CAR_Public/160624.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, June 24, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 126




                            Headlines


123RF LLC: Faces "Taylor" Suit in C.D. Cal.
ABEL MENDOZA: Faces "Carlos" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
ACCELERATE DIAGNOSTICS: Class Action Dismissal Under Appeal
ACCRETIVE HEALTH: Final Fairness Hearing Set for June 28
ACCRETIVE HEALTH: Oral Argument Held in "Church" Case Appeal

ACCRETIVE HEALTH: Discovery Underway in "Anger" Action
ACCRETIVE HEALTH: "Dye" Class Action Closed
AEROJET ROCKETDYNE: Defending Against "Travis" Securities Action
AETNA LIFE: "Kochanek" Suit to Recover Insurance Benefits
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Status Hearing in "Thompson" Suit on October 3

AMN SERVICES: "Clarke" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to C.D. Cal.
ANIMAL BEHAVIOR: Certification of Class Sought in "Barahona" Suit
ARROWHEAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Consolidated Suit Underway in Calif.
AUSTRALIA: Greater Hume Faces Class Action Over Gerogery Fire
AVON PRODUCTS: Appeal Filed in Suit Over ANEW Anti-Aging Products

BAY STATE: "Martins" Suit Seeks Damages Under Wage Act
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces 4 Lawsuits in Conn. Super. Ct.
BULLSEYE GLASS: Lung Cancer Patient Files Over Air Contaminates
C&N GROCERY: "Galal" Suit to Recover OT Pay, Damages
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Final Settlement Approval Hearing in August

CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Sinohui Litigation Trial in August 2016
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: No Trial Yet in Suit Over Apollo Global Deal
CECO ENVIRONMENTAL: Stipulation of Settlement Still Pending
CELLULAR SALES: Arbitration Agreement Lawful, 8th Cir. Rules
COVENANT TRANSPORTATION: Class Suit Pending in Tennessee

CPI CARD: Faces Securities Class Action Over 2015 IPO
CR BARD: Class Actions Over IVC Filters Pile Up in U.S.
CTI BIOPHARMA: Defending "Ahrens" and "McGlothlin" Suits
CVB FINANCIAL: Status Conference Held in "Lloyd" Case
CVB FINANCIAL: "Morgan" Case in Discovery

CYTRX CORPORATION: Class Action Settlement Taken Under Submission
DEAN FOODS: Retailer Class Action Scheduled for Trial on October
DEAN FOODS: Indirect Purchaser Action Stayed
DUKE UNIVERSITY: "Lee" Sues over Football Health Hazard
DWELL MEDICAL: "Bell" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay

EBIX INC: Suit Over Merger with Goldman Sachs Unit Ongoing
ELWYN INC: Faces "Sims" Suit in E.D. Penn.
EVOKE NEUROSCIENCE: "Comprehensive Health" Sues Over Faxed Ads
FACEBOOK INC: Israeli Court Approves Privacy Class Action
FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Faces "Church" Suit in W.D.N.Y.

FLINT, MI: AG Sues Two Engineering Cos. Over Water Crisis
FRANKLIN COUNTY, OH: Jail Inmates Sue Over Personal Tattoo Photos
GC SERVICES: Macy Seeks Certification of FDCPA Class in Kentucky
GENENTECH INC: Comanche Suit Consolidated in MDL 2700
GVC: May Face Class Action Over Customer Data Privacy Risks

H&M HENNES: Faces "Gomez" Suit in S.D. Fla.
HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Wolf Seeks Certification of Consumer Class
HONEYWELL INT'L: Chandra Files Appeal From "Halley" Suit Ruling
HOUSEHOLD INT'L: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $1.575MM
IL GABBIANO MIAMI: Conditional Cert. Granted in "Sulaj" Suit

ISORAY INC: Defends Bid to Dismiss Amended Complaint
J & J AIR: Certification of FLSA Class Sought in "Zurlo" Suit
LAKELAND BANCORP: Class Suit Deal Has Preliminary Approval
LEXISNEXIS: Cato Files Amicus Brief to Review Schulman Case
MEDIA MARKETING: "Mendoza" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay

