the DG
SAE 10W-30 and DG SAE 10W-40 products) or 1930 (the DG SAE 30
product). Plaintiffs uniformly allege that Dollar General fails to
adequately warn that these motor oil products are unsuitable for
use in most modern automobile engines. In its June 2, 2016 Order,
the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve non-
overlapping putative statewide classes, one of the actions on the
motion and both potential tagalong actions assert claims on behalf
of putative nationwide classes that overlap with claims asserted
in the other actions. Accordingly, the panel concluded that
centralization is warranted to eliminate duplicative discovery;
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to
class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties,
their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judges in the MDL is
Hon. Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge. The lead case
is 4:16-md-02709-GAF.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Allan Kanner, Esq.
          KANNER & WHITELEY, LLC
          701 Camp Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 524 5777
          Facsimile: (504) 524 5763
          E-mail: a.kanner@kanner-law.com

               - and -

          Louis I. Mussman, Esq.
          Brian Tse-Hua Ku, Esq.
          KU & MUSSMAN PA
          12550 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 406
          Miami, FL 33181
          Telephone: (305) 891 1322
          E-mail: Louis@KuMussman.com
                  brian@kumussman.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Emily Yandle Rottmann, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          50 N. Laura Street, Suite 3300
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Telephone: (904) 798 3224
          Facsimile: (904) 798 3263
          E-mail: erottmann@mcguirewoods.com

               - and -

          Richard Trent Taylor, Esq.
          Daniel M Mahfood, Esq.
          Robert Eric Bilik, Esq.
          MCGUIRE WOODS LLP - RICHMOND
          800 E. Canal Street
          Gateway Plaza
          Richmond, VA 23219-5409
          Telephone: (804) 775 1000
          Facsimile: (804) 225 5409
          E-mail: rtaylor@mcguirewoods.com
                  dmahfood@mcguirewoods.com
                  ebilik@mcguirewoods.com


DOLGENCORP LLC: "Flinn" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2709
-----------------------------------------------------
William Flinn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Dolgencorp L.L.C., doing business as
Dollar General Corporation, the Defendant, Case no. 1:15-cv-08713,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Missouri (Kansas City). The Western District Court assigned Case
No. 4:16-cv-00529-GAF to the proceeding.

Dolgencorp is a variety store located in Goodlettsville,
Tennessee.

The "Flinn" case is being consolidated with MDL 2709 in re:
Dollar General Corp. Motor Oil Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on June 2, 2016. These
actions share factual questions arising from Dollar General's
marketing and sales of certain company-branded motor oils designed
for use with automobile engines manufactured before 1988 (the DG
SAE 10W-30 and DG SAE 10W-40 products) or 1930 (the DG SAE 30
product). Plaintiffs uniformly allege that Dollar General fails to
adequately warn that these motor oil products are unsuitable for
use in most modern automobile engines. In its June 2, 2016 Order,
the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve non-
overlapping putative statewide classes, one of the actions on the
motion and both potential tagalong actions assert claims on behalf
of putative nationwide classes that overlap with claims asserted
in the other actions. Accordingly, the panel concluded that
centralization is warranted to eliminate duplicative discovery;
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to
class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties,
their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judges in the MDL is
Hon. Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge. The lead case
is 4:16-md-02709-GAF.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Allan Kanner, Esq.
          KANNER & WHITELEY, LLC
          701 Camp Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 524 5777
          Facsimile: (504) 524 5763
          E-mail: a.kanner@kanner-law.com

               - and -

          Gerald H. Clark, Esq.
          CLARK LAW FIRM, PC
          811 Sixteenth Avenue
          Belmar, NJ 07719
          Telephone: (732) 443 0333
          Facsimile: (732) 894 9647
          E-mail: gclark@clarklawnj.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael James Van Riper, Esq.
          MCGUIRE WOODS LLP
          1345 Avenue of the Americas, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10105
          Telephone: (212) 548 2100
          E-mail: mvanriper@mcguirewoods.com


DOLGENCORP LLC: "Hill" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2709
----------------------------------------------------
Chuck Hill, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Dolgencorp, L.L.C., doing business as
Dollar General Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-
00026, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of Vermont, to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri (Kansas City). The Western District Court
assigned Case No. 4:16-cv-00534-GAF to the proceeding.

Dolgencorp is a variety store located in Goodlettsville,
Tennessee.

The "Hill" case is being consolidated with MDL 2709 in re: Dollar
General Corp. Motor Oil Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation.
The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation on June 2, 2016. These actions share
factual questions arising from Dollar General's marketing and
sales of certain company-branded motor oils designed for use with
automobile engines manufactured before 1988 (the DG SAE 10W-30 and
DG SAE 10W-40 products) or 1930 (the DG SAE 30 product).
Plaintiffs uniformly allege that Dollar General fails to
adequately warn that these motor oil products are unsuitable for
use in most modern automobile engines. In its June 2, 2016 Order,
the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve non-
overlapping putative statewide classes, one of the actions on the
motion and both potential tagalong actions assert claims on behalf
of putative nationwide classes that overlap with claims asserted
in the other actions. Accordingly, the panel concluded that
centralization is warranted to eliminate duplicative discovery;
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to
class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties,
their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judges in the MDL is
Hon. Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge. The lead case
is 4:16-md-02709-GAF.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Wilfred K. Wright, Jr., Esq.
          WRIGHT LAW PLC
          P.O. Box 982
          Claremore, OK 74018
          Telephone: (918) 341 1923
          Facsimile: (918) 341 1923
          E-mail: re.9001@yahoo.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Matthew S. Borick , Esq.
          DOWNS RACHLIN MARTIN PLLC
          199 Main Street
          P.O. Box 190
          Burlington, VT 05402-0190
          Telephone: (802) 863 2375
          Facsimile: (802) 862 7512
          E-mail: mborick@drm.com

               - and -

          R. Trent Taylor, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          Gateway Plaza
          800 East Canal Street
          Richmond, VA 23219-3916
          Telephone: (804) 775 1182
          Facsimile: (804) 225 5409
          E-mail: rtaylor@mcguirewoods.com


DOLGENCORP LLC: "Sisemore" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2709
--------------------------------------------------------
Will Sisemore, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Dolgencorp L.L.C., doing business as:
Dollar General Corporation, v. the Defendant, Case No. 4:15-cv-
00724, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Oklahoma, to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri (Kansas City). The Western District
Court assigned Case No. 4:16-cv-00532-GAF to the proceeding.

Dolgencorp is a variety store located in Goodlettsville,
Tennessee.

The "Sisemore" case is being consolidated with MDL 2709 in re:
Dollar General Corp. Motor Oil Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on June 2, 2016. These
actions share factual questions arising from Dollar General's
marketing and sales of certain company-branded motor oils designed
for use with automobile engines manufactured before 1988 (the DG
SAE 10W-30 and DG SAE 10W-40 products) or 1930 (the DG SAE 30
product). Plaintiffs uniformly allege that Dollar General fails to
adequately warn that these motor oil products are unsuitable for
use in most modern automobile engines. In its June 2, 2016 Order,
the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve non-
overlapping putative statewide classes, one of the actions on the
motion and both potential tagalong actions assert claims on behalf
of putative nationwide classes that overlap with claims asserted
in the other actions. Accordingly, the panel concluded that
centralization is warranted to eliminate duplicative discovery;
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to
class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties,
their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judges in the MDL is
Hon. Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge. The lead case
is 4:16-md-02709-GAF.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Allan Kanner, Esq.
          Conlee Schell Whiteley, Esq.
          Cynthia St Amant, Esq.
          KANNER & WHITELEY, LLC
          701 Camp Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 524 5777
          Facsimile: (504) 524 5763
          E-mail: a.kanner@kanner-law.com
                  c.whiteley@kanner-law.com
                  c.stamant@kanner-law.com

               - and -

          Wilfred K. Wright, Jr., Esq.
          WRIGHT LAW PLC
          P.O. Box 982
          Claremore, OK 74018
          Telephone: (918) 341 1923
          Facsimile: (918) 341 1923
          E-mail: re.9001@yahoo.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Richard Trent Taylor, Esq.
          Joel Steven Allen, Esq.
          MCGUIRE WOODS LLP - RICHMOND
          800 E. Canal Street
          Gateway Plaza
          Richmond, VA 23219-5409
          Telephone: (804) 775 1000
          Facsimile: (804) 225 5409
          E-mail: rtaylor@mcguirewoods.com
                  jallen@mcguirewoods.com


DOLGENCORP LLC: "Foppe" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2709
------------------------------------------------------
John Foppe, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Dollar General Corporation, and
Dolgencorp, L.L.C., Kentucky Limited Liability Company, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00026, was transferred from U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Missouri (Kansas City).
The Western District Court assigned Case No. 4:16-cv-00523-GAF to
the proceeding.

Dolgencorp is a variety store located in Goodlettsville,
Tennessee.

The "Foppe" case is being consolidated with MDL 2709 in re: Dollar
General Corp. Motor Oil Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation.
The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation on June 2, 2016. These actions share
factual questions arising from Dollar General's marketing and
sales of certain company-branded motor oils designed for use with
automobile engines manufactured before 1988 (the DG SAE 10W-30 and
DG SAE 10W-40 products) or 1930 (the DG SAE 30 product).
Plaintiffs uniformly allege that Dollar General fails to
adequately warn that these motor oil products are unsuitable for
use in most modern automobile engines. In its June 2, 2016 Order,
the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve non-
overlapping putative statewide classes, one of the actions on the
motion and both potential tagalong actions assert claims on behalf
of putative nationwide classes that overlap with claims asserted
in the other actions. Accordingly, the panel concluded that
centralization is warranted to eliminate duplicative discovery;
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to
class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties,
their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judges in the MDL is
Hon. Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge. The lead case
is 4:16-md-02709-GAF.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Allan Kanner, Esq.
          Conlee Schell-Whiteley, Esq.
          Cynthia Green St. Amant, Esq.
          KANNER & WHITELEY, LLC
          701 Camp Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 524 5777
          Facsimile: (504) 524 5763
          E-mail: a.kanner@kanner-law.com
                  c.whiteley@kanner-law.com
                  c.stamant@kanner-law.com

               - and -

          Colin W McClain, Esq.
          Kenneth B. McClain, Esq.
          Kevin D. Stanley, Esq.
          HUMPHREY, FARRINGTON, & MCCLAIN, PC
          221 West Lexington, Suite 400
          P. O. Box 900
          Independence, MO 64051
          Telephone: (816) 836 5050
          Facsimile: (816) 836 8966
          E-mail: cwm@hfmlegal.com
                  kbm@hfmlegal.com
                  kds@hfmlegal.com

               - and -

          David A. Futscher, Esq.
          PARRY DEERING FUTSCHER & SPARKS PSC
          913 N. Oak Drive
          P.O. Box 2618
          Covington, KY 41012
          Telephone: (859) 912 2394
          E-mail: david@futscherlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Heather M. Hawkins, Esq.
          Jesse Jenike-Godshalk, Esq.
          THOMPSON HINE, LLP - CINCINNATI
          312 Walnut Street, Suite 1400
          Cincinnati, OH 45202-4089
          Telephone: (513) 352 6532
          Facsimile: (513) 241 4771
          E-mail: heather.hawkins@thompsonhine.com
                  jesse.jenike-godshalk@thompsonhine.com

               - and -

          Richard Trent Taylor, Esq.
          MCGUIRE WOODS LLP - RICHMOND
          800 E. Canal Street
          Gateway Plaza
          Richmond, VA 23219-5409
          Telephone: (804) 775 1000
          Facsimile: (804) 225 5409
          E-mail: rtaylor@mcguirewoods.com


DOLGENCORP LLC: "Harvey" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2709
------------------------------------------------------
Janine Harvey, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Dollar General Corporation, a
Tennessee corporation, and Dolgencorp, L.L.C., a Kentucky Limited
Liability Company, the Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-00072, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nebraska, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Missouri (Kansas City). The Western District Court assigned
Case No. 4:16-cv-00528-GAF to the proceeding.

Dolgencorp is a variety store located in Goodlettsville,
Tennessee.

The "Harvey" case is being consolidated with MDL 2709 in re:
Dollar General Corp. Motor Oil Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on June 2, 2016. These
actions share factual questions arising from Dollar General's
marketing and sales of certain company-branded motor oils designed
for use with automobile engines manufactured before 1988 (the DG
SAE 10W-30 and DG SAE 10W-40 products) or 1930 (the DG SAE 30
product). Plaintiffs uniformly allege that Dollar General fails to
adequately warn that these motor oil products are unsuitable for
use in most modern automobile engines. In its June 2, 2016 Order,
the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve non-
overlapping putative statewide classes, one of the actions on the
motion and both potential tagalong actions assert claims on behalf
of putative nationwide classes that overlap with claims asserted
in the other actions. Accordingly, the panel concluded that
centralization is warranted to eliminate duplicative discovery;
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to
class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties,
their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judges in the MDL is
Hon. Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge. The lead case
is 4:16-md-02709-GAF.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Allan Kanner, Esq.
          Conlee Whiteley, Esq.
          Cynthia St. Amant, Esq.
          KANNER & WHITELEY, LLC
          701 Camp Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 524 5777
          Facsimile: (504) 524 5763
          E-mail: a.kanner@kanner-law.com
                  c.whiteley@kanner-law.com
                  c.stamant@kanner-law.com

               - and -

          Andrew K Smith, Esq.
          Colin W McClain, Esq.
          Kenneth B. McClain, Esq.
          Kevin D. Stanley, Esq.
          HUMPHREY, FARRINGTON, & MCCLAIN, PC
          221 West Lexington, Suite 400
          P. O. Box 900
          Independence, MO 64051
          Telephone: (816) 836 5050
          Facsimile: (816) 836 8966
          E-mail: aks@hfmlegal.com
                  cwm@hfmlegal.com
                  kbm@hfmlegal.com
                  kds@hfmlegal.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Patrick R. Turner
          STINSON, LEONARD LAW FIRM - OMAHA
          1299 Farnam Street, Suite 1500
          Omaha, NE 68102
          Telephone: (402) 342 1700
          E-mail: patrick.turner@stinson.com


DOLGENCORP LLC: "Wait" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2709
-----------------------------------------------------
Matthew Wait, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Dollar General Corporation, a
Tennessee Corporation, and Dolgencorp L.L.C., a Kentucky Limited
Liability Company, the Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-05036, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District
Court of Arkansas, to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri (Kansas City). The Western District Court
assigned Case No. 4:16-cv-00517-GAF to the proceeding.

Dolgencorp is a variety store located in Goodlettsville,
Tennessee.

The "Wait" case is being consolidated with MDL 2709 in re: Dollar
General Corp. Motor Oil Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation.
The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation on June 2, 2016. These actions share
factual questions arising from Dollar General's marketing and
sales of certain company-branded motor oils designed for use with
automobile engines manufactured before 1988 (the DG SAE 10W-30 and
DG SAE 10W-40 products) or 1930 (the DG SAE 30 product).
Plaintiffs uniformly allege that Dollar General fails to
adequately warn that these motor oil products are unsuitable for
use in most modern automobile engines. In its June 2, 2016 Order,
the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve non-
overlapping putative statewide classes, one of the actions on the
motion and both potential tagalong actions assert claims on behalf
of putative nationwide classes that overlap with claims asserted
in the other actions. Accordingly, the panel concluded that
centralization is warranted to eliminate duplicative discovery;
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to
class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties,
their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judges in the MDL is
Hon. Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge. The lead case
is 4:16-md-02709-GAF.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Allan Kanner, Esq.
          Conlee Schell-Whiteley, Esq.
          Cynthia Green St. Amant, Esq.
          KANNER & WHITELEY, LLC
          701 Camp Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 524 5777
          Facsimile: (504) 524 5763
          E-mail: a.kanner@kanner-law.com
                  c.whiteley@kanner-law.com
                  c.stamant@kanner-law.com

               - and -

          J. Timothy Smith, Esq.
          ELLIOTT & SMITH LAW FIRM
          P.O. Box 9090
          1200 E. Joyce Blvd., Suite 401
          Fayetteville, AR 72703
          Telephone: (479) 587 8423
          Facsimile: (479) 575 0039
          E-mail: tsmith@elliottsmithlaw.com

               - and -

          Colin W McClain, Esq.
          Kenneth B. McClain, Esq.
          Kevin D. Stanley, Esq.
          HUMPHREY, FARRINGTON, & MCCLAIN, PC
          221 West Lexington, Suite 400
          P. O. Box 900
          Independence, MO 64051
          Telephone: (816) 836 5050
          Facsimile: (816) 836 8966
          E-mail: cwm@hfmlegal.com
                  kbm@hfmlegal.com
                  kds@hfmlegal.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Angela C Artherton, Esq.
          FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK LLP
          3350 South Pinnacle Hills Parkway, Suite 301
          Rogers, AR 72758
          Telephone: (479) 695 6044
          Facsimile: (501) 537 2934
          E-mail: aartherton@fridayfirm.com

               - and -

          Richard Trent Taylor, Esq.
          MCGUIRE WOODS LLP - RICHMOND
          800 E. Canal Street
          Gateway Plaza
          Richmond, VA 23219-5409
          Telephone: (804) 775 1000
          Facsimile: (804) 225 5409
          E-mail: rtaylor@mcguirewoods.com


DOLLAR GENERAL: Local Customers Join Oil Marketing Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Rittman and Nick Sloan, writing for KITV, report that local
customers have joined a class action lawsuit against Dollar
General, accusing the retailer of using deceptive marketing to
sell motor oil designed for cars made before 1930 and 1988.

There are two different types of Dollar General oil referenced in
the lawsuits.  One is not suitable for cars made after 1930. The
other is not suitable for cars made after 1988.

Customers believe Dollar General failed to warn customers the oil
can damage modern cars.

But Dollar General says the warning is right there on the product.

KCTV5 could not find a single bottle of Dollar General brand motor
oil at a location in Mission.

However, a location in Shawnee off Nieman Road sold plenty of the
brand.

That location is where an Overland Park man says he bought a
bottle in January.

Andrew Smith is an attorney for Humphrey, Farrington & McClain. He
says the Dollar General is guilty of concealing their brand with
other motor oils.

The customer has joined a class action lawsuit.

"If someone was going to sell motor oil for a 1930 or older
engine, they would be marketing it to a very specific demographic
of consumer and not hiding it along with other motor oils in a
Dollar General," Mr. Smith said.

The oil does not contain additives that modern cars need.

The back label on one type of Dollar General motor oil says,
"Caution: It is not suitable for use in most gasoline powered
automotive engines built after 1930. Use in modern engines may
cause unsatisfactory engine performance or equipment harm."


DOMINO'S PIZZA: Seeks Final Approval of "Kohler" Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the lawsuit captioned KIMBERLY KOHLER, on behalf of
herself all similarly-situated individuals v. SWF OPERATIONS, LLC,
d/b/a DOMINO'S PIZZA, and DOMINO'S PIZZA, LLC, Case No. 8:14-cv-
02568-MSS-TGW (M.D. Fla.), jointly ask the Court to grant final
approval of their settlement.

On February 12, 2016, the Court granted the Parties' Revised Joint
Motion for Preliminary Approval of the class-wide settlement of
the Fair Credit Reporting Act claims asserted against the
Defendants.  The Settlement provides for settlement payments to be
made to approximately 298 class members.   The Defendants will
create a non-reversionary fund for Class Members consisting of
$24,850 (less a $2,500 incentive for the Named Plaintiff).

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=7vWih6ak

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 379-2565
          Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
          E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
                  bhill@wfclaw.com

Defendant SWF Operations, LLC, is represented by:

          Christine E. Howard, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
          101 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 2350
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 769-7503
          Facsimile: (813) 769-7501
          E-mail: choward@fisherphillips.com

Defendant Domino's Pizza LLC is represented by:

          Richard A. Ivers, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD A. IVERS
          7451 Wiles Road, Suite 101
          Coral Springs, FL 33067
          Telephone: (954) 757-6262
          Facsimile: (954) 757-6594
          E-mail: richard@iverslawfirm.com


DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Appeals N.D. Cal. Ruling in "Nitsch" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Dreamworks Animation SKG, Inc., The Walt Disney
Company, Lucasfilm Ltd., LLC, Pixar, and Two PIC MC LLC, filed an
appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
from a ruling entered by the Honorable Lucy H. Koh in the lawsuit
entitled Robert Nitsch, et al. v. Dreamworks Animation SKG, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 5:14-cv-04062-LHK, in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California.

The Petitioners want the Appellate Court to determine whether Rule
23(f) review should be granted where (1) Appellate Court has not
addressed under what circumstances class certification is
appropriate where the claims of the class depend on establishing
that fraudulent concealment tolled the statute of limitations; and
(2) the District Court failed to identify how individualized
issues relating to fraudulent concealment could be manageably
adjudicated.

In their lawsuit, Plaintiffs Robert A. Nitsch, Jr., Georgia Cano,
and David Wentworth, individually and on behalf of a class of all
those similarly situated, allege antitrust claims against their
former employers, Blue Sky Studios, Inc.; DreamWorks Animation
SKG, Inc.; Two Pic MC LLC, formerly known as ImageMovers Digital
LLC; Lucasfilm Ltd., LLC; Pixar; Sony Pictures Animation Inc. and
Sony Pictures Imageworks, Inc., and The Walt Disney Company.  The
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants conspired to suppress, and
actually did suppress, employee compensation to artificially low
levels by agreeing not to solicit each other's employees and by
exchanging employee compensation information in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act; California's Cartwright Act; and
California's Unfair Competition Law.

The appellate case is captioned as ROBERT A. NITSCH, JR., GEORGIA
CANO, and DAVID WENTWORTH, Plaintiffs-Respondents v. DREAMWORKS
ANIMATION SKG, INC., THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY, LUCASFILM LTD., LLC,
PIXAR, and TWO PIC MC LLC, Defendants-Petitioners, and BLUE SKY
STUDIOS, INC., SONY PICTURES ANIMATION INC., and SONY PICTURES
IMAGEWORKS, INC., Defendants., Case No. 16-80077, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Defendant-Petitioner DreamWorks Animation SKG, Inc., is
represented by:

          Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Esq.
          Daniel G. Swanson, Esq.
          Rod J. Stone, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
          Telephone: (213) 229-7000
          Facsimile: (213) 229-6430
          E-mail: tboutrous@gibsondunn.com
                  dswanson@gibsondunn.com
                  rstone@gibsondunn.com

Defendants-Petitioners The Walt Disney Company, Lucasfilm Ltd.,
LLC, Pixar, and Two Pic MC LLC are represented by:

          Emily Johnson Henn, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700
          Redwood Shores, CA 94061-1418
          Telephone: (650) 632-4700
          E-mail: ehenn@cov.com

               - and -

          Deborah A. Garza, Esq.
          Thomas A. Isaacson, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          One City Center
          850 Tenth Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20001-4956
          Telephone: (202) 662-6000
          E-mail: dgarza@cov.com
                  tisaacson@cov.com

               - and -

          John W. Keker, Esq.
          Robert A. Van Nest, Esq.
          Cody S. Harris, Esq.
          KEKER & VAN NEST LLP
          633 Battery Street
          San Francisco, California 94111-1809
          Telephone: (415) 391-5400
          E-mail: jkeker@kvn.com
                  rvannest@kvn.com
                  charris@kvn.com


EL POLLO LOCO: Working to Memorialize Settlement in Labor Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 30, 2016, that the parties in a
class action lawsuit by a former employee are working to
memorialize a settlement and secure the required court approval.

On or about February 24, 2014, a former employee filed a class
action in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Orange, against EPL on behalf of all putative class members (all
hourly employees from 2010 to the present) alleging certain
violations of California labor laws, including failure to pay
overtime compensation, failure to provide meal periods and rest
breaks, and failure to provide itemized wage statements. The
putative lead plaintiff's requested remedies include compensatory
and punitive damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits,
and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. No specific amount of
damages sought was specified in the complaint.

"We have executed a Memorandum of Understanding outlining an
agreement in principle between the parties to settle the claims on
a class-wide basis.  The parties are working to memorialize the
settlement and secure the required court approval," the Company
said.

El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. ("Holdings") is a Delaware
corporation headquartered in Costa Mesa, California. The Company's
activities are conducted principally through its indirect wholly-
owned subsidiary, El Pollo Loco, Inc. ("EPL"), which develops,
franchises, licenses, and operates quick-service restaurants under
the name El Pollo Loco(R) and operates under one operating
segment. At March 30, 2016, the Company operated 188 and
franchised 248 El Pollo Loco restaurants.


EL POLLO LOCO: Dismissal of Consolidated "Turocy" Action Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
Movants Ron Huston, Robert W. Kegley, Sr., Peter Kim, Dr. Richard
Levy, Samuel Tanner have asked Judge David O Carter of the Central
District Court of California to dismiss the Consolidated Class
Action Complaint in the case, Daniel Turocy v. El Pollo Loco
Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-01343 (C.D. Cal.).

El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 30, 2016, that Daniel Turocy, et
al. v. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., et al. (Case No. 8:15-cv-
01343) was filed in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on August 24, 2015, and Ron Huston,
et al. v. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., et al. (Case No. 8:15-cv-
01710) was filed in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on October 22, 2015. The two
lawsuits have been consolidated, with co-lead plaintiffs and class
counsel.

A consolidated complaint was filed on January 29, 2016, on behalf
of co-lead plaintiffs and others similarly situated, alleging
violations of federal securities laws in connection with Holdings
common stock purchased or otherwise acquired and the purchase of
call options or the sale of put options, between May 1, 2015 and
August 13, 2015 (the "Class Period"). The named defendants are
Holdings; Stephen J. Sather, Laurance Roberts, and Edward J. Valle
(collectively, the "Individual Defendants"); and Trimaran Pollo
Partners, L.L.C., Trimaran Capital Partners, and Freeman Spogli &
Co. (collectively, the "Controlling Shareholder Defendants").

Among other things, Plaintiffs allege that, in 2014 and early
2015, Holdings suffered losses due to rising labor costs in
California and, in an attempt to mitigate the effects of such
rising costs, removed a $5 value option from our menu, which
resulted in a decrease in value-conscious store traffic.
Plaintiffs further allege that during the Class Period, Holdings
and the Individual Defendants made a series of materially false
and misleading statements that concealed the effect that these
factors were having on store sales growth, resulting in Holdings
stock continuing to be traded at artificially inflated prices.

As a result, Plaintiffs and other members of the putative class
allegedly suffered damages in connection with their purchase of
Holdings' stock during the Class Period. In addition, Plaintiffs
allege that the Individual Defendants and Controlling Shareholder
Defendants had direct involvement in, and responsibility over, the
operations of Holdings, and are presumed to have had, among other
things, the power to control or influence the transactions giving
rise to the alleged securities law violations.

In both cases, Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages,
as well as costs and expenses (including attorneys' fees).
Defendants intend to vigorously defend against the claims
asserted.

El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. ("Holdings") is a Delaware
corporation headquartered in Costa Mesa, California. The Company's
activities are conducted principally through its indirect wholly-
owned subsidiary, El Pollo Loco, Inc. ("EPL"), which develops,
franchises, licenses, and operates quick-service restaurants under
the name El Pollo Loco(R) and operates under one operating
segment. At March 30, 2016, the Company operated 188 and
franchised 248 El Pollo Loco restaurants.


EMPIRE DISTRICT ELECTRIC: Defending Against Merger Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Empire District Electric Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company is
defending against lawsuits in connection with the pending merger
with Liberty Central.

On March 24, 2016, a purported shareholder of Empire filed a
complaint styled as a class action lawsuit in the District Court
for the 3rd Judicial District, in Shawnee County, Kansas. The
complaint alleges that Empire's Board of Directors breached its
fiduciary duties in agreeing to the Merger Agreement by, among
other things, conducting an inadequate sales process and failing
to obtain adequate consideration, having an interest in completing
the Merger, and failing to make adequate disclosures in the proxy
statement. The complaint seeks various relief, including an
injunction against the Merger. The complaint also alleges that
Empire, APUC, Liberty Central and Merger Sub aided and abetted
such alleged breaches.

The outcome of the lawsuit cannot be predicted with any certainty.
A preliminary injunction could delay or jeopardize the completion
of the Merger, and an adverse judgment granting permanent
injunctive relief could indefinitely enjoin completion of the
Merger. All of the defendants believe that the claims asserted
against them in the lawsuit are without merit.

The Empire District Electric Company operates its businesses as
three segments:  electric, gas and other. The Empire District
Electric Company (EDE), a Kansas corporation organized in 1909, is
an operating public utility engaged in the generation, purchase,
transmission, distribution and sale of electricity in parts of
Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma and Arkansas.

On February 9, 2016, Empire entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the Merger Agreement) with Liberty Utilities (Central)
Co., a Delaware corporation (Liberty Central), and Liberty Sub
Corp., a Kansas corporation (Merger Sub), providing for the merger
of Merger Sub with and into Empire, with Empire surviving the
Merger as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Liberty Central (the
Merger).


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: 3rd Amended Complaint Filed in N.D. Ill. Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Endo International Plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that plaintiffs have filed
a third amended complaint in a class action lawsuit in Illinois
related to testosterone products.

In November 2014, a civil class action complaint was filed in the
Northern District of Illinois against EPI, Auxilium, and various
other manufacturers of testosterone products on behalf of a
proposed class of health insurance companies and other third party
payers that had paid for certain testosterone products, alleging
that the marketing efforts of EPI, Auxilium, and other defendant
manufacturers with respect to certain testosterone products
constituted racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec.
1962(c), and other civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act claims. Further, the complaint alleges that EPI,
Auxilium, and other defendant manufacturers violated various state
consumer protection laws through their marketing of certain
testosterone products and raises other state law claims.

In March 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint
and plaintiffs responded by filing amended complaints. In February
2016, the District Court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss. The District Court declined to
dismiss plaintiffs' claims for conspiracy to commit racketeering
activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1962(d) and claims for
negligent misrepresentation.  In April 2016, plaintiffs filed a
third amended complaint.

                           *     *     *

Endo also said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2016, that in October 2015, a civil class action
complaint was filed against EPI and other defendant manufacturers
in the Northern District of Illinois. Similar litigation may be
brought by other plaintiffs.  No further updates were provided in
the Company's SEC report.

"We are unable to predict the outcome of this matter or the
ultimate legal and financial liability, if any, and at this time
cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss for
this matter, if any, but we will explore all options as
appropriate in our best interest," the Company said.


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: OPANA(R) ER Lawsuits Pending in N.D. Ill.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Endo International Plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company continues
to defend lawsuits related to OPANA(R) ER.

Multiple direct and indirect purchasers of OPANA(R) ER have filed
cases against our subsidiaries EHSI and EPI, and other
pharmaceutical companies, including Penwest Pharmaceuticals Co.,
which we subsequently acquired, and Impax Laboratories Inc.
(Impax), all of which have been transferred and coordinated for
pretrial proceedings in the Northern District of Illinois by the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Some of these cases
have been filed on behalf of putative classes of direct and
indirect purchasers, while others have been filed on behalf of
individual retailers. These cases generally allege that the
agreement reached by EPI and Impax to settle patent infringement
litigation concerning multiple patents pertaining to OPANA(R) ER
and EPI's introduction of the re-formulation of OPANA(R) ER
violated antitrust laws. The complaints allege violations of
Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. Sections 1, 2),
various state antitrust and consumer protection statutes, as well
as state common law. These cases generally seek damages, treble
damages, disgorgement of profits, restitution, injunctive relief
and attorneys' fees.

In February 2016, the District Court issued orders (i) denying
defendants' motion to dismiss the claims of the direct purchasers,
(ii) denying in part and granting in part defendants' motion to
dismiss the claims of the indirect purchasers and (iii) granting
defendants' motion to dismiss the complaints filed by certain
retailers, but giving them permission to file amended complaints,
which they have done.

"We cannot predict whether or not additional cases similar to
those described above will be filed by other plaintiffs or the
timing or outcome of any such litigation," the Company said.


F-19 HOLDINGS: Appeal From E.D. Ky. Ruling Filed in "Malik" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Pla Anwar Khejaranan Malik filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit titled Anwar Malik v. F-19 Holdings, LLC, et
al., Case No. 5:15-cv-00130, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Kentucky at Lexington.

The appellate case is captioned as Anwar Malik v. F-19 Holdings,
LLC, et al., Case No. 16-5791, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by:

          Jessica Katherine Winters, Esq.
          THE GETTY LAW GROUP PLLC
          250 W. Main Street, Suite 1900
          Lexington, KY 40507
          Telephone: (859) 259-1900
          Facsimile: (859) 259-1909
          E-mail: jwinters@gettylawgroup.com

Defendants-Appellees DEF F-19 Holdings, LLC, and DEF Fitness 19 KY
185, LLC, are represented by:

          Daniel J. Donnellon, Esq.
          FARUKI, IRELAND & COX
          201 E. Fifth Street, Suite 1420
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 632-0308
          E-mail: DDonnellon@bgdlegal.com


FARMER BROS: Aug. 12 Status Conference Set in "Hernandez" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Farmer Bros. Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the court has set
August 12, 2016 for a status conference in the cases, Steve
Hernandez vs. Farmer Bros. Co. and Monica Zuno vs. Farmer Bros.
Co., Superior Court of State of California, County of Los Angeles.

On July 24, 2015, former Company employee Hernandez filed a
putative class action complaint for damages alleging a single
cause of action for unfair competition under the California
Business & Professions Code. The claim purports to seek
disgorgement of profits for alleged violations of various
provisions of the California Labor Code relating to: failing to
pay overtime, failing to provide meal breaks, failing to pay
minimum wage, failing to pay wages timely during employment and
upon termination, failing to provide accurate and complete wage
statements, and failing to reimburse business-related expenses.
Hernandez's complaint seeks restitution in an unspecified amount
and injunctive relief, in addition to attorneys' fees and
expenses. Hernandez alleges that the putative class is all
"current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt individuals" for the
four (4) years preceding the filing of the complaint through final
judgment, and Hernandez also purports to reserve the right to
establish sub-classes as appropriate.

On November 12, 2015, a separate putative class representative,
Monica Zuno, filed claim under the same class action; the Court
has related this case to the Hernandez case.

On November 17, 2015, the unified case was assigned to a judge,
and this judge ordered the stay on discovery to remain intact
until after a decision on the Company's demurrer action.  The
plaintiff filed an Opposition to the Demurrer and, in response, on
January 5, 2016, the Company filed a reply to this Opposition to
the Demurrer.

The Company said, "On February 2, 2016, the Court held a hearing
on the demurrer. and found in our favor, sustaining the demurrer
in its entirety without leave to amend as to the plaintiff
Hernandez, and so dismissing Hernandez's claims and the related
putative class. Claims on behalf of the plaintiff Zuno remain at
this time, pending the filing of an amended complaint on behalf of
this remaining plaintiff and reduced putative class. The Court has
lifted the stay on discovery and has set August 12, 2016 for a
status conference. At this time, we are not able to predict the
probability of the outcome or estimate of loss, if any, related to
this matter."

Farmer Bros. Co., is a manufacturer, wholesaler and distributor of
coffee and distributor of tea and culinary products.


FIFTH THIRD: Settlement in Dudenhoeffer Awaits Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fifth Third Bancorp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the settlement in the
Dudenhoeffer class action remains subject to final approval.

In April 2006, the Bancorp was added as a defendant in a
consolidated antitrust class action lawsuit originally filed
against Visa(R), MasterCard(R) and several other major financial
institutions in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York. The plaintiffs, merchants operating
commercial businesses throughout the U.S. and trade associations,
claimed that the interchange fees charged by card-issuing banks
were unreasonable and sought injunctive relief and unspecified
damages.  In addition to being a named defendant, the Bancorp is
also subject to a possible indemnification obligation of Visa and
has also entered into judgment and loss sharing agreements with
Visa, MasterCard and certain other named defendants.

In October 2012, the parties to the litigation entered into a
settlement agreement. On January 14, 2014, the court entered a
final order approving the class settlement. A number of merchants
filed appeals from that approval. The appellate court held a
hearing on those appeals on September 28, 2015, and the matter is
under consideration.

In addition, on July 28, 2015, merchants opposing the class
settlement filed a motion in the District Court to set aside the
order approving the settlement because of alleged misconduct in
another case by certain counsel to the merchant class and a former
attorney for MasterCard. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement
agreement, the Bancorp paid $46 million into a class settlement
escrow account.

Approximately 8,000 merchants have requested exclusion from the
class settlement, and therefore, pursuant to the terms of the
settlement agreement, 25% of the funds paid into the class
settlement escrow account have been returned to the control of the
defendants. More than 460 of the merchants who requested exclusion
from the class have filed separate federal lawsuits against Visa,
MasterCard and certain other defendants alleging similar antitrust
violations. These "opt-out" federal lawsuits have been transferred
to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York. The Bancorp was not named as a defendant in any of the
opt-out federal lawsuits, but may have obligations pursuant to
indemnification arrangements and/or the judgment or loss sharing
agreements noted above.

On July 18, 2015, the court in which all the remaining opt-out
federal lawsuits have been consolidated denied defendants' motion
to dismiss the complaints.

On March 29, 2016, the court in two class action lawsuits
consolidated as Dudenhoeffer v Fifth Third Bancorp et al. filed in
2008 in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of Ohio preliminarily approved a settlement in which the Bancorp
agreed to pay $6 million and make certain changes to the Bancorp's
profit sharing plan. The complaints alleged that the Bancorp and
certain officers violated ERISA by continuing to offer Fifth Third
stock in the Bancorp's profit sharing plan when it was no longer a
prudent investment. The settlement is subject to final court
approval.


FIFTH THIRD: Parties in Klopfenstein Case Engaged in Discovery
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fifth Third Bancorp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the parties in the
lawsuit by William Klopfenstein and Adam McKinney are engaged in
discovery.

On August 3, 2012, William Klopfenstein and Adam McKinney filed a
lawsuit against Fifth Third Bank in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Klopfenstein et al. v.
Fifth Third Bank), alleging that the 120% APR that Fifth Third
disclosed on its Early Access program was misleading. Early Access
is a deposit-advance program offered to eligible customers with
checking accounts. The plaintiffs sought to represent a nationwide
class of customers who used the Early Access program and repaid
their cash advances within 30 days.

On October 31, 2012, the case was transferred to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. In 2013, four
similar putative class actions were filed against Fifth Third Bank
in federal courts throughout the country (Lori and Danielle
Laskaris v. Fifth Third Bank, Janet Fyock v. Fifth Third Bank,
Jesse McQuillen v. Fifth Third Bank, and Brian Harrison v. Fifth
Third Bank). Those four lawsuits were transferred to the Southern
District of Ohio and consolidated with the original lawsuit as In
re: Fifth Third Early Access Cash Advance Litigation.

On behalf of a putative class, the plaintiffs seek unspecified
monetary and statutory damages, injunctive relief, punitive
damages, attorney's fees, and pre- and post-judgment interest. On
March 30, 2015, the court dismissed all claims alleged in the
consolidated lawsuit except a claim under the TILA. The parties
are currently engaged in discovery. No trial date has been
scheduled.


FIRST CITIZENS: Faces "Coroa" Suit in Mass. Superior Court
----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Emanuel Coroa. The case is
captioned Emanuel Coroa, individually and on behalf of a class of
persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. First Citizens'
Federal Credit Union, the Defendant, Case No. 1673CV00558 (Mass.
Super. Ct., June 7, 2016).

First Citizens' is a federally chartered credit union
headquartered in Fairhaven, Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raven Moeslinger, Esq.
          Nicholas F. Ortiz, Esq.
          Law Office of Nicholas F. Ortiz, P.C.
          99 High Street, Suite 304
          Boston, MA 02110
          Tel: (617) 338-9400
          E-mail: nfo@mass-legal.com
                  rm@mass-legal.com


FIRST HORIZON: Defending Debit Transaction Sequencing Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
First Horizon National Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that FTBNA is a
defendant in a putative class action lawsuit concerning overdraft
fees charged in connection with debit card transactions. A key
claim is that the method used to order or sequence the
transactions posted each day was improper. The case is styled as
Hawkins v. First Tennessee Bank National Association, before the
Circuit Court for Shelby County, Tennessee, Case No. CT-004085-11.
The plaintiff seeks actual damages of at least $5 million,
unspecified restitution of fees charged, and unspecified punitive
damages, among other things. FHN's estimate of RPL for this matter
is subject to significant uncertainties regarding: whether a class
will be certified and, if so, the definition of the class; claims
as to which no dollar amount is specified; the potential remedies
that might be available or awarded; and the ultimate outcome of
potentially significant motions.


FITBIT INC: Faces Investor Class Action in California Over IPO
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Hadley, writing for Legal News Line, reports that a
California man is suing the consumer electronics firm Fitbit,
alleging it defrauded investors in its initial public offering.

Paul Rivera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, filed a lawsuit in San Mateo County Superior Court
against Fitbit Inc., Chairman James Park, chief technology officer
Eric N. Friedman, chief financial officer William Zerella, lead
independent director Jonathan D. Callaghan; directors Steven
Murray and Christopher Paisley, and several firms serving as
underwriters for the initial public offering: Morgan Stanley &
Company LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce,
Fenner & Smith Inc., Barclays Capital Inc., Suntrust Robinson
Humphrey Inc., Piper Jaffray & Co., Raymond James & Associates
Inc., Stifel, Nichlaus & Company Inc., William Blair & Company
LLC, and 25 unnamed defendants.

Fitbit has petitioned to remove the case to U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, arguing the case falls
under federal jurisdiction because it deals with a Securities Act
claim.

According to the complaint, Rivera purchased common stock in
Fitbit after its initial public offering June 22, 2015.  On
Jan. 5, 2016, the suit states, a class action lawsuit was brought
against the company because of alleged problems with its heart-
monitoring technology.

Since the public has learned of the alleged glitch, the stock
price has fell below $12 per share, about 40 percent off the IPO
price, the lawsuit states.  The suit alleges the IPO's
registration statement misstated facts about the company's heart
monitoring technology.

The plaintiffs seek a jury trial and compensatory damages, plus
litigation costs.  They are represented by attorneys Brian J.
Robbins -- brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com -- George C. Aguilar --
gaguilar@robbinsarroyo.com -- and Jay N. Razzouk --
jrazzouk@robbinsarroyo.com -- of Robbins Arroyo LLP in San Diego.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Case
number 4:16-cv-02890


GLOBAL TEL*LINK: Stuart Seeks Certification of Class & Subclasses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Kaylan Stuart, Dustin Murilla and Walter Chruby, and
Intervenor Rocky Hobbs ask the Court to certify the action
entitled In re Global Tel*Link Corporation ICS Litigation, Case
No. 5:14-cv-05275-TLB (W.D. Ark.), to proceed as class action
asserting a claim under the Federal Communications Act on behalf
of:

     All persons in the United States who, at any time within
     the applicable limitations period: (1) paid to use inmate
     calling services provided by Global Tel*Link (including its
     operating subsidiaries) to make or receive one or more
     interstate phone calls from a correctional facility during a
     period of time when Global Tel*Link paid the facility a
     commission of any type in connection with the interstate
     calls; and/or (2) paid deposit fees to Global Tel*Link in
     order to fund a prepaid account used to pay for any
     interstate calls.

The Plaintiffs seek an order certifying the Action to proceed as a
class action on behalf of these four subclasses asserting claims
under the common law of unjust enrichment:

(1) The Arkansas UE Subclass: All persons who, while a resident
     of Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa,
     Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Vermont
     or West Virginia, within the applicable limitations period:
     (1) paid to use inmate calling services provided by Global
     Tel*Link (including its operating subsidiaries) to make or
     receive one or more interstate phone calls from a
     correctional facility during a period of time when
     Global Tel*Link paid the facility a commission of any type
     in connection with the interstate calls; and/or (2) paid
     deposit fees to Global Tel*Link in order to fund a prepaid
     account used to pay for any interstate calls;

(2) The Minnesota UE Subclass: All persons who, while a resident
     of Minnesota, Alaska, Ohio, Tennessee, Utah or Washington,
     within the applicable limitations period: (1) paid to use
     inmate calling services provided by Global Tel*Link
     (including its operating subsidiaries) to make or receive
     one or more interstate phone calls from a correctional
     facility during a period of time when Global Tel*Link paid
     the facility a commission of any type in connection with the
     interstate calls; and/or (2) paid deposit fees to Global
     Tel*Link in order to fund a prepaid account used to pay for
     any interstate calls;

(3) The Pennsylvania UE Subclass: All persons who, while a
     resident of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Florida, Idaho, Kansas,
     Kentucky, Maryland, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, New
     Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, South Dakota, Virginia or Wisconsin,
     within the applicable limitations period: (1) paid to use
     inmate calling services provided by Global Tel*Link
     (including its operating subsidiaries) to make or receive
     one or more interstate phone calls from a correctional
     facility during a period of time when Global Tel*Link paid
     the facility a commission of any type in connection with the
     interstate calls; and/or (2) paid deposit fees to Global
     Tel*Link in order to fund a prepaid account used to pay for
     any interstate calls;

(4) The Texas UE Subclass: All persons who, while a resident of
     Texas, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Louisiana,
     Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Dakota or Oklahoma, within
     the applicable limitations period: (1) paid to use inmate
     calling services provided by Global Tel*Link (including its
     operating subsidiaries) to make or receive one or more
     interstate phone calls from a correctional facility during a
     period of time when Global Tel*Link paid the facility a
     commission of any type in connection with the interstate
     calls; and/or (2) paid deposit fees to Global Tel*Link in
     order to fund a prepaid account used to pay for any
     interstate calls.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as
representatives of the FCA Class and each, respectively, as the
representative of the Arkansas, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Texas
UE Subclasses; and to appoint the law firms of Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP, Berger & Montague, P.C., Saltz Mongeluzzi
Barrett & Bendesky P.C., and Cohen Milstein Seller & Toll, PLLC as
Co-Lead Class Counsel serving on a Co-Lead Class Counsel
Committee, with KTMC serving as the Chair of such Committee, and
the law firm of Everett Wales & Comstock as Liaison Class Counsel.
They further seek an order directing that Notice to the Class be
disseminated in accordance with a Notice program to be submitted
to the Court for the Court's approval.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=FvdFNIh3

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Peter A. Muhic, Esq.
          Donna Siegel Moffa, Esq.
          Amanda R. Trask, Esq.
          Monique Myatt Galloway, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: pmuhic@ktmc.com
                  dmoffa@ktmc.com
                  atrask@ktmc.com
                  mgalloway@ktmc.com

               - and -

          Daniel Berger, Esq.
          Peter R. Kahana, Esq.
          Barbara A. Podell, Esq.
          Yechiel Michael Twersky, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: danberger@bm.net
                  pkahana@bm.net
                  bpodell@bm.net
                  mitwersky@bm.net

               - and -

          Benjamin D. Brown, Esq.
          Robert Braun, Esq.
          Emmy L. Levens, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 500
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
          E-mail: bbrown@cohenmilstein.com
                  RBraun@cohenmilstein.com
                  elevens@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Patrick Howard, Esq.
          Simon B. Paris, Esq.
          SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, BARRETT & BENDESKY, P.C.
          1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496-8282
          Facsimile: (215) 496-0999
          E-mail: sparis@smbb.com
                  phoward@smbb.com

               - and -

          Amy C. Martin, Esq.
          EVERETT WALES & COMSTOCK
          1944 East Joyce Boulevard
          P.O. Box 8370
          Fayetteville, AR 72703
          Telephone: (479) 443-0292
          Facsimile: (479) 443-0564
          E-mail: amy@everettfirm.com

               - and -

          Susan L. Burke, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SUSAN L. BURKE (BURKE PLLC)
          1611 Park Avenue
          Baltimore, MD 21217
          Telephone: (410) 733-5444
          Facsimile: (410) 733-5444
          E-mail: sburke@burkepllc.com

               - and -

          Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
          Richard E. Shevitz, Esq.
          Scott D. Gilchrist, Esq.
          Vess A. Miller, Esq.
          COHEN MALAD LLP
          One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 636-6481
          Facsimile: (317) 636-2593
          E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
                  rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com
                  sgilchrist@cohenandmalad.com
                  vmiller@cohenandmalad.com

               - and -

          Beth T. Seltzer, Esq.
          Jeffrey B. Gittleman, Esq.
          BARRACK RODOS AND BACINE
          3300 Two Commerce Square
          2001 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 963-0600
          Facsimile: (215) 963-0838
          E-mail: BSeltzer@barrack.com
                  JGittleman@barrack.com

               - and -

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          Todd Seaver, Esq.
          BERMAN DEVALERIO
          One California Street, Suite 900
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 433-3200
          E-mail: tseaver@bermandevalerio.com

               - and -

          James Radford, Esq.
          RADFORD & KEEBAUGH
          315 W. Ponce de Leon Ave., Suite 1080
          Decatur, GA 30030
          Telephone: (678) 271-0302
          E-mail: james@decaturlegal.com

               - and -

          Andrew R. Lynch, Esq.
          ANDREW R. LYNCH, P.C.
          150 E. Ponce de Leon Ave., Suite 225
          Decatur, GA 30030
          Telephone: (404) 373-7735
          E-mail: andrew@atlnotguilty.com


H&R BLOCK: Perras Files Appeal in 8th Cir. From W.D. Mo. Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Perras filed an appeal from a court ruling in his lawsuit
styled Ronald Perras v. H&R Block, et al., Case No. 4:12-cv-00450-
BP, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Missouri - Kansas City.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 24,
2016, the Case is brought concerning a compliance fee charged to
retail tax clients in the 2011 and 2012 tax seasons.  The
Plaintiff originally sought to represent all persons nationwide
(excluding citizens of Missouri) who were charged the compliance
fee, and asserted claims of violation of various state consumer
laws, money had and received, and unjust enrichment.

The appellate case is captioned as Ronald Perras v. H&R Block, et
al., Case No. 16-2572, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eighth Circuit.

The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by:

          Jason S. Hartley, Esq.
          STUEVE & SIEGEL
          550 W. C Street, Suite 610
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 400-5822
          E-mail: hartley@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

          Norman Siegel, Esq.
          Bradley Wilders, Esq.
          STUEVE & SIEGEL
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714-7100
          E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com
                  wilders@stuevesiegel.com

Defendants-Appellees H&R Block, Inc., HRB Tax Group, Inc., and HRB
Technology, LLC, are represented by:

          James David Griffin, Esq.
          SCHARNHORST & AST
          1100 Walnut Street, Suite 1950
          Kansas City, MO 64106
          Telephone: (816) 268-9411
          E-mail: jgriffin@sakg.com

               - and -

          Kathryn Lee, Esq.
          SPENCER & FANE
          40 Corporate Woods
          9401 Indian Creek Parkway
          Overland Park, KS 66210-0000
          Telephone: (913) 345-8100
          E-mail: klee@spencerfane.com

               - and -

          Glen David Nager, Esq.
          Charlotte Taylor, Esq.
          JONES & DAY
          51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20001-2113
          Telephone: (202) 879-3939
          E-mail: gdnager@jonesday.com
                  ctaylor@jonesday.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Simon, Esq.
          Derek T. Teeter, Esq.
          HUSCH & BLACKWELL
          4801 Main Street, Suite 1000
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 983-8000
          Facsimile: (816) 983-8080
          E-mail: jeff.simon@huschblackwell.com
                  derek.teeter@huschblackwell.com


HEALTHWAYS INC: Court Dismissed California Action
-------------------------------------------------
Healthways, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the court in the
California class action lawsuit has granted an order dismissing
the case.

On September 16, 2014, Healthways and its wholly owned subsidiary,
Healthways Wholehealth Networks, Inc ("HWHN"), were named in a
putative class action lawsuit filed by Edward Simon, DC in the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, seeking
damages and other relief relating to alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), as amended by the Junk
Fax Prevention Act ("JFPA"), in connection with faxes allegedly
transmitted to members of HWHN's network of complementary and
alternative care practitioners. The JFPA prohibits sending an
"unsolicited advertisement" to a fax machine and requires the
sender to provide a notice to allow a recipient to "opt out" of
future fax transmissions (including, pursuant to rules promulgated
by the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"), those sent with
the prior express invitation or permission of the recipient). The
complaint seeks damages in excess of $5 million. The case has been
removed to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, Eastern Division ("California Matter").

On December 22, 2014, HWHN was also named in a putative class
action lawsuit filed by Affiliated Health Care Associates, P.C. in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division ("Illinois Matter"), seeking damages
and other relief relating to alleged violations of the TCPA, the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and
Illinois common law in connection with faxes allegedly sent to
members of HWHN's network of complementary and alternative care
practitioners. The complaint seeks damages in an unstated amount.
On May 29, 2015, the plaintiff in the Illinois Matter voluntarily
dismissed its lawsuit without prejudice; that plaintiff has been
joined as a party in the California Matter.

In connection with these actions, on March 2, 2015, Healthways and
HWHN filed with the FCC a Petition for Retroactive Waiver ("Waiver
Petition") of the FCC's regulation that requires advertising faxes
sent with the prior express invitation or permission of the
recipient to include an "opt-out" notice. On August 28, 2015, the
FCC granted the Company relief requested in the Waiver Petition.
We cannot predict the impact on the California Matter of the FCC's
grant of relief pursuant to the Waiver Petition.

On December 17, 2015, the court in the California Matter denied a
class certification motion by the plaintiff and on February 1,
2016, denied the plaintiff's motion to stay proceedings. On May 3,
2016, the court in the California Matter granted an order
dismissing the California Matter with prejudice as to the
individual claims of the plaintiff and without prejudice as to the
other potential members of the class.


HOMEAWAY: Faces Class Action Over VRBO.com Platinum Membership
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Chmura, Christine Roher and Joe Rojas, writing for NBC Bay
Area, report that Carrie Walton rents her Santa Cruz vacation home
to travelers who book on the website VRBO.com.  She paid VRBO
$1,200 for a one-year platinum membership, a subscription designed
to boost her home's ranking in search results on the site.

"Someone looks, there's maybe 10 pages of homes, and maybe this
way, with platinum, you'll be on the top of the page, most likely
at the top," said Ms. Walton.

And the investment paid off.  Ms. Walton said renting her home was
a breeze, at first.

But three months ago, VRBO started charging travelers a service
fee -- 4 to 9 percent of the total cost of the rental.  It's a fee
VRBO pockets, not Ms. Walton.

Ms. Walton says this service fee wasn't part of her agreement with
VRBO.  And now, because of it, travelers aren't renting her home
because it's too expensive.

"We didn't pay a platinum subscription to have VRBO scare business
away," said Ms. Walton.

Adding fuel to the fire, Ms. Walton's listing fell way down on
VRBO's search results.  She says VRBO told her it made yet another
change -- this one to its algorithm, and her platinum membership
alone no longer guaranteed high search results.

Ms. Walton says her $1,200 platinum membership is now worthless,
because she isn't getting what she paid for.

Leena Shah's story echos Ms. Walton's.  She paid a platinum
membership fee, and when the new service fee kicked in, she says
rentals of her Maui condo drastically dropped.  And so did her
search ranking. She's been asking VRBO to refund her platinum
membership, but has had no luck.

"I'm just throwing my hands up in the air now with VRBO," said Ms.
Shah.

Ms. Walton and Ms. Shah aren't alone.  Complaints about VRBO
litter the Internet.  Angry homeowners even created a Facebook
page.

The complaints also landed in attorney Michael Bowse's office.
"We receive dozens and dozens of calls, multiple calls, a day,"
said Mr. Bowse.

Mr. Bowse filed a class action lawsuit against Homeaway, which
owns VRBO, accusing the company of bait and switch and breaching
its contracts by charging the new service fee.

"So it essentially took people's money under one set of
circumstances, and then changed the circumstances once it took
their money," said Mr. Bowse.

Ms. Walton and Ms. Shah aren't part of this lawsuit yet.  But they
want their money back.

"I want my money refunded because it's a breach of contract," said
Ms. Walton.  "It's not what I signed up for."

NBC Bay Area Responds asked VRBO if Ms. Walton and Ms. Shah would
get a refund for their platinum membership.  The company wouldn't
answer our question, citing pending litigation.

VRBO also said that since adding the new service fee, it's
delivering more happy customers to VRBO owners.  It also said that
travelers' peace of mind during their trip is what matters most,
so as part of the new service fee, it's introduced new security
guarantees and 24/7 customer service.


HORIZON SATELLITES: "Warren" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
Richard Warren, Christopher Leatherwood and Donald Wagner Jr.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Horizon Satellites, Inc. d/b/a Horizon
Entertainment, Case No. 1:16-cv-01749-ODE (N.D. Ga., May 31,
2016), seeks overtime compensation, liquidated and nominal
damages, and other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938.

Horizon Satellites, Inc. is a domestic corporation engaged in
providing wholesale field services to customers in many states
where Plaintiffs worked as technicians.

Defendant improperly classified Plaintiffs and the class they
represent as independent contractors and not employees, thus
denying them overtime pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Benjamin B. Kandy
     THE LAW OFFICE OF BENJAMIN B. KANDY LLC
     534 Medlock Road, Suite 109
     Decatur, GA 30030
     Tel: (678) 824-2251
     Fax: (678) 401-0398
     Email: ben@bkandylaw.com

          - and -

     Mitchell D. Benjamin, Esq.
     DELONG, CALDWELL, BRIDGERS, FITZPATRICK & BENJAMIN LLC
     3100 Centennial Tower
     101 Marietta Street, NW
     Atlanta, GA 30303
     Tel: (404) 979-3150
     Fax: (404) 979-3157
     Email: benjamin@dcbflegal.com


HORRY ELECTRIC: Seeks Reimbursement of Class Action Costs
---------------------------------------------------------
Kathy Ropp, writing for myhorrynews.com, reports that two years
after agreeing to a $6 million settlement in a class action
lawsuit, Horry Electric Cooperative is continuing to pursue
reimbursement from Santee Cooper for the money it has spent
defending the lawsuit and compensating members of the class.

After the settlement, Horry Electric Cooperative filed its own
lawsuit, this one against Santee Cooper, saying it wasn't
responsible for the moisture problems that developed in coastal
area homes due to vapor barriers that were required by the Good
Cents program.

A circuit judge recently allowed the disagreement between the two
utilities to continue when he denied Santee Cooper's request to
dismiss the lawsuit filed by Horry Electric Cooperative.

Circuit Judge George C. James Jr. wrote, however, that his ruling
to continue the case should give no one any ideas about how the
case might eventually be decided.

The issue stems back to 2011 when about 1,000 Horryites, who
participated in the Good Cents program hoping to save money on
their electric bills, joined forces in a class-action lawsuit
asking to be paid for damages to their homes that they say were
caused by the Good Cents program's guidelines.

Actually, the home construction that spawned the lawsuit dates to
1988 when some of the homeowners in the coastal area built their
homes, using the Good Cents regulations calling for vapor barriers
to be used in heated spaces.  The homeowners say the vapor
barriers created condensation, which caused them problems with
mold.

In the original lawsuit, filed in 2011, Ronnie Ferrell,
Tammy Vance and David Montorio filed a lawsuit on behalf of
themselves and others in their same situation, blaming Horry
Electric Cooperative for requiring them to install a vapor barrier
on the inside of their exterior walls to take advantage of the
Good Cents savings.

In 2003, Horry Electric dropped this vapor barrier requirement.

The plaintiffs argued that Horry Electric should have known
earlier about the moisture and mold problems.

That lawsuit was settled in 2014, calling for a payout of a total
of $6 million.  The settlement, which was approved by Circuit
Judge Benjamin Culbertson, awards Messrs. Montorio and Vance
$5,000 each as representatives of the class.  Mr. Ferrell did not
continue as a class representative through the settlement.

Culbertson also determined that giving the Defendant's attorneys
16 percent of the settlement amount, or $990,000, was a fair
payment for the three years of work they did on the case and the
expenses they covered for the class.

The order does not list the names of attorneys who shared in the
award.

According to the settlement, each member of the class was approved
for a payment.

Judge Culbertson pointed out that no one objected to the
settlement at a hearing in May of 2014, and wrote that the
settlement was "fair, reasonable and adequate -- in light of the
risks of the litigation -- and in the best interests of the
class."

The document also makes it clear that Horry Electric admitted no
fault or wrongdoing of any kind.

Some, but not all of the $6 million has been paid out, according
to current Horry Electric attorney Pope Johnson of Columbia.
Mr. Johnson said there were two ways that litigants could receive
a payment from the lawsuit.  They could choose either to have
their problems remedied and submit a bill for payment or they
could take a flat payment of $2,000.  Mr. Johnson says all of the
people who agreed to the $2,000 payment have been paid, but some
people who chose to submit their bills have not received their
payments.

Mr. Johnson isn't sure how much money has been paid so far, and
didn't know how many people took the $2,000.  He did know that
Horry Electric's insurance carrier has paid a portion of the
claims.

In its 2013 lawsuit, Horry Electric claimed it was Santee Cooper
and not Horry Electric officials who designed the requirements for
the Good Cents program.  It used the requirements set by Santee
Cooper and was simply serving as a pass through agency, its
lawsuit claims.

Horry Electric officials also claim that Santee Cooper knew about
the problem with requiring vapor barriers in Coastal areas and
should have told Horry Electric to stop requiring them, but to
keep the requirement as a recommendation.

In May of 2014, a circuit judge in Horry County heard a motion
from Santee Cooper asking that Horry Electric's lawsuit be
dismissed, based on several arguments.

In a written request for dismissal, Santee Cooper's attorneys
opined that the homes in question were built too long before the
lawsuit was filed and Horry Electric should not have agreed to the
settlement.

The two homeowners mentioned in the pleading are the
representatives of the class, and Santee Cooper's attorney, B.
Rush Smith III, wrote that as representatives of the class their
situation should be applied to the entire class.  In other words,
all of the class should have been disqualified from pursuing the
class-action lawsuit due to the time element involved with the
representatives' homes.

Judge Roger M. Young Sr., judge of the S.C. Business Court, agreed
with Santee Cooper and dismissed all of Horry Electric's claims
against Santee Cooper, except the request for equitable
indemnification, saying they didn't know when he ruled on the case
how much the lawsuit settlement was going to cost, saying that
although the settlement had been agreed upon by the parties
involved, a judge had not approved the settlement at that point.

Horry Electric later appealed Young's ruling dismissing the other
issues, and that appeal is still pending.

In its reply to Santee Cooper's request for dismissal,
Horry Electric says it deposed a Santee Cooper witness who said
Santee Cooper and Southern Electric International, Inc. knew about
the issue of potential moisture problems with the use of the vapor
barrier before it offered the program to Horry Electric.

"This witness confirmed that there was no evidence that any of
this information was disclosed to HEC at any time.  This witness
confirmed that although the Good Cents program was initially
offered with the vapor barrier as a recommendation and not a
requirement, this changed in 1991 when the installation of a vapor
barrier became a requirement for participation in the Good Cents
program.

"Although the witness took some questioning to get the answer, the
witness admitted that Glenn S. Cannon of Santee Cooper and Geoff
Hartman of Southern Electric International, Inc. in their 1986
correspondence discussed the information that in a coastal area
the vapor barrier may create moisture problems and may create
liability if it was a requirement of the plan," the memorandum in
opposition to Santee Cooper's motion to dismiss reads.

Santee Cooper responded that Horry Electric had erred when it
agreed to a settlement with people whose homes were too old to
qualify under the law and it (Santee Cooper) should not be
responsible for that agency's actions.

In his ruling, Judge James found that the idea that the whole
class should be barred from receiving any compensation because the
claims of the class representatives were too old generally applies
only to forming the class.

However, he says he found no authority for it to be applied to
situations in which the settling defendant in a class action is
suing a third party.

"If such authority exists, the court will rule accordingly," he
wrote.

Santee Cooper argued that the claims in the original case were
based on Horry Electric's negligence and were not based on any
liability imputed to it by Santee Cooper.

The court concluded that the allegations in the complaint are
sufficient to keep the lawsuit from being dismissed.

"Nothing in this order shall be interpreted as a finding of fact
or conclusion of law on the merits of this case," James wrote.

In April of 2016, Horry Electric pointed to a 2013 ruling allowing
the issue of equitable indemnification to proceed.

At that point, the settlement hadn't been approved and no money
had been paid out, according to court documents.

After the settlement was approved, Horry Electric filed a lawsuit,
through its attorney Pope Johnson of Columbia, asking that all of
the costs of the lawsuit, expenses and expenditures and costs of
defending and settling the initial lawsuit and any other relief
the court deemed appropriate be transferred over to Santee Cooper
because "Santee Cooper is liable to it for the expenses including
Horry Electric's attorney's fees and costs and any settlement
costs incurred by Horry Electric in protecting its interest in the
initial case."

The most recent pleading continues to opine that the Good Cents
Program was a pass through program and Santee Cooper had the right
to audit for Horry Electric's compliance with the requirements of
the program.

It says any alleged fault of Horry Electric was imputed to the
utility by Santee Cooper because Horry Electric merely offered its
members participation in the pass-through Good Cents Program,
which it believes benefitted Santee Cooper only.

Mr. Johnson said on June 7 that the case could go on for several
more years.

"We maintain that we were without fault and that this was a
program put forward by Santee Cooper and it's our position that
they should indemnify us for what we had to pay out," he said.


IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Faces Securities Class Action in New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on June 9 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Immunomedics, Inc. ("Immunomedics" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ:IMMU) and certain of its officers.  The class
action, filed in United States District Court, District of New
Jersey, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Immunomedics
securities between April 20, 2016 and June 2, 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 Immunomedics securities
during the Class Period, you have until August 8, 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.

Immunomedics, a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company, focuses
on the development of monoclonal antibody-based products for the
targeted treatment of cancer, autoimmune, and other diseases.
Among other product candidates, the Company is developing the
antibody-drug conjugate sacituzumab govitecan IMMU-132 ("IMMU-
132"), which is in Phase II trials for treatment of patients with
metastatic triple-negative breast cancer and small-cell and non-
small-cell lung cancers.

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 made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the abstract for IMMU-132 that
Immunomedics submitted to the American Society of Clinical
Oncology ("ASCO") for presentation at the 2016 ASCO Annual Meeting
contained previously disclosed results from a mid-stage study;
(ii) Immunomedics had misrepresented to ASCO that its abstract for
IMMU-132 contained only updated and previously undisclosed data;
(iii) the foregoing misrepresentation was a violation of ASCO
policy and made Immunomedics' IMMU-132 presentation subject to
removal from the 2016 ASCO Annual Meeting schedule; and (iv) as a
result of the foregoing, Immunomedics' public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On April 19, 2016, Immunomedics announced that the Company would
present updated results for its IMMU-132 treatment at ASCO's
Annual Meeting in June 2016.

On June 2, 2016, after the market closed, media outlets reported
that ASCO had removed a scheduled presentation by Immunomedics
regarding the Company's IMMU-132 breast cancer drug from ASCO's
annual meeting.  ASCO stated that Immunomedics had misrepresented
that the Company's abstract for IMMU-132 contained updated and
previously undisclosed results from a mid-stage study, when in
fact the IMMU-132 data that Immunomedics submitted were old and
previously seen.

As a result of this news, Immunomedics shares fell $0.78, or
14.72%, to close at $4.52 on June 3, 2016.

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


INDIANA: Ex-BMV Official Fined for Ethics Violation Amid Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Cook, writing for IndyStar, reports that a former top
official at the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles will be fined
$500 for violating state ethics laws when he helped negotiate a
lucrative state contract with a company, then took a job with the
firm.

The punishment immediately drew criticism from ethics experts and
government accountability advocates who say it doesn't go far
enough to deter such violations in the future.

The penalty is the result of a settlement agreement between former
BMV Chief of Staff Shawn Walters and Indiana Inspector General
Cynthia Carrasco, who accused him of violating the state's ethics
rules after an IndyStar investigation last year. The Indiana State
Ethics Commission signed off on the agreement on June 9 without
any discussion.

Mr. Walters helped negotiate a contract with Express MVA. The deal
provided the company with BMV workstations and allowed it to
charge customers a "convenience fee" for providing title and
registration services normally available through state license
branches.  The company collected about $6 million a year in fees
under the arrangement.

Mr. Walters then accepted a newly created executive position at
the company in 2013.

Questions were later raised about whether the convenience fees
were allowed under state law.  Lawmakers didn't pass legislation
expressly authorizing them until last year.

In the settlement approved on June 9, Mr. Walters acknowledged
that he violated a state ethics law that requires a one-year
"cooling-off" period for employees who want to take a job with a
company that does business with the state.  The law is intended to
prevent employees with the power to award or negotiate state
contract from doing favors for private companies that can award
them with high-paying jobs.

Critics of his $500 fine say it is too small to discourage other
state employees from using their government jobs to advance their
personal financial interests.

"It amounts to a slap on the wrist," said Julia Vaughn, policy
director for Common Cause Indiana, a government accountability
group.  "Five hundred dollars really is not going to put fear into
anybody.  It's not a significant enough punishment to get
anybody's attention or make them take these laws seriously."

Carrasco defended the penalty, saying it was consistent with what
has been levied in similar cases in the past.

When asked if such a small amount of money is an effective
deterrent, she said, "I won't go beyond just saying we're happy
with the agreed settlement and that the commission accepted it.  I
kind of gave you some background on how we came up with the fine.
I'll probably just stick with that."

She later pointed to two settlements from previous years. One
involved a former employee at the Indiana Department of
Environmental Management who did consulting work for a company he
had regulated.  He was fined $250.  The other case involved a
Board of Animal Health employee who received compensation from a
meat plant he had regulated.  He was fined $1,000.

State law gives the ethics commission broad discretion when it
comes to punishments.  They can impose a civil penalty of up to
"three times the value of any benefit received from the
violation."

That's actually three times harsher than penalties authorized in a
federal ethics law for executive branch officials, said Kathleen
Clark, an ethics expert at the University of Washington School of
Law.

It's not clear how that value would be calculated in Mr. Walters'
case. The company said in August that Walters earned a base salary
of $60,000 a year at Express MVA, with potential for significantly
higher incentive pay if he brought in new business from other
states.

If that amount was used, the maximum penalty would be $180,000.

"The commission appears to have more enforcement authority than it
is exercising," Ms. Clark said.  "It would be helpful if the
commission explained why it is not using enforcement authority
that it has, and why it thinks a former employee should be able to
retain wrongful compensation."

"Did the commission blow him a kiss along with the $500 penalty?"
she asked.

Gov. Mike Pence, who appoints both the inspector general and the
five members of the ethics commission, declined to comment for
this story.

He requested the ethics probe last year after the IndyStar story.
He also ended the state's contract with Express MVA, saying his
administration "is committed to a government that is as good as
our people."

Even if the size of Mr. Walters' penalty won't do much to deter
such conduct by other state employees, Mr. Pence's decision to
cancel the contract with Express MVA is likely to discourage
private companies from trying to entice or reward government
employees, said Leslie Lenkowski, a professor at Indiana
University's School of Public and Environmental Affairs.

"The real deterrence would come from the action against the
company," he said.  "It takes two to tango, not only the
individual state employee, but the company as well.  The deterrent
effect you want is on future companies."

Mr. Walters and his attorney did not attend the ethics commission
meeting and did not return messages from IndyStar.  But in a legal
deposition last year in another matter, Mr. Walters said he had no
oversight of the company's Indiana operations, despite his title
as chief operating officer.

The ethics case did not address Mr. Walters' role in millions of
dollars in overcharges at the BMV.  Another IndyStar
investigation, published in March 2015, found that Walters and
other BMV executives knew about some of those fee problems for
years but chose to ignore or cover up the overcharges rather than
refund the extra money to motorists and adjust to significant
budget losses.

About $30 million was later refunded, but only after a class-
action lawsuit was filed.  The state has since voluntarily
refunded millions of dollars in other fees it improperly collected
and a second class-action lawsuit involving additional fees is
ongoing.

In the meantime, Pence and state lawmakers approved a piece of
legislation earlier this year to reduce the number of BMV fees and
put a cap on convenience fees like those charged by Express MVA.


KANSAS UNIVERSITY: Former Rower Joins Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Mara Rose Williams, writing for The Kansas City Star, reports that
the father of a former University of Kansas rower who says she was
raped by a football player in her dorm room revealed his
daughter's identity on June 9 and with her joined a class action
lawsuit against the university.

Jim McClure and his daughter Sarah McClure joined the suit filed
in the District Court of Douglas County in April by the parents of
another rower, Daisy Tackett.

In the class action suit, Amanda and James Tackett say the
university violated the state's consumer protection law by using
"deceptive and false statements of safety" in reference to the
campus and its dormitories when it recruited their daughter to the
KU rowing team.

KU filed a motion to dismiss the Tackett case, saying that since
the Tacketts are neither students nor parents of a current
student, they are not consumers and have no standing to sue under
the law.

The Tacketts' daughter also joined the class action suit on
June 9.

In a statement on June 9, KU spokeswoman Erinn Barcomb-Peterson
said the university "takes very seriously any and all claims of
sexual assault and sexual violence."

She said federal law prohibits the university from releasing
details on individual sexual assault investigations.  But,
Ms. Barcomb-Peterson said, the university "thoroughly investigated
Ms. McClure's allegations and as a result the accused student is
no longer enrolled at KU.  We are confident the courts will agree
that we've met our obligations to both
Ms. McClure and Ms. Tackett."

The Juen 9 action by the McClures links three suits filed within
the last two months involving alleged sexual assaults in KU's
Jayhawker Towers by the same KU football player.

Jim McClure said he and his daughter have decided to be identified
now because "we had to stand up and make KU take notice that
something needs to change."

He said his daughter, who is home in Wilmette, Ill., did not want
to be identified before now because she was still in school and
living in Jayhawker Towers, "full of football players," and she
feared retaliation.

Mr. McClure said his daughter has been "depressed and despondent"
since the alleged assault.  He said she was recruited by several
colleges as a successful high school rower, and she chose KU in
part because of a family legacy.  She aspires to become a
veterinarian.

"My grandfather is Keith C. Foster," Mr. McClure said.  "He
graduated from KU in the 1930s.  His name is inscribed in the (KU)
bell tower for having died in World War II.  Her coming to Kansas
was like being able to connect with family."

Sarah McClure, as Jane Doe 7, filed a lawsuit against KU in April,
saying the university violated Title IX, the law prohibiting
gender discrimination and protecting against sexual violence and
harassment.  It also says the school discriminated against her
because of a disability.  The now 19-year-old has an autoimmune
disorder that affects her diet.

Her suit also says KU failed to take reasonable steps to prevent
sexual assaults at Jayhawker Towers.

It additionally says the university failed to stop retaliation
against her, from the football player and members of the rowing
team's coaching staff, after she reported the sexual assault.

The suit says Ms. McClure told a friend about the assault but did
not tell the rowing team's sports psychologist, Lawrence police or
KU security until two months after the incident.

The football player, who is not being identified by The Star
because he was never charged with a crime and was not identified
in any of the three lawsuits, was also a resident of Jayhawker
Towers.

The same player was accused of assaulting Daisy Tackett in the
fall of 2014.

Ms. Tackett on March 2 sued the university, saying it violated
Title IX, was slow to investigate her complaint of sexual assault,
and failed to protect her from harassment and stalking by the
player after she reported the incident to the university Office of
Institutional Opportunity and Access, which reviews claims of
sexual assault and misconduct.

In May, KU responded to that suit by saying the incident was not
the university's fault and the suit should be dismissed.

The football player was expelled from KU earlier this year,
according to Ms. McClure's lawsuit.

The player appeared in KU's first seven games of 2015 but did not
play in the last five, starting with an Oct. 31 game against
Oklahoma.

Both women reported to KU they had been assaulted by the player.
While Ms. McClure made a police report in late October, the
Douglas County district attorney's office declined to prosecute
the player after receiving that police report, determining the
case was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

KU athletic director Sheahon Zenger was asked by The Star whether
the football player had been disciplined by the team.  An athletic
department representative replied that Zenger can't comment about
the matter.

In an April statement that Sarah McClure released as Jane Doe 7,
she said that "after I reported my assault, everything KU did made
me feel like they were trying to get me to crack and leave." She
said the university had made her feel "worthless."

In a videotaped statement made available on June 9, Ms. McClure
said she was so afraid after being assaulted that "I stayed in my
room with a chair under the door knob." She said she traveled from
hotel to hotel because she was afraid to live in Jayhawker Towers.

At a news conference on June 9, Ms. McClure's father said she is
currently in therapy and trying to heal.

The class action lawsuit asks for an injunction against KU from
asserting that its on-campus housing is safe.  And it seeks
"restitution . . . of tuition, fees, housing costs and other funds
unjustly received by KU through use of deceptive acts and
practices."

Jim McClure said any money garnered from the lawsuit would go to
protecting against sexual assault on college campuses.

"We can't change what has happened, but we want to prevent this
from happening to a lot of others."

The Star's Jesse Newell contributed to this report.


KTOWN TRANSPORTATION: "Konarski" Suit Deal OK'd, Case Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. David E. Jones approved the parties' settlement agreement
in the lawsuit styled RICHARD R. KONARSKI, On behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. KTOWN TRANSPORTATION, INC.,
LYNDA JEAN ORSBURN, JAYNE PHILLIPS, and WILLIAM PHILLIPS, Case No.
2:15-cv-00781-DEJ (E.D. Wisc.).

Judge Jones dismissed the Case with prejudice and without further
costs to either party.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=XzsUS6qe


LAYNE CHRISTENSEN: "Marquez" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
Ernesto Marquez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Layne Christensen Company,
Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-01538 (S.D. Tex., June 1, 2016), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act.

Layne Christensen Company is an oil and gas service company based
in Woodlands, Texas, providing a wide variety of services to its
clients in the oilfield including providing vibration technology
to disconnect various types of tubing and drill string.  Plaintiff
worked as a Sales and Service Supervisor, rigging up equipment,
connecting hoses, setting up mobile command units and establishing
the necessary data/power connections.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

     Richard J. Burch, Esq.
     BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
     8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
     Houston, TX 77046
     Tel: 713-877-8788
     Fax: 713-877-8065
     Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com


MDL 2325: Updates on Vaginal Mesh Cases v. Endo
-----------------------------------------------
Endo International Plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that "Since 2008, we and
certain of our subsidiaries, including AMS and/or Astora, have
been named as defendants in multiple lawsuits in the U.S. in
various state courts and in a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in
the Southern District of West Virginia (MDL No. 2325), in Canada,
where various class action and individual complaints are pending,
and in other countries alleging personal injury resulting from the
use of transvaginal surgical mesh products designed to treat
pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI).
Plaintiffs in these suits allege various personal injuries
including chronic pain, incontinence and inability to control
bowel function and permanent deformities, and seek compensatory
and punitive damages, where available."

"We and certain plaintiffs' counsel representing mesh-related
product liability claimants have entered into various Master
Settlement Agreements (MSAs) and other settlement agreements
regarding settling up to approximately 49,000 filed and unfiled
mesh claims handled or controlled by the participating counsel.
These MSAs, which were executed at various times since June 2013,
were entered into solely by way of compromise and settlement and
are not in any way an admission of liability or fault by us or any
of our subsidiaries. All MSAs are subject to a process that
includes guidelines and procedures for administering the
settlements and the release of funds. In certain cases, the MSAs
provide for the creation of Qualified Settlement Funds (QSFs) into
which funds may be deposited pursuant to certain schedules set
forth in those agreements. All MSAs have participation thresholds
requiring participation by the majority of claims represented by
each law firm party to the MSA. If certain participation
thresholds are not met, then we will have the right to terminate
the settlement with that law firm. In addition, one agreement
gives us a unilateral right of approval regarding which claims may
be eligible to participate under that settlement. To the extent
fewer claims than are authorized under an agreement participate,
the total settlement payment under that agreement will be reduced
by an agreed-upon amount for each such non-participating claim.
Funds deposited in QSFs are included in restricted cash and cash
equivalents in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

"Distribution of funds to any individual claimant is conditioned
upon the receipt of documentation substantiating the validity of
the claim, a full release and a dismissal of the entire action or
claim as to all AMS parties and affiliates. Prior to receiving
funds, an individual claimant shall represent and warrant that
liens, assignment rights or other claims that are identified in
the claims administration process have been or will be satisfied
by the individual claimant. The amount of settlement awards to
participating claimants, the claims evaluation process and
procedures used in conjunction with award distributions, and the
negotiations leading to the settlement, shall be kept confidential
by all parties and their counsel.

"We expect that valid claims under the MSAs will continue to be
settled. However, we intend to vigorously contest pending and
future claims that are invalid or in excess of the maximum claim
amounts under the MSAs. We are also aware of a substantial number
of additional claims or potential claims, some of which may be
invalid or contested, for which we lack sufficient information to
determine whether any potential liability is probable, and such
claims have not been included in our estimated product liability
accrual. We intend to contest these claims vigorously.

"As of the date of this report, we believe that the current
product liability accrual includes all known claims for which
liability is probable and estimable. In order to evaluate whether
a mesh claim is probable of a loss, we must obtain and evaluate
certain information pertaining to each individual claim, including
but not limited to the following items: the name and social
security number of the plaintiff, evidence of an AMS implant, the
date of implant, the date the claim was first asserted to AMS, the
date that plaintiff's counsel was retained, and most importantly,
medical records establishing the injury alleged. Without access to
at least this information and the opportunity to evaluate it, we
are not in a position to determine whether a loss is probable for
such claims. It is currently not possible to determine the
validity or outcome of any additional or potential claims and such
claims may result in additional losses that could have a material
adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of
operations and cash flow. We will continue to monitor the
situation, including with respect to any additional claims of
which we may later become aware, and, if appropriate, make further
adjustments to the product liability accrual based on new
information.

"The following table presents the changes in the vaginal mesh QSFs
and product liability balance during the three months ended March
31, 2016 (in thousands):

                  Qualified Settlement Funds    Product Liability
                  --------------------------    -----------------
Balance as of
December 31, 2015           $578,970                $2,086,176

Additional charges                 -                     2,450

Cash distributions to
Qualified Settlement
Funds                        120,919                         -

Cash distributions to
settle disputes from
Qualified Settlement
Funds                       (184,678)                 (184,678)

Cash distributions to
settle disputes                    -                    (1,561)

Balance as of
March 31, 2016              $515,211                $1,902,387

Approximately $1.53 billion of the total liability amount shown
above is classified as Current portion of legal settlement
accrual, with the remainder to be paid over time in accordance
with the MSA agreements and classified as Long-term legal
settlement accrual, less current portion, net in the March 31,
2016 Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Charges related to
vaginal mesh product liability for all periods presented are
reported in Discontinued operations, net of tax in our Condensed
Consolidated Statements of Operations.

"We expect to fund the payments under all current settlement
agreements over the course of the next two years, with completion
by December 31, 2017. As the funds are disbursed out of the QSFs
from time to time, the product liability accrual will be reduced
accordingly with a corresponding reduction to restricted cash and
cash equivalents. In addition, we may pay cash distributions to
settle disputes separate from the QSFs, which will also decrease
the product liability accrual but will not decrease restricted
cash and cash equivalents."


MDL 2521: 2017 Trial in Lidoderm Suit vs. Endo
----------------------------------------------
Endo International Plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that trial is scheduled
to begin in 2017 in the litigation related to Lidoderm(R).

Multiple direct and indirect purchasers of Lidoderm(R) have filed
a number of cases against our subsidiary EPI and co-defendants
Teikoku Seiyaku Co., Ltd., Teikoku Pharma USA, Inc. (collectively,
Teikoku) and Actavis plc (now Allergan plc) and a number of its
subsidiaries (collectively referred to herein as Allergan, Actavis
or Watson). Certain of these actions have been asserted on behalf
of classes of direct and indirect purchasers, while others are
individual cases brought by one or more alleged direct or indirect
purchasers. The complaints in these cases generally allege that
EPI, Teikoku and Actavis entered into an anticompetitive
conspiracy to restrain trade through the settlement of patent
infringement litigation concerning U.S. Patent No. 5,827,529 (the
'529 patent) and other patents. Some of the complaints also allege
that Teikoku wrongfully listed the '529 patent in the Orange Book
as related to Lidoderm(R), that EPI and Teikoku commenced sham
patent litigation against Actavis and that EPI abused the FDA
citizen petition process by filing a citizen petition and
amendments solely to interfere with generic companies' efforts to
obtain FDA approval of their versions of Lidoderm(R). The cases
allege violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (15
U.S.C. Sections 1, 2) and various state antitrust and consumer
protection statutes as well as common law remedies in some states.
These cases generally seek damages, treble damages, disgorgement
of profits, restitution, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. Sec.  1407, issued an order in April 2014 transferring
these cases as In Re Lidoderm Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2521,
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California. The cases are in the discovery phase of the litigation
in accordance with the pre-trial schedule. Trial is currently
scheduled to begin in 2017.