MERRILL LYNCH: To Pay $415MM for Misusing Customer Cash
MERRILL LYNCH: Pays $10MM Penalty for Misleading Investors
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Ray Griffin Files Suit Over Concussions
NATURE'S PATH: "Esparza" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
NEW PORT RICHEY, FL: Red-Light Camera Contract Renewed Amid Suit

NEW YORK COMMUNITY: Settlement Reached in Merger Class Action
NWP SERVICES: Cert. Bid in "Junod" Suit Taken under Submission
ONE INC: "Warciak" Suit Seeks to Stop Unsolicited Phone Calls
PACKERS PLUS: "Jimenez" Labor Case Transferred to S.D. Tex.
PAD AND PUBLICATION: TCPA Class Certification Sought in PIMI Suit

PALO ALTO, CA: Faces "Slezak" Suit in N.D. Cal.
PFIZER INC: "Grisafi" Sues Over Viagra Side Effects
PFIZER INC: "Battelline" Sues Over Viagra Side Effects
PLE SECURITY: "Elam" Suit to Recover Overtime, Back Pay
POPULAR INC: Class Cert. Bid in "Valle" Action Due Aug. 19

POPULAR INC: Awaits Court's Ruling on "Quiles" Settlement
POPULAR INC: Motions Pending in "Fernandez" Lawsuit
POPULAR INC: July 18 Final Settlement Hearing in RadioShack Suit
POWER DESIGN: DCMWRA Class Certification Sought in "Rivera" Suit
RABOBANK NA: Faces "McGarry" Suit in Illinois

RETAIL ON OCEAN: "Legan" Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
RIGHTSOURCEING INC: Faces "Scolaro" Suit in C.D. Cal.
RUSSELL BRANDS: Faces "Markos" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: "Brown" Suit Moved to D.N.H.
SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: "Herrera" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay

SHOP-VAC MARKETING: Settles Class Action, Sept. 15 Hearing Set
SOUTHEASTERN CONFERENCE: "Owens" Sues Over Football Health Hazard
SPOTOS RESTAURANT: "Lopez" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
TALISMAN ENERGY: "Regmund" Sues Over Breach of Contract
TRICO BANCSHARES: Mediation in Ex-Banker's Suit Set for July

TRICO BANCSHARES: Current Banker's Suit Goes to Mediation
TRIMBLE NAVIGATION: Non-Cash Settlement Reached
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Hearing May Affect Defense Litigation Damages
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Lawyers Partied with Judge Amid Pending Motions
TUCANOS DEVELOPMENT: "Arce" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT, Minimum Wages

TWITTER INC: Judge Dismisses "Lone Wolf" Terrorism Class Action
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Various Lawsuits, Class Actions Ongoing
UNITED COLLECTION: Faces "Anteby" Suit in D.N.J.
UNITED SERVICES: Class Action Lawyers Call for Leniency
VAALCO ENERGY: Court Dismissed Class Action

WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY: "Kepner" Suit to Recover Withheld Benefits
WHITE CASTLE: "Irwin" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
WORDLWIDE DISTRIBUTION: RICO Class Certified in Castellanos Suit
XENOPORT INC: "Gilmore" Suit Seeks to Block Merger with Arbor
XENOPORT INC: "Bushansky" Suit Seeks to Block Merger with Arbor

ZEBRA TECHNOLOGIES: Completion of Discovery Expected by June 17


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Amtrak Loses Bid to Dismiss Whistleblower Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. Appeals Ct. Flips Hennessy Summary Judgment
ASBESTOS UPDATE: O'Connor Loses Bid to Dismiss "Koulermos"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Time to Appeal in 9 NYCAL Suits Moved to 2017
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Not "Apparent Manufacturer" of Insulag

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 11th Cir. Affirms Crane Co. Summary Judgment
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Take-Home Suit vs. Honeywell, et al., Junked
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies Bid to Consolidate 3 NY Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bids for Summary Judgment in "Lund" Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Harrison" Remanded to Missouri State Court

ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMEC Suit vs. FFIC Stayed Pending DQ Motion
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Still Faces NARCO PI Suits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Still Faces Bendix Suits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Still Faces NARCO PI Suits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Still Faces Bendix Suits at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kemper Reserves $20.3MM for Asbestos Exposures
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cricket Comms Issued $100K Violation Penalty
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alcoa Inc. Continues to Face PI Suits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Idex Corp. Continues to Face Suits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Future Legislation May Affect AllState Business

ASBESTOS UPDATE: AK Steel Faced 383 PI Suits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AK Steel Faced 350 Suits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WABTEC Continues to Face PI Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WABTEC Continues to Face PI Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Continues to Face Suits at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brimbank Park Remains Closed After Discovery
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Witness Appeal for Devon Woman Asbestos Victim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Sentenced in Asbestos Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NSW Gov't Offering Homeowners Free Testing
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Market Closed Following Asbestos Exposure

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cattaraugus-Little Valley Awaits Asbestos Report
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kiwi Dies After Getting Australian Payout
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Uncovered in New Mexico's PERA Bldg
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Council Faces Public Fears Over Housing Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Landfill Fined for Failing to Cover Waste

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fitch Publishes Asbestos Liability Dashboard
ASBESTOS UPDATE: John Crane Files RICO Suits vs. Law Firms
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Daughter Petitions to Rid School of Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Charges vs. Parliament Square Developed Junked


                            *********


123RF LLC: Faces "Taylor" Suit in C.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against 123RF, LLC. The case is captioned
Tamara Lee Taylor, an individual, and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. 123RF, LLC, a California Limited Liability
Company, and Does 1-10, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-
cv-04129-GHK-FFM (C.D. Cal., June 10, 2016). The Assigned Judge is
Hon. George H. King.

123RF is engaged in commercial photography business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam P Zaffos, Esq.
          Brandon C Fernald, Esq.
          Fernald Law Group LLP
          510 West 6th Street Suite 700
          Los Angeles, CA 90014
          Telephone: (323) 410 0320
          Facsimile: (323) 410 0330
          E-mail: adam@fernaldlawgroup.com
                  brandon.fernald@fernaldlawgroup.com


ABEL MENDOZA: Faces "Carlos" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Abel Mendoza Inc. The case is
titled Rafael Carlos, the Plaintiff, v. Abel Mendoza Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 34-2016-00195806-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct.,
June 10, 2016).

Abel Mendoza is an employment agency company.


ACCELERATE DIAGNOSTICS: Class Action Dismissal Under Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Accelerate Diagnostics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a plaintiff's
appeal from the dismissal of the amended complaint is pending.

The Company said, "On March 19, 2015, a putative securities class
action lawsuit was filed against Lawrence Mehren, and Steve
Reichling, Rapp v. Accelerate Diagnostics, Inc., et al., U.S.
District Court, District of Arizona, 2:2015-cv-00504. The
complaint alleges that we violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 10b-5, by making
false or misleading statements about our ID/AST System, formerly
called the BACcel System. Plaintiff purports to bring the action
on behalf of a class of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired our stock between March 7, 2014 and February 17, 2015."

"On June 9, 2015, Julia Chang was appointed Lead Plaintiff of the
purported class. On June 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed an amended
complaint alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b- 5, by making false
or misleading statements or omissions about our ID/AST System and
by allegedly employing schemes to defraud. Plaintiff seeks
certification of the action as a class action, compensatory
damages for the class in an unspecified amount, legal fees and
costs, and such other relief as the court may order. Defendants
moved to dismiss the amended complaint on July 21, 2015, which
motion was pending before the Court as of December 31, 2015.

"Subsequently, the Court granted the motion and dismissed the case
with prejudice on January 28, 2016. On February 26, 2016,
plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiff challenges the dismissal
of the amended complaint. Plaintiff's opening brief, if she does
not seek additional time, [wa]s due June 6, 2016."


ACCRETIVE HEALTH: Final Fairness Hearing Set for June 28
--------------------------------------------------------
Accretive Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a final fairness
hearing has been set for June 28, 2016.