Litigation similar to that described above may also be brought by
other plaintiffs in various jurisdictions, and cases brought in
federal court will be transferred to the Northern District of
California as tag-along actions to In Re Lidoderm Antitrust
Litigation.


MDL 2545: 1,111 Testosterone Product Cases v. Endo Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Endo International Plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that as of April 29, 2016,
approximately 1,111 testosterone cases are pending against the
Company.

The Company said, "We and certain of our subsidiaries, including
EPI and Auxilium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Auxilium), along with
other pharmaceutical manufacturers, have been named as defendants
in lawsuits alleging personal injury resulting from the use of
prescription medications containing testosterone, including
Fortesta(R) Gel, Delatestryl(R), Testim(R), TESTOPEL(R) and
Striant(R). Plaintiffs in these suits allege various personal
injuries, including pulmonary embolism, stroke and other vascular
and/or cardiac injuries and seek compensatory and/or punitive
damages, where available."

"In June 2014, an MDL was formed to include claims involving all
testosterone replacement therapies filed against EPI, Auxilium,
and other manufacturers of such products, and certain transferable
cases pending in federal court were coordinated in the Northern
District of Illinois as part of MDL No. 2545. In addition to the
federal cases filed against EPI and Auxilium that have been
transferred to the Northern District of Illinois as tag-along
actions to MDL No. 2545, litigation has also been filed against
EPI in the Court of Common Pleas Philadelphia County and in
certain other state courts. Litigation similar to that may also be
brought by other plaintiffs in various jurisdictions, and cases
brought in federal court will be transferred to the Northern
District of Illinois as tag-along actions to MDL No. 2545.
However, we cannot predict the timing or outcome of any such
litigation, or whether any such additional litigation will be
brought against us. We intend to contest the litigation vigorously
and to explore all options as appropriate in our best interest. As
of April 29, 2016, approximately 1,111 cases are currently pending
against us; some of which may have been filed on behalf of
multiple plaintiffs, and including a class action complaint filed
in Canada."

                           *     *     *

Endo also said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2016, that in November 2015, the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois entered an order
granting defendants' motion to dismiss claims involving certain
testosterone products that were approved pursuant to abbreviated
new drug applications, including TESTOPEL(R). Plaintiffs filed a
motion for reconsideration and clarification of this order. In
March 2016, the District Court granted plaintiffs' motion in part
and entered an order permitting certain claims to go forward to
the extent they are based on allegations of fraudulent off-label
marketing.


MEDPRO GROUP: Carrel Seeks Certification of FLSA Class in Indiana
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled GRETCHEN B. CARREL v. MEDPRO
GROUP, INC., Case No. 1:16-cv-00130-TLS-SLC (N.D. Ind.), files a
motion for conditional class certification on Fair Labor Standards
Act claim and notice to potential plaintiffs.

Ms. Carrel was a non-exempt employee, who regularly worked
overtime at MedPro.  One of her claims in the lawsuit is that she
was shorted overtime pay that was required to be paid under the
FLSA.  The FLSA claim arises out of MedPro's alleged failure to
properly calculate her regular rate of pay for overtime purposes.

Ms.Carrel also seeks authorization to send court-approved notices
to all of MedPro's current and former non-exempt employees, who
received a longevity bonus payment in any year since 2013 (the
bonus payments were made in August of each year), and who also
worked overtime in the same year they received a longevity bonus
payment.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=nm7cSmaz

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J. Elliott, Esq.
          BECKMAN LAWSON, LLP
          201 West Wayne Street
          Fort Wayne, IN 46802
          Telephone: (260) 422-0800
          Facsimile: (260) 420-1013
          E-mail: melliott@beckmanlawson.com


METRO PARKING: "Mirabal" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------
Alain Debesa Mirabal, and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Metro Parking Corp. and Myat Maung, Defendants,
Case No. 1:16-cv-22000-JAL (S.D. Fla., June 2, 2016), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime and minimum wages, liquidated damages,
costs of this action including attorney fees, pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest and such other and further relief as may be
necessary under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Metro Parking Corp. is a parking lot located in Dade County owned
by Myat Maung, where Mirabal worked for Defendants as a chauffeur.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     J.H. Zidell, Esq.
     J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
     300 71st Street, Suite 605
     Miami Beach, FL 33141
     Tel: (305) 865-6766
     Fax: (305) 865-7167
     Email: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


MGM RESORTS: Appellant's Opening Brief Due in July 2016
-------------------------------------------------------
MGM Resorts International said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that Appellant's opening
brief is currently due in July 2016 in the case, In re MGM MIRAGE
Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:09-cv-01558-GMN-LRL.

In November 2009, the U.S. District Court for Nevada consolidated
the Robert Lowinger v. MGM MIRAGE, et al. (Case No. 2:09-cv-01558-
RCL-LRL, filed August 19, 2009) and Khachatur Hovhannisyan v. MGM
MIRAGE, et al. (Case No. 2:09-cv-02011-LRH-RJJ, filed October 19,
2009) putative class actions under the caption "In re MGM MIRAGE
Securities Litigation." The cases named the Company and certain
former and current directors and officers as defendants and allege
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. After transfer of the cases in 2010 to the
Honorable Gloria M. Navarro, the court appointed several employee
retirement benefits funds as co-lead plaintiffs and their counsel
as co-lead and co-liaison counsel.  In January 2011, lead
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, alleging that
between August 2, 2007 and March 5, 2009, the Company, its
directors and certain of its officers violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

In September 2013, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' amended complaint. Defendants answered the amended
complaint, the court entered a scheduling order and discovery
commenced. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification in
November 2014. Defendants filed their opposition to class
certification in February 2015. The court heard oral argument on
the class certification motion on April 21, 2015 and took the
matter under advisement.  No trial date was set in this case.

In July 2015, the lead plaintiffs and defendants agreed in
principle to settle the securities class actions. In August 2015,
the lead plaintiffs and defendants entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement (the "Settlement Agreement"). Under the
terms of the Settlement Agreement, the claims against the Company
and the named former and current directors and officers will be
dismissed with prejudice and released in exchange for a $75
million cash payment by the Company's directors and officers
liability insurers. In August 2015, the lead plaintiffs filed with
the court an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of the
Settlement Agreement. In September 2015, the court entered an
Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement, preliminarily certified
the class for settlement purposes only, established class
notification procedures and scheduled a hearing to determine
whether to grant final approval to the settlement.

On March 1, 2016 the court conducted a settlement hearing and
entered a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice
(the "Final Judgment").  At the hearing, the court considered,
among other factors, the strength of the available defenses on the
merits, the size of the settlement, the non-objections to the
settlement by more than 200,000 putative members of the settlement
class, and the express endorsement of the settlement by the four
court-appointed institutional lead plaintiffs.  Only one class
member objected to the adequacy of the settlement and the court
entering Final Judgment. The court entered the Final Judgment over
his objection.

In the Final Judgment, the court found that the settlement was
fair, reasonable and adequate to the settlement class in all
respects.  The court granted final approval of the Settlement
Agreement, dismissed the actions and all released claims with
prejudice as to all defendants, and expressly provided that
neither the settlement nor associated negotiations and proceedings
constitute an admission or evidence of liability, fault or
omission by the defendants.

On March 25, 2016, the objector filed a Notice of Appeal as to the
Final Judgment and related orders entered by the court concerning
the plan of settlement distribution and award of attorneys' fees
and expenses to the lead plaintiffs' counsel. Appellant's opening
brief is currently due in July 2016.

The Company and all other defendants plan to vigorously defend the
Final Judgment on appeal. If the Final Judgment is affirmed, the
Company may pursue an award of damages against the objector on the
grounds that the appeal filed was frivolous. If the Final Judgment
is reversed on appeal, the Company and other defendants will
vigorously defend against the claims asserted in these securities
cases.


MIAMI-DADE CTY, FL: Wins Stay for Nine Months in CAIR Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Joan A. Lenard entered an order in the lawsuit styled
CAIR FLORIDA, INC., et al. v. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, et al., Case No.
1:15-cv-23324-JAL (S.D. Fla.) granting the Defendants' motion to
stay.

The Court enters a stay in the Case for a duration of nine months
or until the conclusion of the appeals process in United States v.
Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, No. 15-14117 (appeal
docketed Sept. 14, 2015), whichever is sooner.  At the conclusion
of nine months, the stay will expire by its own terms.  Sixty days
prior to the expiration of such stay at the conclusion of nine
months, Judge Lenard ordered that the Parties must file memoranda
as to their respective positions on whether or not any further
stay should issue.  At that point, the Court will consider the
Parties' submissions and reassess the propriety of any further
stay by written Order.

The Individual Plaintiffs are all Muslim inmates housed in jails
operated by the Miami-Dade Corrections and Rehabilitation
Department whose repeated requests for a Halal diet have been
denied.  The word "halal" in Arabic simply means "permissible";
thus, a "Halal diet" is food that is permissible for Muslims to
consume.  Under Islamic principles, a Halal diet, among other
things, prohibits the meat of certain animals or their
derivatives, requires animals eaten to be slaughtered in a
particular manner, prohibits the consumption of alcohol or food
containing alcohol, and mandates that the food not come into
contact with non-Halal foods.

Judge Lenard also:

   -- denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion for
      preliminary injunction;

   -- denied without prejudice the Defendants' motion to dismiss
      complaint;

   -- denied as moot the Parties' joint motion for telephonic
      status conference and joint motion for an extension of the
      discovery deadline;

   -- terminated the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification;
      and

   -- administratively closed the Case.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=oNIwf91p


MICHAEL FOODS: Still Defends Suits v. Egg Producers
---------------------------------------------------
Michael Foods, Inc. and other producers of shell eggs,
manufacturers of processed egg products, and egg industry
organizations remain defendants in class action lawsuits, Post
Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016.

In late 2008 and early 2009, some 22 class-action lawsuits were
filed in various federal courts against Michael Foods, Inc. and
approximately 20 other defendants (producers of shell eggs,
manufacturers of processed egg products, and egg industry
organizations), alleging violations of federal and state antitrust
laws in connection with the production and sale of shell eggs and
egg products, and seeking unspecified damages. In December 2008,
the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the
transfer of all cases to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for
coordinated and/or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Between late
2010 and early 2012, a number of companies, each of which would be
part of the purported class in the antitrust action, brought
separate actions against defendants. These "opt-out" cases,
brought primarily by various grocery chains and food companies,
assert essentially the same allegations as in the main action. The
opt-out cases are also pending in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, where they are being treated as related to the main
action.

On September 18, 2015, the court denied the motion of the Indirect
Purchaser Plaintiffs for class certification. On September 21,
2015, the court granted the motion of the Direct Purchaser
Plaintiffs to certify a shell-egg subclass, but denied their
motion to certify an egg-products subclass.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

"We do not believe it is possible to estimate the loss in
connection with these litigated matters. Accordingly, we cannot
predict what impact, if any, these matters and any results from
such matters could have on our future results of operations," the
Company said.


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Former UT Player Files Concussion Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
WATE6 On Your Side reports that former University of Tennessee
football player filed a lawsuit against the Southeastern
Conference and the NCAA on June 8.

The law firm representing Orenthal James Owens, Edelson PC, told
WATE 6 On Your Side that the former player filed the lawsuit
because of the "long lasting effects of a concussion."  The injury
occurred while he was playing at UT.  Mr. Owens played for the
university from 2000 to 2003.  He suffered multiple injuries while
with the Vols.

In the lawsuit, Mr. Owens claims the SEC and the NCAA were
reckless when it came to the safety and health of UT athletes.  He
claims the governing bodies knew of the possible brain injuries
from the sport, but concealed the information in order to make
money.  The document goes on to say the NCAA and SEC did not
create procedures to prevent future health problems, therefore,
"breaching" the contracts with each player.

The lawsuit quotes the NCAA's claim regarding the safety of
student athletes, "dedicated to safeguarding the well-being of
student-athletes and equipping them with the skills to succeed on
the playing field, in the classroom and throughout life."

College football players can receive hits to the head that are
equivalent to over a hundred car accidents per season, according
to the lawsuit.  The lawsuit mentions the possible results of
brain injuries: memory loss, dementia, depression, Chronic
Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE), Parkinson's disease and more.

"Meaning, long after they played their last game, they are left
with a series of neurological events that could slowly strangle
and choke their brains," says the document.

The lawsuit is asking for the defendants to financially provide
for damages including: past, current and future medical expenses;
lost of time; lost of future earnings and attorney fees. Owens is
asking for a jury to be provided for the trial.

Three other players from Duke University, Ohio State and the
University of Michigan have filed separate lawsuits against the
NCAA to form the class action.

This comes after six lawsuits were filed in May against the
association.  According to The New York Times, the players are
seeking financial relief for their injuries.  In the class action
filed in May, the plaintiffs played in the Big Ten, the SEC and
the Pacific-12.

In January, a federal judge approved a settlement between former
athletes with head injuries and the NCAA.  However, the settlement
did not mention financial relief for the plaintiffs. Instead, it
was for $70 million to help former athletes monitor brain
injuries, according to the Times.


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Retired Players Defend "Evans" Suit v. Teams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that retired players on June 9, fought to revive claims that
National Football League teams pumped them with painkillers to get
them back on the field, disregarding long-term effects on their
health.

Lead plaintiff Etopia Evans, the wife of the late Charles Evans,
who played for the Minnesota Vikings and Baltimore Ravens, filed a
federal class action against all 32 NFL teams in May 2015. The
case was transferred from Maryland to Northern California in
March.

During a hearing in June 9, an attorney representing the NFL clubs
urged U.S. District Judge William Alsup to dismiss the lawsuit as
he did with a similar class action, Dent v. NFL, in 2014.

"There's no difference at all between these two cases," NFL clubs'
attorney Gregg Levy said. "The allegations here are the same."

Class attorney Phillip Closius countered that unlike Dent, this
class action names individual clubs as defendants, not the NFL.

In Dent, Alsup found the league had no duty to "intervene or stop
mistreatment" by the NFL's independent clubs and that the claims
were governed by collective bargaining agreements subject to
arbitration. That ruling was appealed to the Ninth Circuit last
year.

"The allegation was the NFL only had a supervisory role for the
teams, not the players," Closius said. "In this case, that's
inapplicable because there's no immediate step between the
plaintiffs and defendants."

The former players allege the clubs conspired since at least 1964
to have trainers dole out pills and inject players with
painkillers, sometimes mixing them with other drugs in dangerous
cocktails, to get them back on the field to drive profits for the
league.

"Everyone around them in the NFL didn't care their long-term
health was being destroyed to get them back on the field,"
Closius said. "They profited to the tune of billions and harmed
their players in the long term."

The lead plaintiff's late husband, Charles Evans, died alone in a
jail cell in 2008 two days after he was imprisoned for failing to
pay child support. He spent his money on painkillers, which he got
addicted to while playing professional football, according to the
complaint.


Closius said the NFL clubs hid the side effects of the drugs from
the players, and in some cases, even lied about how the
painkillers might affect them and their health.

Levy countered that according to collective bargaining agreements,
the physicians had a duty to disclose symptoms and prescribe
treatment. The contracts in no way obligate the clubs to disclose
information on side effects of drugs, he said.

Levy also disputed allegations that trainers, not physicians,
doled out painkillers to players on regular basis during games.

Closius painted Levy's arguments on collective bargaining
agreements as a red herring, pointing out that players allege the
clubs engaged in a "global conspiracy" to violate federal law by
misrepresenting the side effects and risks of dangerous
medications given to players.

"We're not obligated to sue every member of the conspiracy in one
lawsuit," Closius said. "We're not interested in the doctors and
trainers. We're not interested in the henchman. We're interested
in those who profited with millions of dollars."

Alsup ended the hearing after a half hour of debate, asking both
sides to submit follow-up briefs by June 14 before he renders his
decision on the motion to dismiss.

With 13 named plaintiffs, the Evans suit seeks to certify a class
of all retired NFL players who were given painkillers by team
doctors and trainers without a valid prescription, examination,
diagnosis or warning from the early 1960s to present.

Levy is with Covington Burling in Washington, D.C.

Closius -- pclosius@mdattorney.com -- is with Silverman Thompson
Slutkin White in Baltimore.


NATIONAL RECOVERY: Zirogiannis Renews Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled JEANETTE ZIROGIANNIS, an
individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. NATIONAL RECOVERY AGENCY, INC., Case No. 2:14-cv-03954-DRH-AYS
(E.D.N.Y.), files her renewed motion to certify a class of:

     (a) all natural person in the State of New York; (b) to
     whom Defendant sent a written communication containing
     language materially similar to Exhibit C of the Complaint;
     (c) subsequent to a request for a validation pursuant to the
     Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; (d) which was not
     returned as undelivered by the United States Postal Service;
     (e) during the one year immediately preceding the filing of
     the Complaint and ending 21 days thereafter.

Ms. Zirogiannis also asks the Court to appoint her as class
representative and to appoint Abraham Kleinman, Esq., as Class
Counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jVYrQVWy

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abraham Kleinman, Esq.
          KLEINMAN LLC
          626 RXR Plaza
          Uniondale, NY 11556-0626
          Telephone: (516) 522-2621
          Facsimile: (888) 522-1692


NESTOR CHAYELE: "Sanchez" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------
Edit Idalia Trochez Sanchez, and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Nestor Chayele and Yolanda Gomez, Defendants, Case
No. 1:16-cv-21975-UU (S.D. Fla., June 1, 2016), seeks double
damages, reasonable attorney fees, overtime wages still owing,
costs, interest and any other relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Sanchez worked for Defendants as a domestic live-out housekeeper.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     J.H. Zidell, Esq.
     J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
     300 71st Street, Suite 605
     Miami Beach, FL 33141
     Tel: (305) 865-6766
     Fax: (305) 865-7167
     Email: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


NEW YORK: NYC Fire Dept. Faces Electrical Workers' Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against The NYC Fire Dept. The case is
captioned International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local
3, Gregory M. Seabrook, Steven Sutter, Robert Bajor, Dudley
Placide, Jr., Ismael Ortiz, Kr. and Joe Adams, on behalf of
themselves, and a class consisting of similarly situated persons,
in the matter of the application of, the Plaintiff, v. The NYC
Fire Dept. and the City of NY, the Defendant, Case No. 4338/2016
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 7, 2016). The assigned Judge is Dawn M.
Jimenez Salta.

The NYC Fire Dept., officially the Fire Department of the City of
New York (FDNY), is a department of the government of New York
City that provides fire protection, technical rescue, primary
response to biological, chemical and radioactive hazards, and
emergency medical services to the five boroughs of New York City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam L. Goldberg, Esq.
          5 West 37th St, 7th Fl, AFLCIO
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 575-4400


OLD NATIONAL: Hearing Held to Approve $4.75MM Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
Old National Bancorp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the settlement
agreement in a class action lawsuit will be subject to final
Circuit Court approval which was scheduled for June 13, 2016.

Information on the case is available at:

             http://www.oldnationaloverdraftfees.com/

In November 2010, Old National was named in a class action lawsuit
in Vanderburgh Circuit Court challenging our checking account
practices associated with the assessment of overdraft fees. The
theory set forth by plaintiffs in this case is similar to other
class action complaints filed against other financial institutions
in recent years and settled for substantial amounts. On May 1,
2012, the plaintiff was granted permission to file a First Amended
Complaint which named additional plaintiffs and amended certain
claims. The plaintiffs seek damages, and other relief, including
treble damages, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Indiana
Crime Victim's Relief Act. On June 13, 2012, Old National filed a
motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, which was
subsequently denied by the Court. On September 7, 2012, the
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which was
granted on March 20, 2013, and provides for a class of "All Old
National Bank customers in the State of Indiana who had one or
more consumer accounts and who, within the applicable statutes of
limitation through August 15, 2010, incurred an overdraft fee as a
result of Old National Bank's practice of sequencing debit card
and ATM transactions from highest to lowest."

Old National sought an interlocutory appeal on the issue of class
certification on April 2, 2013, which was subsequently denied. On
June 11, 2013, Old National moved for summary judgment asserting
the law as applied to the material facts not in dispute should
result in judgment in favor of Old National. On September 16,
2013, a hearing was held on the summary judgment motion and the
Motion was denied by the Circuit Court on April 14, 2014.
Subsequently, Old National sought and was granted leave to appeal
the denial of its Motion for Summary Judgment. On July 11, 2014,
the Indiana Court of Appeals accepted the appeal and the parties
fully briefed the matter as of February 23, 2015. On April 23,
2015, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part
the Circuit Court's denial of Old National's Motion for Summary
Judgment and remanded the case to the Circuit Court for further
proceedings. Specifically, the Court of Appeals rejected Old
National's contention that all of plaintiffs' claims were
preempted by federal law but did agree that plaintiffs' state law
claims of conversion, unconscionability and unjust enrichment were
unsupported under Indiana law. The dismissal of these claims
removes any claims which would entitle plaintiffs to treble
damages. The Court of Appeals determined Old National had not
negated plaintiffs' state law claim for breach of a duty of good
faith and fair dealing as to the deposit account agreement and
remanded that claim back to the Circuit Court. On May 22, 2015,
Old National filed a Petition to Transfer the Case to the Indiana
Supreme Court in which it asked the Court to accept an appeal of
the remaining count.

On July 23, 2015, the Indiana Supreme Court declined to accept
transfer of the case. Thereafter, the case returned to the trial
court for further proceedings on the sole remaining count.

The trial court set the case for trial on May 9, 2016 along with
various other case management deadlines. On January 11, 2016, Old
National filed its second Motion for Summary Judgment addressing
the issues discussed in the Court of Appeals opinion.
Simultaneously, other deadlines relating to, among other things,
witness and exhibit disclosures and expert disclosures were
approaching which presented the parties an opportunity to evaluate
the pending case.

On April 5, 2016, Old National entered into a settlement agreement
with plaintiffs providing for a cash payment from Old National in
the amount of $4,750,000 in exchange for a full release and
dismissal of plaintiffs' complaint. By entering into the
settlement agreement, Old National has not admitted any liability
with respect to the lawsuit. The settlement amount had previously
been accrued for in the December 31, 2015 financial statements.

On April 14, 2016, the Circuit Court preliminarily approved the
settlement agreement, entered an order authorizing notice of the
settlement to the class participants, and vacated the May 9, 2016
trial date. Following notice of the settlement to the class
participants, the settlement agreement will be subject to final
Circuit Court approval which was scheduled for June 13, 2016.

Although Old National cannot guarantee that the Circuit Court will
approve the settlement agreement, Old National believes it is
reasonably likely that the settlement agreement will be approved.
In the event that the settlement agreement is not approved by the
Circuit Court or is otherwise rejected, the Circuit Court will
reissue a new trial date in 2017.


OLD REPUBLIC: 10 of 12 Class Actions Dismissed
----------------------------------------------
Old Republic International Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6,
2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that ten of
the twelve class action lawsuits have been dismissed.

On December 30, 2011 and on January 4, 2013, purported class
action suits alleging RESPA violations were filed in the Federal
District Court, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania targeting
RMIC, other mortgage guaranty insurance companies, PNC Financial
Services Group (as successor to National City Bank) and HSBC Bank
USA, N.A., and their wholly-owned captive insurance subsidiaries.
(White, Hightower, et al. v. PNC Financial Services Group (as
successor to National City Bank) et al.), (Ba, Chip, et al. v.
HSBC Bank USA, N.A., et al.). The lawsuits are two of twelve
against various lenders, their captive reinsurers and the mortgage
insurers, filed by the same law firms. All of these lawsuits were
substantially identical in alleging that the mortgage guaranty
insurers had reinsurance arrangements with the defendant banks'
captive insurance subsidiaries under which payments were made in
violation of the anti-kickback and fee splitting prohibitions of
Sections 8(a) and 8(b) of RESPA. Ten of the twelve suits have been
dismissed. The remaining suits seek unspecified damages, costs,
fees and the return of the allegedly improper payments. A class
has not been certified in either suit and RMIC has filed motions
to dismiss the cases.


ORACLE CORP: "Klarfeld" Suit Alleges Accounting Malpractice
-----------------------------------------------------------
Grover M. Klarfeld, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Oracle Corporation, Lawrence J.
Ellison, Mark Vincent Hurd and Safra Ada Catz, Defendants, Case
No. 4:16-cv-02966-KAW (N.D. Cal., June 2, 2016), seeks to recover
damages for violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint says the Defendant failed to disclose that Oracle
used improper accounting practices to inflate their cloud
computing revenues by millions of dollars in violation of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act.

Oracle develops, manufactures, markets, sells, hosts, and supports
database and middleware software, application software, cloud
infrastructure, hardware systems, and related services worldwide.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     468 North Camden Drive
     Beverly Hills, CA 90210
     Telephone: (818) 532-6449
     E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

          - and -

     Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
     J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
     Marc Gorrie, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Telephone: (212) 661-1100
     Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
     Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
            ahood@pomlaw.com
            mgorrie@pomlaw.com


ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Wants 2nd Amended SEPTA Complaint Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Orrstown Financial Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that Defendants
have timely filed their motions to dismiss the second amended
complaint in the putative class action filed by Southeastern
Pennsylvania Transportation Authority ("SEPTA").

The Company, the Bank and certain current and former directors and
executive officers (collectively, "Orrstown Defendants") are
defendants in a putative class action filed by Southeastern
Pennsylvania Transportation Authority ("SEPTA") on May 25, 2012,
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania. In a later amended complaint, the list of defendants
was expanded to include the Company's independent registered
public accounting firm and the underwriters of the Company's March
2010 public offering of common stock. The complaint, as amended,
alleges among other things that (i) in connection with the
Company's Registration Statement on Form S-3 dated February 23,
2010 and its Prospectus Supplement dated March 23, 2010, and (ii)
during the purported class period of March 15, 2010 through April
5, 2012, the Company issued materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's lending practices and financial
results, including misleading statements concerning the stringent
nature of the Bank's credit practices and underwriting standards,
the quality of its loan portfolio, and the intended use of the
proceeds from the Company's March 2010 public offering of common
stock. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a) and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and seeks class certification, unspecified money
damages, interest, costs, fees and equitable or injunctive relief.

On June 22, 2015, the Court dismissed without prejudice SEPTA's
amended complaint against all defendants, finding that SEPTA
failed to state a claim under either the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
The Court ordered that, within 30 days, SEPTA either seek leave to
amend its amended complaint, accompanied by the proposed
amendment, or file a notice of its intention to stand on the
amended complaint.

On July 22, 2015, SEPTA filed a motion for leave to amend under
Local Rule 15.1, as allowed by the Court's ruling on June 22,
2015. Many of the allegations of the proposed second amended
complaint are essentially the same or similar to the allegations
of the dismissed amended complaint. The proposed second amended
complaint also alleges that the Orrstown Defendants did not
publicly disclose certain alleged failures of internal controls
over loan underwriting, risk management, and financial reporting
during the period 2009 to 2012, in violation of the federal
securities laws. On February 8, 2016, the Court granted SEPTA's
motion for leave to amend and SEPTA filed its second amended
complaint that same day.

On February 25, 2016, the Court issued a scheduling Order
directing: all defendants to file any motions to dismiss by March
18, 2016; SEPTA to file an omnibus opposition to defendants'
motions to dismiss by April 8, 2016; and all defendants to file
reply briefs in support of their motions to dismiss by April 22,
2016. Defendants timely filed their motions to dismiss the second
amended complaint and the parties filed their briefs in accordance
with the Court-ordered schedule.

The February 25, 2016 Order stays all discovery and other
deadlines in the case (including the filing of SEPTA's motion for
class certification) pending the outcome of the motions to
dismiss.

The Company believes that the allegations of SEPTA's second
amended complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously
defend itself against those claims.

Given the litigation is still in the pleading stage, it is not
possible at this time to estimate reasonably possible losses, or
even a range of reasonably possible losses, in connection with the
litigation.


PALOS VERDES, CA: Has Until July 6 to Decide on Surfer Gang Fort
----------------------------------------------------------------
Garrett Therolf, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that Palos
Verdes Estates issued a letter saying that the city will not meet
a state deadline to make plans for an illegal stone "fort" used by
a group of aggressively territorial surfers widely known as the
"Lunada Bay Boys."

The city's statement came in response to a letter the Coastal
Commission sent on June 7 telling the city that it has until
July 6 to develop a plan to tear down the crudely built structure
or begin a permitting process that would include measures to
improve access to one of the state's most coveted -- and hostile
-- surf breaks.

Coastal Commission Enforcement Officer Jordan Sanchez wrote that
it was unlikely that he would be able to approve a permit for the
fort because of its location on public land, but he said a smaller
structure might be possible if the city takes steps to improve
public access.

The city, he said, should take make a plan that "clearly
identifies, through signage at major streets, at the coastline,
and on trail maps, the structure as a public amenity and open to
all."

But city manager Anton Dahlerbruch instead promised only a beach
cleanup and said he hoped to develop a preliminary plan for the
fort by September -- seven months after the coastal commission
first raised the issue, and two months past the state's deadline.

The simple structure is made of stone and concrete, and
Mr. Dahlerbruch said the problems it creates have thus far
exceeded his ability to solve.

"The complexity of the situation has presented no easy or
immediate answer," he wrote.

Noaki Schwartz, a spokeswoman for the commission, said the agency
had no immediate response to Mr. Dahlerbruch's letter of non-
compliance.

In internal correspondence obtained earlier this year by The Times
through a public records request, Mr. Dahlerbruch told the
affluent community's city council that the Lunada Bay Homeowners
Assn. was urging the city to focus on policing the bullying in
hopes that "the existence and use of the patio becomes
irrelevant."

A public records request for documents of the planning process to
permit or tear it down yielded no documents.

For decades, witnesses have accused the Bay Boys, some of whom are
reportedly middle-aged, of bombarding outsiders with dirt clods,
slashing their tires and assaulting them in the water -- sometimes
coordinating the attacks with walkie-talkies.

Police reports over the years show that the fort has repeatedly
been a site of alleged drug and alcohol use that victims said
fueled harassment of outsiders.

One alleged victim said she was sexually harassed and doused with
beer in retaliation for appearing in a news article about the
problems.

Earlier this year, an El Segundo police officer who says he has
been harassed by the Bay Boys joined other alleged victims in a
class-action lawsuit.

The officer, Cory Spencer, and Diana Milena Reed, the alleged
harassment victim, asked a federal judge to prevent members of the
gang from congregating at Lunada Bay.

The suit also targets the city of Palos Verdes Estates, asking a
judge to require officials to investigate and prosecute crimes
committed by the surfers.


PETAL PRODUCTIONS: "Cayuqueo" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------
Claudio Cayuqueo, and Christian Solis on behalf of themselves and
other similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Petal Productions Events
Corp., a Florida for Profit Corporation and Ralph Grosz,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-21982-JEM (S.D. Fla.,
June 1, 2016), seeks overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
reasonable attorney fees and costs and expenses, pre-judgment
interest and such other and further relief pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Petal Productions Events Corp. is an event planning and decoration
company in the State of Florida, with its principal place of
business in Miami-Dade County. Plaintiffs worked setting up event
decorations, lighting and flower arrangements and as drivers.
Defendants misclassified Plaintiffs as independent contractors
thus denied proper overtime compensation for overtime hours.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Paul M. Botros, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
     600 N. Pine Island Rd., Suite 400
     Plantation, FL 33324
     Telephone: (954) 318-0268
     Facsimile: (954) 333-3517
     E-mail: PBotros@forthepeople.com


PRECOR INC: Ill. Court Certifies Two Classes in "Mednick" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber entered a memorandum opinion and
order in the lawsuit titled GARY MEDNICK and STEVEN BAYER,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
PRECOR, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-03624 (N.D.
Ill.) denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and
granting the Defendant's motion to strike and exclude opinion of
the Plaintiffs' Expert Craig Henriquez, Ph.D.

Plaintiff Gary Mednick filed the class action lawsuit against the
Defendant on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
individuals seeking to remedy alleged unfair and deceptive
business practices arising from Precor's marketing and sale of
exercise equipment incorporating "touch sensor heart rate"
monitoring technology.  Plaintiff Steven Bayer filed a separate
lawsuit alleging similar claims.  Subsequently, the two cases were
consolidated before the Court.

The Plaintiffs seek class certification for breach of express
warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act on behalf of a
nationwide class, defined as:

     All persons within the United States who, within the
     applicable statute of limitations, purchased a Precor
     fitness machine equipped with a touch sensor heart rate
     monitor from either Precor or a third-party retailer.
     Excluded from the Nationwide Class are . . . those who
     purchased Precor fitness machines for resale.

The Plaintiffs also seek class certification for violations of 10
state consumer fraud laws, on behalf of a multi-state class,
defined as:

     All persons who, within the applicable statute of
     limitations, purchased a Precor fitness machine equipped
     with a touch sensor heart rate monitor from either Precor or
     a third-party retailer.  Excluded from the Multi-State Class
     are . . . those who purchased Precor fitness machines for
     resale.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=VpN9S7aU


PROPETRO SERVICES: "Munoz" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------
Manny Munoz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. ProPetro Services, Inc., Dale Redman, Jeff
Smith, David Sledge, Defendants, Case No. 7:16-cv-00133 (W.D.
Tex., June 2, 2016), seeks monetary and liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, reasonable attorney fees and costs and
overtime compensation under the provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.

ProPetro is an independent provider of oil and gas well drilling,
stimulation, cementing and coiled tubing services, where Plaintiff
worked as a field engineer. He claims to have been denied overtime
pay.

Dale Redman, Jeff Smith and David Sledge served as CEO, CFO and
COO, respectively, of ProPetro.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Josh Sanford
     SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
     One Financial Center
     650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411
     Little Rock, AR 72211
     Telephone: (501) 221-0088
     Facsimile: (888) 787-2040


RAYONIER INC: Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Rayonier Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the defendants' motion
to dismiss an amended complaint in a securities class action
remains pending.

Following the Company's November 10, 2014 earnings release and
filing of the restated interim financial statements for the
quarterly periods ended March 31, 2014 and June 30, 2014 (the
"November 2014 Announcement"), shareholders of the Company filed
five putative class actions against the Company and Paul G.
Boynton, Hans E. Vanden Noort, David L. Nunes, and H. Edwin Kiker
arising from circumstances described in the November 2014
Announcement, entitled respectively:

* Sating v. Rayonier Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-01395;
filed November 12, 2014 in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Florida;

* Keasler v. Rayonier Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-01398,
filed November 13, 2014 in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Florida;

* Lake Worth Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund v. Rayonier Inc. et
al, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-01403, filed November 13, 2014 in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida;

* Christie v. Rayonier Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-01429,
filed November 21, 2014 in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Florida; and

* Brown v. Rayonier Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-08986,
initially filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York and later transferred to the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida and
assigned as Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-01474.

On January 9, 2015, the five securities actions were consolidated
into one putative class action entitled In re Rayonier Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:14-cv-01395-TJC-JBT, in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants made false and/or
misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The plaintiffs sought unspecified monetary damages and
attorneys' fees and costs. Two shareholders, the Pension Trust
Fund for Operating Engineers and the Lake Worth Firefighters'
Pension Trust Fund moved for appointment as lead plaintiff on
January 12, 2015, which was granted on February 25, 2015.

On April 7, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action
Complaint (the "Consolidated Complaint"). In the Consolidated
Complaint, plaintiffs added allegations as to and added as a
defendant N. Lynn Wilson, a former officer of Rayonier. With the
filing of the Consolidated Complaint, David L. Nunes and H. Edwin
Kiker were dropped from the case as defendants. Defendants timely
filed Motions to Dismiss the Consolidated Complaint on May 15,
2015. After oral argument on Defendants' motions on August 25,
2015, the Court dismissed the Consolidated Complaint without
prejudice, allowing plaintiffs leave to refile. Plaintiffs filed
the Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the "Amended
Complaint") on September 25, 2015, which continued to assert
claims against the Company, as well as Ms. Wilson and Messrs.
Boynton and Vanden Noort. Defendants timely filed Motions to
Dismiss the Amended Complaint on October 26, 2015, which are
pending. At this preliminary stage, the Company cannot determine
whether there is a reasonable likelihood a material loss has been
incurred nor can the range of any such loss be estimated.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC Report.


RINGCENTRAL INC: Supply Pro Sorbents Filed Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Ringcentral, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that Supply Pro Sorbents,
LLC (SPS), filed on April 21, 2016, a putative class action
against the Company in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, alleging common law conversion
and violations of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA) arising from fax cover sheets used by the Company's
customers when sending facsimile transmissions over the Company's
system.  SPS seeks statutory damages, costs, attorneys' fees and
an injunction in connection with its TCPA claim, and unspecified
damages and punitive damages in connection with its conversion
claim.  The Company has not yet responded to the complaint, and
discovery has not yet commenced.  The Company intends to
vigorously defend itself in this lawsuit.  However, litigation is
inherently uncertain, and it is too early in this proceeding to
predict the outcome of this lawsuit. Based on the information
known by the Company as of the date of this filing and the rules
and regulations applicable to the preparation of the Company's
condensed consolidated financial statements, it is not possible to
provide an estimated amount of any such loss or range of loss that
may occur.

Ringcentral is a provider of software-as-a-service, or SaaS,
solutions for the way employees communicate in business.


ROKA BIOSCIENCE: In Settlement Discussions for $3.3 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
Roka Bioscience, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company is in
discussions to settle a securities class action and estimates a
potential settlement amount of approximately $3.3 million.

A putative securities class action originally captioned Ding v.
Roka Bioscience, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-8020, was filed against
the Company and certain of its officers and directors in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on
December 24, 2014, on behalf of a putative class of persons and
entities who had purchased or otherwise acquired securities
pursuant or traceable to the Registration Statement for the
Company's IPO. The original putative class period ran from July 17
through November 6, 2014.  The original complaint asserted claims
under the Securities Act of 1933 and contended that the IPO
Registration Statement was false and misleading, or omitted
allegedly material information, in connection with the Company's
statements about its placement of Atlas instruments and its
expectations of future growth and increased market share, and the
Company's alleged failure to disclose "known trends and
uncertainties about the Company's sales."  The alleged
misrepresentations and omissions purportedly came to light when
the Company issued its third-quarter 2014 earnings release on
November 6, 2014.

Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995,
the court appointed Stanley Yedlowski as lead plaintiff and The
Rosen Law Firm as lead counsel on April 21, 2015. The lead
plaintiff then filed an amended complaint, captioned Stanley
Yedlowski v. Roka Bioscience, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-8020, on June
23, 2015. The amended complaint pleads Securities Act claims on
behalf of persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
Roka securities pursuant or traceable to the IPO Registration
Statement during an extended putative class period, running from
July 17, 2014 through March 26, 2015. The amended complaint
alleges that the Registration Statement was false or misleading in
that it failed to disclose that the Company's customers
purportedly were experiencing false positives and other usage
issues with the Company's Listeria assays apparently arising from
the customers' employees' inability to follow the Company's
Listeria assay workflow. The amended complaint alleges that the
full extent of the purported misstatements and omissions was not
revealed until March 26, 2015.

Defendants filed a motion on August 25, 2015 to dismiss the
amended complaint, and plaintiffs filed an opposition to that
motion on October 9, 2015. The parties agreed to attempt to
resolve the case through mediation and that process is continuing.

The Company is in settlement discussions and currently estimates a
potential settlement amount of approximately $3.3 million.

The Company believes that the claims in the securities class
action are without merit, and, if the case cannot be settled, the
Company intends to defend the litigation vigorously, and expects
to incur costs associated with defending the securities class
action. The Company has various insurance policies related to the
risks associated with its business, including directors' and
officers' liability insurance policies. However, there is no
assurance that the Company would be successful in its defense of
the securities class action if the case cannot be settled, and
there is no assurance that the insurance coverage would be
sufficient or that the insurance carriers would cover all claims
or litigation costs.

Roka Bioscience, Inc. is focused on the development and
commercialization of molecular assay technologies for the
detection of foodborne pathogens. The Company was established in
September 2009 through the acquisition of industrial testing
assets and technology from Gen-Probe Incorporated, which was
subsequently acquired by Hologic, Inc.


SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Bid to Dismiss "Baker" Suit Due June 29
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Baker v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., et al., Case
No. 14-CV-02129-MMA (KSC)(S.D. Cal.), an "Amended Complaint with
Jury Demand Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint
against James Atchison, Blackstone Capital Markets L.P., James M
Heaney, Seaworld Entertainment, Inc., Marc Swanson" was filed by
Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System on May 31, 2016.

Then on June 6, the District Court Judge Michael M. Anello entered
an Order directing:

     -- the Defendants to file a single consolidated motion to
        dismiss, with a memorandum of law no greater than 40
        pages, on or before June 29, 2016;

     -- the Lead Plaintiffs to file their opposition to the
        Defendants' motion to dismiss, which shall not exceed
        40 pages, on or before July 27, 2016;

     -- the Defendants to file their reply in further support
        of their motion to dismiss, which shall not exceed 18
        pages, on or before Aug. 10, 2016.

Seaworld Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a purported
stockholder class action lawsuit consisting of purchasers of the
Company's common stock during the periods between April 18, 2013
to August 13, 2014, captioned Baker v. SeaWorld Entertainment,
Inc., et al., Case No. 14-CV-02129-MMA (KSC), was filed on
September 9, 2014, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California against the Company, the Chairman of the
Company's Board, certain of its executive officers and Blackstone.

On February 27, 2015, Court-appointed Lead Plaintiffs,
Pensionskassen For Borne- Og Ungdomspaedagoger and Arkansas Public
Employees Retirement System, together with additional plaintiffs,
Oklahoma City Employee Retirement System and Pembroke Pines
Firefighters and Police Officers Pension Fund (collectively,
"Plaintiffs"), filed an amended complaint against the Company, the
Company's Board, certain of its executive officers, Blackstone,
and underwriters of the initial public offering and secondary
public offerings.  The amended complaint alleges, among other
things, that the prospectus and registration statements filed
contained materially false and misleading information in violation
of the federal securities laws and seeks unspecified compensatory
damages and other relief.  Plaintiffs contend that defendants knew
or were reckless in not knowing that Blackfish was impacting
SeaWorld's business at the time of each public statement. On May
29, 2015, the Company and the other defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint. The Plaintiffs filed an opposition
to the motion to dismiss on July 31, 2015.

The Company and the other defendants filed a reply in further
support of their motion to dismiss on September 18, 2015.  On
March 31, 2016, the Court granted the motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, in its entirety, without prejudice.  Plaintiffs
had until May 31, 2016 to file a further amended complaint.

The Company believes that the class action lawsuit is without
merit and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously; however, there
can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of this
lawsuit.


SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Consumer Class Suits Pending in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Seaworld Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company still
defends a consumer class action in california.

On March 25, 2015, a purported class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California against the Company, captioned Holly Hall v. SeaWorld
Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00600-CAB-RBB (the "Hall
Matter").  The complaint identifies three putative classes
consisting of all consumers nationwide who at any time during the
four-year period preceding the filing of the original complaint,
purchased an admission ticket, a membership or a SeaWorld
"experience" that includes an "orca experience" from the SeaWorld
amusement park in San Diego, California, Orlando, Florida or San
Antonio, Texas respectively.  The complaint alleges causes of
action under California Unfair Competition Law, California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), California False
Advertising Law, California Deceit statute, Florida Unfair and
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Texas Deceptive Trade Practices
Act, as well as claims for Unjust Enrichment.  Plaintiffs' claims
are based on their allegations that the Company misrepresented the
physical living conditions and care and treatment of its orcas,
resulting in confusion or misunderstanding among ticket
purchasers, and omitted material facts regarding its orcas with
intent to deceive and mislead the plaintiff and purported class
members.  The complaint further alleges that the specific
misrepresentations heard and relied upon by Holly Hall in
purchasing her SeaWorld tickets concerned the circumstances
surrounding the death of a SeaWorld trainer.  The complaint seeks
actual damages, equitable relief, attorney's fees and costs.
Plaintiffs claim that the amount in controversy exceeds
$5,000,000, but the liability exposure is speculative until the
size of the class is determined (if certification is granted at
all).

Four other purported class actions were filed against the Company
and its affiliates.  The first three actions were filed on April
9, 2015, April 16, 2015 and April 17, 2015, respectively, in the
following federal courts: (i) the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Florida, captioned Joyce Kuhl v. SeaWorld
LLC et al., 6:15-cv-00574-ACC-GJK (the "Kuhl Matter"), (ii) the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California, captioned Jessica Gaab, et. al. v. SeaWorld
Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 15:cv-842-CAB-RBB (the "Gaab
Matter"), and (iii) the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas, captioned Elaine Salazar Browne v.
SeaWorld of Texas LLC et al., 5:15-cv-00301-XR (the "Browne
Matter").

On May 1, 2015, the Kuhl Matter and Browne Matter were voluntarily
dismissed without prejudice by the respective plaintiffs.  On May
7, 2015, plaintiffs Kuhl and Browne re-filed their claims, along
with a new plaintiff, Valerie Simo, in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California in an action
captioned Valerie Simo et al. v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc.,
Case No. 15:cv-1022-CAB-RBB (the "Simo Matter"). All four of these
cases, in essence, reiterate the claims made and relief sought in
the Hall Matter.

On August 7, 2015, the Gaab Matter and Simo Matter were
consolidated with the Hall Matter, and the plaintiffs filed a
First Consolidated Amended Complaint ("FAC") on August 21, 2015.
The FAC pursued the same seven causes of action as the original
Hall complaint, and added a request for punitive damages pursuant
to the California CLRA.

The Company moved to dismiss the FAC in its entirety, and its
motion was granted on December 24, 2015.  The Court granted
dismissal with prejudice as to the California CLRA claim, the
portion of California Unfair Competition Law claim premised on the
CLRA claim, all claims for injunctive relief, and on all
California claims premised solely on alleged omissions by the
Company.  The Court granted leave to amend as to the remainder of
the complaint.

On January 25, 2016, plaintiffs filed their Second Consolidated
Amended Complaint ("SAC").  The SAC pursues the same causes of
action as the FAC, except for the California CLRA, which, as noted
above, was dismissed with prejudice.  The Company filed a motion
to dismiss the entirety of the SAC with prejudice on February 25,
2016.  That motion is fully briefed and is awaiting a ruling from
the Court.


SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Court Vacates on Hearing in "Anderson"
--------------------------------------------------------------
California Judge Jeffrey S White issued an order dated May 23,
2016, vacating the hearing on motions filed in the case, Anderson
et al v. SeaWorld Parks and Entertainment, Case No. 4:15-cv-02172
(N.D. Cal.).

Seaworld Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a purported class
action was filed on April 13, 2015, in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the City and County of San Francisco
against SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc., captioned Marc
Anderson, et. al., v. SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc., Case
No. CGC-15-545292 (the "Anderson Matter").  The putative class
consists of all consumers within California who, within the past
four years, purchased tickets to SeaWorld San Diego.

On May 11, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class Action
Complaint (the "First Amended Complaint").  The First Amended
Complaint alleges causes of action under the California False
Advertising Law, California Unfair Competition Law and California
CLRA.  Plaintiffs' claims are based on their allegations that the
Company misrepresented the physical living conditions and care and
treatment of its orcas, resulting in confusion or misunderstanding
among ticket purchasers, and omitted material facts regarding its
orcas with intent to deceive and mislead the plaintiff and
purported class members.  The First Amended Complaint seeks actual
damages, equitable relief, attorneys' fees and costs.

Based on plaintiffs' definition of the class, the amount in
controversy exceeds $5,000,000, but the liability exposure is
speculative until the size of the class is determined (if
certification is granted at all).  On May 14, 2015, the Company
removed the case to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, Case No. 15:cv-2172-SC.

On May 19, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand.  On
September 18, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
First Amended Complaint in its entirety.  The motion is fully
briefed.  On September 24, 2015, the district court denied
plaintiffs' motion to remand.

On October 5, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a
motion for reconsideration of this order, and contemporaneously
filed a petition for permission to appeal to the Ninth Circuit,
which the Company opposed.  On October 14, 2015, the district
court granted plaintiffs' motion for leave.  Plaintiffs' motion
for reconsideration was fully briefed.

On January 12, 2016 the district court granted in part and denied
in part the motion for reconsideration, and refused to remand the
case.  On January 22, 2016, plaintiffs filed a petition for
permission to appeal the January 12, 2016 order to the Ninth
Circuit, which the Company opposed.

On April 7, 2016, the Ninth Circuit denied both of plaintiffs'
petitions for permission to appeal and the plaintiffs filed a
motion for leave to file a Second Amended Class Action Complaint
("Second Amended Complaint"), seeking to add two additional
plaintiffs and make various pleading adjustments.  The Company has
opposed the motion.

The district court has scheduled a hearing on both the Company's
motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint and plaintiffs'
motion for leave to file the Second Amended Complaint for June 3,
2016.


SHERWOOD LUMBER: "Alvarez" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT, Agreed Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Alvarez, James D'Annunzio and Keith Gozevich, individually and
on behalf of those individuals similarly situated v. Sherwood
Lumber Corp., Joshua Goodman, Andy Goodman, Michael Goodman, Dave
Gaudreau and John Does 1-6, Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-02757-JFB-
AKT (E.D.N.Y., June 1, 2016), seeks statutory overtime for all
hours worked in excess of forty per week, full payment for all
wages earned in accordance with the agreed upon terms of
employment, illegal deductions, relief due and owing from failure
to provide proper meal periods, interest on all compensation
improperly withheld, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and
costs, monetary damages, and declaratory and affirmative relief
for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, New York
State Labor Law, New York State Labor Regulations, breach of
commission agreements and other appropriate rules, regulations,
statutes and ordinances.

Sherwood Lumber Corp., is a New York corporation with its
principal headquarters located at 300 Corporate Plaza, Islandia,
NY 11749 with an office located in Florida at 1120 East Kennedy
Boulevard, Suite 231, Tampa, Florida 33602.

D'Annunzio and Gozevich worked as inside salespersons at
Defendants' Tampa Florida location while Alvarez worked at their
New York location.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Saul D. Zabell, Esq.
     ZABELL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     1 Corporate Drive, Suite 103
     Bohemia, NY 11716
     Tel: (631) 589-7242
     Fax: (631) 563-7475
     Email: SZabell@laborlawsny.com


SIENTRA INC: Plaintiffs Oppose Dismissal of Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Sientra, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that lead plaintiffs have
filed their opposition to the motions to dismiss their class
action lawsuit.

On September 25, 2015, a lawsuit styled as a class action of the
Company's stockholders was filed in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California. The lawsuit names
the Company and certain of its officers as defendants, or Sientra
Defendants, and alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange
Act, in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements
concerning the Company's business, operations, and prospects.  The
plaintiff seeks damages and an award of reasonable costs and
expenses, including attorneys' fees.

On November 24, 2015, three stockholders (or groups of
stockholders) filed motions to appoint lead plaintiff(s) and to
approve their selection on lead counsel.  On December 10, 2015,
the court entered an order appointing lead plaintiffs and
approving their selection of lead counsel.

On February 19, 2016, lead plaintiffs filed their consolidated
amended complaint, which added a claim under Section 11 of the
Securities Act and named as defendants the underwriters associated
with the Company's follow-on public offering that closed on
September 23, 2015, or the Underwriter Defendants. On March 21,
2016, the Sientra Defendants and the Underwriter Defendants each
filed a motion to dismiss, or the Motions to Dismiss, the
consolidated amended complaints. On April 20, 2016, lead
plaintiffs filed their opposition to the Motions to Dismiss.

Sientra is a medical aesthetics company.  It sells breast implants
and breast tissue expanders.


SIENTRA INC: Plaintiffs Urged Court to Remand
---------------------------------------------
Sientra, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that plaintiffs have filed
their reply in support of the Motions to Remand.

On October 28, November 5, and November 19, 2015, three lawsuits
styled as class actions of the Company's stockholders were filed
in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Mateo.
The lawsuits name the Company, certain of its officers and
directors, and the underwriters associated with the Company's
follow-on public offering that closed on September 23, 2015 as
defendants. The lawsuits allege violations of Sections 11,
12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act in connection with
allegedly false and misleading statements in the Company's
offering documents associated with the follow-on offering
concerning its business, operations, and prospects. The plaintiffs
seek damages and an award of reasonable costs and expenses,
including attorneys' fees.

On December 4, 2015, defendants removed all three lawsuits to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.  On December 15 and December 16, 2015, plaintiffs
filed motions to remand the lawsuits back to San Mateo Superior
Court, or the Motions to Remand.  On January 19, 2016, defendants
filed their opposition to the Motions to Remand, and plaintiffs
filed their reply in support of the Motions to Remand on January
26, 2016.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Sientra is a medical aesthetics company.  It sells breast implants
and breast tissue expanders.


SOLARCITY CORP: "Gibbs" Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Call
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carole Gibbs and Arthur Colby, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Solarcity Corporation, a
Delaware corporation, Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-11010-DHH (D.
Mass., June 1, 2016), seeks actual and statutory damages,
reasonable attorney fees and costs and such other and further
relief under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

SolarCity is a solar energy system installer located at 3055
Clearview Way, San Mateo, California 94402. It conducts wide-scale
telemarketing campaign to promote its services by way of
repeatedly making unsolicited calls to consumers' telephones,
including cellular telephones and numbers, without consent and
using an automatic telephone dialling system.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Julie M. Tolek, Esq.
     THINK PINK LAW
     160 Speen Street, #202
     Framingham, MA 01701
     Tel: (617) 752-1739
     Fax: (617) 752-1739
     Email: julie@thinkpinklaw.com

          - and -

     Stefan Coleman, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, LLC
     201 S. Biscaynve Blvd, 28th Floor
     Miami, FL 33131
     Tel: (877) 333-9427
     Email: law@stefancoleman.com

          - and -

     Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
     Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
     WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
     3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300
     Denver, CO 80210
     Tel: (720) 213-0675
     Fax: (303) 927-0809
     Email: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com
            ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com


SOULCYCLE: First-Time Rider Files Class Action Over Injuries
------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Cullins, writing for Hollywood Reporter, reports that from
"spin rage" to expiration-date drama, cycling studios don't just
need good instructors, they also need good lawyers.

SoulCycle has raced into the hearts of the Hollywood elite, but a
first-time rider says she was injured because an instructor
bullied her, and now the company is facing the latest in a series
of lawsuits filed since it was purchased by mega-gym Equinox in
2011.

Carmen Farias is suing SoulCycle and instructor Angela Davis --
who is a bit of a celebrity herself -- for gross negligence,
according to the complaint filed May 31 in L.A. County Superior
Court.  She says the lack of instruction, design of the bike,
volume of the music and darkness of the room contributed to
injuries that continue to cause her physical and mental pain and
suffering.

Ms. Farias says she decided to give the sport a spin as part of a
corporate outing in July 2014. She says she had never been to a
spinning class of any kind and, while she had ridden a traditional
bicycle before, she had not engaged in a physical fitness regimen
for several years.  An unnamed employee helped Ms. Farias clip
into her cycle, but no one ever showed her how it worked or warned
her not to get out of the seat while the flywheel was spinning.

As class began, Ms. Davis turned the music up and the lights down,
so the room "was cast into a shadowy darkness."

During the ride, Ms. Farias could hear instructors "mocking some
of the other riders" because they weren't keeping up with the
pace. When her legs began to weaken and she tried to stop
pedaling, she says Ms. Davis ridiculed her for slowing down and
someone -- possibly Ms. Davis -- barked at the riders that, "We
don't take breaks."

"Carmen was embarrassed that she was being called out in front of
her bosses and fellow employees," states the lawsuit.  "The shame
caused Carmen to momentarily attempt to pedal faster."

Ms. Farias says she quickly realized she needed to stop, but
didn't know how.

"Fatigue and disorientation overcame Carmen and she fell to her
right and off of the saddle of the spinning cycle," states the
complaint.  "Although her head and torso were now lying to the
right side of the spinning cycle, Carmen's left and right foot
remained locked to the pedals."

The momentum of the flywheel kept the pedals turning and her left
ankle was repeatedly dislocated, she claims, leaving her
"catastrophically injured."  She says she completed and signed the
new rider waiver form, but left it on her desk at work and any
waiver she may have signed while checking in at the Beverly Hills
studio is a violation of public policy and unenforceable because
SoulCycle failed to provide her with a copy.

A SoulCycle spokeswoman tells The Hollywood Reporter the company
does not comment on ongoing litigation.

SoulCycle has a cult following, and Davis is building one of her
own.  She has more than 41,000 followers on Instagram, and
A-listers from Lea Michele to Kerry Washington have tweeted their
praise of the instructor -- oh, and Oprah celebrated her 60th
birthday with a spin led by Davis.

But Ms. Farias says Ms. Davis and her fellow instructors failed to
follow SoulCycle's own policies and procedures, which require a
15-minute introduction to spinning and instruction on how to
properly and safely use the bike and what to do in response to
fatigue.  The lawsuit claims Davis skipped this because it's a
"non-compensated task" -- which was an issue in two class-action
wage and hour lawsuits against the company.

According to an SEC filing, the New York lawsuit was dismissed and
the California suit settled.  "Without admitting liability, the
Company was successful in settling the remaining claims on a
single plaintiff basis for an all-inclusive payment (including
attorneys' fees) of $0.1 million," states the filing.

SoulCycle is also currently facing a potential class-action
lawsuit from customers who are unhappy with its policies regarding
the expiration dates on prepaid packages of classes. They claim
the series, as they're called, expire too quickly and result in
wasted purchases -- in violation of state and federal law.
SoulCycle has argued that series shouldn't be treated as gift
cards because they can't be used to purchase anything, but U.S.
District Court Judge George King denied a motion to dismiss on
those grounds.

But perhaps the most colorful spinning-centric lawsuit is the one
filed against Equinox Holdings, SoulCycle's parent company,
stemming from an incident of "spin rage" in 2007.

Stuart Sugarman was spinning along, cheering and shouting things
like "You go, girl!" in a Manhattan Equinox gym.
Christopher Carter, who was a few bikes down, quickly became
agitated.  Mr. Sugarman claims Carter verbally assaulted him
before he dismounted from his bike and in a "spin rage" picked up
the front of Mr. Sugarman's cycle and threw him into the wall of
the classroom, "leaving a hole in the sheetrock where his cycle
penetrated."

The New York Post described it as a "psycho spin-out."  Mr. Carter
was acquitted, but Mr. Sugarman sued him and the gym, claiming
"mental and physical anguish, economic loss, pain and suffering,
humiliation and damage to reputation" as a result of the incident.

The judge dismissed the company as a defendant in 2008, but
litigation between the two spinners is pending.


STARTEK WORKFORCE: "Ayala" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------
Jose Ayala, individually  and on behalf of all similarly situated,
Plaintiff(s), v. Startek Workforce Solutions, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 3:16-cv-00367 (W.D. Wis., June 1, 2016), seeks all wages owed,
an equal amount in liquidated damages, payment of attorney fees
and costs and all other relief as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Defendant is into the installation of video, high definition
programming, digital video recording, high-speed internet and
telephone services. Plaintiff worked as an installer, performing
installation of internet, telephone and cable television and was
misclassified as a piece-rate contractor, thus denied overtime.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Bernard R. Mazaheri, Esq.
     Christina J. Thomas, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN
     20 N Orange Ave Ste 1600
     Orlando, FL 32801
     Tel: (407) 420-1414
     Fax: (407) 245-3487


SUPERIOR ENERGY: "Rowe" Suit to Recover Unpaid Back Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Bill Rowe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Superior Energy Services, Inc., d/b/a SPC
Rentals and Warrior Energy Services, Corp., Defendants, Case No.
2:16-cv-00190 (S.D. Tex., June 1, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
back wages due, liquidated damages, costs of this action including
attorney fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and such
other and further relief as may be necessary under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Defendants specialize in providing oilfield services to various
drilling and production companies. They jointly employed Plaintiff
as a crane operator.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
     J. Forester, Esq.
     Lee & Braziel, L.L.P.
     1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
     Dallas, TX 75202
     Tel: (214) 749-1400
     Fax: (214) 749-1010


TALMER BANCORP: Livonia Plaintiff Files Amended Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------
Talmer Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the City of Livonia
plaintiff has amended its complaint to add additional factual
allegations.

On February 22, 2016, two complaints were filed in the Circuit
Court for Oakland County, Michigan by alleged shareholders of the
Company against the Company, the following members of the
Company's Board of Directors: Gary Torgow, David Provost, Gary
Collins, Max Berlin, Jennifer Granholm, Paul Hodges III, Ronald
Klein, Barbara Mahone, Robert Naftaly, Albert Papa, Thomas
Schellenberg, and Arthur Weiss (collectively "individual
defendants"), and Chemical Financial Corporation ("Chemical").
These complaints are styled Regina Gertel Lee v. Chemical
Financial Corporation, et. al., Case No. 2016-151642-CB and City
of Livonia Employees' Retirement System v. Chemical Financial
Corporation et. al., Case No. 2016-151641-CB. These complaints
purport to assert claims derivatively on behalf of the Company
against the individual defendants, and individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated against the individual defendants
and Chemical. The putative class in both complaints consists of
all shareholders of the Company who are not related to or
affiliated with any defendant.

Each of the complaints relate to the Company's merger agreement
with Chemical and allege, among other things, that the directors
of the Company breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's
shareholders in connection with the merger by approving a
transaction pursuant to an allegedly inadequate process that
undervalues the Company and includes preclusive deal protection
provisions. The City of Livonia Employees' Retirement System's
complaint also alleges that Chemical aided and abetted the
Company's directors in breaching their duties to the Company's
shareholders. The complaints also allege that the individual
defendants have been unjustly enriched. The complaints request
that the court declare that the defendants have breached their
fiduciary duties and have been unjustly enriched, enjoin the
merger from being consummated in accordance with its agreed-upon
terms, direct the Company's directors to exercise their fiduciary
duties, rescind the merger agreement to the extent that it is
already implemented, award the plaintiff all costs and
disbursements in each respective action (including reasonable
attorneys' and experts' fees), and grant such further relief as
the court deems just and proper.

The City of Livonia plaintiff amended its complaint on April 21,
2016 to add additional factual allegations, including but not
limited to allegations that Keefe Bruyette & Woods, Inc. served as
a financial advisor for the proposed merger despite an alleged
conflict of interest, that the Company's board acted under actual
or potential conflicts of interest, and that the defendants
omitted and/or misrepresented material information about the
proposed merger in the Form S-4 Registration Statement relating to
the proposed merger.


TALMER BANCORP: Bushansky State Court Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Talmer Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Bushansky
complaint in Michigan state court has been voluntarily dismissed.

On March 22, 2016, a putative class action and derivative
complaint was filed in the Circuit Court for Oakland County,
Michigan, by an individual purporting to be a shareholder of the
Company, styled Stephen Bushansky v. Gary Torgow et. al. Case No.
2016-152112-CB. The defendants named in this lawsuit were the same
as those named in the Lee and City of Livonia complaints. The
allegations and relief sought in this action were also
substantially similar to the Lee and City of Livonia complaints.
On April 14, 2016, the City of Livonia filed a motion to
consolidate the three cases pending in state court and appoint the
City of Livonia as lead plaintiff. The Bushansky complaint was
voluntarily dismissed on April 18, 2016.


TALMER BANCORP: 3 Class Suits Pending in E.D. Michigan
------------------------------------------------------
Talmer Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that three actions were
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan by alleged shareholders of the Company against the
Company, the following members of the Company's Board of
Directors: Gary Torgow, David Provost, Gary Collins, Max Berlin,
Jennifer Granholm, Paul Hodges III, Ronald Klein, Barbara Mahone,
Robert Naftaly, Albert Papa, Thomas Schellenberg, and Arthur Weiss
(collectively "individual defendants"), and Chemical.

The first action was filed on April 6, 2016, styled as Matthew
Sciabacucchi v. Gary Torgow, et. al., Case No. 1:16-cv-11261-TLL-
PTM. This complaint purports to bring an individual claim for
violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder against the Company and the individual
defendants, and an individual claim for violation of Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act against Chemical and the individual
defendants.

The second action was filed on April 25, 2016, styled as Kevin
Nicholl v. Gary Torgow, et. al., Case No. 1:16-cv-11482-TLL-PTM.
This complaint purports to assert claims derivatively on behalf of
the Company and individually on behalf of a putative class
consisting of all shareholders of the Company who are not related
to or affiliated with any defendant. This action alleges
violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder against the individual defendants;
violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the
individual defendants; violations of the individual defendants'
fiduciary duties, asserted both derivatively and on behalf of the
class; and a class action claim against Chemical for aiding and
abetting.

The third action was filed was filed on April 27, 2016, styled as
Stephen Bushansky v. Talmer Bancorp, Inc., et. al., Case No. 2:16-
cv-11511-AJT-RSW. This is a putative class action complaint,
purportedly brought on behalf of all shareholders of the Company
who are not related to or affiliated with any defendant. This
complaint alleges violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder against all defendants, and
violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the
individual defendants.

Each of these three complaints relate to the Company's merger
agreement with Chemical and the Company's and Chemical's
Registration Statement on Form S-4. The complaints allege, among
other things, that the directors of the Company and its Board of
Directors approved a transaction pursuant to an allegedly
inadequate process that undervalues the Company and includes
preclusive deal protection provisions. The complaints also allege
that the Registration Statement omits or misrepresents material
information about the proposed merger. Each of the complaints
requests various forms of remedies, including among other things,
that the court enjoin the merger from being consummated, rescind
the merger agreement to the extent it has already been
implemented, declare violations of federal law, award the
plaintiff all costs and disbursements in each respective action
(including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees), and grant
such further relief as the court deems just and proper.

Defendants believe that the claims asserted against them are
without merit and intend to vigorously defend against these
lawsuits. At this stage, it is not possible to predict whether any
additional lawsuits will be filed and, if one is, the outcome of
any such proceeding or its impact on the Company or the merger.


TEXTURA CORPORATION: Mediation Scheduled for June 24
----------------------------------------------------
Textura Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the parties in a class
action lawsuit have agreed to mediation and such mediation is
scheduled for June 24, 2016.

On October 7, 2014, a putative class action lawsuit alleging
violations of federal securities laws was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, naming us
and one of our current and one of our former executive officers as
defendants. An amended complaint was filed on February 17, 2015.
The amended complaint alleges violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by us and one of our current and one of our
former executive officers for making allegedly materially false
and misleading statements and by failing to disclose allegedly
material facts regarding its business and operations between June
7, 2013 and September 29, 2014. The plaintiffs seek unspecified
monetary damages and other relief. We believe the lawsuit is
without merit and intend to defend the case vigorously. We filed a
motion to dismiss on May 4, 2015, which was granted in part and
denied in part on March 3, 2016. The only claim that remains is
the plaintiffs' assertion that the Company should have provided
more information about the business background of its then-
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer in its SEC filings. The
parties have agreed to mediation and such mediation is scheduled
for June 24, 2016.


THERANOS INC: Sued Over Deceptive Blood Testing Unit Marketing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robbie Hargett, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
California consumer is suing a medical device manufacturer,
alleging it defrauded the public by knowingly marketing a blood
testing unit that delivered incorrect results.

R.G., using initials to protect his privacy, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, filed a class action lawsuit
May 30 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California against Theranos Inc., Walgreens Boots Alliance and 10
unnamed defendants, alleging unfair business practices, false
advertising and fraud.

According to the complaint, Theranos sold the Edison device to
Walgreens in-store clinics, alleging it was able to draw a small
amount of blood from a patient's finger to test for various
conditions.  However, the suit says, the Food and Drug
Administration found the unit failed quality control standards and
rendered inaccurate results.

The plaintiffs seek a jury trial, reimbursement for tests using
the Edison device, disgorgement of profits from the sale of the
device, a ban on further advertising of the unit and additional
damages under consumer fraud laws.  They are represented by
attorneys Richard D. McCune, David C. Wright, Elaine S. Kusel,
Joseph Sauder, Matthew Schelkopf and Joseph Kinney of McCuneWright
LLP in Redlands, California, and Berwyn, Pennsylvania.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Case
number 5:16-cv-02891


THREE SEASONS LANDSCAPE: Class Cert. Sought in "Urrutia" Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned JUAN URRUTIA Y URRUTIA,
ROMULO DE PAZ BRITO, and EFRAIN ALVAREZ YAM, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. THREE SEASONS
LANDSCAPE CONTRACTING SERVICES, INC, CARL HEMPHILL, MARIANA
HEMPHILL, and MJC LABOR SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-06416-LDD
(E.D. Pa.), file with the Court their motion for class and
representative action certification.

The Plaintiffs bring claims under the 26 U.S.C. Section 7434 for
the filing of false tax information returns with the U.S.
government on behalf of similarly situated H-2B workers employed
by the Defendants under H-2B non-immigrant visas as a class action
for work performed in 2010 and thereafter.  Plaintiffs Urrutia and
de Paz bring claims against the Defendants as representatives of
similarly situated workers, who were employed by the Defendants
under H-2B non-immigrant visas.  They also ask the Court to order
the Defendants within 10 days after entry of an order to provide
the information to the Plaintiffs' attorneys as to each H-2B
worker employed on visas issued for employment with either
Defendants Three Seasons Landscape Contracting Services, Inc., or
MJC Labor Solutions, LLC for the years 2010 to the present.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=WkEVrrPt

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Arthur Read, Esq.
          Stephanie Dorenbosch, Esq.
          FRIENDS OF FARMWORKERS
          699 Ranstead Street, 4th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 733-0878
          E-mail: aread@friendsfw.org
                  sdorenbosch@friendsfw.org


TRU-FLEX METAL: Faces Adams Pointe Suit in W.D. Penn.
-----------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Tru-Flex Metal Hose Corp. The
case is captioned Adams Pointe I, L.P., Adams Pointe II, L.P.,
Bayberry North Associates L.P., and Betters Real Estate Holdings,
L.P., individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. Tru-Flex Metal Hose Corp., Tru-Flex, LLC, Pro-Flex
LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00750-CRE (W.D. Penn., June
7, 2016). The assigned Magistrate Judge is Hon. Cynthia Reed Eddy.

Tru-Flex manufactures strip wound interlocked hoses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          D. Aaron Rihn, Esq.
          PEIRCE LAW OFFICES
          2500 Gulf Tower, 707 Grant Street
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 281 7229
          Facsimile: (412) 281 4229
          E-mail: arihn@peircelaw.com


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Louisiana Businessman Opts Out of Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Stockman, writing for LawNewz.com, reports that Louisiana
businessman Nicholas Perioux, a former Trump University student,
doesn't want anything to do with a class action lawsuit filed
against the presumptive Republican nominee.  He filed an exclusion
request form, which was entered into the court docket on June 9.
Mr. Perioux was considered part of the Trump University "class."
He would have been eligible for any potential settlement or jury
award if the fraud lawsuit was successful.

Mr. Perioux, from Lake Charles, is a real estate developer and
attributes his success to what he learned while taking seminars at
Trump University.  That's why he told us he doesn't want to be
involved in any lawsuit.

"I am doing well in real estate," he told LawNewz.com.  "They did
everything they could do.  The information was legitimate."
Mr. Perioux told a local television station that he took a three-
day Trump University seminar at a cost of about $1,500.

"Trump's information -- he's very creative and he can definitely
get you to look outside the box -- marketing, branding, hands
down.  I definitely walked away and used some information from
what I've learned," he told the television station.

Despite Mr. Perioux's support, there are hundreds of students, as
well as some staff members, who claim that the program was a scam
aimed at hoodwinking students into handing over money.

"I believe that Trump University was a fraudulent scheme, and that
it preyed upon the elderly and uneducated to separate them from
their money," one former Trump University worker wrote.

There are currently two ongoing class action lawsuits against
Trump University.  Mr. Perioux opted out of both of them. He
wouldn't divulge if he was Trump supporter.  However, he said he
would call LawNewz.com back with more information.


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Discovery Underway in "Cohen" Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Matthew Renda, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
while much of the nation's attention remains focused on comments
Donald Trump made about a federal judge, the recent filing of a
deposition transcript sheds light on the presidential candidate's
involvement in issues surrounding the high-profile Trump
University court case. A set of video clips from the deposition
were also lodged in San Diego federal court on June 8.

Documents released in the Trump University case contain a lengthy
deposition from the presumptive Republican presidential nominee,
in which he defends the business practices of his now-defunct
university and addresses his previous endorsements of Hillary
Clinton -- his likely opponent in the race for president of the
United States.

The case, Cohen v. Trump, is a class action lawsuit brought by a
group of plaintiffs who claim the so-called university was a
swindle using the color of an educational institution to trick
prospective students into forking over thousands of dollars to
attend seminars at hotels around the country.  The seminars were
more focused on encouraging attendees to spend even more money on
upgrade packages than on dispensing material of any educational
value, the plaintiffs claim.

The case is a civil RICO case, which contains accusations of
racketeering and sustained corruption and also means the
plaintiffs are entitled to damages and attorney's fees that can be
tripled should they prevail.

Central to the case against Donald Trump in particular, are the
assertions made by the university that Trump himself "hand-picked"
the instructors for the classes.  The lengthy deposition was
conducted by Jason Forge, attorney for the plaintiffs, and was
taken on two separate occasions, once in New York in December and
again in January in Las Vegas.

The deposition is riddled with redactions and, in many instances,
Trump explains a rather crucial piece of his involvement with the
university's operation before the document inexplicably cuts off
and jumps several pages to a new subject.  Nevertheless, the
deposition contains significant testimony from the Republican
presumptive nominee.  In it, Trump appears to distance himself
from the day-to-day running of the university, saying he delegated
much of the hiring and administration of the operation to former
Trump University president Michael Sexton.

"I would see some resumes, but I told him, you know, I want very
good people," Trump said during the deposition.

Trump's statement contradicts a statement provided by Sexton
during a deposition stating Trump had no personal involvement with
the hires and did not look at resumes for potential instructors or
so-called mentors.

Mentors were often employed by the university to take attendees on
tours of the local real estate market while dispensing particular
advice purportedly unique to Trump's approach to real estate. The
mentorship cost an additional $35,000 on top of the $1,500 an
individual had to pay to gain entrance to the three-day seminars.

Trump was shown video of the tour lead plaintiff Art Cohen
participated in with an unnamed mentor and reacted unfavorably,
according to the deposition.

"Frankly, I think he probably, just by the way he had answered a
couple of the questions reminded me of 'Saturday Night Live,'"
Trump tells his interrogator of the mentor's performance. "But I
think he probably embellished his record to the people that did
the hiring."

Later in the deposition, Trump said he didn't personally interview
instructors or mentors for the school because he was running other
aspects of his business empire and "it didn't seem necessary
because I thought the school was doing well."

Trump's lawyers argued in a motion for summary judgment filed in
April that his non-involvement with the selection instructors and
mentors is not fatal to the case because "references to 'secrets'
'hand-picked' instructors, and 'university' are classic examples
of sales puffery common to advertising everywhere."

Trump said incompetent people slip through the cracks in all
businesses but the lion's share of his instructors were good
people and that at any rate, customers were given materials with
valuable information.

Further along in the deposition, Forge asks Trump about his
formerly positive positions regarding Bill Clinton and Hillary
Clinton, pointing to a blog post Trump published on Dec. 2, 2008.

"The fourth paragraph you wrote of Hillary Clinton: 'Hillary is
smart, tough and a very nice person and so is her husband.' Forge
says in the deposition. "And then you wrote, "Bill Clinton was a
great president.'"

"Did you believe that sentiment when you wrote it in this blog?"
Forge asks.

Trump answered by saying, "it was a long time ago."

"I mean, at the time -- I mean, I was fine with it at the time,"
Trump said. "I think in retrospect, looking back, it was not a
great presidency because of his scandals."

Forge further presses Trump about comments made in a March 13,
2008, blog post, where he said Hillary Clinton "would make a great
president or vice president."

Trump said he made those comments when he was still in business,
when it was important to maintain good relationships with all
politicians, and before he entered the political arena and began
to make closer inspections of politicians' policies and character.

"As a businessman, I think it was something I never really gave
much thought to," he said. "Now that I see what she's done and how
she's handled herself and how she's handled her emails and all of
the problems that she's got, I would say she wouldn't make a very
good vice president or president."

Due to redactions, it is unclear where the discussion leads or how
Trump's previous comments about the Clintons versus his current
stance relate to the case.

Forge did not return an email requesting comment on his line of
questioning June 8. An email requesting comment was also sent to
Trump's communication director, Hope Hicks, but was not returned
by press time.

The case captioned, ART COHEN, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, VS. DONALD J. TRUMP,
Defendant, No. 3:13-cv-02519-GPC-WVG (S.D. Cal.).


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Donald Trump's Deposition Videos Not Public
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bianca Bruno, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal judge threw cold water June 9, on the media scramble to
see videos of deposition testimony Donald Trump gave in a class
action over the presumptive Republican nominee's now-defunct real
estate school.

The Plaintiff's video submissions shall not be filed as exhibits,
but instead returned to Plaintiff, Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel said.

Trump sat for deposition on two separate occasions, Dec. 10, 2015,
and Jan. 21, of this year, in connection to a class action over
Trump University.

Art Cohn is the lead plaintiff in the case, which says Trump used
the color of an educational institution bilk thousands of dollars
from students.  Rather than getting any real educational value
from enrollment, the students say Trump University seminars at
hotels across the country merely encouraged them to spend even
more money on upgrade packages.

A partially redacted transcript of Trump's deposition shows the
Republican defending his so-called school's business practices,
and addressing his previous endorsements of the presumptive
Democratic nominee for president, Hillary Clinton.

Cohn filed the transcript June 3 as part of a lengthy exhibit list
in opposition to Trump's motion for summary judgment.

U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel said June 9, that Cohn also
lodged videos "non-electronically" as exhibits, but that these
filings failed to comply court procedures.

Section 2.k. of the Court's Electronic Case Filing Administrative
Policies and Procedures Manual says parties must "seek leave of
the court to allow the non-electronic filing of exhibits when they
are not convertible to electronic form."

"Parties have complied with this rule on previous occasions in
this and the related case Low v. Trump University LLC when they
have sought to non-electronically file video exhibits," Curiel
wrote.

The videos thus cannot be filed as exhibits and must instead be
returned to Cohn, according to the ruling.

Cohen may seek to refile the video exhibits later, but must comply
with the court rule regarding the filing of video exhibits, Curiel
wrote.

The case captioned, ART COHEN, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. DONALD J. TRUMP,
Defendant, CASE NO. 3:13-cv-2519-GPC-WVG (S.D. Cal.).

                           *     *     *

Matthew Renda, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
while barrels of ink have been spilled over Donald Trump's
racially-tinged attack on a federal judge, little air time and
newspaper print has been devoted to the legal underpinning of the
two cases against Trump University now moving through federal
court in San Diego.

The first question raised by the two cases is why there are two,
and not one, since both cases are class actions naming the likely
Republican presidential candidate as principal defendant.

University of California, San Diego Law Professor Sean Martin said
there is time to consolidate both cases should either of those
classes desire to do so, but slight differences in the plaintiffs
and the claims have caused the bifurcation.

The first case, Low v. Trump, is a class action suit involving
Trump University students in three states, New York, California
and Florida.  Whereas the second case, Cohen v. Trump, filed three
years after, involves a much larger, nationwide class and a more
complex set of claims that include racketeering.

The older Low case centers on rather traditional claims of false
advertising -- although it also includes elder abuse claims that
contain more legal elements -- while the newer Cohen case claims
Trump University violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO).

The Low case is expected to be the first to come to trial. It is
also the simpler, more straightforward of the two, said law
professor Martin.  Essentially, the plaintiffs are claiming
customers made purchases based on one of the three following
assertions made by Trump University, which turned out to be
deceptive.

The first claim relates to the use of the word "university" in the
title Trump University.  The claim is that use of that designation
led reasonable consumers to believe Trump University was an
institution of higher education with professors, degrees,
accreditation etc. when in fact Trump University possessed none of
those things and instead consisted of three-day real estate
seminars in various hotel rooms.

The second claim of false advertising centers on the university's
promise that its classes would be taught by experts hand-selected
by Donald Trump himself. The plaintiffs claim the teachers often
had zero or very little experience in real estate and were not
qualified experts.

Trump admits he had little involvement in the selection of any of
the instructors or mentors beyond glancing at resumes, according
to depositions conducted by Jason Forge, lead plaintiff attorney
in the Cohen case, recorded in two sessions around the holidays.

"I would see some resumes, but I told him, you know, I want very
good people," Trump said during the deposition.

In the same series of depositions, the former president of Trump
University, Michael Sexton, contradicts that assertion, saying
Trump had practically no involvement in the selection of any of
the organization's personnel.

The final claim in the Low case relates to Trump University
mentors, which the university claimed would assist attendees who
purchased a $35,000 upgrade, for at least a year. The mentors
often had zero interaction with students beyond the initial three-
day seminar, the plaintiffs claim in the suit.

While Martin said the atmospherics of the case are bad --
encouraging people to pay $1,500 to attend a three-day seminar at
which attendees are pressured to spend an additional $35,000 --
the law professor said the case if far from a slam dunk.

"The facts are not at what is at issue here, what is at issue is
whether a reasonable person might rely upon these assertions to
make a decision to purchase the product," said the professor.

In other words, Trump and his attorneys are not refuting the facts
put forward by the plaintiffs, they are merely saying those facts
do not rise to the level of fraud or false advertising.

The defendants, including Trump, say the statements don't
constitute false advertising, but instead represent the standard
manner in which consumers are treated in the business environmnent
of the United States.

They argue that calling the operation a university, calling the
instructors and mentors experts, and indicating Trump had personal
involvement in the selection "are classic examples of sales
puffery common to advertising everywhere."

With that main argument Trump and his attorneys sought summary
judgment, a motion that was denied by U.S. District Court Judge
Gonzalo Curiel last November, setting the stage for a trial --
currently slated to begin just after the presidential election on
Nov. 28 of this year.

"The judge decided these questions of fact must be decided by a
jury," Martin said.

Meanwhile, it is the other case, Cohen v. Trump that has grabbed
headlines recently, despite being still in preliminary stages and
the and farther out from trial. The Cohen case is also before
Judge Curiel.

The recent media blitz began after the Washington Post filed a
request for the release of documents, depositions and other court
materials related to the case.

The documents were unsealed by order of Curiel, who ruled in late
May on a motion to intervene in the Cohen case brought by the
Washington Post. The Post said that given the prominence of the
case, and Trump's status as de facto Republican nominee for
president, the documents should be released.

When Curiel allowed the documents to be released, Trump began to
attack his Mexican heritage, saying the judge was biased against
Trump because the presumptive nominee has campaigned on a plank of
building a large wall between the United States and Mexico.

Aside from the extracurricular comments made by the presidential
nominee, the Cohen case differs from the Low case because of the
higher burden of proof on the plaintiffs associated with brining a
RICO case. Thus, rather than a simple false advertising case, its
allegations are that Trump University engaged in a sustained
pattern of corrupt practices.

"RICO cases are more complicated and more difficult to prove,"
Martin said. "Rather than saying it was a simple case of false
advertising, they must prove Trump University was a corrupt
organization engaged in a pattern of fraud, where they knew what
they were saying was false, but they did it anyway."

The stakes are also higher in a civil RICO case, as the plaintiffs
are entitled to triple damages and triple attorney's fees as well.

The Cohen Case, which aside from the burden of proof, hinges on
the similar claims of fraudulence related to the use of the word
university, whether instructors were qualified and/or were picked
by Trump himself and whether the mentors provided the advertised
services.

The case survived a motion to dismiss, and a final pretrial
conference is slated for August 28 in San Diego.

"There is some pretty bad atmospheric stuff for Trump," Martin
said. "The people he hired were generally just salesmen pressuring
people to buy these things."

However, Martin says in terms of the core allegations that both
cases hang on, there is nothing that Trump University or Trump
himself said that goes beyond the common exagerrations and
overstatement used to sell goods to individuals, referred to in
the law as "puffery."

"In a rational world, they would have settled this case," he said.
"Both sides have a reasonable position."

However, Trump is unorthodox in the business world in that he
prefers not to settle, instead fighting complaints all the way
through trial.  Based on the facts that have emerged so far, Trump
carries the heavier load, at least on the simpler false
advertising claims in the Low case, said the UCSD law professor.
He concluded, "I'd rather be on the plaintiff side."


TRUSTMARK CORPORATION: Motion to Dismiss Amended Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Trustmark Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Court has not yet
ruled on the defendants' motions to dismiss the second amended
complaint.