On May 17, 2013, the Company, along with certain of its former
directors and former officers, was named as a defendant in a
putative securities class action lawsuit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Hughes v.
Accretive Health, Inc. et al.). The primary allegations, relating
to its March 8, 2013 announcement that the Company would be
restating its prior period financial statements, are that its
public statements, including filings with the SEC, were false
and/or misleading with respect to its revenue recognition and
earnings prospects.

On November 27, 2013, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the
Company's directors and former directors, other than Mary Tolan.
On January 31, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint. On September 25, 2014, the Court granted the Company
motion to dismiss without prejudice, however, the plaintiffs filed
a second amended complaint on October 23, 2014.

On November 10, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint. While that motion was still pending, on
January 8, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the second
amended complaint, seeking to add allegations regarding the
recently issued restatement.

On April 22, 2015, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to amend,
and a third amended complaint was filed on May 13, 2015. The
Company moved to dismiss the third amended complaint on June 3,
2015.

On December 7, 2015, the parties executed a memorandum of
understanding to resolve the suit for $3.9 million and filed a
notice of settlement with the district court. On March 8, 2016,
the district court granted preliminary approval to the settlement.
The final fairness hearing has been set for June 28, 2016. The
Company believes the settlement payment of $3.9 million will be
covered by insurance.


ACCRETIVE HEALTH: Oral Argument Held in "Church" Case Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
Accretive Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that an appeal in the
"Church" class action lawsuit was scheduled to be argued on June
8, 2016.

On February 11, 2014, the Company was named as a defendant in a
putative class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Alabama (Church v. Accretive Health,
Inc.). The primary allegation is that the Company attempted to
collect debts without providing the notice required by the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). On November 24, 2015, the
district court granted the Company's motion for summary judgment
and dismissed the case with prejudice. Plaintiff filed a notice of
appeal on December 21, 2015, and the appeal has been fully
briefed, and was scheduled to be argued on June 8, 2016.


ACCRETIVE HEALTH: Discovery Underway in "Anger" Action
------------------------------------------------------
Accretive Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that discovery is underway
in the "Anger" class action lawsuit.

On July 22, 2014, the Company was named as a defendant in a
putative class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan (Anger v. Accretive Health,
Inc.). The primary allegations are that the Company attempted to
collect debts without providing the notice required by the FDCPA
and Michigan Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and failed to
abide by the terms of an agreed payment plan in violation of those
same statutes. On August 27, 2015, the Court granted in part and
denied in part the Company's motion to dismiss. An amended
complaint was filed on November 30, 2015. Discovery is underway.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses and intends
to vigorously defend itself against these claims. The outcome is
not presently determinable


ACCRETIVE HEALTH: "Dye" Class Action Closed
-------------------------------------------
Accretive Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a circuit court judge
dismissed all claims and ordered the "Dye" case closed.

On November 16, 2015, the Company was named in a putative class
action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan (Dye v. Accretive Health, Inc.). The primary
allegations were that the Company attempted to collect debts
without complying with the provisions of the FDCPA. The case was
voluntarily dismissed on December 4, 2015.

On December 10, 2015, the plaintiff in the Dye action filed a
class-action complaint in the Circuit Court for the County of
Macomb, Michigan, alleging that the Company's attempts to collect
his debts had violated the Michigan Occupational Code. The Company
filed its motion to dismiss on February 8, 2016 and on April 22,
2016, the Circuit Court Judge dismissed all claims and ordered the
case closed.


AEROJET ROCKETDYNE: Defending Against "Travis" Securities Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a complaint
was filed on February 11, 2016, in the United States District
Court, Central District of California, by Juliann Travis,
purporting to represent a class of purchasers of the Company's
securities during the period from October 15, 2013 through
February 1, 2016, against the Company, Eileen Drake, Kathleen Redd
and Scott Seymour, Juliann Travis, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, v. Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings,
Inc., Eileen P. Drake, Kathleen E. Redd, and Scott J. Seymour,
Case No. 2:16-cv-00961. The complaint arises out of the
announcement of the restatement of the Company's financial
statements as discussed further in Note 13 by the Company on
February 1, 2016. The complaint asserts that the Company's
securities traded at artificially inflated prices as a result of
such misstatements and alleges a violation of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act")
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by all defendants, and a
violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by the individual
defendants, Drake, Redd and Seymour. The complaint seeks a
determination that this matter is a proper class action and
designating the plaintiff as the lead plaintiff and class
representative, an award of compensatory damages in an amount to
be determined at trial, an award of reasonable costs and expenses
of trial, including counsel and expert fees, an award of
rescission or a rescissory measure of damages and an award of such
equitable/injunctive or other relief as deemed appropriate by the
Court. April 11, 2016 was the deadline for shareholders and
plaintiff's firms to apply to lead the securities class action and
the firm representing Travis was the only firm to apply. The
Company believes this action is without merit and intends to
contest it vigorously.


AETNA LIFE: "Kochanek" Suit to Recover Insurance Benefits
---------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Kochanek, on behalf of Herself and all others similarly
situated v. Aetna Life Insurance Company and Home Depot U.S.A.,
Inc., Case No. 4:16-cv-00324-BSM (Ark. Cir., June 8, 2016), seeks
to recover benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 for breach of fiduciary duty.

Aetna Life is an insurance company authorized to do business in
the State of Arkansas. Plaintiff was provided disability insurance
under a welfare benefit plan sponsored by Home Depot. Plaintiff
broke her back and Aetna initially awarded her benefits for a time
but Defendant eventually refused to pay Plaintiff the benefits due
under the plan.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Luther O'Neal Sutter, Esq.
     SUTTER & GILLHAM, P.L.L.C.
     P.O. Box 2012
     Benton, AR 72018
     Tel: 501-315-1910
     Fax: 501-315-1916


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Status Hearing in "Thompson" Suit on October 3
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on June 17, 2016, in the case
entitled Cher Thompson, et al. v. American Airlines Group, Inc, et
al., Case No. 1:14-cv-07980 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing
held before the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman.

The minute entry states that a status hearing was held on
June 17, 2016.  Nicole Renee Nelson, Esq., was granted leave to
withdraw on behalf of the Plaintiff, and was terminated.  Attorney
Dana Raymond, Esq., was granted leave to appear on behalf of the
Plaintiff.

The Plaintiffs' motion to certify class is entered and continued.
The deadline for all discovery is extended to August 31, 2016.  On
the Defendant's motion to dismiss/lack of jurisdiction, response
is due by August 31, 2016, and reply is due by Sept. 14, 2016.

A status hearing is set for October 3, 2016, at 9:00 a.m.  The
Case is referred to Magistrate Judge Cox for discovery supervision
as well as settlement discussions.  The Plaintiff will set out in
writing the limited discovery requests that are relevant to the
issue brought up in the Defendants' motion.

Magistrate Judge Cox is advised that the discovery that should be
focused on at this time is limited in scope and should be handled
in an expedited manner.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0zwVDSQw


AMN SERVICES: "Clarke" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to C.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Verna Maxwell Clarke, an individual on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AMN Services LLC,
doing business as: Nursechoice, and Does 1-10, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No., BC619695, was removed from Los Angeles
Superior Court, Central District, to the United States District
Court for the Central District of California (Western Division -
Los Angeles). The Central District assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-
04132-DSF-KS to the proceeding. The Assigned Judge is Hon. Dale S.
Fischer.

AMN Services, LLC operates as a subsidiary of AMN Healthcare, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew B Hayes, Esq.
          Kye Douglas Pawlenko, Esq.
          HAYES PAWLENKO LLP
          595 East Colorado Boulevard Suite 303
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 808 4357
          Facsimile: (626) 921 4932
          E-mail: mhayes@helpcounsel.com
                  kpawlenko@helpcounsel.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kenneth D Sulzer, Esq.
          Sarah Kroll-Rosenbaum, Esq.
          CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP
          1800 Century Park East, Suite 600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 597 4552
          Facsimile: (424) 276 7410
          E-mail: ksulzer@constangy.com
                  skroll-rosenbaum@constangy.com


ANIMAL BEHAVIOR: Certification of Class Sought in "Barahona" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Barahona asks the Court for preliminary approval of a
settlement class in the lawsuit captioned SAMUEL BARAHONA v.
ANIMAL BEHAVIOR COLLEGE, INC., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-09584-R-
AFM (C.D. Cal.).  The Plaintiff moves the Court to certify this
class:

     All persons employed in California by Animal Behavior
     College, Inc. as Admissions Counselors at any time during
     the period between December 11, 2011, up to and including
     the date the Court grants preliminary approval of the
     Settlement.