Trustmark's wholly-owned subsidiary, TNB, has been named as a
defendant in three lawsuits related to the collapse of the
Stanford Financial Group.  The first is a purported class action
complaint that was filed on August 23, 2009 in the District Court
of Harris County, Texas, by Peggy Roif Rotstain, Guthrie Abbott,
Catherine Burnell, Steven Queyrouze, Jaime Alexis Arroyo Bornstein
and Juan C. Olano (collectively, Class Plaintiffs), on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, naming TNB and four
other financial institutions unaffiliated with Trustmark as
defendants.  The complaint seeks to recover (i) alleged fraudulent
transfers from each of the defendants in the amount of fees and
other monies received by each defendant from entities controlled
by R. Allen Stanford (collectively, the Stanford Financial Group)
and (ii) damages allegedly attributable to alleged conspiracies by
one or more of the defendants with the Stanford Financial Group to
commit fraud and/or aid and abet fraud on the asserted grounds
that defendants knew or should have known the Stanford Financial
Group was conducting an illegal and fraudulent scheme.  Plaintiffs
have demanded a jury trial.  Plaintiffs did not quantify damages.

In November 2009, the lawsuit was removed to federal court by
certain defendants and then transferred by the United States Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation to federal court in the Northern
District of Texas (Dallas) where multiple Stanford related matters
are being consolidated for pre-trial proceedings.  In May 2010,
all defendants (including TNB) filed motions to dismiss the
lawsuit.  In August 2010, the court authorized and approved the
formation of an Official Stanford Investors Committee (OSIC) to
represent the interests of Stanford investors and, under certain
circumstances, to file legal actions for the benefit of Stanford
investors.

In December 2011, the OSIC filed a motion to intervene in this
action.  In September 2012, the district court referred the case
to a magistrate judge for hearing and determination of certain
pretrial issues.  In December 2012, the court granted the OSIC's
motion to intervene, and the OSIC filed an Intervenor Complaint
against one of the other defendant financial institutions.

In February 2013, the OSIC filed an additional Intervenor
Complaint that asserts claims against TNB and the remaining
defendant financial institutions.  The OSIC seeks to recover: (i)
alleged fraudulent transfers in the amount of the fees each of the
defendants allegedly received from Stanford Financial Group, the
profits each of the defendants allegedly made from Stanford
Financial Group deposits, and other monies each of the defendants
allegedly received from Stanford Financial Group; (ii) damages
attributable to alleged conspiracies by each of the defendants
with the Stanford Financial Group to commit fraud and/or aid and
abet fraud and conversion on the asserted grounds that the
defendants knew or should have known the Stanford Financial Group
was conducting an illegal and fraudulent scheme; and (iii)
punitive damages.  The OSIC did not quantify damages.

In July 2013, all defendants (including TNB) filed motions to
dismiss the OSIC's claims.  In March 2015, the court entered an
order authorizing the parties to conduct discovery regarding class
certification and setting a deadline for the parties to complete
briefing on class certification issues.  All parties have
completed and filed briefing on the class certification issues.
In April 2015, the court granted in part and denied in part the
defendants' motions to dismiss the Class Plaintiffs' claims and
the OSIC's claims.  The court dismissed all of the Class
Plaintiffs' fraudulent transfer claims and dismissed certain of
the OSIC's fraudulent transfer claims.  The court denied the
defendants' motions to dismiss in all other regards.

On June 23, 2015, the court allowed the Class Plaintiffs to file a
Second Amended Class Action Complaint (SAC), which asserted new
claims against TNB and certain of the other defendants for aiding,
abetting, and participating in (i) violations of the Texas
Securities Act and (ii) breaches of fiduciary duty.  On July 14,
2015, the defendants (including TNB) filed motions to dismiss the
SAC.  The Court has not yet ruled on the defendants' motions to
dismiss the SAC.


UBER & LYFT: Face Class Suit Over Mass Layoffs in Texas
-------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Renda, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Uber and Lyft, which pulled out of Austin, Texas, two days after
voters refused to repeal fingerprint-based security checks, face
federal class actions accusing them of making illegal mass layoffs
without notice.

Austin voters on May 7 roundly rejected an Uber- and Lyft-financed
proposition that would have repealed a city law requiring driving
history and criminal background checks on drivers. The next day,
both companies announced they would stop work in Austin, and both
did so the day after that.

"Contact your City Council member now to tell them you want Lyft
back," Lyft said in a mass message to its customers.

Days before the election, a federal class action accused Uber of
illegally spamming cellphones, urging people to vote for
Proposition 1, which lost, 44 to 56 percent.

The companies' political action committee, Ridesharing Works for
Austin, spent $10 million on the election, according to the Austin
Chronicle.

On June 9, former drivers sued against both companies, claiming
they violated the WARN Act. The Worker Adjustment or Retraining
Notification Act requires employers with more than 100 employees
to give employees 60 days notice before mass layoffs.

Lead plaintiffs Todd Johnston for Uber and David Thorton for Lyft
say the companies still have not "provided any form of WARN Act
notice to its Austin drivers."

The virtually identical complaints say the companies must provide
60 days worth of back pay to the plaintiffs and other drivers.
Both lawsuits, filed by the same law firms, say the Northern
District of California is an appropriate venue due to similar
lawsuits pending there.

Nor are the plaintiffs happy that Uber and Lyft spent what they
estimate as $8 million on a PAC that attacked Democratic City
Council members who opposed Proposition 1.

"Uber gave significant amounts of money went to politically
conservative right-wing PACs and individuals described as
'experienced Republican operatives' in efforts to both defeat the
ordinance and to personally ridicule and politically attack Austin
City Council members in support of the ordinance," Johnston's
complaint says, in identical language, except for the name of the
company, to Thorston's complaint.

They accuse the companies of targeting Democrat Ann Kitchen in
particular, creating an app with a horse and buggy image and
naming it after her to ridicule her.

"The result is that thousands of Austin Uber and Lyft drivers have
lost their jobs and incomes," the drivers say.

They seek class certification, declaratory judgment that the
companies violated the WARN Act, an injunction, 60 days lost wages
and benefits, statutory damages and penalties.

Plaintiffs in both cases are represented by Thomas Brandi, of San
Francisco, and Michael Slack, of Bee Cave, Texas.

Uber and Lyft did not respond to emailed requests for comment sent
after business hours June 9.

Both companies face rafts of lawsuits accusing them of a welter of
labor law violations and other infractions -- Uber 592 lawsuits
and Lyft 99, in the Courthouse News database.

                           *     *     *

Miriam Rozen, writing for Texas Lawyer, reports that
Todd Johnston drove for Uber.  David Thornton drove for Lyft.

Austin's Slack & Davis represents both men and, if the law firm's
proposed class actions succeeds, it hopes plenty of others who
once drove in Austin, Texas for the ride-hailing companies.

In twin law suits filed in the San Francisco-based U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California on June 9,
Mr. Johnston, Mr. Thornton, and their Slack & Davis lawyers have
crafted a novel approach to pursue Uber and Lyft.

The two lawsuits each allege that Uber and Lyft violated the
Worker Adjustment, Retraining and Notification Act, (WARN) when
the companies fled Austin in May and failed to give their drivers
60 days' advance notice as required of employers shuttering
operations.

Uber did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
A Lyft spokeswoman declined to comment for the record.

In other litigation each of the companies have argued their
drivers are independent contractors and not employees.

In May, following Austin voters' decision to keep city regulations
requiring ride-hailing drivers to undergo fingerprint-based
background checks, Uber and Lyft followed through on their
promised plans to leave town.

In the lawsuits, the plaintiffs allege the companies are liable
for up to 60 days of their back pay, as well as back pay for
proposed class members.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: NY Taxi Alliance Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
New York Taxi Workers Alliance, Bigu Haider, Vijay Shanti, Harjit
Khatra, Inderjeet Parmar, Diogenes Carrasco, Timothy Cavaretta,
Mamadou Diallo, Jallow Cherno, Ranjit Kaler, Jakir Hossain,
Individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated and as
class representatives, Plaintiffs, v. Uber Technologies, Inc.,
Uber Logistik, LLC, Uber USA LLC, Acht-NY, LLC, Achtzehn-NY, LLC,
Garret Camp, Andrew Chapin, Danach-NY, LLC, Dreist-NY, LLC,
Dreizehn-NY, LLC, Drinnen-NY, LLC, Eins-NY, LLC, Elf-NY, LLC,
Einundzwanzig-NY, LLC, Funf-NY, LLC, Funfzehn-NY LLC, Grun, LLC,
J. William Gurley, Hinter, LLC, Travis Kalanick, Josh Mohrer,
Neun-NY, LLC, Neunzehn-NY, LLC, Schmecken, LLC, Sechs-NY, LLC,
Sieben-NY, LLC, Siebzehn-NY, LLC, Unter, LLC, Vier-NY, LLC,
Vierzehn-NY, LLC, Weiter, LLC, Zehn-NY, Zwanzig-NY LLC, Case No.
1:16-cv-04098 (S.D. N.Y., June 2, 2016), seeks overtime
compensation, liquidated and nominal damages, and other relief
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York
Labor Laws, as well as damages resulting from breach of contract.

Plaintiffs are Uber drivers whose vehicles were contracted by Uber
for its clients. They all claim that their vehicles were subject
to downgrades that rendered them unqualified for Uber's service, a
decision that was done unilaterally without their consent. They
also claim that their hours rendered are in excess of 40 per
workweek but were denied overtime pay as drivers.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeanne Ellen Mirer, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF JEANNE E. MIRER, PLLC
     1700 Broadway, 21st Fl.
     New York, NY 10003
     Tel: (212) 231-2235
     Facsimile: (212) 765-8954
     Email: jeanne@jmirerlaw.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Shaver" Suit in S.D. Fla.
---------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Uber Technologies, Inc. The case
is captioned Amanda Shaver, individually and on behalf of a class
of similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff. v., Uber
Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation, the Defendant, Case
No. 1:16-cv-22067-UU (S.D. Fla., June 7, 2016). The assigned Judge
is Hon. Ursula Ungaro.

Uber Technologies provides e-commerce services for car hire. The
company offers a website that allows users to request a car for
hire from any mobile device text message. Uber serves customers
worldwide and is based in San Francisco California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David P. Healy (940410)
          DUDLEY, SELLERS & HEALY, PL
          3522 Thomasville Rd., Suite 301
          Tallahassee, FL 32309
          Telephone: (850) 222-5400
          Facsimile: (850) 222-7339
          E-mail: dhealy@davidhealylaw.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Plaintiffs' Attorney to Reduce Fee Request
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Hancock, writing for The Recorder, reports that stung by
accusations that she sold out hundreds of thousands of Uber
drivers to enrich herself, plaintiffs attorney Shannon
Liss-Riordan said on June 10 that she would reduce her fee request
in the high-profile class action by $10 million.

Ms. Liss-Riordan, who is based in Boston, is lead plaintiffs
counsel in litigation against Uber Technologies Inc. over its
classification of drivers as independent contractors.  In April,
she struck an $84 million settlement with the company, which could
surge to $100 million if the company hits certain financial
milestones.  Ms. Liss-Riordan indicated at the time that her team
would seek fees of $21 million at the lower threshold and $25
million at the higher one.

In a filing in federal court on June 10, Ms. Liss-Riordan, who has
been under pressure from drivers, plaintiffs lawyers and even one
of her former clients, said she would take a $10 million pay cut
"in order to provide additional benefit to the class."

She emphasized that the original deal allotted legal fees in
keeping with the 25 percent "benchmark" that California courts
have said is acceptable in class action recoveries.

In an email, Ms. Liss-Riordan also said she is calling on Uber to
increase its contribution to the base settlement value by $10
million, meaning that the roughly 350,000 California and
Massachusetts drivers subject to the settlement would be able to
draw on an additional $20 million in total.

An Uber spokesman declined to comment when asked whether the
company would accede to that request.

"I am offended by the allegations that I settled the case for the
fees," Ms. Liss-Riordan said in the email.  "As an experienced and
dedicated workers rights advocate for nearly 20 years, I reached
an agreement that I believe is in the best interests of the
class."

If U.S. District Judge Edward Chen approves the settlement and Ms.
Liss-Riordan's fee request, her team would now collect $11
million, or $15 million if the company's valuation grows 1.5 times
through an acquisition or an IPO.

The move by Ms. Liss-Riordan comes about a week after a
contentious hearing on preliminary approval of the proposed
settlement before the Northern District of California judge.  Chen
appeared likely to reject the deal over concerns that it would
extinguish a broad range of litigation pending against Uber and
make it harder for some drivers to sue the company on their own.

The settlement does not resolve the question of whether Uber
drivers are employees or independent contractors.  Uber maintains
they will continue to be treated as the latter, and thus not be
entitled to reimbursement for expenses like gas or mobile phone
data.

Ms. Liss-Riordan has faced calls from a handful of other
plaintiffs attorneys to be removed as class counsel.  They charge
that she settled the case too cheaply and deprived the roughly
350,000 Uber drivers subject to the settlement of the financial
compensation to which they're entitled.

Ms. Liss-Riordan estimated that if she were successful in the
three California and Massachusetts cases she was pursuing against
Uber, drivers could have recovered more than $850 million.
However, she emphasized that figure is based on a series of
best-case-scenario predictions and doesn't account for the risks
involved in taking the case to trial.


UNITED STATES: DHS Settlement to Benefit Autistic Pa. Children
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Miller, writing for Pennlive, reports that more than 40,000
Pennsylvania children with autism could benefit from a just-
approved settlement of a federal class-action lawsuit against the
state Department of Human Services.

The accord, approved by U.S. Middle District Magistrate Judge
Martin C. Carlson, requires the state, among other things, to step
up its program for aiding those children.  The settlement ends a
two-year legal fight the Philadelphia-based Disability Rights
Network of PA waged with the department.

Terms of the deal require the state to establish a separate
designation for autism spectrum disorder in its Behavioral Health
Rehabilitation Services system.  The department must increase the
availability of applied behavioral analysis therapy, which the
rights network contends has proven effective for children with
ASD.

New "medical necessity" guidelines must be issued by the state to
ensure proper treatment of ASD clients.  The department must set
regulations for training, experience and supervision of
practitioners of applied behavioral analysis therapy.

The rights network initially filed the suit in 2014 on behalf of
three children with ASD claiming the state's programs for those
children were inadequate and lacked staff of the required
expertise.  Months of negotiation followed, during which Carlson
certified the suit as a class action.

The settlement also requires the state to pay the rights network
$170,000 for its costs in pursuing the case.


VCA INC: Payments to Class Members to be Disbursed in Late June
---------------------------------------------------------------
VCA, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2016, that payments to class members will be
disbursed in late June or early July.

On July 12, 2013, an individual who provided courier services with
respect to our laboratory clients in California filed a purported
class action lawsuit against us in the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of Santa Clara - San Jose Branch,
titled Carlos Lopez vs. Logistics Delivery Solutions, LLC, Antech
Diagnostics, Inc., et. al. Logistics Delivery Solutions, LLC, a
co-defendant in the lawsuit, is a company with which Antech has
contracted to provide courier services in California. The lawsuit
seeks to assert claims on behalf of individuals who were engaged
by Logistics Delivery Solutions, LLC to perform such courier
services and alleges, among other allegations, that Logistics
Delivery Solutions and Antech Diagnostics improperly classified
the plaintiffs as independent contractors, improperly failed to
pay overtime wages, and improperly failed to provide proper meal
periods. The lawsuit seeks damages, statutory penalties, and other
relief, including attorneys' fees and costs. The parties have an
agreement in principle to settle the action, on a class-wide
basis, for an amount not to exceed $1,250,000. Logistics Delivery
Solutions, LLC, has agreed to pay half of the claim.

Accordingly, as of March 31, 2016, we have accrued the remaining
fifty percent. The proposed settlement, when and if it becomes
effective, would not be an admission of wrongdoing or acceptance
of fault by any of the defendants named in the complaint. Antech
Diagnostics and Logistics Delivery Solutions have agreed upon the
terms of this proposed settlement to eliminate the uncertainties,
risk, distraction and expense associated with protracted
litigation.

The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on
November 30, 2015, subject to court approval and class notice
administration before it will be effective. On March 25, 2016, the
Court issued an order granting final approval of the settlement.
On April 11, 2016, the Court entered the Judgment approving the
settlement. The judgment will go into effect on June 1, 2016.
Payments to class members will be disbursed in late June or early
July.


VCA INC: Defendants' Opposition to Class Certification Due
----------------------------------------------------------
VCA, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2016, that the Defendants' Opposition to the class
certification was due in May 2016.

The Company said, "On May 12, 2014, an individual client who
purchased goods and services from one of our animal hospitals
filed a purported class action lawsuit against us in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
titled Tony M. Graham vs. VCA Antech, Inc. and VCA Animal
Hospitals, Inc. The lawsuit seeks to assert claims on behalf of
the plaintiff and other individuals who purchased similar goods
and services from our animal hospitals and alleges, among other
allegations, that we improperly charged such individuals for
"biohazard waste management" in connection with the services
performed. The lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages in
unspecified amounts, and other relief, including attorneys' fees
and costs."

"VCA successfully had the venue transferred to the Southern
District of California. The parties have engaged in extensive
discovery. Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification
on February 12, 2016. The Defendants' Opposition to the class
certification was due in May 2016. We intend to continue to
vigorously defend this action. At this time, we are unable to
estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of possible loss,
but do not believe losses, if any, would have a material effect on
our results of operations or financial position taken as a whole."


VINCENT CARR: Certification of Class Sought in "Saunders" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Saunders asks the Court that the case titled ROBERT
SAUNDERS v. DR. VINCENT CARR, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01184-GMS
(D. Del.), be maintained as a class action.

The Plaintiff contends that the the issue of class certification
has a direct bearing on issue raised in the complaint.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=leWOnKn7


VISIONWORKS OF AMERICA: Faces "Lenart" Suit in N.D. Ill.
--------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Visionworks of America, Inc. The
case is captioned Cheryl Lenart, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Visionworks of
America, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-05935 (N.D. Ill.,
June 7, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Matthew F. Kennelly.

Vsionworks (formerly Eye Care Centers of America) is an American
company which operates or manages 700 optical retail stores in 40
U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
          Maureen Ann Salas, Esq.
          WERMAN SALAS P.C.
          77 West Washington, Suite 1402
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 419 1008
          Facsimile: (312) 419 1025
          E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
                  msalas@flsalaw.com


WALT DISNEY: Seeks Appellate Review in No Poach Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
Eriq Gardner, writing for The Hollywood Reporter, reports that the
studios make a big bid to pause a legal fight to get clarity on an
issue that could impact the certifications of class actions.

If The Walt Disney Company and DreamWorks Animation get their way
in a new move made on June 9, workers who have been denied better
job opportunities because of long-ago collusive behavior could
find it more difficult to organize a class action antitrust
lawsuit.

The companies as well as their subsidiaries are presently facing
legal action over agreements made with each other not to poach
workers in the animation industry.  These pacts were six years ago
the subject of a Justice Department investigation, a settlement
with the government and many follow-up civil lawsuits. In late
May, U.S. District Judge Lucy H. Koh agreed to certify a class
action (with some caveats) over antitrust claims between 2004 and
2010 with the potential for a trial where Disney and DreamWorks
could face damages in the tens or even hundreds of millions of
dollars.  After all, Sony Pictures recently agreed to a proposed
$13 million settlement while Fox's Blue Sky Studios agreed to a
$5.9 million deal to resolve claims.

Now, the studios with skin left in the game have asked for
permission for an interlocutory appeal, meaning one that would be
heard before the 9th Circuit before the case ever gets to trial.
And in a further sign of the high stakes, the appellate team is
being led by Gibson Dunn heavyweight Ted Boutrous.

It's a bedrock principle that the statute of limitations on
federal antitrust claims is four years, but plaintiffs who are
stymied by fraudulent concealment may sue past this time upon
discovery of the wrongs.  The difficulty arises in figuring out on
how to square this when plaintiffs are suing as a collective. As
appellants' petition puts it, "This closely watched case raises an
important question on a recurring issue impacting a wide range of
class actions: Under what circumstances is class certification
appropriate where, as here, all class members' claims are time-
barred unless they can establish tolling through fraudulent
concealment?"

In putative class actions, when a judge is presented with claims
of an individualized nature, it's often reason to deny class
certification.

In this case brought on behalf of some 10,000 visual effects
workers, Disney and DreamWorks say that "many class members here
had actual knowledge of their claims years before this action was
filed is no mere hypothetical, as the alleged conspiracy was
openly discussed in an extraordinary record of meetings, blog
posts, and emails."

They point to two of the named plaintiffs as exemplar of the
supposed knowledge.

Robert Nitsch, a former visual effects worker who worked on Matrix
Revolutions and Kung Fu Panda, received an email in 2008 entitled
"collusion?" stating that "apparently, ilm [Industrial Light &
Magic] and imd [ImageMovers Digital] have an agreement they will
inform each other when they are interviewing each other's
employees. how illegal is this?"

And David Wentworth, who worked on Hellboy and Enchanted, read an
old Facebook post during his deposition where another visual
effects worker recounted an all-hands meeting at ImageMovers
Digital where an all-hands meeting at the company was recounted
with someone there acknowledging a no-poaching agreement.  The
poster wrote being "slightly shocked to hear this admitted to so
publicly," and Wentworth commented, "I remember thinking the same
thing."

In certifying the class, Judge Koh waived off such evidence that
plaintiffs knew of potential claims many years before they sued,
writing in her opinion that "the number of class members for whom
Defendants identify such evidence is small" and that "the
relatively small number of individual inquiries which might be
required do not defeat predominance."

Disney and DreamWorks may still use a statute of limitations
defense, but the judge wouldn't let it stop class certification.
Instead, the issue of whether antitrust claims are time-barred is
set to be tested at trial in some fashion, perhaps a proceeding
where plaintiffs must first show their claims are ripe by proving
fraudulent concealment of the anti-poaching pacts on the part of
the studios.  But that's not good enough for the defendants who
now aim to pause the litigation to get appellate review on whether
certification is permissible here.

The appellate brief presents the issue as an important, unsettled
issue of law.


WINSTON-SALEM, NC: Kernersville Residents Sue Over Sewer Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Faith Abubey, writing for WFMY, reports that two Kernersville
residents have filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
themselves and residents who paid for sewer services through the
Winston-Salem-Forsyth County City/County Utility Commission (CCUC)
any time on and after January 1, 2013.

The lawsuit claims the utilities commission and the town of
Kernersville unlawfully overcharged customers by about $5 million
during that time period.

The 13-page lawsuit explains the town and the utility commission
reached an agreement back in the 1990s that the commission would
provide sewer services to Kernersville residents at a 3.439 times
the rate Winston-Salem residents were paying and would drop
annually.

In 2003, that rate was frozen at 2.487.

The difference between the amounts charged Winston-Salem residents
would be used to develop a savings account called a Rate
Differential Fund (RDF), for future expansion and maintenance
projects.

In 2011, the lawsuit alleges, the parties involved entered a new
agreement that would allow the rate to drop to 1.2 times the rate
in Winston Salem by 2013 barring any new changes -- which must be
in writing by a deadline of June 30th, 2012.

That deadline was extended to December of 2012, in writing.
The plaintiffs say when that deadline passed, there was no written
agreement which meant the rate was supposed to drop to 1.2 but
that never happened.

Instead, the governing bodies dropped the rate to 1.6 in 2015
under a verbal agreement.

Because no new agreement was ever put in writing, the plaintiffs
say, it amounts to about 8,000 individuals being overcharged for
sewer services in the last three years.

Town manager Curtis Swisher says the rate never dropped to 1.2
because the parties involved in the negotiations extended the
deadline, verbally, until they reach an agreement -- whenever that
might be.

Mr. Swisher says those negotiations are still on-going three years
later and they should be completed by this summer.

"When we extended that and continued negotiations, we verbally
agreed to do that but we didn't get it in writing.  All three of
the parties did not agree to it and sign it in writing that way.
We verbally agreed but we didn't do it in writing," Mr. Swisher
explained.

The plaintiffs declined an interview but homeowner Marilyn Kearns
told 2 Wants 2 Know she can't believe town leaders and
commissioners could be so careless.

"How do you have two governments who don't have the sense to put
something in writing?" she asked rhetorically.

Mr. Swisher says looking back, it's something they probably should
have done.

"I don't know that it was a mistake, I would not say it was
necessarily a mistake.  I guess in the original addendum, it said
that any changes we had had to be done in writing, based on that,
we did make a mistake in not getting it done in writing.  However,
everybody agreed to it," Mr. Swisher said.

He went on to say all parties were negotiating in good faith on
behalf of the CCUC customers and the plaintiffs should understand
no one wins even if a judge rules in their favor because the sewer
lines cost money to keep up.

"For the citizens, if they win the lawsuit, they'll get money
back.  Basically, if they choose to be part of the class action,
they would get money back but it's very likely that it would cost
them that much or more at some point in the future," he said.

The town manager explains the sewer system needs $80 million in
projects through 2045 and there's nowhere near that amount in the
maintenance account.

That means, someone will have to pay either in higher taxes or
with the sewer rates going up so the town would have money for
maintenance and future sewer projects.

"I hate to say it. It looks like a no-win situation," another
homeowners, Allen Hicks said.

In response to the lawsuit, the CCUC chair David Neill sent 2
Wants 2 Know this statement:

"The monies held in the Kernersville Rate Differential Fund were
generated by the adoption of a rate multiplier requested by the
Town of Kernersville to be charged to customers within the Town
limits.  The monies generated by this multiplier can only be used
at the request of the Town for water and sewer expansion projects
sponsored by the Town.  The Commission is only the administrator
of the Fund, on behalf of the Town.  Any questions concerning how
or why the funds have been accumulated will be forwarded to the
Town of Kernersville.  In light of such, it is anticipated that
the Town of Kernersville will provide for the legal defense of the
Commission.  The Town Board will vote on such in short order."


WOOD GROUP: McLemore Seeks Conditional Certification of Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled JOHN MCLEMORE, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated v. WOOD GROUP PSN INC., HESS
CORPORATION, AND PHOENIX SAFETY & LOGISTICS PERSONNEL, INC., Case
No. 4:16-cv-01267 (S.D. Tex.), asks the Court to grant his motion
to conditionally certify a collective action and to issue opt-in
notices and consent forms to:

     "all current and former workers who were putatively employed
      by Phoenix, but assigned to Hess, during the three-year
      period preceding the filing of this complaint who were paid
      a "day rate" with no overtime, and thus did not received
      overtime pay at the rate of one and one-half their regular
      rate when they worked more than forty hours in a workweek."

Mr. McLemore alleges that Phoenix paid him and his similarly
situated coworkers a full or partial "day rate" based on the
number of days and hours they worked, with no overtime pay as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Ru77Ghok

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark J. Oberti, Esq.
          OBERTI SULLIVAN LLP
          723 Main Street, Suite 340
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 401-3555
          Facsimile: (713) 401-3547
          E-mail: mark@osattorneys.com


YELP INC: Plaintiffs' Ninth Circuit Appeal Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Yelp Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2016, that an appeal by plaintiffs to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit remains pending.

In August 2014, two putative class action lawsuits alleging
violations of federal securities laws were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, naming as
defendants the Company and certain of its officers. The lawsuits
allege violations of the Exchange Act by the Company and certain
of its officers for allegedly making materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business and
operations between October 29, 2013 and April 3, 2014. These cases
were subsequently consolidated and, in January 2015, the
plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint seeking unspecified
monetary damages and other relief. Following the court's dismissal
of the consolidated complaint on April 21, 2015, the plaintiffs
filed a first amended complaint on May 21, 2015. On November 24,
2015, the court dismissed the first amended complaint with
prejudice, and entered judgment in the Company's favor on December
28, 2015. The plaintiffs have appealed this decision to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.


YELP INC: $1.1 Million Released to Fund Settlement et al.
---------------------------------------------------------
Yelp Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2016, that $1.1 million has been released to the
Company from the escrow fund established in connection with the
acquisition of Eat24, to fund settlement amounts and related legal
expenses.

On April 23, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
former Eat24 employees in the Superior Court of California for San
Francisco County, naming as defendants the Company and Eat24. The
lawsuit asserts that the defendants failed to permit meal and rest
periods for certain current and former employees working as Eat24
customer support specialists, and alleges violations of the
California Labor Code, applicable Industrial Welfare Commission
Wage Orders and the California Business and Professions Code. The
plaintiffs seek monetary damages in an unspecified amount and
injunctive relief. On May 29, 2015, plaintiffs filed a first
amended complaint asserting an additional cause of action for
penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act. In January
2016, the Company reached a preliminary agreement to settle this
matter for payments in the aggregate amount of up to approximately
$0.6 million. Once finalized, the settlement will be subject to
court approval.

On June 24, 2015, a former Eat24 sales employee filed a lawsuit,
on behalf of herself and a putative class of current and former
Eat24 sales employees, against Eat24 in the Superior Court of
California for San Francisco County. The lawsuit alleges that
Eat24 failed to pay required wages, including overtime wages,
allow meal and rest periods and maintain proper records, and
asserts causes of action under the California Labor Code,
applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders and the
California Business and Professions Code. The plaintiff seeks
monetary damages and penalties in unspecified amounts, as well as
injunctive relief. On August 3, 2015, the plaintiff filed a first
amended complaint asserting an additional cause of action for
penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act. In January
2016, the Company reached a preliminary agreement to settle this
matter for payments in the aggregate amount of up to approximately
$0.2 million. Once finalized, the settlement will be subject to
court approval.

Based on the preliminary settlement agreements reached in
connection with the two lawsuits by former Eat24 employees, the
Company recognized a liability for each of the proposed settlement
amounts as part of its accrued liabilities as of March 31, 2016.
In February 2016, $1.1 million was released to the Company from
the escrow fund established in connection with the acquisition of
Eat24, to fund such settlement amounts and related legal expenses.


ZYNGA INC: Court Has Yet to Enter Schedule in "Lee" Case
--------------------------------------------------------
Zynga Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2016, that that the Delaware Chancery Court has
not yet entered a schedule for further proceedings in the case,
Lee v. Pincus et al.

On April 4, 2013, a purported class action captioned Lee v.
Pincus, et al. was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware against the Company, and certain of our current and
former directors, officers, and executives. The complaint alleges
that the defendants breached fiduciary duties in connection with
the release of certain lock-up agreements entered into in
connection with the Company's initial public offering. The
plaintiff seeks to represent a class of certain of the Company's
shareholders who were subject to the lock-up agreements and who
were not permitted to sell shares in an April 2012 secondary
offering.

On January 17, 2014, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On
March 6, 2014, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended
complaint and a motion to stay discovery while the motions to
dismiss were pending. On November 14, 2014, the court denied the
motion to dismiss brought by Zynga and the directors and granted
the motion to dismiss brought by the underwriters who had been
named as defendants.

On June 24, 2015, certain of the defendants filed a motion for
relief from the court's November 14, 2014 decision denying the
defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. Briefing on the
motion for relief from the court's November 14, 2014 decision is
complete. A hearing date has not been set.  On August 19, 2015 the
parties agreed to voluntarily dismiss three individual director
defendants from the case.

Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on July 13, 2015,
and, after briefing was completed, the court held a hearing on
plaintiff's motion on November 20, 2015. On December 30, 2015, the
court granted plaintiff's motion for class certification.  The
court has not yet entered a schedule for further proceedings in
this action.

Zynga Inc. is a provider of social game services.


* South Africa's Coal Miners Face Silicosis Litigation Threat
-------------------------------------------------------------
Allan Seccombe, writing for BDlive, reports that SA's coal miners
could be the next to face a wave of litigation from workers with
lung diseases, after successes against gold companies by workers
who contracted silicosis.

The warning came from Stuart McCafferty, a partner at law firm
Webber Wentzel, who said the class action brought against gold-
mining companies was "the start of a perfect storm" facing mining
companies.

"What may have been considered as inconceivable six or 10 years
ago now looms as a very real threat, and that is the specter of
litigation against coal mining companies by their employees and
former employees who suffer from respiratory disease, as a result
of exposure to dust."

Recent developments leading to this conclusion included judgments
that ruled that mine owners had no statutory protection from
common law claims from employees, and a developing class action
jurisprudence, or the principles of law.

There were also third-party funding of these claims, the
combination of local and foreign law firms, which had experience
in pursuing these claims, and the experience gained in successful
domestic legal suits in asbestosis and silicosis matters that was
now being rolled out into other sectors, Mr. McCafferty said.

Six gold firms have applied for leave to appeal against the
silicosis class action judgment, which paved the way for 17,000-
500,000 miners potentially to be paid billions of rand.

Coal miners may contract pneumoconiosis, known as black lung
disease, an incurable sickness.  According to the Chamber of
Mines' 2015 annual report, there were 125 cases of pneumoconiosis
reported in 2013 and 94 a year later.  The coal mines employ about
87,000 people.

Sasol, a miner of coal that it converts into liquid fuels, said it
was dealing with a civil suit brought by Richard Spoor against it
on behalf of 22 people. They are seeking damages for R80m. "The
plaintiffs did not apply to have the claims certified as class
action," Sasol said.

"Sasol is not aware of any imminent class action on behalf of mine
workers in the coal mining industry. We would therefore, not like
to speculate on the possibility of such an action being
instituted," it said.

Anglo American said it was actively lowering dust levels.

"Anglo American Coal SA's response plan includes more rigorous
data management, sampling and monitoring of control effectiveness,
as well as research into step-change technologies that will enable
consistently low dust levels," said spokesman Pranill Ramchander.

Asked about the Webber Wentzel warning, he said: "Anglo American
is not aware of any class application in relation to coal and
cannot speculate on the prospect of such actions being brought, or
the potential merits of such claims."

Glencore declined to comment on any potential legal action.  "We
undertake a wide range of occupational healthcare programs, mostly
tailored to fit the specific circumstances of each operation,"
spokeswoman Shamiela Letsoalo said.


* Section 245 Provision to Impact India's Company Law Regime
------------------------------------------------------------
Shreeja Sen, writing for livemint, reports that the government
notified several provisions of the Companies Act, 2013, bringing
them into effect.  Among them were sections regarding the National
Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), protecting employees during
investigations and imposing restrictions on the transfer of
securities while an investigation was pending regarding it.

Yet another provision was Section 245, which relates to class
action suits in cases of mismanagement of a company by its
directors.

Class action suits are not new in India.  But this section is a
first of its kind under company law.

Here's a look at how the class action suit would change the
company law regime.

What are class action suits under company law?

If 100 shareholders (in case of company with share capital), or
10% of the holding interest, or depositors find that the company's
affairs are not being managed in its best interests, after this
notification, they can collectively approach the NCLT for
redressing the situation.  This is what the new provisions on
class action suit would allow.

Under the 2013 Act, shareholders also have the option to not bring
a collective case, or a class action suit. For this also, at least
100 shareholders will be required.

Why have a separate provision for class action, then?

A major change is the option of getting monetary compensation or
damages owing to the fraudulent actions of a company.

"The injunctive reliefs could be overlapping but you have an
entirely different option available to claim compensation, damages
or any other suitable action for any fraudulent action of the
company, its directors, auditors, advisers.  The spread is much
wider, the consequences are, insofar as the monetary compensation
is concerned is today statutorily provided for," said Ritu Bhalla,
senior litigation partner at law firm Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas
& Co, Delhi.

The remedies available under the two are different.  Sections 241-
244, which also seek to redress cases of oppression and management
have a greater array of remedies.

"The provisions of class action come under the head of oppression
and mismanagement but there are some differences between the
remedies sought under class action under Section 245 and under the
general provisions of oppression and mismanagement under Section
242.  While under Section 242 the NCLT can order acquisition of
the company's shares, restrict transferability or allotment of
shares, removal of managing director and other directors of the
company, in class action, the orders will mainly be restraining
orders," said Lalit Kumar, corporate partner at law firm J. Sagar
Associates.

These restraining orders could be in the nature of restraining a
company from committing an act which is beyond the scope of the
company's memorandum of association or articles of association,
declaring a resolution altering the charter documents as void if
such resolutions are passed upon suppression of material facts or
through a misstatement, he added, by way of examples.

An added advantage of the provisions on class action suit is that
they cover depositors also.  This was not a feature of the earlier
law.

"The earlier provisions don't cover depositors, the provisions of
class action covers them.  Everything else seems to be the same
with the class actions even the threshold of 100 shareholders is
the same," Ms. Kumar said.

What was the need for class action suits in company cases?

The option of class action suits for company law cases is a well
established principle in foreign jurisdictions, especially the US.

In India, the need for a change in law arose after the Satyam
scam.  According to Ms. Bhalla, while investors in the US
successfully won damages worth thousands of crores of rupees,
those in India were left high and dry.

"Technically, yes, options were available, filing civil cases, pay
huge stamp duties, file a representative action, get into the
civil court, rigors of the civil jurisprudence or go to the
consumer forum which had its own challenges of satisfying whether
it was a contract of goods or services.  There was no real viable
option in India, unlike options available overseas, where this
jurisprudence is not new, it's not rare, it's a common
phenomenon," she said.

This new provision will also bring more accountability, and the
company and associated parties such as auditors and advisers, will
have a greater liability to act responsibly.

"In class action suit, you can sue the company, the directors, the
auditors, the technical advisers of the company who were party to
the fraud . . . They all now need to understand the implication of
how the affairs of the company are going to be conducted and how
they're going to be called upon in question. Interestingly, it
says auditors including audit firms of the company are now equally
liable.  It's a quantum jump for the options available to the
investor, it's a warning for the people running, controlling and
advising the company," Ms. Bhalla added.

The provision will enable representative action on behalf of
similarly affected people, or for those who don't have the
required numbers to file a case before the tribunal.

"After the class action is filed, the NCLT issues a public notice
about it.  There could be more people joining in who may or may
not have qualifying shares.  After the initial opening of the
doors, there's an option of others joining in and this being a
representative action for others," Ms. Bhalla said.

Are there enough checks and balances to avoid misuse of the
provision?

The qualifications required to file a class action suit, according
to Ms. Bhalla, give an adequate safeguard against misuse of this
provision.


* Post-GFC Environment Sparks More Class Action in Australia
------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Coade, writing for Lawyers Weekly, reports that parties
are increasingly turning to class actions for redress of corporate
misconduct in the post-GFC environment, a Squire Patton Boggs
partner has said.

Litigator Amanda Banton was the only lawyer in Australia to have
successfully acted against US rating agency Standard & Poor's as
markets collapsed following the global financial crisis in 2007.

Speaking to Lawyers Weekly about the growth of class actions in
Australia, Ms. Banton suggested the post-GFC environment has
propagated fertile ground for more class action litigation.

"Since 2007 when the GFC hit, there have been a number of
corporate collapses and more variation in financial reporting when
compared to forecasts.  That financial environment, perhaps, is
one of the factors leading to more class actions," Ms. Banton
said.

"As time has gone on, especially in the [litigation] that I've
been involved in that resulted from the GFC and the collapse of
complex financial products, class actions are more widely
recognized in Australia as a mechanism to address misleading
conduct and corporate mis-selling," she said.

Ms. Banton continues to represent a group of NSW local councils,
which lost millions in failed investments of certain financial
products in the ongoing action against the rating agency.

In 2012 the Federal Court found Standard & Poor's had failed its
duty of care to investors with the AAA rating of risky and
"grotesquely complicated" synthetic derivatives known as constant
proportion debt obligations (CPDOs).

According to Ms. Banton, the post-GFC environment has also seen
the emergence of a different kind of lead applicant.  She points
to Standard and Poor's as an example of the more prominent type of
plaintiff to pursue class actions and predicts actions led by
institutional investors will increase.

"Originally class actions had lead applicants such as mum and dad
investors.  You will increasingly see big trusts and super funds
involved.  The market is well developed now.  People are more
willing to participate and that is so on the corporate side of
Australia," Ms. Banton said.

"Depending on the particular corporate conduct [applicants] may
well be people with high levels of sophistication.  Traditionally
in the class actions, some of those institutional investors would
have sat behind the others but now they are more interested in
coming forward where there has been corporate misconduct and be
the lead applicant themselves.  And I think that will increase,"
she said.

Ms. Banton's practice, which focuses largely on financial
products, works mainly for larger investors.  The firm's class
action litigation practice was spurred by the crash of financial
markets after the GFC, with Australian investors incurring losses
of billions of dollars.

"In 2007 all the financial products, be they CDOs, RBMDs or other
complex derivative type products crashed with the financial
markets because there were a number of defaults.  Investors
sustained significant losses and in some cases lost all their
capital.

"The class actions that I've been involved in have been in
relation to those financial products.  Those claims are against
the issuers, raters and the arrangers.  We still have ongoing
litigation with about nine cases in that space," Ms. Banton said.

However, increased activity in the class actions space should not
be viewed with alarm, Ms. Banton added.

"When you look at it from the perspective of the funders, they are
not in the business of losing money and so unlikely to be funding
any claims that in their view don't have merit.  I don't think
there's any scare about the number of class actions -- I think
most are valid and reasonable actions."


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motors Faces 1,620 Cases at March 31
------------------------------------------------------------
There were approximately 1,620 asbestos cases outstanding against
Standard Motor Products, Inc., according to the Company's Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016.

The Company states, "In 1986, we acquired a brake business, which
we subsequently sold in March 1998 and which is accounted for as a
discontinued operation. When we originally acquired this brake
business, we assumed future liabilities relating to any alleged
exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured by the
seller of the acquired brake business. In accordance with the
related purchase agreement, we agreed to assume the liabilities
for all new claims filed on or after September 2001. Our ultimate
exposure will depend upon the number of claims filed against us on
or after September 2001 and the amounts paid for indemnity and
defense thereof.  At March 31, 2016, approximately 1,620 cases
were outstanding for which we may be responsible for any related
liabilities.  Since inception in September 2001 through March 31,
2016, the amounts paid for settled claims are approximately $19.2
million.

"In evaluating our potential asbestos-related liability, we have
considered various factors including, among other things, an
actuarial study of the asbestos related liabilities performed by
an independent actuarial firm, our settlement amounts and whether
there are any co-defendants, the jurisdiction in which lawsuits
are filed, and the status and results of settlement discussions.
As is our accounting policy, we consider the advice of actuarial
consultants with experience in assessing asbestos-related
liabilities to estimate our potential claim liability.  The
methodology used to project asbestos-related liabilities and costs
in our actuarial study considered: (1) historical data available
from publicly available studies; (2) an analysis of our recent
claims history to estimate likely filing rates into the future;
(3) an analysis of our currently pending claims; and (4) an
analysis of our settlements to date in order to develop average
settlement values.