The Case asserts claims for, among other things, unpaid wages,
including "off-the-clock" claims, and unpaid overtime under
California and federal law, including any claims for
miscalculation of the regular rate of pay, inclusions of bonus
payments in overtime, or non-payment for any overtime hours
worked.

The proposed terms of settlement include:

   -- The total settlement amount is $100,000.  The entire amount
      is paid to the class members, the claims administrator, and
      attorneys.  No amount will be returned to the Defendant.
      This is the outline of the amounts:

      * Total Settlement Amount    $100,000
      * Class Rep Enhancement        $5,000
      * Claims Administration        $7,000
      * Attorney's Fees             $25,000
      * Litigation Costs             $4,387
      * Net Settlement Amount       $58,613

   -- Payments to class members are taken from the "Net
      Settlement Amount," and that amount includes money to pay
      the employer taxes;

   -- Uncashed checks will be turned over to the Unclaimed
      Property Division of the California State Controller's
      Office; and

   -- Payments to class members will be treated as 30% for wages
      (W-2) and 70% for penalties and interest (1099).

The parties negotiated a settlement to resolve any dispute about
the payment of overtime and other wages to Admissions Counselors
working for ABC, the Plaintiff says.  The Plaintiff adds that the
Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.  Hence, the parties
ask that class certification be granted and the form of the notice
be approved.

The Court will commence a hearing on July 18, 2016, 10:00 a.m., to
consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=4FKGkBy7

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael L. Tracy, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL TRACY
          2030 Main Street, Suite 1300
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 260-9171
          Facsimile: (866) 365-3051
          E-mail: mtracy@michaeltracylaw.com


ARROWHEAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Consolidated Suit Underway in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company
continues to defend a consolidated class action lawsuit.

The Company and certain of its officers and directors have been
named as defendants in a consolidated class action pending before
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California regarding certain public statements in connection with
the Company's hepatitis B drug research.

The consolidated class action, initially filed as Wang v.
Arrowhead Research Corp., et al., No. 2:14-cv-07890 (C.D. Cal.,
filed Oct. 10, 2014), and Eskinazi v. Arrowhead Research Corp., et
al., No. 2:14-cv-07911 (C.D. Cal., filed Oct. 13, 2014),  asserts
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

Additionally, three putative stockholder derivative actions
captioned Weisman v. Anzalone et al., No. 2:14-cv-08982 (C.D.
Cal., filed Nov. 20, 2014), Bernstein (Backus) v. Anzalone, et
al., No. 2:14-cv-09247 (C.D. Cal., filed Dec. 2, 2014); and
Johnson v. Anzalone, et al., No. 2:15-cv-00446 (C.D. Cal., filed
Jan. 22, 2015), were filed in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California, alleging breach of fiduciary
duty by the Company's Board of Directors in connection with the
facts underlying the securities claims.

An additional consolidated derivative action asserting similar
claims is pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court, initially
filed as Bacchus v. Anzalone, et al., (L.A. Super., filed Mar. 5,
2015); and Jackson v. Anzalone, et al. (L.A. Super., filed Mar.
16, 2015).

Each of these suits seeks damages in unspecified amounts and some
seek various forms of injunctive relief.  The Company believes it
has a meritorious defense and intends to vigorously defend itself
in this matter.  The Company makes provisions for liabilities when
it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the
amount can be reasonably estimated.  No such liability has been
recorded related to this matter.  The Company does not expect this
matter to have a material effect on its Consolidated Financial
Statements. With regard to legal fees, such as attorney fees
related to this matter or any other legal matters, the Company's
recognizes such costs as incurred.


AUSTRALIA: Greater Hume Faces Class Action Over Gerogery Fire
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Bunn, writing for The Border Mail, reports that a damages
tally in excess of $20 million could result from a legal class
action being taken against Greater Hume Council over the 2009
Gerogery bushfires.