"The most recent actuarial study was performed as of August 31,
2015.  The updated study has estimated an undiscounted liability
for settlement payments, excluding legal costs and any potential
recovery from insurance carriers, ranging from $33.3 million to
$51.1 million for the period through 2058. The change from the
prior year study was a $2.8 million decrease for the low end of
the range and a $4.3 million decrease for the high end of the
range.  The decrease in the estimated undiscounted liability from
the prior year study at both the low end and high end of the range
reflects our actual experience over the prior twelve months, our
historical data and certain assumptions with respect to events
that may occur in the future.  Based on the information contained
in the actuarial study and all other available information
considered by us, we have concluded that no amount within the
range of settlement payments was more likely than any other and,
therefore, in assessing our asbestos liability we compare the low
end of the range to our recorded liability to determine if an
adjustment is required.  Based upon the results of the August 31,
2015 actuarial study, a favorable adjustment to the asbestos
liability was not recorded in our consolidated financial
statements as the difference between our recorded liability and
the liability in the actuarial report at the low end of the range
was not material.  Future legal costs, which are expensed as
incurred and reported in loss from discontinued operations in the
accompanying statement of operations, are estimated, according to
the updated study, to range from $40 million to $75.5 million for
the period through 2058.

"We plan to perform an annual actuarial evaluation during the
third quarter of each year for the foreseeable future. Given the
uncertainties associated with projecting such matters into the
future and other factors outside our control, we can give no
assurance that additional provisions will not be required. We will
continue to monitor the circumstances surrounding these potential
liabilities in determining whether additional provisions may be
necessary.  At the present time, however, we do not believe that
any additional provisions would be reasonably likely to have a
material adverse effect on our liquidity or consolidated financial
position."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Haynes Involved in 3 Suits at March 31
-------------------------------------------------------
Haynes International is involved in three asbestos lawsuits,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2016.

The Company states, "The Company is regularly involved in
litigation, both as a plaintiff and as a defendant, relating to
its business and operations, including environmental, commercial,
employment and federal and/or state Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission administrative actions.  Future expenditures for
environmental, employment, intellectual property and other legal
matters cannot be determined with any degree of certainty;
however, based on the facts presently known, management does not
believe that such costs will have a material effect on the
Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

"The Company is currently, and has in the past been, subject to
claims involving personal injuries allegedly relating to its
products and processes. For example, the Company is presently
involved in two actions involving welding rod-related injuries,
which were filed in California state court against numerous
manufacturers, including the Company, in May 2006 and February
2007, respectively, alleging that the welding-related products of
the defendant manufacturers harmed the users of such products
through the inhalation of welding fumes containing manganese. The
Company is also involved in three actions related to asbestos in
its facilities, which were filed in 2012 and 2014. The Company
believes that it has defenses to these lawsuits and that, if the
Company were to be found liable, the cases would not have a
material effect on its financial position, results of operations
or liquidity."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Still Defending Suits at March 31
------------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Holdings Corp. continues to defend itself against
asbestos cases, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2016.

The Company states, "In every asbestos case in which we are named
as a party, the complaints are filed against multiple named
defendants. In substantially all of the asbestos cases, the
plaintiffs either claim damages in excess of a specified amount,
typically a minimum amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of
the court in which the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums
generally range from $25,000 to $75,000), or do not specify the
monetary damages sought. To the extent that any specific amount of
damages is sought, the amount applies to claims against all named
defendants.

"There are only seven asbestos cases, involving 24 plaintiffs,
that plead specified damages against named defendants. In each of
the seven cases, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and
punitive damages based on a variety of potentially alternative
causes of action. In three cases, the plaintiff has alleged
compensatory damages in the amount of $3.0 million for four
separate causes of action and $1.0 million for another cause of
action and punitive damages in the amount of $10.0 million. In the
fourth case, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory and punitive
damages, each in the amount of $10.0 million, for seven separate
causes of action. In the fifth case, the plaintiff has alleged
compensatory damages in the amount of $20.0 million for eight
separate causes of action and punitive damages in the amount of
$20.0 million. In the sixth case, the plaintiff has alleged
compensatory damages in the amount of $10.0 million for five
separate causes of action and $5.0 million for the sixth cause of
action and punitive damages in the amount for $10.0 million for
five causes of action. In the seventh case the plaintiff has
alleged compensatory and punitive damages, each in the amount
$10.0 million, for five separate causes of action.

"Historically, we have been dismissed from asbestos cases on the
basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of our subsidiaries
or because the plaintiff failed to identify any asbestos-
containing product manufactured or sold by us or our subsidiaries.

"We intend to vigorously defend these asbestos cases, and believe
we will continue to be successful in being dismissed from such
cases. However, it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome
of asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due to the
unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation. Despite this
uncertainty, and although our results of operations and cash flows
for a particular period could be adversely affected by asbestos-
related lawsuits, claims and proceedings, management believes that
the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have a material
adverse effect on our financial condition, liquidity or results of
operations. Among the factors management considered in reaching
this conclusion were: (a) our historical success in being
dismissed from these types of lawsuits; (b) many cases have been
improperly filed against one of our subsidiaries; (c) in many
cases the plaintiffs have been unable to establish any causal
relationship to us or our products or premises; (d) in many cases,
the plaintiffs have been unable to demonstrate that they have
suffered any identifiable injury or compensable loss at all or
that any injuries that they have incurred did in fact result from
alleged exposure to asbestos; and (e) the complaints assert claims
against multiple defendants and, in most cases, the damages
alleged are not attributed to individual defendants. Additionally,
we do not believe that the amounts claimed in any of the asbestos
cases are meaningful indicators of our potential exposure because
the amounts claimed typically bear no relation to the extent of
the plaintiff's injury, if any.

"Our cost of defending these lawsuits has not been material to
date and, based upon available information, our management does
not expect its future costs for asbestos-related lawsuits to have
a material adverse effect on our results of operations, liquidity
or financial position."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Faced 36K Asbestos Claims at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------
There were 36 thousand pending claims against ITT Corporation and
its subsidiary, Goulds Pumps, Inc., according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016.

The Company states, "ITT, including its subsidiary Goulds Pumps,
Inc. (Goulds Pumps), has been sued, along with many other
companies in product liability lawsuits alleging personal injury
due to asbestos exposure. These claims generally allege that
certain products sold by us or our subsidiaries prior to 1985
contained a part manufactured by a third party (e.g., a gasket)
which contained asbestos. To the extent these third-party parts
may have contained asbestos, it was encapsulated in the gasket (or
other) material and was non-friable. As of March 31, 2016, there
were 36 thousand pending claims against ITT, including Goulds
Pumps, filed in various state and federal courts alleging injury
as a result of exposure to asbestos. Activity related to these
asserted asbestos claims during the period was as follows:

   For the Three Months
   Ended March 31
   (in thousands)                                2016
   --------------------                          ----
   Pending claims -- Beginning                     37
   New claims                                      1
   Dismissals                                     (2)
   Pending claims -- Ending                        36

"Frequently, plaintiffs are unable to identify any ITT or Goulds
Pumps product as a source of asbestos exposure. Our experience to
date is that a majority of resolved claims are dismissed without
any payment from the Company. Management believes that a large
majority of the pending claims have little or no value. In
addition, because claims are sometimes dismissed in large groups,
the average cost per resolved claim can fluctuate significantly
from period to period. ITT expects more asbestos-related suits
will be filed in the future, and ITT will continue to aggressively
defend or seek a reasonable resolution, as appropriate.

"Asbestos litigation is a unique form of litigation. Frequently,
the plaintiff sues a large number of defendants and does not state
a specific claim amount. After filing complaint, the plaintiff
engages defendants in settlement negotiations to establish a
settlement value based on certain criteria, including the number
of defendants in the case. Rarely do the plaintiffs seek to
collect all damages from one defendant. Rather, they seek to
spread the liability, and thus the payments, among many
defendants. As a result of this and other factors, the Company is
unable to estimate the maximum potential exposure to pending
claims and claims estimated to be filed over the next 10 years.
Estimating our exposure to pending asbestos claims and those that
may be filed in the future is subject to significant uncertainty
and risk as there are multiple variables that can affect the
timing, severity, quality, quantity and resolution of claims. Any
predictions with respect to the variables impacting the estimate
of the asbestos liability and related asset are subject to even
greater uncertainty as the projection period lengthens. In light
of the uncertainties and variables inherent in the long-term
projection of the Company's asbestos exposures, although it is
probable that the Company will incur additional costs for asbestos
claims filed beyond the next 10 years, which additional costs may
be material, we do not believe there is a reasonable basis for
estimating those costs at this time.

"The asbestos liability and related receivables reflect
management's best estimate of future events. However, future
events affecting the key factors and other variables for either
the asbestos liability or the related receivables could cause
actual costs or recoveries to be materially higher or lower than
currently estimated. Due to these uncertainties, as well as our
inability to reasonably estimate any additional asbestos liability
for claims which may be filed beyond the next 10 years, it is
difficult to predict the ultimate cost of resolving all pending
and unasserted asbestos claims. We believe it is possible that
future events affecting the key factors and other variables within
the next 10 years, as well as the cost of asbestos claims filed
beyond the next 10 years, net of expected recoveries, could have a
material adverse effect on our financial statements.

Income Statement Charges

"As part of our ongoing review of our net asbestos exposure, each
quarter we assess the most recent qualitative and quantitative
data available for the key inputs and assumptions, comparing the
data to expectations on which the most recent annual liability and
asset estimates were calculated. Based on this evaluation, the
Company determined that no change in the estimate was warranted
for the quarter ended March 31, 2016 other than the incremental
accrual to maintain a rolling 10-year forecast period. A net
asbestos charge of $15.4 was recognized in both the three months
ended March 31, 2016 and 2015, to maintain the 10-year forecast
period. Additionally during the first quarter of 2016, we entered
into a settlement agreement with an insurer to settle
responsibility for multiple insurance claims, resulting in a
benefit of $2.6.

Changes in Financial Position

"The Company's estimated asbestos exposure, net of expected
recoveries, for the resolution of all pending claims and claims
estimated to be filed in the next 10 years was $639.3 and $630.8
as of March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively. The
following table provides a rollforward of the estimated asbestos
liability and related assets for the three months ended March 31,
2016."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/XrjDx5


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Curtiss-Wright Still Defends Suits at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Curtiss-Wright Corporation continues to defend itself against
asbestos lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2016.

The Company states, "The Corporation has been named in a number of
lawsuits that allege injury from exposure to asbestos.  To date,
the Corporation has not been found liable for or paid any material
sum of money in settlement in any case.  The Corporation believes
its minimal use of asbestos in its past and current operations and
the relatively non-friable condition of asbestos in its products
makes it unlikely that it will face material liability in any
asbestos litigation, whether individually or in the aggregate.
The Corporation maintains insurance coverage for these potential
liabilities and believes adequate coverage exists to cover any
unanticipated asbestos liability."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: HWC Continues to Defend Suits at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------
Houston Wire & Cable Company continues to defend itself against
asbestos lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2016.

The Company states, "The Company, along with many other
defendants, has been named in a number of lawsuits in the state
courts of Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota alleging that
certain wire and cable which may have contained asbestos caused
injury to the plaintiffs who were exposed to this wire and cable.
These lawsuits are individual personal injury suits that seek
unspecified amounts of money damages as the sole remedy. It is not
clear whether the alleged injuries occurred as a result of the
wire and cable in question or whether the Company, in fact,
distributed the wire and cable alleged to have caused any
injuries. The Company maintains general liability insurance that,
to date, has covered the defense of and all costs associated with
these claims. In addition, the Company did not manufacture any of
the wire and cable at issue, and the Company would rely on any
warranties from the manufacturers of such cable if it were
determined that any of the wire or cable that the Company
distributed contained asbestos which caused injury to any of these
plaintiffs. In connection with ALLTEL's sale of the Company in
1997, ALLTEL provided indemnities with respect to costs and
damages associated with these claims that the Company believes it
could enforce if its insurance coverage proves inadequate."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Unit Faced 258 Suits at March 31
------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Transocean Ltd. was a defendant in approximately
258 lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2016.

The Company states, "In 2004, several of our subsidiaries were
named, along with numerous other unaffiliated defendants, in 21
complaints filed on behalf of 769 plaintiffs in the Circuit Courts
of the State of Mississippi and which claimed injuries arising out
of exposure to asbestos allegedly contained in drilling mud during
these plaintiffs' employment in drilling activities between 1965
and 1986.  The complaints generally allege that the defendants
used or manufactured asbestos containing drilling mud additives
for use in connection with drilling operations and have included
allegations of negligence, products liability, strict liability
and claims allowed under the Jones Act and general maritime law.
In each of these cases, the complaints have named other
unaffiliated defendant companies, including companies that
allegedly manufactured the drilling-related products that
contained asbestos.  The plaintiffs generally seek awards of
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, but the court-
appointed special master has ruled that a Jones Act employer
defendant, such as us, cannot be sued for punitive damages.  After
ten years of litigation, this group of cases has been winnowed to
the point where now only 15 plaintiffs' individual claims remain
pending in Mississippi in which we have or may have an interest.
During the year ended December 31, 2014, a group of lawsuits
premised on the same allegations as those in Mississippi were
filed in Louisiana.  As of March 31, 2016, eight plaintiffs have
claims pending against one or more of our subsidiaries in four
different lawsuits filed in Louisiana.  We intend to defend these
lawsuits vigorously, although we can provide no assurance as to
the outcome.  We historically have maintained broad liability
insurance, although we are not certain whether insurance will
cover the liabilities, if any, arising out of these claims.  Based
on our evaluation of the exposure to date, we do not expect the
liability, if any, resulting from these claims to have a material
adverse effect on our consolidated statement of financial
position, results of operations or cash flows.

"One of our subsidiaries was involved in lawsuits arising out of
the subsidiary's involvement in the design, construction and
refurbishment of major industrial complexes.  The operating assets
of the subsidiary were sold and its operations were discontinued
in 1989, and the subsidiary has no remaining assets other than the
insurance policies involved in its litigation, with its insurers
and, either directly or indirectly through a qualified settlement
fund.  The subsidiary has been named as a defendant, along with
numerous other companies, in lawsuits alleging bodily injury or
personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos.  As of March
31, 2016, the subsidiary was a defendant in approximately 258
lawsuits, some of which include multiple plaintiffs, and we
estimate that there are approximately 280 plaintiffs in these
lawsuits.  For many of these lawsuits, we have not been provided
with sufficient information from the plaintiffs to determine
whether all or some of the plaintiffs have claims against the
subsidiary, the basis of any such claims, or the nature of their
alleged injuries.  The first of the asbestos-related lawsuits was
filed against the subsidiary in 1990.  Through March 31, 2016, the
costs incurred to resolve claims, including both defense fees and
expenses and settlement costs, have not been material, all known
deductibles have been satisfied or are inapplicable, and the
subsidiary's defense fees and expenses and settlement costs have
been met by insurance made available to the subsidiary.  The
subsidiary continues to be named as a defendant in additional
lawsuits, and we cannot predict the number of additional cases in
which it may be named a defendant nor can we predict the potential
costs to resolve such additional cases or to resolve the pending
cases.  However, the subsidiary has in excess of $1.0 billion in
insurance limits potentially available to the subsidiary.

"Although not all of the policies may be fully available due to
the insolvency of certain insurers, we believe that the subsidiary
will have sufficient funding directly or indirectly from
settlements and claims payments from insurers, assigned rights
from insurers and coverage-in-place settlement agreements with
insurers to respond to these claims.  While we cannot predict or
provide assurance as to the outcome of these matters, we do not
believe that the ultimate liability, if any, arising from these
claims will have a material impact on our consolidated statement
of financial position, results of operations or cash flows."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Partners Unit Accrues $1.4MM at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steel Partners Holdings L.P. said a unit has accrued $1,422,000
relating to the open and active claims, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016.

The Company states, "BNS Sub has been named as a defendant in
1,356 and 1,348 alleged asbestos-related toxic-tort claims as of
March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively. The claims
were filed over a period beginning 1994 through March 31, 2016. In
many cases these claims involved more than 100 defendants. Of the
claims filed, 1,235 and 1,191 were dismissed, settled or granted
summary judgment and closed as of March 31, 2016 and December 31,
2015, respectively. Of the claims settled, the average settlement
was less than $3,000. There remained 121 and 157 pending asbestos
claims as of March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively.
There can be no assurance that the number of future claims and the
related costs of defense, settlements or judgments will be
consistent with the experience to date of existing claims.

"BNS Sub has insurance policies covering asbestos-related claims
for years beginning 1974 through 1988 with estimated aggregate
coverage limits of $183,000,000 with $1,543,000 at March 31, 2016
and $1,543,000 at December 31, 2015 in estimated remaining self-
insurance retention (deductible). There is secondary evidence of
coverage from 1970 to 1973 although there is no assurance that the
insurers will recognize that the coverage was in place. Policies
issued for BNS Sub beginning in 1989 contained exclusions related
to asbestos. Under certain circumstances, some of the settled
claims may be reopened. Also, there may be a significant delay in
receipt of notification by BNS Sub of the entry of a dismissal or
settlement of a claim or the filing of a new claim. BNS Sub
believes it has significant defenses to any liability for toxic-
tort claims on the merits. None of these toxic-tort claims has
gone to trial and, therefore, there can be no assurance that these
defenses will prevail. In addition, there can be no assurance that
the number of future claims and the related costs of defense,
settlements or judgments will be consistent with the experience to
date of existing claims, and that BNS Sub will not need to
increase significantly its estimated liability for the costs to
settle these claims to an amount that could have a material effect
on the consolidated financial statements.

"BNS Sub annually receives retroactive billings or credits from
its insurance carriers for any increase or decrease in claims
accruals as claims are filed, settled or dismissed, or as
estimates of the ultimate settlement and defense costs for the
then-existing claims are revised. As of March 31, 2016 and
December 31, 2015, BNS Sub has accrued $1,422,000 relating to the
open and active claims against BNS Sub. This accrual represents
the Company's best estimate of the likely costs to defend against
or settle these claims by BNS Sub beyond the amounts accrued by
the insurance carriers and previously funded, through the
retroactive billings by BNS Sub. However, there can be no
assurance that BNS Sub will not need to take additional charges in
connection with the defense, settlement or judgment of these
existing claims or that the costs of future claims and the related
costs of defense, settlements or judgments will be consistent with
the experience to date relating to existing claims. These claims
are now being managed by the BNS Liquidating Trust."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Univar Had Less Than 220 Claims Pending at Mar 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
There were fewer than 220 asbestos-related claims pending against
Univar, Inc., according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2016.

The Company states, "In the ordinary course of business the
Company is subject to pending or threatened claims, lawsuits,
regulatory matters and administrative proceedings from time to
time. Where appropriate the Company has recorded provisions in the
consolidated financial statements for these matters. The
liabilities for injuries to persons or property are in some
instances covered by liability insurance, subject to various
deductibles and self-insured retentions.

"The Company is not aware of any claims, lawsuits, regulatory
matters or administrative proceedings, pending or threatened, that
are likely to have a material effect on its overall financial
position, results of operations or cash flows. However, the
Company cannot predict the outcome of any claims or litigation or
the potential for future claims or litigation.

"The Company is subject to liabilities from claims alleging
personal injury from exposure to asbestos. The claims result
primarily from an indemnification obligation related to Univar USA
Inc.'s 1986 purchase of McKesson Chemical Company from McKesson
Corporation ("McKesson"). Univar USA's obligation to indemnify
McKesson for settlements and judgments arising from asbestos
claims is the amount which is in excess of applicable insurance
coverage, if any, which may be available under McKesson's
historical insurance coverage. Univar USA is also a defendant in a
small number of asbestos claims. As of March 31, 2016, there were
fewer than 220 asbestos-related claims for which the Company has
liability for defense and indemnity pursuant to the
indemnification obligation. Historically, the vast majority of the
claims against both McKesson and Univar USA have been dismissed
without payment. While the Company is unable to predict the
outcome of these matters, it does not believe, based upon
currently available facts, that the ultimate resolution of any of
these matters will have a material effect on its overall financial
position, results of operations or cash flows. However, the
Company cannot predict the outcome of any present or future claims
or litigation and adverse developments could negatively impact
earnings or cash flows in a particular future period."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: HII Continues to Defend Suits at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------
Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc., continues to defend itself
against numerous asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016.

The Company states, "HII and its predecessors-in-interest are
defendants in a longstanding series of cases that have been and
continue to be filed in various jurisdictions around the country,
wherein former and current employees and various third parties
allege exposure to asbestos containing materials while on or
associated with HII premises or while working on vessels
constructed or repaired by HII. The cases allege various injuries,
including those associated with pleural plaque disease,
asbestosis, cancer, mesothelioma, and other alleged asbestos
related conditions. In some cases, several of HII's former
executive officers are also named as defendants. In some
instances, partial or full insurance coverage is available to the
Company for its liability and that of its former executive
officers. The average cost per case to resolve cases during the
three months ended March 31, 2016 and 2015, was immaterial
individually and in the aggregate. The Company's estimate of
asbestos-related liabilities is subject to uncertainty because
liabilities are influenced by numerous variables that are
inherently difficult to predict. Key variables include the number
and type of new claims, the litigation process from jurisdiction
to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms made by state and
federal courts, and the passage of state or federal tort reform
legislation. Although the Company believes the ultimate resolution
of current cases will not have a material effect on its
consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash
flows, it cannot predict what new or revised claims or litigation
might be asserted or what information might come to light and can,
therefore, give no assurances regarding the ultimate outcome of
asbestos related litigation."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleaver-Brooks Wins Summary Judgment
-----------------------------------------------------
Chief Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California granted Defendant
Cleaver-Brooks, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment in the case
captioned GAIL ELIZABETH WALASHEK, individually and as successor-
in-interest to the Estate of MICHAEL WALASHEK and THE ESTATE OF
CHRISTOPHER LINDEN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS
COPRORATION, et al. Defendants, Case No. 14cv1567 BTM(BGS)(S.D.
Calif.)

On March 24, 2014, the Plaintiffs commenced this wrongful death
and survival action in state court. On June 27, 2014, this action
was removed to federal court.

The Complaint alleges that Michael Walashek's exposure to asbestos
and asbestos-containing products, in the course of performing his
work for various employers from 1967 through 1986, caused him to
suffer severe and permanent injury and ultimately death. The
Complaint asserts claims of negligence and strict liability.

A full-text copy of the Order dated May 24, 2016 is available at
https://is.gd/Jbz7Nk from Leagle.com.

Gail Elizabeth Walashek, Plaintiff, is represented by Jennifer L.
Bartlett, Esq. -- jbartlett@sgpblaw.com -- Simon Greenstone
Panatier Bartlett, Lisa M Barley, Esq. -- lbarley@sgpblaw.com --
Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett & Stuart J Purdy, Esq. --
spurdy@sgpblaw.com -- Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett.

Michelle Walashek, Plaintiff, is represented by Jennifer L.
Bartlett & Stuart J Purdy, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett.

Keith Walashek, Plaintiff, is represented by Jennifer L. Bartlett
& Stuart J Purdy, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett.

Laura Page, Plaintiff, is represented by Jennifer L. Bartlett &
Stuart J Purdy, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett.

Christopher Linden, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer L. Bartlett
& Stuart J Purdy, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett.

Cleaver Brooks, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Shaun E.
Swiger, Esq. -- Foley & Mansfield PLLP.

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant, is represented by
Charles Park, Esq. -- cpark@hugoparker.com -- Hugo Parker, LLP,
David Blow, Esq. -- david.blow@sedgwicklaw.com -- Sedgwick, LLP,
pro hac vice & Sara J. Savage,  Esq. -- ssavage@hugoparker.com --
Hugo Parker, LLP.

Gardner Denver, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Charles
Jenkins, Esq. -- email@cwjlaw.com -- Law Offices of Charles W.
Jenkins, APC.

IMO Industries, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Bobbie Rae
Bailey, Esq. -- bbailey@leaderberkon.com -- Leader and Berkon LLP.

J.T. Thorpe & Son, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Alice K Loh,
Esq. -- aloh@behblaw.com -- Bassi Edlin Huie & Blum, Frederic W
Norris, Esq. -- rick.norris@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP,
Jennifer J. Lee, Esq. -- McKenna, Long & Aldridge, LLP & Reshma
Bajaj, Esq. -- rbajaj@behblaw.com -- Bassi Edlin Huie & Blum.

Pfizer, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Justin E. Garratt,
Tucker Ellis LLP.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, is represented by John F. Hughes,
Law Offices of Gordon & Rees, LLP & Richard R Ames, Gordon & Rees
LLP.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Defendant, is represented by
Michael B. Giaquinto, Hawkins Parnell Tackston and Young LLP.

Foster Wheeler LLC, Defendant, is represented by Charles Park,
Hugo Parker, LLP, Christina Maria Glezakos, Hugo Parker LLP &
Edward R Hugo, Brydon Hugo & Parker.

General Electric Company, Defendant, is represented by Derek S.
Johnson, Walsworth Franklin Bevins & McCall, Dylan Daniel Rudolph,
Maynard Cooper & Gale, LLP & Katherine Gardiner, Walsworth,
Franklin, Bevins & McCall LLP.

Georgia Pacific, LLC, Defendant, is represented by Steven K Hwang,
Perkins Coie LLP.

M. Slayen and Associates, Inc., Respondent, is represented by Alex
P. Catalona, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer, Constance R. Fraenkel,
Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer, Emily D Bergstrom, Becherer Kannett
and Schweitzer & Mark S. Kannett, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer.

Plant Products & Supply Co., Respondent, is represented by Carol
Lee Healey, Bisohp Barry & Mary Margaret Ryan, Bishop Barry Drath.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Special Electric Liable for Failure to Warn
------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of California affirmed the judgment of the Court
of Appeal in the case captioned WILLIAM B. WEBB et al., Plaintiffs
and Appellants, v. SPECIAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC., Defendant and
Respondent, No. S209927 (Cal.), finding that substantial evidence
supports the jury's verdict against Special Electric and the trial
court erred in granting judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

Plaintiff William Webb was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a fatal
cancer caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers. He and his wife,
Jacqueline Webb, sued multiple defendants under strict liability
and negligence theories. They ultimately went to trial against
Special Electric and two other companies. At the close of
plaintiffs' case, Special Electric moved for nonsuit on the
failure to warn claims. Special Electric argued, in part, that it
had no duty to warn a sophisticated purchaser like Johns-Manville
about the health risks of asbestos. The court deferred ruling
pending further briefing. After both sides rested, Special
Electric moved for a directed verdict on plaintiffs' strict
liability claims. The court again deferred ruling. The jury
returned a verdict finding Special Electric liable for failure to
warn and negligence, but not liable for supplying a defectively
designed product. It apportioned 49 percent of fault to Johns-
Manville, 18 percent to Special Electric, and 33 percent to other
entities.

Before judgment was entered, Special Electric requested a ruling
on its nonsuit and directed verdict motions. The court determined
Special Electric was not liable for failure to warn and granted
the motions. Concerned that these rulings might be procedurally
irregular, the court also entered judgment on the jury verdict and
construed the motions as seeking judgment notwithstanding the
verdict (JNOV). So characterized, the motions were granted and
judgment was entered in favor of Special Electric.

A divided panel of the Court of Appeal identified both procedural
and substantive error. The majority determined the JNOV ruling was
impermissibly premature and lacked the required written notice. It
also concluded the entry of JNOV was improper because substantial
evidence demonstrated that Special Electric breached a duty to
warn Johns-Manville and foreseeable downstream users like Webb
about the risks of asbestos exposure. The dissenting justice
argued JNOV was proper because Special Electric was entitled to
rely on Johns-Manville, a sophisticated purchaser, to warn
downstream users about asbestos, and plaintiffs suffered no
prejudice from procedural irregularities in the ruling.

When a hazardous raw material is supplied for any purpose,
including the manufacture of a finished product, the supplier has
a duty to warn about the material's dangers. Under the
sophisticated intermediary doctrine, the supplier can discharge
this duty if it conveys adequate warnings to the material's
purchaser, or sells to a sufficiently sophisticated purchaser, and
reasonably relies on the purchaser to convey adequate warnings to
others, including those who encounter the material in a finished
product. Reasonable reliance depends on many circumstances,
including the degree of risk posed by the material, the likelihood
the purchaser will convey warnings, and the feasibility of
directly warning end users. The doctrine balances the competing
policies of compensating those injured by dangerous products and
encouraging conduct that can feasibly be performed.

The record does not establish as a matter of law that Special
Electric actually and reasonably relied on Johns-Manville to warn
end users like William Webb about the dangers of asbestos. In
addition, the jury could have reasonably determined that any
reliance on Johns-Manville would have been unjustified. Plaintiffs
presented testimony from a former Johns-Manville employee
criticizing the company's handling of asbestos warnings and
asserting it had failed to warn its own workers about the hazards
of asbestos before the mid-1970s.

A full-text copy of the Decision dated May 23, 2016 is available
at https://is.gd/OtDjbC from Leagle.com.

Paul & Hanley, Dean A. Hanley, Esq.,  Anthony E. Vieira, Esq.; Law
Office of Ted W. Pelletier and Ted W. Pelletier. Esq. for
Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Horvitz & Levy, Lisa Perrochet, Esq. --
lperrochet@horvitzlevy.com,  Curt Cutting, Esq. --
ccutting@horvitzlevy.com, Jason R. Litt, Esq. --
lperrochet@horvitzlevy.com; Brydon Hugo & Parker, Hugo Parker,
Esq. -- hhugo@hugoparker.com, Edward R. Hugo, Esq. --
ehugo@hugoparker.com, James C. Parker, Esq. --
jparker@hugoparker.com, Jeffrey Kaufman, Esq. --
kaufmanlawinquiries@gmail.com -- Kaufman Law and Josette D.
Johnson, Esq. for Defendant and Respondent.

Shook, Hardy & Bacon, Mark A. Behrens, Esq. -- mbehrens@shb.com,
Christopher E. Appel, Esq. -- cappel@shb.com and Patrick Gregory,
Esq. -- pgregory@shb.com for Coalition for Litigation Justice,
Inc., Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, NFIB
Small Business Legal Center and American Chemistry Council as
Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.

Deborah J. La Fetra, Esq. for Pacific Legal Foundation as Amicus
Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.

Armstrong & Associates and William H. Armstrong, Esq. --
bill.armstrong@armstrongetal.com for Elementis Chemicals Inc., as
Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Orders Expert Disclosure Stricken
--------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois orders the plaintiffs'
expert disclosure stricken in the case styled WILLIAM D. BEGIN and
GINNY BEGIN, Plaintiff, v. AIR & LIQUID CORPORATION, CRANE CO.,
WARREN PUMPS LLC, METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, UNION
CARBIDE CORPORATION, and GOULD PUMPS, INC., Defendants, Case No.
3:15-cv-830-SMY-DGW (S.D. Ill.).

As a discovery violation sanction and pursuant to Rule 37(c)(1),
Plaintiffs are not allowed to use expert witnesses Dr. Arnold R.
Brody, Dr. Barry I. Castleman, William Ewing, Dr. Arthur Frank,
Dr. Edwin Holstein, Captain William A. Lowell, Dr. John C. Maddox,
Dr. Eugene J. Mark, Dr. Gerald Markowitz, Dr. Steven Markowitz,
Arnold P. Moore, or Dr. David Rosner to "supply evidence on a
motion, at a hearing, or at trial."

This matter is before the Court on the Discovery Disputes brought
to the Court's attention on April 29, 2016. Defendant Crane Co.
objected to the expert disclosures filed by Plaintiffs on March
18, 2016 arguing that they failed to comply with Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 26(a)(2). At the April 29, 2016 conference,
Plaintiffs raised disputes as to Requests to Produce and
Interrogatories served on October 7, 2015. In particular,
Plaintiffs state that Defendant Crane Co. failed to produce Navy
contracts that may be pertinent to their experts' opinions. In
light of these disputes, this Court held an in person hearing on
May 6, 2016 in which Plaintiffs and Defendants appeared by
counsel.

A full-text copy of the Order dated May 10, 2016 is available at
https://is.gd/AaKOyM from Leagle.com.

William D. Begin, Plaintiff, is represented by Laci Marie Whitley,
Esq. -- lwhitley@toverdict.com -- Flint & Associates, LLC &
Timothy P. Hulla, Esq. -- thulla@toverdict.com -- Flint &
Associates, LLC.

Ginny Begin, Plaintiff, is represented by Laci Marie Whitley,
Flint & Associates, LLC & Timothy P. Hulla, Flint & Associates,
LLC.

Air & Liquid System Corporation, Defendant, is represented by
Keith B. Hill, Esq. -- khill@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et
al., James R. Grabowski, Esq. -- jgrabowski@heylroyster.com --
Heyl, Royster et al. & Michael D. Schag, Esq. --
mschag@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et al..

Crane Co., Defendant, is represented by Carl J. Geraci, Esq. --
cgeraci@heplerbroom.com -- HeplerBroom LLC, Jessica Schmit, Esq. -
- jschmit@heplerbroom.com -- HeplerBroom LLC & Benjamin J. Wilson,
Esq. -- bwilson@heplerbroom.com -- HeplerBroom LLC.

Warren Pumps LLC, Defendant, is represented by James R. Grabowski,
Heyl, Royster et al., Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al. &
Michael D. Schag, Heyl, Royster et al..

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Jeffrey T.
Bash, Esq. -- J.Bash@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard
& Smith LLP & Justin S. Zimmerman, Esq. --
J.Zimmerman@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith
LLP.

Goulds Pumps, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Julia Yasmin
Tayyab, Esq. -- yasmin.tayyab@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis et
al. & Undray Wilks, Esq. --  undray.wilks@morganlewis.com --
Morgan, Lewis et al.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GE's Bid to Exclude Testimony in "Arbogast" OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James K. Bredar of the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland granted General Electric Company's motion to
exclude certain opinions and testimony of Dr. Robert Leonard Vance
as to the Plaintiff's exposure to asbestos being caused by GE
products are properly excluded.

In addition, the evidence before the Court fails to create a
genuine dispute of material fact, and GE is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law on all of Plaintiffs' claims against it in the
case captioned CHARLES LEMUEL ARBOGAST, JR., et al., Plaintiffs v.
A.W. CHESTERTON CO. et al., Defendants, Civil No. JKB-14-4049 (D.
Md.).

Further, the Court has considered GE's motion for summary judgment
in conjunction with the motion in limine and has found it, too,
has merit.

Plaintiffs, who are husband and wife Charles Lemuel Arbogast, Jr.,
and Barbara Arbogast, sued twenty-seven defendants -- of whom
fourteen remain in the case -- and alleged they, as manufacturers
and/or distributors of various products, caused Charles Arbogast
to be exposed to asbestos, which led to his diagnosis of
mesothelioma. Following an earlier ruling, the complaint now
contains three counts, including Count I -- strict liability,
Count II -- negligence, and Count IV -- loss of consortium.
Plaintiffs demand compensatory damages in excess of $75,000. Every
allegation in the complaint is worded to apply to all of the
Defendants and any of their products, operations, or processes;
the allegations are not specific to any individual Defendant or to
any specific product. Whether a particular Defendant's product or
products contained asbestos and caused Arbogast to be exposed to
asbestos is not detailed in the complaint; thus, in conjunction
with any factual evidence, Dr. Vance's expert opinion is pivotal
in the ultimate determination of whether a specific Defendant is
responsible for exposing Arbogast to asbestos.

GE has advanced two arguments to exclude Dr. Vance's opinions
regarding asbestos exposure caused by GE wire and GE marine
turbines: First, the opinions are inadmissible under Federal Rule
of Evidence 702; and second, with respect to Dr. Vance's opinion
regarding asbestos exposure from GE's marine turbines, his opinion
was not included in his Rule 26 disclosures and should be excluded
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. A careful review
of the governing authorities and the materials in the record lead
this Court to conclude GE's arguments are meritorious.

A full-text copy of the Memorandum dated May 18, 2016 is available
at https://is.gd/JtrdNE from Leagle.com.

Charles Lemuel Arbogast, Jr., Plaintiff, is represented by David M
Layton, Ashcraft and Gerel LLP, John Eugene Herrick, Esq. --
jherrick@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC & John E Guerry, III,
Esq. -- jguerry@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC.

Barbara Arbogast, Plaintiff, is represented by David M Layton,
Ashcraft and Gerel LLP, John Eugene Herrick, Motley Rice LLC &
John E Guerry, III, Motley Rice LLC.

CBS Corporation of Delaware, Defendant, is represented by Clare
Marie Maisano, Esq. -- cmmaisano@ewhlaw.com -- Evert Weathersby
Houff.

Crane Co., Defendant, is represented by Neil Joseph MacDonald,
Esq. -- nmacdonald@macdonaldlawgroup.com -- MacDonald Law Group,
LLC, David A Fusco, Esq. -- david.fusco@klgates.com -- K and L
Gates LLP, James B Insco, II, Esq. -- james.insco@klgates.com -- K
and L Gates LLP, pro hac vice, Michael J Sechler, Esq. --
michael.sechler@klgates.com -- K and L Gates LLP & Thomas E
Birsic, Esq. -- thomas.birsic@klgates.com -- K and L Gates LLP.

Eaton Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Michelle Noorani,
Esq. -- mnoorani@wtplaw.com -- Whiteford Taylor and Preston LLP &
Warren N Weaver, Esq. -- wweaver@wtplaw.com -- Whiteford Taylor
and Preston LLP.

Foster Wheeler, LLC., Defendant, is represented by R Thomas
Radcliffe, Jr., ., Esq. -- tradcliffe@dehay.com -- Dehay and
Elliston LLP & Patrick C Smith, Esq. -- psmith@dehay.com -- Dehay
and Elliston LLP.

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant, is represented by R
Thomas Radcliffe, Jr., Dehay and Elliston LLP & Patrick C Smith,
Dehay and Elliston LLP.

Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Defendant, is represented by F Ford Loker,
Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC, Joshua Franklin Kahn, Miles and
Stockbridge PC, Leianne S McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC,
Michael L Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Raymond P Harris, Jr.,
Schachter Harris LLP, Matthew R Schroll, Miles and Stockbridge PC,
Robin Silver, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Cary I schachter,
Schachter Harris LLP, Eric D Cook, Wilcox and Savage & James E
Hooper, Wheeler Trigg Kennedy LLP.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Defendant, is represented by
Theodore F Roberts, Venable LLP, Scott Mason Richmond, Venable LLP
& M Elizabeth O Neill, Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young LLP,
pro hac vice.

MCIC, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Louis E Grenzer, Jr.,
Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC.

Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Neil
Joseph MacDonald, MacDonald Law Group, LLC.

Sepco Corporation, Defendant, is represented by F Ford Loker, Jr.,
Miles and Stockbridge PC, Laura A Cellucci, Miles and Stockbridge
PC, Leianne S McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Matthew R Schroll,
Miles and Stockbridge PC & Richard M Lee, Selman Breitman LLP, pro
hac vice.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Danielle
Grilli Marcus, Whiteford Taylor and Preston LLP.

Goodrich Corporation, Movant, is represented by John C Ruff, DeHay
and Elliston LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 9th Cir. Reverses Summary Judgment in "Botts"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed
the district court's grant of summary judgment to the government
in the case captioned ROGER BOTTS and CAROL BOTTS, Plaintiffs-
Appellants, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee, No.
14-35007 (9th Cir.), and remanded the case for further
proceedings.

The Ninth Circuit held that the district court erred in finding
that Botts failed to produce evidence from which a finder of fact
could reasonably conclude that asbestos exposure at the Puget
Sound Naval Shipyard resulting from violations of the Navy's
mandatory rules after March 1970 was a substantial factor in
causing Roger Botts' mesothelioma.

The district court's view of the evidence was unduly restrictive
in several ways. First, the district court found that the record
did not establish the extent to which asbestos exposure at the
Shipyard was due to violations of the Navy's asbestos containment
regulations. However, evidence in the record shows that Navy
personnel did not comply with the containment regulations after
they came into effect in March 1970, and that, had the containment
regulations been complied with, the volume and spread of asbestos
fibers on ships due to just removal and cleanup activities would
have been reduced by 90%.

Second, the district court discounted Botts' Shipyard-wide
asbestos exposure. However, there is evidence that asbestos-
related work, including asbestos removal, installation, and
fabrication, took place both on board ships and around the
Shipyard while Botts made deliveries to the shipyard from 1970 to
1976. Under Washington law, expert "testimony that asbestos fibers
have the ability to disperse over an entire shipyard is sufficient
evidence from which it could be inferred that" an individual who
worked at that shipyard during times that asbestos products were
used "breathed the asbestos regardless of whether [the individual]
worked on the ships or only in the shipyard." Here, Dr. Heyer so
testified, and the United States has not challenged the validity
or admissibility of his expert testimony.

Third, the district court found that the time frame of exposure
was only a one-month period from February to March of 1971.
However, violations of the Navy's asbestos containment regulations
began in March 1970, and there is evidence that, from 1970 to
1976, Botts spent as much as 20% of his working time each year at
the Shipyard. There was expert testimony that working for less
than a year in total in a shipyard during this time period could
result in anywhere between a two- to eight-fold increase in the
risk of developing mesothelioma due to asbestos exposure.

A full-text copy of the Memorandum dated May 16, 2016 is available
at https://is.gd/47WTiQ from Leagle.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Amtrak's Bid to Compel Discovery Partially OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Magistrate Judge Roanne L. Mann of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted in
part and denied in part Amtrak's motion to compel and denied in
substantial part the Insurers' motions for a protective order in
the case captioned CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS at LLOYD'S, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants, No. 14-CV-4717 (FB).

In this declaratory judgment action, plaintiff-insurers seek,
inter alia, a determination as to whether a series of liability
insurance policies, issued to defendant National Railroad
Passenger Corporation ("Amtrak") more than three decades ago,
obligates plaintiff-insurers to reimburse Amtrak for costs
incurred in connection with environmental waste allegedly found on
Amtrak's property.

Currently pending before the Court are certain aspects of Amtrak's
motion to compel discovery, as well as a motion for a protective
order filed by plaintiff-insurers concerning Amtrak's entitlement
to production of reinsurance agreements under Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iv)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("FRCP"). The Court
previously ruled on other portions of Amtrak's motion, as well as
on a separate motion to compel by plaintiff-insurers.

A full-text copy of the Memorandum and Order dated May 16, 2016 is
available at https://is.gd/tCJMpf from Leagle.com.

Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, Plaintiff, is represented by Aisha
E. Bembry, Esq. -- aisha.bembry@lewisbaach.com -- Lewis Baach
PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Esq. -- joseph.ruby@lewisbaach.com -- Lewis
Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Esq. --
mark.leimkuhler@lewisbaach.com -- Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice,
Martin R. Baach, Esq. -- martin.baach@lewisbaach.com -- Lewis
Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Esq. --
ronald.abramson@lewisbaach.com --  Lewis Baach PLLC.
Accident & Casualty Co., Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E.
Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro
hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice,
Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson,
Lewis Baach PLLC.

Accident & Casualty Insurance Company Of Winterthur, Plaintiff,
represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby,
Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach
PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac
vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

Accident & Casualty Insurance Company of Winterthur (No. 2 A/C),
Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC,
Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J.
Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis
Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.
Accident & Casualty Insurance Company of Winterthur (No. 3 A/C),
Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC,
Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J.
Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis
Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

Aegon NV, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach
PLLC,Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J.
Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis
Baach PLLC, pro hac vice &Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

AG De 1830 Compagnie Belge D'Assurances Generales Incendie
Accidents Et Risques Divers SA, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E.
Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro
hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice,
Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson,
Lewis Baach PLLC.

American Home Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha
E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro
hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice,
Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson,
Lewis Baach PLLC.

Amsterdan -- London Verzekeering Maatschappij NV, Plaintiff,
represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby,
Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach
PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac
vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

Ancon Insurance Company (UK) Limited, Plaintiff, represented by
Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach
PLLC, pro hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac
vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald
Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

Argonaut Northwest Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by
Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach
PLLC, pro hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac
vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald
Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

Assicurazioni Generali SPA (UK Branch), Plaintiff, represented by
Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach
PLLC, pro hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac
vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald
Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

Bishopsgate Insurance Company Limited, Plaintiff, represented by
Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach
PLLC, pro hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac
vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald
Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

Britamco Pool, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis
Baach PLLC,Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J.
Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis
Baach PLLC, pro hac vice &Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

CNA Reinsurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E.
Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro
hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice,
Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson,
Lewis Baach PLLC.

CNA Reinsurance Company Limited, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha
E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro
hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice,
Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson,
Lewis Baach PLLC.

Cornhill Insurance Company Limited, Plaintiff, represented by
Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach
PLLC, pro hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac
vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald
Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

Credit De Namur, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis
Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark
J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach,
Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach
PLLC.

Delta-Lloyd Non-Life Insurance Company Limited, Plaintiff,
represented byAisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby,
Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach
PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac
vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

Delta-Lloyd Schadeverzekering NV, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha
E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro
hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice,
Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson,
Lewis Baach PLLC.

Stronghold Insurance Company Limited, Plaintiff, represented by
Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC & Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach
PLLC.

The Dominion Insurance Company Limited, Plaintiff, represented by
Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC & Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach
PLLC.

Northwestern National Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by
Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC & Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach
PLLC.

Europeesche Verzekering Maatschappij Nv, Plaintiff, represented by
Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC & Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach
PLLC.

Excess Insurance Company Limited, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha
E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC & Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC.
Helvetia-accident Swiss Insurance Company (As Part of Gibbon "E"
Group), Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach
PLLC & Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC.

Gresham Fire & Accident Insurance Society Limited, Plaintiff,
represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC & Joseph L. Ruby,
Lewis Baach PLLC.

Gresham Insurance Society Limited, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha
E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC & Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC.
Harper Insurance Ltd F/k/a/Turegum Ins Co, Plaintiff, represented
by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach
PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac
vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald
Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

Instituto De Reasseguros Do Brasil (Irg) -- London Branch,
Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC,
Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J.
Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis
Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

Interlloyd Verzekering Maastschappij Nv, Plaintiff, represented by
Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach
PLLC, pro hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac
vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald
Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

Koning & Boeke Van 1819, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E.
Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro
hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice,
Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson,
Lewis Baach PLLC.

La Belgique, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis
Baach PLLC,Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J.
Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis
Baach PLLC, pro hac vice &Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

L'assicurazioni D'Italia, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E.
Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro
hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice,
Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson,
Lewis Baach PLLC.

Le Assicurazioni D'Italia Spa, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E.
Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro
hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice,
Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson,
Lewis Baach PLLC.

Les Assurances Generales De France, Plaintiff, represented by
Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach
PLLC, pro hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac
vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald
Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

Les Proprietaires Reunis S.A. D. Assurances I.A.R.D., Plaintiff,
represented byAisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby,
Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach
PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac
vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

L'Etoile, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach
PLLC,Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J.
Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis
Baach PLLC, pro hac vice &Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

London & Edinbugh General Insurance Company, Plaintiff,
represented byAisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby,
Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach
PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac
vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

London and Edinburgh General Insurance Company Limited, Plaintiff,
represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby,
Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach
PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac
vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

Maas Lloyd Nv Schadeverzekeringsmaatschappu, Plaintiff,
represented byAisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby,
Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach
PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac
vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

Mercator Algemene Verzekerings Maatschappu Nv, Plaintiff,
represented byAisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby,
Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach
PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac
vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

N.V. Rotterdamse Assurantiekas, N.V. Verz Mij De Noodern,
Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC,
Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J.
Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis
Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

Namur Assurances du Credit, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E.
Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro
hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice,
Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson,
Lewis Baach PLLC.

National Casualty Company, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E.
Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro
hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice,
Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson,
Lewis Baach PLLC.

National Casualty Company of America Limited, Plaintiff,
represented byAisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby,
Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach
PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac
vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

Nissan Fire & Marine Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by
Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach
PLLC, pro hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac
vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald
Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

Noorholland Brandw, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry,
Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice,
Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R.
Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis
Baach PLLC.

Norwich Union Fire Insuarnce Socity Limited, Plaintiff,
represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby,
Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach
PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac
vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

Providential Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E.
Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro
hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice,
Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson,
Lewis Baach PLLC.

Rheinland Versicherungs Ag, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E.
Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro
hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice,
Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson,
Lewis Baach PLLC.

Royal Belge Sa, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis
Baach PLLC,Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J.
Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis
Baach PLLC, pro hac vice &Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

Royal Nederland Schadeverzekering Nv, Plaintiff, represented by
Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach
PLLC, pro hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac
vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald
Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

Royale Belge Incendie Reassurances SA., Plaintiff, represented by
Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach
PLLC, pro hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac
vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald
Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

Simcoe & Erie General Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by
Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach
PLLC, pro hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac
vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald
Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

St Katherine Insurance Company PLC, Plaintiff, represented by
Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach
PLLC, pro hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac
vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald
Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

Taisho Marine & Fire Insurance Company Limited, Plaintiff,
represented byAisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby,
Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach
PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac
vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

Terra Nova Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E.
Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro
hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice,
Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson,
Lewis Baach PLLC.

The Sumitomo Marine and Fire Insurance Company, Limited,
Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC,
Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J.
Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis
Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

Unionamerica Insurance Company Limited, Plaintiff, represented by
Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach
PLLC, pro hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac
vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald
Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

Winterthur Swiss Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by
Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach
PLLC, pro hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac
vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald
Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

Wurttembergisch Feuerversicherrung AG, Plaintiff, represented by
Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach
PLLC, pro hac vice,Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac
vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice & Ronald
Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

Yasuda Fire & Marine Insurance Company(UK) Limited, Plaintiff,
represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach PLLC, Joseph L. Ruby,
Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac vice, Mark J. Leimkuhler, Lewis Baach
PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin R. Baach, Lewis Baach PLLC, pro hac
vice & Ronald Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.

Diligentia, Plaintiff, represented by Aisha E. Bembry, Lewis Baach
PLLC &Joseph L. Ruby, Lewis Baach PLLC.

National RailRoad Passenger Corporation, Defendant, is represented
by Rhonda D. Orin, Esq. -- rorin@andersonkill.com -- Anderson Kill
& Olick LLP, Angela Singleton, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP,
Daniel John Healy, Esq. -- dhealy@andersonkill.com -- Anderson
Kill, LLP & Vivian Costandy Esq. -- vcostandy@andersonkill.com --
Michael, Anderson Kill.

Allianz Insurance Company, Defendant, is represented by Anthony R.
Gambardella, Esq. -- anthony.gambardella@rivkin.com --  Rivkin
Radler LLP, Lawrence Adam Levy, Esq. -- lawrence.levy@rivkin.com -
-  Rivkin Radler LLP, Michael A. Kotula, Esq. --
michael.kotula@rivkin.com --  Rivkin Radler LLP & Robert A.
Maloney, Esq. -- robert.maloney@rivkin.com --  Rivkin Radler LLP.
American Home Assurance Company, Defendant, represented by Richard
Bryan, rbryan@jackscamp.com -- Jackson & Campbell, P.C., Steven
Gary Adams, Esq. -- Law Offices of Michael F. Klag, Christopher
Michael Quinlan, Esq. -- cquinlan@jackscamp.com -- Jackson &
Campbell, P.C. & Kristen Vine, Esq. -- kvine@jackscamp.com --
Jackson & Campbell, P.C..

American Insurance Company, Defendant, is represented by Anthony
R. Gambardella, Rivkin Radler LLP, Lawrence Adam Levy, Rivkin
Radler LLP,Michael A. Kotula, Rivkin Radler LLP & Robert A.
Maloney, Rivkin Radler LLP.

Munich Reinsurance America, Inc., formerly known as American
Reinsurance Company, Defendant, is represented by William Eugene
Mcgrath Jr., Esq. -- wmcgrath@smithstratton.com -- Smith Stratton.
Argonaut Insurance Company, Defendant, is represented by Brian
Michael Reid, Esq. -- reid@litchfieldcavo.com -- Litchfield Cavo
LLP, pro hac vice & Vincent J. Velardo, Esq. --
velardo@litchfieldcavo.com -- Litchfield Cavo LLP.

Banco De Seguros Del Estado, Defendant, represented by Ernesto
Palomo, Locke Lord LLP, Jeffrey Steven Kramer, Locke Lord LLP,
Joseph N. Froehlich, Locke Lord LLP & Robert A. Badgley, Karbal
Cohen Economou Silk Dunne LLC.

Continental Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by John S.
Favate, Hardin Kundla McKeon & Poletto, Kathryn M. Frost, Elenius
Frost & walsh,Arthur A. Povelones, Hardin, Kundla, McKeon &
Poletto, P.A., George Richard Hardin, Hardin Kundla McKeon &
Poletto & William Patrick Lalor, Elenius Frost & Walsh.

Evanston Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Robert P.
Siegel, Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP.

First State Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Alison P.
Baker, SHIPMAN AND GOODWIN LLP & Katherine Hance, Shipman &
Goodwin LLP.

Granite State Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Richard
Bryan, Jackson & Campbell, P.C., Steven Gary Adams, Law Offices of
Michael F. Klag, Christopher Michael Quinlan, Jackson & Campbell,
P.C. & Kristen Vine, Jackson & Campbell, P.C..

Insurance Company of The State of Pennsylvania, Defendant,
represented byRichard Bryan, Jackson & Campbell, P.C., Steven Gary
Adams, Law Offices of Michael F. Klag, Christopher Michael
Quinlan, Jackson & Campbell, P.C. &Kristen Vine, Jackson &
Campbell, P.C..

Interstate Reinsurance Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Anthony R. Gambardella, Rivkin Radler LLP, Lawrence Adam Levy,
Rivkin Radler LLP,Michael A. Kotula, Rivkin Radler LLP & Robert A.
Maloney, Rivkin Radler LLP.

Landmark Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Richard
Bryan, Jackson & Campbell, P.C. & Kristen Vine, Jackson &
Campbell, P.C..

Lexington Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Richard
Bryan, Jackson & Campbell, P.C., Steven Gary Adams, Law Offices of
Michael F. Klag, Christopher Michael Quinlan, Jackson & Campbell,
P.C. & Kristen Vine, Jackson & Campbell, P.C..

National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA,
Defendant, represented by Richard Bryan, Jackson & Campbell, P.C.,
Steven Gary Adams, Law Offices of Michael F. Klag, Christopher
Michael Quinlan, Jackson & Campbell, P.C. & Kristen Vine, Jackson
& Campbell, P.C..

Northbrook Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Anthony R.
Gambardella, Rivkin Radler LLP, Lawrence Adam Levy, Rivkin Radler
LLP,Michael A. Kotula, Rivkin Radler LLP & Robert A. Maloney,
Rivkin Radler LLP.

Wausau International Underwriters, Defendant, represented by
Claude N. Grammatico, Epstein, Gialleonardo, Frankini, Kristin S.
Heres, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP & Wm. Gerald McElroy,
Jr., Zelle LLP.

Yosemite Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Mark W.
Zimmerman, Clausen Miller, Steven J. Fried, Clausen Miller PC &
Elise D. Allen, Clausen Miller P.C..

Allstate Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Anthony R.
Gambardella, Rivkin Radler LLP, Lawrence Adam Levy, Rivkin Radler
LLP,Michael A. Kotula, Rivkin Radler LLP & Robert A. Maloney,
Rivkin Radler LLP.

XL Insurance (Bermuda) Ltd, Defendant, represented by Whitney
Morgan Smith, Cahill Gordon and Reindel.

Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., Defendant, represented by Claude
N. Grammatico, Epstein, Gialleonardo, Frankini, Kristin S. Heres,
Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP & Wm. Gerald McElroy, Jr., Zelle
LLP.

Certain London Market Insurance Companies, Defendant, Pro se.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dismissal of City's 3rd-Party Suit Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------
The  Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division One, affirmed the
orders of the trial court in the case captioned CITY OF PHOENIX,
Third-Party Plaintiff/Appellant, v. GLENAYRE ELECTRONICS, INC.;
WILLIAM LYON HOMES, INC.; KB HOME HOLDINGS, INC.; RICHMOND
AMERICAN HOMES, INC.; MDC/WOOD, INC.; UDC HOMES, INC. nka SHEA
HOMES OF PHOENIX, INC. (FN) and ELLIOTT HOMES, INC.; SWENGEL-
ROBBIN CONTRACTING CO., INC.; AZTEC CONSTRUCTION, INC.; JNC, INC.;
UH HOLDINGS, INC.; LOS PAISANOS DEVELOPMENT, INC.; MICHAEL
NEWSOME; CHI CONSTRUCTION CO.; CONTINENTAL HOMES, INC.; PULTE HOME
CORP.; DEL WEBB CORP.; WITTMAN CONTRACTING CO.; JEFF BLANDFORD
INVESTMENTS, INC.; Third-Party Defendants/Appellees, No. 1 CA-CV
14-0739 (Ariz. App.).

In 2013, Carlos Tarazon filed a lawsuit alleging he had developed
mesothelioma as a result of long-term exposure to asbestos while
performing pipe installation and repair for the City and numerous
other defendants not parties to this appeal.  Tarazon further
alleged the City knew of the inherent dangers of asbestos exposure
and was negligent in failing to adequately warn and protect him
from those risks.

The City immediately filed a third-party complaint seeking defense
and indemnification from 82 developers and eight contractors
allegedly responsible for planning, designing, and constructing
the projects on which Tarazon was exposed to asbestos between 1968
and 1993.  Within its complaint, the City alleged the third-party
defendants were solely responsible for the selection,
installation, and disposal of any asbestos-laden products used in
their respective projects, and therefore, the Contractors and
Developers were required to indemnify the City against Tarazon's
claims -- the Contractors by virtue of their construction
contracts and right-of-way permits, and the Developers by virtue
of City ordinances incorporated within development permits.

Appellees are awarded their costs and reasonable attorneys' fees
incurred on appeal upon compliance with ARCAP 21(b).

The City appeals the trial court's orders: (1) dismissing its
third-party complaint against Appellees because it was not brought
within the eight-year period of repose set forth in Arizona
Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) section 12-552(A),1 and (2) awarding
certain Appellees their attorneys' fees as the successful parties
in a contract action pursuant to A.R.S. Section 12-341.01(A).

This court concluded Section 12-552 applies to governmental
entities and that the City's claims are based in contract within
the meaning of A.R.S. Section 12-552(F); therefore, the City's
claims against Appellees are time-barred. There is no error in the
court's grant of attorneys' fees to those Appellees who properly
asserted a right to fees and conclude that the amounts awarded
were within the court's discretion.

A full-text copy of the Opinion dated May 19, 2016 is available at
https://is.gd/WVV8mT from Leagle.com.

Phoenix City Attorney's Office, Phoenix, By Brad Holm, Counsel for
Third-Party Plaintiff/Appellant.

Osborn Maledon PA, Phoenix Mary R. O'Grady, Esq. --
mogrady@omlaw.com, Counsel for Third-Party Plaintiff/Appellant.

Gallagher & Kennedy PA, Phoenix, By Kevin E. O'Malley, Esq. --
kevin.omalley@gknet.com, Mark A. Fuller, Esq. --
mark.fuller@gknet.com, Thomas A. Maraz, Esq. --
thomas.maraz@gknet.com, Counsel for Third-Party
Defendants/Appellees CHI Construction Co., Continental Homes, Inc.

Green & Baker Ltd, Scottsdale, By Katherine E. Baker, Esq., Diane
L. Bornscheuer, Esq., Counsel for Third-Party Defendant/Appellee
Glenayre Electronics, Inc.

Berkes Crane Robinson & Seal LLP, Los Angeles, CA By Brad D.
Bleichner, Esq. -- bbleichner@bcrslaw.com, Counsel for Third-Party
Defendant/Appellee William Lyon Homes, Inc.

Lorber Greenfield & Polito LLP, Phoenix, By Holly P. Davies, Esq.
-- hdavies@lorberlaw.com, Alexix G. Terriquez, Esq. --
aterriquez@lorberlaw.com, Counsel for Third-Party
Defendants/Appellees KB Home Holdings Inc., Richmond American
Homes Inc., MDC/Wood, Inc.

Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP, Phoenix, By Jill Ann Herman, Esq.
-- jherman@wshblaw.com -- Counsel for Third-Party
Defendants/Appellees UDC Homes, Inc. nka Shea Homes of Phoenix,
Inc. (FN), Elliot Homes, Inc.

Gammage & Burnham, PLC, Phoenix, By Richard K. Mahrle, Esq. --
rmahrle@gblaw.com, Jason L. Cassidy, Esq. -- jcassidy@gblaw.com,
Counsel for Third-Party Defendant/Appellee Swengel-Robbins
Contracting Co., Inc.

Law Offices of Joseph A. Kula, Scottsdale, By Joseph A. Kula,
Benjamin R. Eid, Counsel for Third-Party Defendant/Appellee Aztec
Construction, Inc.

Maynard Cronin Erickson Curran & Reiter PLC, Phoenix, By Daniel D.
Maynard, Counsel for Third-Party Defendants/Appellees JNC, Inc.,
UH Holdings, Inc.

Quintairos Prieto Wood & Boyer, PA, Phoenix, By Vincent J.
Montell, Michael J. Ponzo, Rita J. Bustos, Counsel for Third-Party
Defendant/Appellee Los Paisanos Development, Inc.

Michael Newsome, Cave Creek Third-Party Defendant/Appellee.

Dickinson Wright PLLC, Phoenix, By Michael S. Rubin, Stephen E.
Richman, J. Gregory Cahill, Counsel for Third-Party
Defendants/Appellees Pulte Home Corp., Del Webb Corp.

Shorall McGoldrick Brinkmann PC, Phoenix, By Thomas J. Shorall,
Jr., Jason J. Boblick, Counsel for Third-Party Defendant/Appellee
Wittman Contracting Co.

Wilenchik & Bartness PC, Phoenix, By Dennis I. Wilenchik, Mia
Nguyen, Counsel for Third-Party Defendant/Appellee Jeff Blandford
Investments, Inc.

Judge Kenton D. Jones delivered the opinion of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen and Judge Patricia A. Orozco
joined.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bare Metal Defense Bars Claims, Court Rules
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania clarified its application of
the so-called "bare metal defense," as recognized by maritime law,
to claims brought by plaintiffs against the appealing product
manufacturer defendants in the case captioned JOHN B. DEVRIES, ET
AL., Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, ET AL., Defendants,
Consolidated Under MDL No. 875, Civil Action No. 5:13-00474-ER
(E.D. Pa.).

In adopting the so-called "bare metal defense" under maritime law
and applying it to subsequent MDL cases, the MDL Court (1) has
considered plaintiffs' negligent failure-to-warn claims, (2) has
determined that, when applicable, the defense bars both strict
liability and negligent failure-to-warn claims, and (3) has
concluded that maritime law's application of the defense rejects
potential liability of a product manufacturer in negligence for
products (or component parts) that it did not manufacture or
supply.

The Plaintiffs allege that John DeVries was exposed to asbestos
from various products while serving in the U.S. Navy during the
time period 1957 to 1960. After the completion of discovery,
numerous defendants moved for summary judgment, contending that
Plaintiffs' evidence was insufficient to establish causation with
respect to any product(s) for which it could be held liable. This
Court determined that maritime law was applicable to the claims
against each of the product manufacturer Defendants now opposing
Plaintiffs' appeal and, after applying maritime law (including the
so-called "bare metal defense" as applied under maritime law),
granted each of these Defendants' motions.

The Plaintiffs thereafter appealed, contending that this Court
misapplied the maritime law "bare metal defense" and, in
particular, that it failed to consider the viability of
Plaintiffs' negligence claims. By way of Order dated February 5,
2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
remanded the case to this MDL Court for explicit consideration and
clarification of the issues of whether this MDL Court (1)
considered the negligence theory of liability when it granted
summary judgment in its entirety to the product manufacturer
defendants, (2) concluded that the "bare metal defense" applies to
claims sounding in negligence, and (3) considered whether the
circumstances of the present case warrant application of the legal
rationale by which certain other courts' decisions exempted
negligence claims from being barred by the defense.

A full-text copy of the Memorandum dated May 18, 2016 is available
at https://is.gd/sbH31w from Leagle.com.

JOHN B. DEVRIES, Plaintiff, is represented by ROBERT E. PAUL, Esq.
-- PAUL REICH & MYERS, PC.

ROBERTA G. DEVRIES, Plaintiff, is represented by ROBERT E. PAUL,
PAUL REICH & MYERS, PC.

HAMPSHIRE INDUSTRIES, Defendant, is represented by BARBARA J.
BUBA, Esq. -- WILBRAHAM LAWLER & BUBA.

METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO., Defendant, is represented by STEWART
R. SINGER, Esq. -- SALMON RICCHEZZA SINGER & TURCHI LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Remand "Murray" to State Court Granted
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Charles A. Shaw of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, granted plaintiff
Sheree Murray's motion to remand the case captioned SHEREE MURRAY,
Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of LEROY
MURRAY, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION,
et al., Defendants.No. 4:14-CV-1638 CAS (E.D. Mo.), to the Circuit
Court of the City of St. Louis, State of Missouri.

The matter is before the Court plaintiff Sheree Murray's motion to
remand. None of the defendants in this case filed a response in
opposition to the motion, and the time to do so has expired.

Plaintiff Sheree Murray filed suit in Missouri state court,
individually and as the personal representative of the estate of
Leroy Murray, against 29 corporate defendants. Plaintiff alleges
that her husband, Leroy Murray, was exposed to asbestos that was
manufactured, sold, or distributed by the defendants, and as a
result of the exposure, he developed lung cancer and died.
Plaintiff asserts only state law claims against the defendants.
Defendants Crane Co., Warren Pumps, LLC, and CBS Corporation have
since been dismissed from this suit, and plaintiff now moves to
remand to state court.

A full-text copy of the Memorandum and Order dated May 19, 2016 is
available at https://is.gd/0iL9Ub from Leagle.com.

Sheree Murray, deceased, Plaintiff, is represented by Eric Daniel
Jackstadt, Esq. -- NAPOLI SHKOLNIK & Sean Patrick Barth, NAPOLI
SHKOLNIK.

Cleaver-Brooks, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Timothy A.
McGuire, Esq. -- tmcguire@otmblaw.com -- O'CONNELL AND TIVIN, LLC.

Flowserve Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Ashley E.
Benoist, Esq. -- abenoist@smsm.com -- SEGAL AND MCCAMBRIDGE, LTD.

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant, is represented by
Robert Drake Andrekanic, Esq. -- CRIVELLO AND CARLSON.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, is represented by
Charles L. Joley, Esq. -- cjoley@ilmoattorneys.com -- JOLEY AND
OLIVER & Georgiann Oliver, Esq. -- goliver@ilmoattorneys.com --
JOLEY AND OLIVER.

The William Powell Company, Defendant, is represented by Scott
Darren Stephenson, Esq. -- stephenson@litchfieldcavo.com --
LITCHFIELD CAVO, LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Massachusetts Insurers Lose Summary Judgment Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard G. Stearns of the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts allowed defendants Beacon Roofing
Supply, Inc., and Beacon Sales Acquisition, Inc.'s motion for
summary judgment and denied Plaintiff Massachusetts Insurers
Insolvency Fund's cross-motion for summary judgment in the case
captioned MASSACHUSETTS INSURERS INSOLVENCY FUND, v. BEACON
ROOFING SUPPLY, INC., and BEACON SALES ACQUISITION, INC, Civil
Action No. 15-12291-RGS (D. Mass.).

The gist of the Fund's argument is that at various times lawyers
for BRS and its Delaware holding company, Beacon Sales
Acquisition, Inc. (BSAI), either expressed the opinion that BRS
was Beacon's II's successor (for example, when forwarding asbestos
lawsuits that had been mistakenly or deliberately served on BRS),
or remained silent when they should have known that the Fund was
acting on that assumption.

The Fund has failed to meet this burden. At best, the Fund has
striven to show that it relied upon an erroneous legal opinion
tendered by counsel for BRS and BSAI regarding whether or not the
two entities were potentially liable as successors to Beacon II.
The Fund has not, however, identified a material misrepresentation
of fact upon which it or its predecessors relied, which is
essential to establishing the first element of estoppel.

The Fund's request for a declaratory judgment absolving it of any
further obligations to defend Beacon II under the AMICO policy
(whether brought against BRS, BSAI, or the proper party, Beacon
Liquidation, Inc.) is patently inconsistent with the court's prior
holding.

A full text copy of the Memorandum and Order dated May 25, 2016 is
available at https://is.gd/0HOT87 from Leagle.com.

Massachusetts Insurers Insolvency Fund, Plaintiff, is represented
by David D. Dowd, Esq. -- Curley & Curley.

Beacon Roofing Supply, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Benjamin
M. McGovern, Esq. --
benjamin.mcgovern@hklaw.com -- Holland & Knight, LLP & Scott A.
Moore, Esq. -- scott.moore@hklaw.com -- Holland & Knight.

Beacon Sales Acquisition, Inc., Defendant, is represented by
Benjamin M. McGovern, Holland & Knight, LLP & Scott A. Moore,
Holland & Knight.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judgment vs. Honeywell in "Schwartz" Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County,
affirmed the judgment in plaintiffs' favor, reversed the decision
on punitive damages, and remanded the cause for a new trial on
plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages in the case captioned MARK
SCHWARTZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF KATHLEEN
SCHWARTZ, ET AL. Plaintiffs-Appellees, Cross-Appellants, v.
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., ET AL. Defendants-Appellants,
Cross-Appellees, No. 103377, 2016-Ohio-3175 (Ohio App.).

Defendant-appellant Honeywell International, Inc., appeals the
judgment entered upon a jury verdict that found Honeywell was 5
percent responsible for the injuries of decedent Kathleen
Schwartz, who died from peritoneal mesothelioma. The amount of the
judgment against Honeywell was $1,011,639.92. Plaintiffs-appellees
have filed a cross-appeal challenging the trial court's decision
to grant a directed verdict against them on their claim for
punitive damages.

A full-text copy of the Journal Entry and Opinion dated May 26,
2016 is available at https://is.gd/2UGF8O from Leagle.com.

Steven G. Blackmer, Melanie M. Irwin, Willman & Silvaggio, One
Corporate Center, 5500 Corporate Drive, Suite 150, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania 15237, Michael W. Weaver, McDermott, Will & Emery,
L.L.P., 227 West Monroe Street, Chicago, Illinois 60606, Attorneys
for Appellants,

Shawn M. Acton, James L. Ferraro, Anthony Gallucci, John Martin
Murphy, Kelley & Ferraro, L.L.P., 2200 Key Tower, 127 Public
Square, Cleveland, Ohio 44114, Attorneys for Appellee.

CBS Corporation f.k.a. Viacom, c/o Prentice Hall Corporation
Service, 80 State Street, Albany, New York 12207, for Attorneys
for Appellee CBS Corporation f.k.a. Viacom.

Eaton Corporation, 1111 Superior Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44114,
for Attorneys for Appellee Eaton Corporation.

Ford Motor Co., c/o C T Corporation System, 1300 East Ninth
Street, Suite 1010, Cleveland, Ohio 44114, for Attorneys for
Appellee Ford Motor Co.

General Electric Corporation, CT Corporation Systems, 1300 East
Ninth Street, Suite 101, Cleveland, Ohio 44114, for Attorneys for
Appellee General Electric Corporation.

Genuine Parts Company, c/o Grant Norris S A, 2665 West Dublin
Granville Road, Columbus, Ohio 43235, for Attorneys for Appellee
Genuine Parts Company.

Pneumo Abex Corp Successor, Inc., c/o Prentice Hall Corp, 50 West
Broad Street, Suite 1800, Columbus, Ohio 43215, for Attorneys for
Appellee Pneumo Abex Corp. Successor Inc.

Rockwell Automation Company, c/o CT Corporation System, 350 North
Saint Paul Street, Suite 2900, Dallas, Texas 75201, for Attorneys
for Appellee Rockwell Automation Company.

Schneider Electric USA Inc., c/o CSC-Lawyers Incorp Service, 50
West Broad Street, Suite 1800, Columbus, Ohio 43215, for Attorneys
for Appellee Schneider Electric USA Inc.

Union Carbide Corporation, c/o C T Corporation System S A, 1300
East Ninth Street, Suite 1010, Cleveland, Ohio 44114, for
Attorneys for Appellee Union Carbide Corporation.

Westinghouse Electric Corporation AK, c/o CSC Lawyers Incorp
Services, 50 West Broad Street, Suite 1800, Columbus, Ohio 43215,
for Attorneys for Appellee Westinghouse Electric Corporation AK.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: JCSD1 Named Defendant in Asbestos Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Palmer, writing for Sheridan Media, reported that Johnson
County School District No. 1 has been named as a defendant in a
lawsuit relating to asbestos exposure by a company that performed
work in the district 30 years ago.

According to a news release from Dr. Gerry Chase, Superintendent
of Schools for JCSD1, the district is one of 24 defendants named
in a lawsuit filed in Natrona County District Court relating to
asbestos exposure from work done by a Casper Company, Advanced
Heating & Plumbing, Inc.

The company's owners, Lavonne Denise Whitaker Perkins and Ronald
Graham Perkins, claim they were exposed to asbestos while working
in Johnson County between 1984 and 1986, resulting in harm to Mrs.
Perkins.

The superintendent said the district denies the claims and will
"vigorously defend the suit."

Dr. Chase was not available for further comment, but Sheridan
Media will continue to follow this developing story.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NZ Bans Imports of Asbestos-Containing Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Edmunds, writing for Business Day, reported that imports of
products containing asbestos will no longer be allowed, the
environment minister says.

The importation of raw asbestos is already banned.

Minister Nick Smith said exposure to asbestos posed a risk of
respiratory disease and was the single biggest cause of work-
related fatalities, responsible for the deaths of 170 people a
year.

An inventory released by the Ministry for the Environment in 2014
shows asbestos is no longer imported for use in buildings or where
members of the public are likely to be exposed to it. But it is
still imported for a limited number of specialist products, such
as gaskets, seals and brake linings.

"The Government recognises there are a few specialised uses for
which there is no practical alternative. For that reason, there is
scope to be granted a permit to import -- but only in very select
circumstances," Smith said.

"A permit will only be issued if there is genuinely no alternative
product available, or if the alternative would be
disproportionately expensive. In addition, an importer would have
to be able to show that any risk of asbestos exposure can be
safely managed.

"I expect the only people or organisations likely to need to
import these kinds of products will be very limited and associated
with older machinery, and a small number of vintage plane or ship
restorers. The Environmental Protection Authority will consider
applications for permits case-by-case."

Mike Bradshaw, of the Bay of Islands Vintage Railway Trust, said
there were relatively few pieces of equipment left that contained
asbestos. He said it was used on all railway machinery built until
the 1920s but was phased out after that.

His organisation had replaced all existing asbestos in its
machinery in the 1980s.

Graeme Swan, MTA's repair sector specialist, said the ban was
unlikely to be a problem for the New Zealand automotive sector,
either. He said most major manufacturers had stopped using
asbestos.

"MTA would support the government in this decision, for the health
benefits it would provide."

The ban will not affect asbestos in existing buildings or
products. The existing stock of products containing asbestos is
managed through other legislation -- primarily the Health and
Safety at Work Act regulations -- and such products are phased out
and safely disposed of as they reach the end of their useful life.

"The decision to ban asbestos-containing products was made this
month, and the necessary Orders in Council are currently being
drafted. The prohibition will take effect on October 1," Smith
said.

"This ban is part of the Government's programme of reducing
exposure to harmful products. It will bring New Zealand into line
with overseas jurisdictions such as Australia, and will save
lives."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Judge Recommends Remand of Exposure Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a Delaware magistrate judge
has recommended that an asbestos exposure suit be remanded to
state court, concluding that there was no causal connection
between "the claims and the conduct performed under color of a
federal office."

In a June 10 report and recommendation, Magistrate Judge Sherry R.
Fallon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
found that the evidence indicated that the U.S. Navy did not
approve any asbestos-containing product manufactured by the
removing defendant.

The plaintiffs asserted the claims on behalf of Donnie Lacey
Wines, alleging that he developed mesothelioma.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Maine High Court Affirms Summary Judgment Awards
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that Maine's highest court has
affirmed summary judgment awards entered in favor of four asbestos
defendants, opining that the evidence regarding causation in the
case "does not rise above speculation."

In the June 10 opinion, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court further
held that a fact-finder would not be able to reasonably conclude
that the decedent inhaled asbestos fibers from the defendants'
products.

The plaintiffs asserted the claims on behalf of Edward Grant,
contending that his employment for Bath Iron Works required him to
work with asbestos-containing products used while constructing and
renovating ships.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: KiwiRail's Asbestos Headache Continues in Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
RNZ.com reported that the Rail and Maritime Transport Union wants
the authority to determine whether Chinese workers hired to do the
job were given New Zealand pay and conditions.

It also wants any future remedial work to be done by New Zealand
workers, and it said KiwiRail breached its employment contract in
allowing the work to be done by Chinese workers under warranty.

KiwiRail denies this and is saying little else because the hearing
is imminent.

The trouble began when KiwiRail bought 48 locomotives from China.

Forty of them were found to have asbestos sprayed on metal
sheeting in the engine room and were removed from service in
February 2014.

After the discovery, the trains were sidelined and progressively
restored to service under varing conditions, depending on how
clean they were.

The union always felt that blocking all the engines would stop
KiwiRail from running properly.

The union said at any one time, 15 to 20 Chinese workers were
employed in New Zealand fixing the trains.

After the deal went sour, KiwiRail reached an out-of-court
settlement with the Chinese manufacturers, but the terms are
confidential.

Despite that, KiwiRail said the saga cost it $12 million in both
lost revenue and the cost of refurbishment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Dumped Outside Kingsgrove Food Biz
------------------------------------------------------------
Jackson Vernon, writing for ABC News, reported that investigations
are underway after a large pile of asbestos material was dumped
outside a food service business in Sydney's inner-south.

Staff arrived at work yesterday to find the waste at the front of
the business on The Crescent in Kingsgrove.

A spokesman for the Environment Protection Authority said up to
three trailer loads of waste had been dumped in the industrial
area.

"The business owner was reviewing video footage on Sunday night
and observed the dumped waste," he said.

"The RID (Regional Illegal Dumping) Squad are also on site to
investigate the dump and are currently reviewing security footage
in the area to try and ascertain any useful evidence."

Darly Atkins from the RID urged anyone who might have seen a car
in the area on Sunday night to come forward.

"We are following several leads. There are some local operators
who we'll be looking into the jobs that have been done recently
and there are some other leads that we are pursuing," he said.

"The material will be removed this afternoon and our investigators
will go down the path of trying to identify the material and
hopefully identify the perpetrator, the person who placed it
there."

Employee concerned about health impacts

Tosh Claydon works at the business, which supplies food products
and packaging, and said employees wearing face masks covered up
the material this morning.

"It's terrible, shocking, unbelievable, [a] low-life, some low-
life people [are responsible]," he said.

"The fibres start flying through the air, you don't know where
it's going to go."

He said he was worried about the impact it would have on the
business and on people's health.

"We're a food service company so it's a very delicate operation,"
he said.

"Like [with] fibres flying through the air, you can never tell
what's going to happen.

"I've had throat cancer before but I've recovered OK but cancer is
a terrible thing, it's shocking."

The Georges River Council said in a statement it would update the
community as more information came available.

"Georges River Council is currently investigating the asbestos
that was dumped over the long weekend at The Crescent,
Kingsgrove," a statement said.

"If you see anyone engaging in the illegal dumping of materials,
please alert council on 9330 6400 or the Regional Illegal Dumping
squad."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Woman's Death Caused by Washing Overalls
---------------------------------------------------------
Alex Thorp, writing for Grimsby Telegraph, reported that a
pensioner who used to wash her husband's asbestos-covered overalls
died as the result of an industrial disease, an inquest heard.

Margaret Maggs died aged 66 at her home on Knightsbridge, New
Waltham.

An inquest at Cleethorpes Town Hall heard how her husband Colin
Maggs, who worked as engineer in the trawler industry, would often
come home with asbestos dust in his hair and on his overalls.

After suspicions that Mrs Maggs' death may have been caused as a
result of exposure to asbestos, her doctor recommended a file be
prepared for the coroner.

In 2007 she had been diagnosed with peritoneal mesothelioma -- a
form of cancer which can be triggered by exposure to asbestos.

A statement read to the court written by Mrs Maggs' in 2008, said
her husband's work clothes used to be "filthy" with dust.

"From 1967 to 1970, I was still living at home but seeing Colin
nearly every day. He would come for lunch at my parent's home and
he was still in his overalls," it said.

"He would keep them on, during which time we would spend about an
hour together.

"He did not have a washing machine in his bungalow so I took his
overalls and some of the other clothes back to my parents' home to
wash them."

It added: "He only washed his overalls once every couple of weeks
and they were absolutely filthy by that stage.

"I remember laying them on the floor and trying to brush them with
a yard brush to try and get some of the dirt off before washing
them."

Mrs Maggs also explained how she used to travel in the same car as
her husband while he was wearing his overalls.

The couple married in November 1970. Her husband worked as an
electrician at Northern Trawlers Ltd at that time.

Prior to this he worked as an engineer at Ross Group, where he
carried out repair work on trawlers and was often exposed to
asbestos dust.

Coroner Paul Kelly, pictured, said: "At various times between 1961
and 1974, Mrs Maggs was exposed to asbestos while washing Mr
Maggs' work clothes.

"He was an electrician mainly working in the trawler industry and
was exposed to asbestos as part of his normal duties.

"This is secondary asbestos exposure but nonetheless it is
appropriate to report that Mrs Maggs died of an industrial
disease."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: More Asbestos Dumped in Chilliwack River Valley
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Feinberg, writing for Chilliwack Progress, reported that
someone went way out of their way to illegally dump more than a
dozen bags of asbestos-laden materials in the Chilliwack River
Valley -- again.

It looks like it's becoming a problem.

A veteran conservation officer told The Progress, he had not
personally seen other asbestos dumping cases before in the CRV.

It's the fourth time in six months.

"In my 20 year career, I can't remember other calls like this,"
said Conservation Officer Don Stahl.

They found 14 bags of what looks like construction waste, and some
was confirmed to contain asbestos.

It was a mix of extra-large, black commercial garbage bags, along
with yellow ones denoting they contain some sort of chemical or
hazardous waste.

The dump site location, off a forest services road, near the Ford
Mountain Correctional Centre, made it suspicious.

"They went really out of their way not to be seen," the officer
said. "And in the last seven months we've had quite an alarming
quantity of these calls."

Four of these dump incidents have so far cost the province, and
taxpayers just under $12,000 for proper disposal.

He called out an emergency response officer from Surrey to
investigate and identify the dumped material.

There could be several reasons why it is happening.

"It may be, as we were led to understand, that certain landfills
are not accepting these materials anymore. Number two is the cost,
it's not as cheap as dumping household garbage for example. And
three, is laziness," he said.

They were notified in late May, the bags spotted by local citizens
who were scouting other dump sites and came upon the mess.

"It could have been someone renovating a home who hired a company
that wasn't reputable, or a fly-by-night operation," said the CO.

Instead of paying the disposal fees, and doing it properly, they
just unload it deep in the back country, and pocket the
difference.

But the criminals are taking a big risk. Those willing to discard
illegal and hazardous cancer-causing materials like asbestos in
the pristine back country should be forewarned, it's not just a
little fine if they get caught. They could lose their vehicles and
more, added Stahl.

It's also hard to pinpoint how long the bags had been there, but
the cleanup was conducted Sunday by a crew contracted to dispose
of it properly. They had to gather, re-bag, label and haul away
the deteriorating mess of what looked like construction demolition
debris, gyp-rock, tiles and insulation.

Photos were taken at the dump site and sent to the COs in late
May, said Chris Gadsden, member of the Fraser Valley Illegal
Dumping Alliance. They are actively pushing for more enforcement
in the area, or something to quell the practice of deleterious
dumping.

'"We have now reached the point something has to be done to change
things around as this has gone on for way too long," said Gadsden.

"In 2002 we realized something had to be done then, but it has
been cleanups and trying to educate users of the Chilliwack River
Valley ever since, but it has not improved very much."

As the population and number of visitors continues to grow, it
gets worse.

"Many people say close these areas off, and it may help that area,
but they just go elsewhere to dump garbage and leave a messy camp
after a few days' stay.

"Our province is just too big to block everything off."

City of Chilliwack has been taking steps to make the Bailey
Landfill able to accept asbestos.

The CO has some advice for the public who want to protect the
environment from illegal dumping. If they spot a suspicious
vehicle, say with 10 to 20 bags of garbage in the back of a pickup
heading up the valley, try to take a photo of the bags. Record the
licence plate number and get a detailed description of the
vehicle, if possible, the CO said, and call it in to the RAPP
line.