The council is being accused of negligence over its management of
the Walla tip, which was the ignition point for the fire, which
destroyed five homes, burned six vehicles and killed 1005 sheep
and 173 cattle.

Gerogery resident Sharon Weber is the lead plaintiff in the action
against Greater Hume, which began last December, and has seen the
Supreme Court of NSW allocate an Albury trial starting date of
April 3, 2017.

Warrnambool-based Maddens Lawyers, who also acted in a class
action involving the Beechworth Black Saturday fires, is
representing an estimated 40 Gerogery claimants.

Its principal, Brendan Pendergast, said upwards of 60 properties
were believed to have been affected by the Gerogery fire.

A full-page advertisement in the June 16 Border Mail called on
those not wanting to be part of the group to opt out by July 15.

Mr. Pendergast said he was not required to specify a damages
figure in a statement of claim but he believed it would be
substantial.

"We expect damages could exceed $20 million, I would say that is a
conservative estimate," Mr. Pendergast said.

The statement of claim alleges the council was negligent in its
management of the tip and failed in its duty of care to the
community.

It cites the lack of an effective fire break around the tip's
perimeter, the failure to construct fire breaks around different
waste types and the lack of adequate of consolidation of waste
into designated areas.

It also states works to consolidate waste were reduced from weekly
to fortnightly five months before the December 17 fire and there
was a failure to remove trees, dry grass and high grass in the
lead up to the blaze.

It's claimed Ms Weber lost all of her personal property and two
pet dogs in the fire.

In a defense lodged with the court, Greater Hume "denies the risk
of a fire spreading from the Walla Walla Rubbish Tip to
surrounding properties and beyond was a risk which was reasonably
foreseeable".

It says a person other than the council was responsible for the
construction and maintenance of a fire break around the tip.

The shire's general manager Steve Pinnuck said the claim had been
given to the council's insurers and they had carriage of the legal
case.

"It's a matter of seeing what unfolds, as a local government
authority we would be guided by the advice of our insurers' legal
representatives," Mr. Pinnuck said.

The Walla tip never reopened after the fires.


AVON PRODUCTS: Appeal Filed in Suit Over ANEW Anti-Aging Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Lorena Trujillo, Monique Quintana and Tara Tillman
filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit
entitled In re: Avon Anti-Aging Skincare Creams and Products
Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, Case No. 1:13-cv-00150-
JPO, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

According to the amended complaint filed in June 2013, the
consolidated lawsuit arose out of the sale of Avon's ANEW
products.  The Plaintiffs' claims concern the alleged deceptive
practices conducted by Avon in its marketing of the ANEW Products,
which practices allegedly violate the common law as well as the
state laws of New York and California.  The Plaintiffs bring the
action on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated
consumers, both nationwide and in the States of New York and
California, to prevent Avon from allegedly continuing to mislead
consumers, and to obtain redress for those who have purchased its
ANEW Products.

In a Sept. 30, 2015 Opinion and Order, District Judge J. Paul
Oetken denied Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  A copy
of that decision is available at https://is.gd/9fpEfV from
Leagle.com.

The appellate case is captioned as In re: Avon Anti-Aging Skincare
Creams and Products Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, Case
No. 16-1879, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.

Plaintiffs-Appellants Lorena Trujillo, Monique Quintana and Tara
Tillman are represented by:

          Caroline Fabend Bartlett, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700
          E-mail: cbartlett@carellabyrne.com

Defendant-Appellee Avon Products, Inc., is represented by:

          Lori B. Leskin, Esq.
          KAYE SCHOLER LLP
          250 West 55th Street
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 836-8000
          E-mail: lori.leskin@kayescholer.com


BAY STATE: "Martins" Suit Seeks Damages Under Wage Act
------------------------------------------------------
Rita Martins a/k/a Rita Zimmermann, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff v. Bay State Property
Services, Inc. d/b/a City Wide Maintenance, Karen Sommers & Robert
Sommers, the Defendants, Case No. 16-1668 (Mass. Commonwealth Ct.,
June 10, 2016), seeks to recover from Defendants damages arising
from their unlawful misclassification of her and other similarly
situated janitorial service workers working for the Defendants as
independent contractors, rather than employees.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff also seeks expenses and
charges that City Wide improperly required them to pay as a
condition of their employment by it, as well as employee benefits
that City Wide improperly denied them. The Plaintiff further seeks
to recover unpaid wages including overtime wages, owed to them
under the Wage Act and Massachusetts Overtime Statute, including
statutory treble damages, prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees
and costs, and any other relief permitted by law.