A plate number is not enough since criminals often slap a stolen
plate onto their vehicle to commit crimes. The COs need the
specific make, and model of the suspect vehicle, and any
distinguishing elements like roof racks.

"But if we do catch someone in the act of polluting, it's not just
a fine. We would advocate seizing the vehicle through civil
forfeiture, especially in a case like this where it's hazardous
materials, known to cause cancer," said Stahl.

At this point they have no suspects, and no leads.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Irish Bldg Sites Sent Asbestos-filled Materials
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Cullen, writing for The Irish Times, reported that 20
building sites in Co Wicklow and Dublin were supplied with
material contaminated with a cancer-causing mineral from a local
quarry.

The sites that received asbestos-containing material from the Co
Wicklow quarry include a school under construction in Greystones
and a variety of other building projects in the two counties.
The Irish Times revealed that Ballinclare quarry in south Wicklow
has been closed, after testing uncovered the presence of naturally
occurring asbestos in the stone it produces.

The problem arose when Kilsaran Group, which owns the quarry,
blasted open a new seam of rock in one corner of the site.
Further inquiries have established that 20 sites in the two
counties are affected by the dissemination of the contaminated
building material from the quarry.

Eleven of these are to be remediated through the removal of
contaminated material from nine sites in Co Wicklow and two in Co
Dublin.

Some 25,000 tons of material will be returned to the quarry and
covered with concrete and soil in order to render it safe,
according to Wicklow County Council.

Building sites sealed off over asbestos contamination fears
What do I do if ceilings contain asbestos?

CIE coach-builder exposed to asbestos from engines, inquest told
At the remaining sites, the suspect material has been covered with
concrete and there is no immediate danger to the public.

The approach to these sites will be considered in a second phase
of the remediation process. The council said it plans to step up
the remediation of affected sites.

At present, work is ongoing at one of the affected sites at
Ashford and small amounts of material have been removed from two
sites in Co Dublin.

A methodology for dealing with three further sites in Wicklow had
also been agreed, a spokesman said.

In total, nine sites in Wicklow and two in Dublin have been sealed
off and will be subject to remediation, the council said.

Danger

The remaining sites, where the contaminated material has been
covered by concrete, do not pose an immediate danger to health.

A council spokesman described the emergence of the naturally
occurring asbestos as "a freakish thing" and insisted Kilsaran had
done everything it could to deal with the problem after it
emerged.

CCTV camera footage has been used to establish the movement of
trucks used to transport material from the quarry and so identify
where contaminated material might be found.

The blast occurred on April 18th, but the problem with the
material was not identified until May 13th, according to the
Health and Safety Authority (HSA).

The asbestos was first spotted visually and its presence in the
quarry was confirmed by laboratory tests ordered by Kilsaran.
A spokesman for the HSA said following the action taken, the risk
posed by the hazardous material was "zero".

"We have satisfied ourselves there is no risk to the public or to
workers."

Neither was there any evidence to suggest a problem with any
material mined from the quarry before the new seam was opened by
blasting last April.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Fully Fund Share of Pittsburgh Corning Trust
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PPG (NYSE:PPG) announced that the company has fully funded its
portion of the Pittsburgh Corning Asbestos Trust that was
established by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District
of Pennsylvania in May 2016.

PPG fulfilled initial funding requirements June 9, based on
agreed-upon terms of the trust settlement. The obligations include
cash funding of approximately $500 million (pretax) and the
transfer of about 2.78 million shares of PPG common stock, which
were hedged at approximately $22 per share (incremental cash
payment of about $60 million). These shares were already included
in the company's outstanding diluted share count. Lastly, PPG
relinquished any claim to its equity interest in Pittsburgh
Corning and conveyed to the Trust its ownership interest in
Pittsburgh Corning's European subsidiary.

In addition to the initial funding obligation, the company
exercised an option to prepay all future cash obligations,
totaling a net of approximately $250 million (pretax), including a
5.5 percent prepayment discount.

All payments were applied against a previously established PPG
reserve for the total asbestos-trust obligation. The company
utilized cash on hand for the payments, and this funding will have
no impact on PPG's previously stated cash-deployment targets.

These actions complete PPG's funding obligations to the Pittsburgh
Corning Asbestos Trust, and PPG has no ongoing responsibility for
the Trust's operation or management.

PPG: WE PROTECT AND BEAUTIFY THE WORLD(TM)

At PPG (NYSE:PPG), we work every day to develop and deliver the
paints, coatings and materials that our customers have trusted for
more than 130 years. Through dedication and creativity, we solve
our customers' biggest challenges, collaborating closely to find
the right path forward. With headquarters in Pittsburgh, we
operate and innovate in more than 70 countries and reported net
sales of $15.3 billion in 2015. We serve customers in
construction, consumer products, industrial and transportation
markets and aftermarkets. To learn more, visit www.ppg.com.

Contacts

PPG Media Contact:
Mark Silvey, +1-412-434-3046
Corporate Communications
silvey@ppg.com

or

PPG Investor Contact:
Scott Minder, +1-412-434-3466
Investor Relations
sminder@ppg.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Ban in US Inches Closer with New Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
Beth Swantek, writing for Asbestos.com, reported that federal
lawmakers passed one of the most important environmental bills
that will overhaul how the U.S. government regulates toxic
chemicals, and it could bring the nation closer to banning
asbestos.

The U.S. Senate passed the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for
the 21st Century Act, which amends the Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA) of 1979. The bill will give the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) greater power to better review chemicals
for safety and restrict their use.

One of the reasons asbestos is not banned in the U.S. is because
the current law requires the EPA to find the "least burdensome"
way for the industry to control asbestos -- an unsurmountable task
for the regulatory agency given its current restrictions. The
latest proposal eliminates that provision.

Move Now, Awareness Group Says

Linda Reinstein, president and co-founder of the Asbestos Disease
Awareness Organization (ADAO), issued a press release stating the
proposed legislation will give the EPA "clear authority to ban
asbestos, a known human carcinogen for which there is no safe
level of exposure."

However, Reinstein warns that if the bill is signed into law, it
may still take seven years for the EPA to assess, regulate and ban
the deadly mineral.

"An estimated 100,000 Americans will lose their lives to asbestos-
related diseases during that 7-year timeline and countless more
could be needlessly exposed to asbestos," she said.

Asbestos exposure is the leading cause of mesothelioma, an
aggressive cancer diagnosed in an estimated 3,000 people in the
U.S. annually. Breathing the toxic mineral also causes lung cancer
and other respiratory illnesses.

The ADAO calls for quick action on the asbestos crisis.

"The EPA must limit delay by including asbestos in the list of the
first chemicals it evaluates and quickly exercising its authority
under this legislation to ban asbestos," Reinstein said. "Until a
complete ban is in place, asbestos will be found in construction
materials, automobile parts, and even children's toys."

Bill Increases EPA Leverage

The bill is named after the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg, a public-
health advocate who banned smoking on all domestic airline flights
in 1989.

Also known as S.697, the bill allows the EPA to:

   -- Evaluate new and existing chemicals using a new risk-based
safety standard that includes vulnerable populations such as
children and pregnant women.

   -- Impose clear and enforceable deadlines on chemical
manufacturers.

   -- Impose more rigorous public disclosure and transparency on
chemical manufacturers.

   -- Receive additional funding to carry out its new
responsibilities.

The U.S. House of Representatives approved the bill in 2015, and
lawmakers expect President Barack Obama will sign the legislation.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in May also committed to
bring Canada closer to banning asbestos.

Bipartisan Legislation Concerns Some Democrats

While the White House and top Democrats support the bill, other
high-ranking Democrats feel the bipartisan text may limit states
that already act more progressively against toxic substances.

California, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Vermont already regulate
chemicals aggressively.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., House Democratic
Whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland and U.S. Rep. Frank Pallone of New
Jersey, the senior Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce
Committee, all fought for the bill to include language enabling
states to maintain their current chemical legislation if it's more
stringent than the new federal guidelines.

The legislation now includes a proposal grandfathering state laws
in place before April 22 to trump federal law. Meanwhile,
development of new state regulations would be allowed in tandem
with development of federal rules.

States with limited chemical regulation would follow the new
federal standard.

Pelosi, Hoyer and Pallone issued a statement saying the measure
"is not the bill Democrats would have written on our own, but it
is a long overdue step forward to protect families and communities
from toxic substances."

The White House issued a similar sentiment: "The bill is a clear
improvement over the current TSCA and represents a historic
advancement for both chemical safety and environmental law."

Environmental Defense Fund Lauds Legislation

On the day the Senate approved the bill, Environmental Defense
Fund lead senior scientist Richard Denison said "today's vote is a
historic victory for public health."

While Denison admits the legislation misses the mark in some ways,
he says "it fixes the biggest problems with our current law by
requiring safety reviews for chemicals in use today, mandating
greater scrutiny of new chemicals before they can be sold, and
removing barriers that prevented the EPA from banning asbestos and
other harmful chemicals."

For the ADAO, the legislation opens the way for immediate action.

"We can't afford to wait another year, another month, another
day," Reinstein said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos in Gym Unlikely a Health Risk
-------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Brown, writing for Otago Daily Times, reported that the
level of asbestos exposure gymnasts suffered at Dunedin Gymnastics
Academy is highly unlikely to present a health risk, Public Health
South medical officer of health Dr Keith Reid says.

Asbestos was discovered on the rafters and windowsills of the
academy's Willis St gym, causing it to be closed.

Air tests were negative for the fibres, but some matting returned
a positive result.

Despite the discovery it was unlikely to cause long-term health
effects, Dr Reid said.

One of the biggest risk factors to those exposed to asbestos was
smoking and it seemed unlikely that would be an issue for the
athletes, he said.

"Young gymnasts have much less likelihood than the general
population of smoking."

While no safe level of asbestos exposure had ever been established
medically, it seemed unlikely the exposure would result in
elevated risks of long-term health effects.

"In terms of the likely levels of exposure, there's not any
particular health effects that I could point to and say 'this is
going to happen'," Dr Reid said.

There was a "very, very small increased risk" of cancer.

"One in a million," he said of the elevated chances of contracting
the disease.

"If people were exposed to asbestos all day every day.

"It's extremely unlikely you will have any long-term health
effects from training or competing in the DGA gym.

"There's no real risk of short-term effects at the levels they had
likely been exposed to in this building."

Despite the minimal risk, the academy had made the right choice by
abandoning the gym and discarding any potentially contaminated
equipment.

"It's been a huge disruption, but the thought is that's the only
way you can protect the gymnasts," he said.

He praised the response from the academy.

Dunedin Gymnastics Academy president Louise Taylor said parents
were taking news of the contamination in their stride.

"People have been really supportive and positive and appreciate
the fast response," she said.

"The advice is that the health risk is very low. The air tests,
which took place over a four-hour period, came back negative so it
is not something in the air normally."

Hard-surfaced equipment at the facility had been cleaned and
equipment with permeable surfaces had been scrapped at a cost of
about $120,000.

WorkSafe was advised and was "very happy with the steps we have
taken", she said.

"All cleaning and removal of equipment has been carried out on the
advice and supervision of Southern Insulation."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: HRL Wins Contamination Contract in NZ
------------------------------------------------------
Proactive Investors reported that HRL Holdings Ltd (ASX:HRL) has
won a 3-year contract to provide asbestos consultancy services to
New Zealand's Southern District Health Board (SDHB).

This fits neatly with HRL's acquisition of the business assets of
RJL & Associates Ltd, located in North Island, New Zealand, for
NZ$0.5 million which provides environmental services including the
management of asbestos and hazardous materials.

Government-funded SDHB has a turnover of NZ$800 million per annum
and is responsible for publicly funded health and hospital
services in the Southland and Otago regions of New Zealand.

HRL, which was initially a geothermal company, later restructured
its operations to focus on environmental technical services,
making a string of acquisitions in the field.

The aim of the acquisition was to expand HRL's business in
property contamination testing and work place drug testing in New
Zealand.

For the nine months to March 2016 end, gross receipts for HRL were
$6.8 million and it was cash flow positive for the nine months.

The new direction of management of asbestos and hazardous
materials and workplace drug testing are large growth areas.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Changes to WCA Breath of Fresh Air for Victims
---------------------------------------------------------------
PSNews.com.au reported that changes to the Workers Compensation
Act 1951 that will allow for streamlined access to compensation
for workers suffering from imminently fatal asbestos-related
diseases have passed the Legislative Assembly.

Minister for Workplace Safety, Mick Gentleman said the amendments
would create a fairer compensation system.

"The amendments to the workers' compensation legislation will
allow eligible workers to make a claim with the Default Insurance
Fund without first having to exhaust all other avenues for
compensation," Mr Gentleman said.

"This legislation helps expedite the awful process which Bernie
Banton and others experienced attempting to gain compensation for
employment-related asbestos diseases."

Changes to speed up compensation

He said claimants would be able to achieve finality from their end
before they passed away.

Mr Gentleman said workers would benefit from earlier access to
essential services such as medical treatment, rehabilitation
expenses and weekly compensation.

He said they would also be eligible for a lump-sum statutory
compensation payment of $140,505 over and above other
entitlements, the aim of which was to provide some financial peace
of mind for their family.

"In addition to streamlining and offering a fairer process to
sufferers, these amendments will also ensure the Territory's
position on the administration of asbestos-related claims is
consistent with the majority of other Australian States and
Territories," Mr Gentleman said.

The legislative changes will come into effect on 1 July 2017.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Retired Accountant Dies of Asbestos Disease
------------------------------------------------------------
Cornish Guardian reported that a retired Lostwithiel accountant
died from industrial disease linked to exposure to asbestos, an
inquest in Truro heard.

Douglas Swire, 85, died at Royal Cornwall Hospital on September 20
last year following a period of poor health, which included
respiratory problems.

In the early 1960s, Mr Swire worked as an accountant for Mullard
Colour Tubes, a glass manufacturing firm in Burnley, Lancashire,
where he was born.

The firm was based on a site which, in 2004, was the subject of a
report into potential contamination, including asbestos.

The inquest heard that although Mr Swire worked in an office and
not in the main factory, it is "certain" that he came into contact
with the harmful mineral.

Read: Family of Newquay man who died from asbestos exposure want
answers into his death

Stephen Covell, assistant coroner for Cornwall, said there is
evidence that asbestos was present in the factory in the form of
insulation wrapped around furnace ducts or pipes.

Mr Covell said: "I find that there is evidence to persuade me that
certainly during that time, Douglas would have been exposed to
asbestos fibre.

"In the 1960s, the dangers of asbestos were not known."

Mr Covell also said that it was possible, although not certain,
that Mr Swire came into contact with asbestos in subsequent
employment in Durham, and later in Bodmin. Mr Swire moved to
Cornwall in the early 1990s.

Mr Swire's daughter, Susan, also told the inquest that her father
enjoyed DIY, which included once taking a storage heater apart,
and often coming across old sheds and garages.

However Mr Covell said he was "not convinced" that this possible
exposure caused Mr Swire's disease.

A post-mortem examination, carried out by pathologist Dr Juliane
Stolte, found that Mr Swire died of mesothelioma, a cancer of
tissue in the lungs which is especially associated with exposure
to asbestos.

In August last year, a CT scan identified irregularities in Mr
Swire's right lung.

He subsequently developed chest pain and breathlessness, and after
a period in hospital, died on September 20 after suffering a
cardiac arrest.

Concluding the inquest, Mr Covell said: "In order for me to reach
a conclusion of industrial disease, I have to be persuaded that
Douglas died of a disease caused by his work.

"I don't have to come to the conclusion as to which period of
employment caused the disease, but I do have to be satisfied that
exposure at work caused it, and not exposure outside of work.

"The evidence of [pathologist] Dr Stolte also determines that
scarring of Mr Swire's lungs was longstanding, and the employment
at Mullards in the 1960s was longstanding."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Illegal Imports from China Provokes Anger
----------------------------------------------------------
Angelique Donnellan, writing for ABC News, reported that a work
safety authority will not reveal how many portable structures are
under watch across South Australia due to imported asbestos.

It was revealed that SA-based company Australian Portable Camps
was being investigated over imports from China which illegally
contained the deadly substance.

Asbestos imports have been banned for more than a decade.

It remains unclear when the material was imported, how many of the
company's portable structures might be affected and where they are
located across the state.

Australian Portable Camps said most of the tainted cement board
had not been used for production and was now quarantined from use.

It said it was working with government agency SafeWork SA to get
rid of the material.

It was revealed early this year that Adelaide contractor Robin
Johnson Engineering unknowingly imported from China building
products containing asbestos.

The company said the materials had been certified as asbestos-free
at the time of purchase and were used in flooring of two
electrical substations on the Seaford rail line in Adelaide's
southern suburbs.

In March, the ABC asked Australian Border Force for a list of
products sent to Australia by a Chinese company linked to the
Seaford line contamination.

The ABC is yet to receive the manifest but it has become clear
Australian Portable Camps received products from the same
manufacturer.

Senator Nick Xenophon is on a federal parliamentary committee
looking into non-conforming building products, and said the latest
case highlighted a communications breakdown between authorities.

"The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing and
Border Force needs to explain to Australians why they haven't been
communicating this information immediately to state authorities,
to the companies involved so [that] public safety is not at risk,"
he said.

"With something as important as this a substance, that can kill
people with even minimal exposure, I don't think [Australian
Border Force] get it."

Australian Border Force said it was unable to comment because of
an ongoing investigation, but said it took seriously concerns
about importation of asbestos-contaminated products.

'It just crushes the breath out of you'

Members of the Asbestos Victims Association, who meet every month
in Adelaide, say the importation issue has provoked anger.

It upsets Lesley Shears, who lost her husband to an asbestos-
related disease.

"The thought [upsets me] that the imports are still coming in
because China doesn't count chrysotile as being asbestos," she
said.

She said there had been few prosecutions despite powers existing.

Maxine Williams also lost her husband and said the latest
controversy saddened her.

"Something that is being allowed into the country by government
areas; it just should not be happening but it is happening and
it's sad," she said.

Mesothelioma sufferer Steve Kirwan feared a new generation of
victims might emerge from the imports problem.

He was exposed to asbestos when he was an apprentice fitter in
England in the 1970s but was only diagnosed last year.

"It should be banned, obviously, it's got to be banned all over
the world," he said.

"The tumour ... eventually crushes your lung and it's malignant so
it spreads to your other one, so it just crushes the breath out of
you," he said.

Mr Kirwan is getting an experimental treatment but said he faced
significant out-of-pocket expenses because it was for a drug which
was not listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme for his
condition.

"It's going to cost me $4,500 every three weeks," he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Man To Be Arraigned on Removal Charges
------------------------------------------------------------
WandTV.com reported that a Sherman man is due in court on Tuesday
to be arraigned on charges related to asbestos removal at the
Pillsbury Mills Plant is Springfield.

The U.S. Attorney's Office, Central District of Illinois says
Joseph Chernis, IV, 33, will be arraigned on charges related to
alleged violations of the Clean Air Act and for allegedly making
false statements related to the removal of asbestos at the
Pillsbury Mills Plant.

According to a release from the U.S. Attorney's Office, the
indictment alleges that Chernis hired an untrained individual to
illegally remove dry asbestos pipe insulation from multiple
buildings at the plant, resulting in the Dryer building to be
demolished with more than 1,000 linear feet of asbestos remaining
inside the structure.  Chernis also faces two charges of making
false statements, with the alleged statements being made during a
hearing in court in October 1, 2015 regarding work being performed
at the plant.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Industry Kept Secret That Products Were Deadly
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Formuzis, writing for EcoWatch, reported that the asbestos
industry was well aware that asbestos was deadly. Yet, the
companies that mined asbestos and those that exposed workers,
military personnel and consumers to it and their insurers kept
what they knew secret for decades -- endangering hundreds of
thousands of Americans, many of whom perished as a result.

Even in recent years, decades after the dangers of asbestos became
widely known, some companies continue trying to cover up -- even
destroy -- evidence of their products' devastation to workers,
their families and many others who have been sickened and died
from asbestos diseases.

Today, some of the most well-known companies in the country are
lobbying Congress to pass legislation that would tip the scales of
justice heavily in their favor when facing lawsuits from people
who are sick and dying.

Modern knowledge of asbestos' dangers is well over a century old.
In 1900, a London doctor discovered asbestos fibers in the lungs
of a textile factory worker who died at the age of 33 from severe
pulmonary fibrosis, leading the physician to believe asbestos was
the cause of death. By 1918, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
noticed a growing number of unusual deaths for those who worked
with asbestos. By the early 1930s a name was given to the disease,
asbestosis, for those who died after being exposed to asbestos on
the job.

While banned in more than 50 other countries, asbestos remains
legal and used in the U.S. and the diseases it causes kill up to
15,000 Americans each year.

Industry was Aware of the Asbestos Danger

In 1948, an internal memo from an insulation industry scientist
warned that asbestos-based insulation caused asbestosis.

"I realize that our findings regarding Kaylo (brand of insulation)
are less favorable than anticipated. However, since Kaylo is
capable of producing asbestosis, it is better to discover it now
in animals rather than later in industrial workers." -- Dr. Arthur
J. Vorwald, director, Trudeau Foundation, Nov. 16, 1948

Hundreds of thousands of lives could have been saved and a
national tragedy averted if the insulation industry responded
appropriately to the science and removed asbestos from its
products. It did not. Instead, it continued to manufacture one of
the most widely used asbestos products without informing workers
or the public.

A 1949 internal Exxon memo titled "Company Confidential" lists
"Cancer of Lungs" as a disease likely caused by asbestos.

In 1958, an inter-office memo from the National Gypsum Co., which
mined and used asbestos, stamped "Personal & Confidential" reads:
"Just as certain as death and taxes . . . if you inhale asbestos
dust you get asbestosis." (M.C.M Pollard, National Gypsum Co.
Sept. 22, 1958.)

Hiding the Danger from Workers and the Public

Despite a litany of corporate memos acknowledging the medical
literature on the affects of asbestos, most companies profiting
from its use continued to expose workers and the public to it for
decades.

One of the most notorious industry memos, from 1966, shows just
how callous executives were toward factory workers who were being
exposed to asbestos.

The director of purchases for the Bendix Corporation (now
Honeywell) wrote in a memo to an official with the Canadian Johns
Manville Co.:

"My answer to the problem is: if you have enjoyed a good life
while working with asbestos products why not die from it." -- E.A.
Martin, Bendix Corporation, Sept. 12, 1966

Today, Honeywell is one of the biggest corporate backers of
legislation, the so-called FACT Act, passed by the House and
awaiting action in the Senate that would delay and deny
compensation to those who have been sickened from asbestos
disease. Between 2010 and 2015, the company contributed nearly
$250,000 to a small number of House Republicans who were
instrumental in moving the bill through Congress.

An Aug. 7, 1978 memo by an official at Babcock and Wilcox, a
company that designs, engineers and manufactures boilers and other
power generation equipment, acknowledged the company was aware it
was violating the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) standards set to limit worker exposure to asbestos fibers.
The company decided to investigate the problem but not to warn
workers who were being exposed. Instead, the company official
wrote:

"The investigation is going to be handled as discreetly as
possible. It is a concern of the meeting attendees that a labor
violation such as a walkout or an OSHA citation would be
forthcoming if the hourly labor force was aware of the apparent
danger of asbestos exposure. . . . As the situation stands right
now no one in the meeting wants the warning signs posted at this
time." -- T.L. Wharton, Babcock & Wilcox, Aug. 7, 1978

While the death toll from asbestos-triggered diseases continued to
mount, the industry remained silent on what it knew to be the
truth about the risk to workers. A 1971 memo from a Ford Motor Co.
executive, unearthed by the Center for Public Integrity, argued
that $1.25 per car was too much to spend on safer alternatives to
asbestos brakes, concluding the "cost penalty" of switching to
metal or carbon brakes "is severe."

Another asbestos industry giant, Union Carbide, went on the
offensive when OSHA issued its first asbestos regulations for
worker safety in 1972. That same year, the company issued a
memorandum to sales executives who might get angry calls from
customers concerned about the new regulations.

"If the customer is persistent and threatens to eliminate asbestos
-- a certain amount of aggressiveness may be effective. Words and
catch phrases such as "premature," "irrational" or "avoiding the
inevitable" will sometimes turn the table.

"The main objective is to keep the customer on the defensive, make
him justify his position. . . . Change the mood before discussing
anything pertinent about the new regulations. Alternating between
an aggressive and submissive attitude is confusing and allows you
to bide your time. . . . Don't cover too much ground in one
confrontation. Even rabies shots are spaced at moderate
intervals." -- B.L. Ingalis, Union Carbide June 22, 1972

Public Relations and Science for Sale

A speech from an asbestos industry expert dated June 7, 1973,
describes a plan to sway the U.S. press, which had been
increasingly reporting on the health impacts of asbestos exposure.

"The 'good' that asbestos does in protecting lives and property is
of no concern to the press. . . .

"The press relations battle will therefore be won, not when the
media starts to print positive or balanced articles about
asbestos, but when the press ceases to print anything about
asbestos at all.

"And now, having heard the bad side of the public relations
problems, it's time for some good news. And the the good news is
that despite all the negative articles on asbestos-health that
have appeared . . . very few people have been paying attention."

Matthew M. Swetonic, executive secretary, Asbestos Information
Association/North American, June 7, 1973

In the early 1980s, as the U.S. Gypsum Company was being sued by
public school districts seeking compensation for the removal of
the company's asbestos products, it hired the international public
relations firm, Hill and Knowlton to help. The firm designed a
comprehensive communications strategy to dissuade other lawsuits
and shift the public's perception about asbestos and the asbestos
industry. In its plan, Hill and Knowlton called for the creation
of a "third-party panel of independent experts to be available for
testimony, commentary and technical support in appropriate markets
and forums."

By 1984 a number of asbestos companies adopted another
recommendation by Hill and Knowlton and formed the front group,
the Safe Buildings Alliance (SBA), that allowed the industry to
pool resources to push back against its critics in a number of
venues, including the media. As Hill and Knowlton described in its
recommendations, the SBA "could also act to deflect attention away
from affected companies" and "take the heat from activist industry
critics."

In 2001, the Ford Motor Company, concerned about mounting lawsuits
brought by former auto workers who blamed their mesothelioma on
the asbestos-laced brakes the company once made, decided to try
and shift the science in its favor in order to sow doubt into the
prevailing consensus that auto mechanics are at greater risk of
becoming sick with mesothelioma -- a disease that the only known
cause is from exposure to asbestos.

The company hired a well-known industry consultant, Dennis
Paustenbach and his then-firm Exponent and another, Cardno
ChemRisk that Paustenbach started in the mid 1980's, to conduct a
series of studies, articles for publication as well as expert
testimony. Of course, Paustenbach's work on behalf of Ford found
that those who worked with or around brake pads were not at
greater risk of being diagnosed with mesothelioma. All told, Ford
spent more than $40 million between the two consulting firms.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Adelaide Co. Under Probe for Asbestos Imports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Angelique Donnellan, writing for ABC, reported that an Adelaide
company is being investigated for importing building products from
China that illegally contain asbestos, six months after it was
revealed asbestos was also detected in electrical substations on
the Seaford rail line.

Australian Portable Camps, which makes structures for the mining
and construction sectors, found its cement fibre board imported
from China contained white asbestos.

The company said most of the contaminated board had not been used,
and since it became aware of the problem the board had been
quarantined from use.

Six months ago, asbestos was also detected in cement fibre boards
used by Adelaide contractor Robin Johnson Engineering to build the
electrical substations on the Seaford rail line.

At the time, the contractor said the cement fibre board was
certified as "asbestos-free" when it was purchased.

Attorney-General John Rau told Parliament the latest company was
being investigated by Safework SA, and staff had been made aware
of the discovery.

"Workers and former workers have been informed of the situation
and have been provided with counselling and health assessments,"
Mr Rau said.

"Safework SA has been onsite to inform workers about asbestos
health risks and about exposure."

The ABC has been investigating imports of asbestos-tainted
building products and has learnt Australian Border Force holds
hundreds of documents related to concerns.

The ABC sought information about the Chinese manufacturer which
supplied the tainted products used on the Seaford line.

As a result of those inquiries Australian Border Force confirmed
Australian Portable Camps also received products from the same
suspect manufacturer.

Importing contaminated products a 'growing concern'

Workplace safety authorities have been monitoring dozens of
building sites across the nation where tainted imported products
have been used.

Peter Tighe from the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency said
asbestos contamination was a growing concern.

"It's an emerging problem and it seems to be growing exponentially
as more and more products are brought into Australia because of
the wind-down of manufacturing in this country," he said.

"What we've really got now is really an indication which could be
tip of the iceberg."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mackenzie Council Adopts Disposal Proposal
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Timaru Herald reported that the Mackenzie District Council
will implement a new method of asbestos disposal.

In a report to the council's asset and services committee, solid
waste manager Angie Taylor recommended the introduction of a new
asbestos disposal site in Twizel, as well as the introduction of
Hazibags.

Hazibags were specifically designed bags that meet the
requirements for safe asbestos packaging, she said.

There were no facilities where asbestos could be disposed of in
the Mackenzie District, she said. The closest facility was in
Timaru.

Asbestos was commonly used in building materials in Twizel hydro
dwellings and garages, meaning that many homeowners may have small
amounts of the material in their home.

"Asbestos is currently not accepted in the district and this
raises concerns of whether this material is being disposed of
appropriately, particularly considering the health risks
associated with this material."

Taylor recommended the introduction of a collection point for
small amounts of asbestos at the Twizel Resource Recovery Park.

"Due to the strict regulations regarding handling of asbestos, it
is proposed to offer Hazibags, which are designed for containing
this material."

People would be able to purchase the bags for a set price, which
also included transport and disposal costs.

Supplying the bags would present no additional cost to the
council, apart from education about safe asbestos disposal, she
said.

"It is questionable whether homeowners are aware of how to
identify building materials containing asbestos and this may lead
to inappropriate disposal."

Larger volumes of asbestos would be managed and taken out of the
district for disposal by specialised asbestos removers, she said.

Committee members voted unanimously to adopt the recommendation at
a meeting on Tuesday.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIG, Travelers Not Liable for Claims Payment
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judy Greenwald, writing for Business Insurance, reported that
units of Travelers Cos. Inc. and American International Group Inc.
that had provided excess coverage to a now-bankrupt asbestos
manufacturer are not obligated under their policies' terms to
provide coverage until primary insurers have paid in full under
their policies, says a bankruptcy court.

New York-based Rapid-American Corp., which started getting sued
for asbestos-related personal injury claims in 1974, settled many
of the claims by the time it filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in
March 2013, but it still had about 275,000 asbestos-related
personal injury claims pending against it at the time, according
to Tuesday's ruling by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern
District of New York in Rapid-American Corp. et al. v. Travelers
Casualty & Surety Co. et al.

Beginning in 1998, Rapid-American reached settlements with nearly
all of its insurers, but a number of them became insolvent and
unable to pay the full limits of their policies, according to the
ruling. An amount sufficient to reach the level of excess coverage
provided under the policies at issue has not been paid, according
to the ruling.

Rapid-American plaintiffs in the litigation argue the excess
policies at issue provide total limits of $64 million, according
to the ruling. They contend it is unnecessary for the primary
policies' underlying limits to be exhausted by actual payment
before the insurers' excess liability coverage attaches.

U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Stuart M. Bernstein, however, agreed
with the insurers that this was not the case, based on the
insurers' policy language. These policies "unambiguously require
actual payment before liability attaches," said Judge Bernstein in
ruling in the insurers' favor on the issue.

Decades after it became a major issue, insurers' ultimate asbestos
liability remains unknown, according to a report issued in October
2015 by Oldwick, New Jersey-based rating agency A.M. Best Co. Inc.
on asbestos and environmental losses.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Labor Union Accused of Hiding Risks at Bakeries
----------------------------------------------------------------
Janene Pieters, writing for NL Times, reported that trade union
FNV knew for years that commercial bakers were exposed to asbestos
that was processed in furnaces, but chose to hide that
information, according to television program Zembla. The union
vehemently denies these accusations, NOS reports.

According to the program, the FNV sector council received a report
of a problem with asbestos in an oven of the firm Bakkersland in
Wateringen in January 2012. "We also had a major fault with the
oven and shut down everything as a precaution, in connection with
asbestos. The oven was packed up and the production was moved
elsewhere", according to a memo Zembla has in its possession.

In July 2013, during an FNV sector council meeting, it was
revealed that asbestos was released in more bakeries, including in
Zwanenburg and Rotterdam. During this meeting it was said that
problems with asbestos in bakery ovens must not come out,
according to Zembla. A FNV director also spoke about a
confidentiality agreement made with Bakkersland on not revealing
the asbestos information. Sources told Zembla that no minutes were
taken during this meeting. But one person made their own notes,
and these suggested that Bakkersland wanted to keep the situation
"under wraps" and that the union helped with a media silence, in
an effort not to jeopardize jobs.

Wim van der Linden, chairman of the sector council, eventually
confirmed the state of affairs to Zembla.

The union vehemently denies any sort of cover-up. A spokesperson
stated that the sector council decided not to cause unnecessary
turmoil. "Immediately after the problems at Bakkersland became
known, our manager was on top of it. We requested all reports and
had them assessed by an expert. We came to the conclusion that
there were no risks to the staff and then decided to give it no
further publicity. There was no reason for concern." The
Bakkersland staff also received a letter informing them of the
asbestos problems in June 2013.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victim's Family Seeks Answers to Asbestos Death
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cornish Guardian reported that a Newquay man who was left fighting
for breath due to lung disease caused by asbestos exposure tried
to take his own life, telling his sister "I can't handle it
anymore."

Norman Grimshaw, 65, wrote a suicide note to sister Susan Shaw
before downing a cocktail of prescription drugs he had been taking
to cope with the pain.

The retired hotel chef had been diagnosed just six months earlier
with asbestosis and pleural plaques which cause scarring and
thickening of the lining of his lungs.

Following his attempt to overdose he called an ambulance, but died
in hospital eight days later.

An inquest found his death was caused by respiratory failure as a
result of his lungs being damaged by breathing in asbestos dust.

Norman was born in Bolton, but grew up in Oldham and went to
Counthill Grammar School, after which he completed an
apprenticeship in carpentry and joinery at the former Manchester
Tech.

He was a wood machinist at George Hill timber merchants in Oldham
from around 1964 to 1970 then moved to Newquay where he worked as
a kitchen porter, for a kitchen fitter's and finally a hotel chef
until his death in September 2013.

Susan, 56, from Hollins, said: "He told me the workers at George
Hill's used to make snowballs with it and throw it at each other.
When he came home his clothes were covered in dust.

"After he left, he moved to Cornwall and had various jobs in
hotels until he retired. He may have been exposed to asbestos in
one of those jobs -- I just don't know."

The mum-of-two added: "It's tragic. He loved being around people,
but he went from being the life and soul of the party to barely
being able to leave his flat.

"He couldn't breathe, he could no longer manage the stairs. He
didn't like burdening people and that's why he tried to kill
himself.

"It said in his diary he couldn't handle it anymore, that was the
last thing he wrote.

"I am angry because if the risks were known, he should have been
better protected and could have had many more years with us. It's
such a waste of life."

Simon Alexander, an industrial disease expert from law firm Slater
and Gordon, is trying to trace where Norman would have been
exposed to the asbestos which led to his death.

He said: "Many employers were aware of the potential dangers, but
chose to ignore them. Some 30 or 40 years later, their former
employees are now paying for those mistakes with their lives.

Read next: Murder probe after Newquay mum's two-year-old boy Harry
House dies

"The last few months of Norman's life would have been painful and
desperately sad for a man who loved being out and about and
surrounded by his friends.

"Susan deserves to know how this happened to her brother so if
anyone remembers working with him in places where there was
asbestos we would urge them to get in touch."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Call for Inquiry Into Dangers at Bldg Site
-----------------------------------------------------------
North Devon Journal reported that campaigners have issued a call
for a public inquiry to investigate the development of the former
Fremington Army Camp.

It comes after concerns were raised over the way potentially
asbestos-contaminated material had been handled and transported
from the site.

During a meeting of Fremington Parish Council on Monday, members
of the Yelland Action Group announced its intentions to request a
public inquiry into the concerns.

In particular, members raised issue with the use of open-top
vehicles to transport soil from the site.

As a result of the debate, Fremington Parish Council agreed to
seek legal advice before making a final decision on whether it
will support the calls.

Addressing councillors, Peter Cresswell, of the Yelland Action
Group, said he was "astonished" at the way the situation has been
handled by the developers -- with asbestos being a "well known"
issue at the site.

"Anybody that was a professional would have known about this," he
said.

"It should have been insisted that all the hazardous materials be
removed from the site before development work commenced and before
any buildings were occupied.

"Astonishingly, the council allowed the asbestos buildings to be
taken apart and left about by workers lacking adequate protective
gear and for new residents to come in while the risks were still
present."

The concerns were shared by most members of the parish council,
with district councillor Jacqueline Flynn calling for the parish
council to support the calls for a public inquiry.

She said: "We are all members of this parish, it affects each and
every one of us and I think it's our personal responsibility to
raise these issues."

Councillor Myka Scott added: "I find it very difficult to
understand why people who work in that environment aren't doing
their job to the best of their abilities. We must be able to put
our trust in other people to deal with the dangers properly."

A public meeting will take place on June 22 to address the
situation.

However, in a joint statement, developers from Barratt Homes and
Bovis Homes said: "We continue to go above and beyond what is
required in the normal remediation of a site such as this.

"We have worked closely with North Devon District Council and the
Health and Safety Executive to ensure that a robust approach is
taken and they have supported our thorough screening programme.

"Material movements to and from the site are carried out in line
with the soil management protocol approved by them.

"The health and safety of our customers, the public and our
contractors remains, and will continue to be, an absolute priority
as we deliver these much-needed new homes."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found on Mill Run Facility
----------------------------------------------------
Erich Martin, writing for Levitt Town Now, reported that the work
session meeting for Bristol Borough's Council started with a visit
from Bob White from the Bucks County Redevelopment Authority
(RDA.)

White, director of the RDA, spoke in reference to the ongoing Mill
Run project. The five-story 77,000-square-foot former medical
facility on Wilson Avenue is currently owned by a company that
plans to redevelop the building into a mixed-use assisted care
facility with other medical offices.

According to White, when work was going on to gut the facility,
asbestos was discovered in the basement and in the tile binding of
the building. Someone reportedly anonymously contacted the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to report the
asbestos and the project was put on hold until the mess was
cleaned up.

White informed council and the public that grant applications for
cleanup will be filed tomorrow and the work to abate the asbestos
will begin quickly.

"There's no asbestos in that building that is going to come out
and attack anybody," White said. He noted that the problem within
the building is tucked away and in no danger of spreading in the
air or buildings around Mill Run.

Mike Hollister, the attorney for the project, was also at the
meeting to report that the proper licenses have been applied for.
The building will eventually become an assisted living facility,
among other medical services, and requires the associated licenses
to do so lawfully. Hollister mentioned that by lining up the
licenses early, the building will be ready to accept occupants
when the building is finished if all goes according to plan.

Last year, the council, school board and county approved granting
the facility Local Economic Revitalization Tax Assistance. The
assistance will help limit the taxes paid on the building over the
next 10 years.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 6th Cir. Affirms $10-Mil. Penalty
--------------------------------------------------
Eric Needs, writing for Legal Reader, reported that the 6th
Circuit affirms a $10 million penalty and sentence in asbestos
case, after refusing to undo a five-year sentence and the
restitution payment pinned on a salvage project owner charged with
contaminating a decommissioned factory site with asbestos, ruling
the Environmental Protection Agency must be paid for the cleanup
effort.

The project owner, Mike Sawyer, argued that he should not have to
pay the $10.4 million in restitution from the government to cover
the cleanup cost of the 300-acre plot of land that was
contaminated with asbestos, because the district court determined
that his Clear Air Act violation was an "offense against
property," according to the decision.

Sawyer said the EPA cannot be an offense against property as the
agency does not own the asbestos-contaminated land.

The three-judge panel responded, saying that Sawyer's question was
an issue of first impression in the Sixth Circuit, and the
published decision on Friday ruled that although the EPA did not
outright own the property, it makes sense for the restitution laws
to repay the agency after it stepped up to clean the pollution.

"[The restitution statute] aims to compensate victims of certain
crimes, not only for physical injuries but also for solely
economic harm,' the panel wrote. "The district court properly
concluded that restitution was mandatory under [the statute]
because Sawyer's offense of conviction is a qualifying 'offense
against property' and the EPA is an identifiable victim of that
offense."

A&E was formed by Sawyer and his partners to recover steel,
aluminum, copper and other materials from the former Liberty
Fibers rayon plant in Tennessee, according to the appeals court.
In October 2006 demolition began at the site, but workers reported
that the company was not in accordance with standard on-site
asbestos procedures.

Workers, for example, were not provided with safety equipment, and
some workers were asked to remove asbestos without wetting it
adequately, according to court papers.

The EPA stepped in by August 2008 and entered into a consent
agreement with A&E Salvage, in which the company agreed to fix its
asbestos violation and follow rules for future asbestos removal
and demolition. However, on March 10, 2009, the EPA terminated the
agreement and ordered the company, Sawyer and his partners off the
property immediately.

By the month's end, the EPA took samples, discovering that nearly
all of the 300 acres were contaminated with asbestos. Court papers
show the agency spent $16,265,418 on cleanup costs, according to
court papers.

Eventually Sawyer struck a plea deal in which he admitted to
violating the Clean Air Act, but he also agreed not to contest his
sentencing unless it was over a guidelines range. His 60-month
sentence was the maximum for his offense but was well below the
lowest sentence length in his guidelines, so when Sawyer sought to
appeal it to the Sixth Circuit, the court declined to review the
matter.

On the matter of restitution, Sawyer argued that not only should
he not have to pay it all, but that it was unfair the EPA should
assess the entire cost of the cleanup, aside from the attorneys'
fees and some other costs, against him when he was not the only
member of A&E Salvage charged, court records show.

Sawyer said he should instead be assessed an amount based on his
specific role in the conspiracy.

The appeals court, however, was not persuaded and found he had
participated fully in the contamination of the site.

"This is not a case where Sawyer agreed to play a minor role in a
larger scheme," the panel wrote. "Rather, he fully participated in
the fundamental aspects of A&E Salvage's unlawful conspiracy to
violate the Clean Air Act."

Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to
requests for comment.



                            *********

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  * * *