Baystate Property offers comprehensive property management and
accounting, brokerage, development and affordable housing
compliance to residential and commercial properties throughout
Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam J. Shafran, Esq.
          Rudolph Friedmann LLP
          92 State Street
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 723 7700
          Facsimile: (617) 227 0313
          E-mail: ashafran@rflawyers.com


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces 4 Lawsuits in Conn. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
Four class action lawsuits have been filed against
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH,
in Connecticut Superior Court, Hartford Judicial District.

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 violations of the Connecticut
Products Liability Act.

According to the complaints, 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 four cases are:

-- GENE HOFFMAN, and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Boehringer
Ingelheim International Gmbh, the Defendants, Case No. HHD-CV-16-
6068964-S (June 10, 2016).

Plaintiff's Counsel:

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

                - and -

          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

-- MARIE SGRO, and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Boehringer
Ingelheim International Gmbh, the Defendants, Case No. HHD-CV-16-
6068962-S (June 10, 2016).

Plaintiff's Counsel:

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

                - and -

          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

-- MARY STEWART, and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Boehringer
Ingelheim International Gmbh, the Defendants, Case No. HHD-CV-16-
6068961-S (June 10, 2016).

Plaintiff's Counsel:

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

                - and -

          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

-- Terri Gilmer-Weinmann, individually, as next of kin and as
Personal Representative of the Estate of Ora F. Gilmer, deceased,
and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Boehringer
Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Boehringer Ingelheim
International Gmbh, the Defendants, Case No. HHD-CV-16-6068967-S
(June 10, 2016).

Plaintiff's Counsel:

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

                - and -

          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


BULLSEYE GLASS: Lung Cancer Patient Files Over Air Contaminates
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lynne Terry, writing for The Oregonian, reports that a woman with
terminal lung cancer who works next to Bullseye Glass blames the
company for her illness in a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court
in Portland.

Valerie Silva, 63, lives in Washington state but works at the Fred
Meyer headquarters next door to Bullseye in Southeast Portland.
She has never used tobacco products and her husband hasn't either,
the suit said.  She was diagnosed with stage 4 small cell lung
cancer two years ago.

"Ms. Silva has suffered pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment
of life as a result of her cancer, the cancer treatment and the
prospect of an early death. Her mother lived until she was 92
years old," the suit said.

Filed on June 14, it accused Bullseye of negligence in allowing
its smokestacks to emit high levels of contaminants from the
burning of heavy metals to make colored glass.

The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality placed an air
monitoring station in Fred Meyer's parking lot in February.  It
blamed Bullseye for the high levels of air contaminates that it
found.  The levels of arsenic were 159 times above the state's
safety goal and cadmium levels were 49 times higher, increasing
residents' lifetime chances of getting cancer if they breathed the
same polluted air every day.

Silva walked by the glass factory on breaks and at lunch for
exercise, the suit said.  It doesn't indicate how long Silva has
worked there.  Her Seattle-based attorney, Kevin Sullivan, did not
return an email or call to his office.

A spokesman for Bullseye Glass didn't immediately respond to
requests for comment.  Company officials initially denied Bullseye
was responsible for the pollution but ended up suspending the use
of arsenic, cadmium and chromium.  In March, it promised to
install a filtration system to keep harmful emissions out of the
air.

But then in May the state filed a cease and desist order against
Bullseye after it found high lead levels in the area.  Earlier
this month, the state lifted that order after agreed to limits on
its use of toxic metals, including lead.

In the lawsuit, Silva and her husband are listed as the
plaintiffs.  It said they have been "severely emotionally
traumatized" by the cancer diagnosis and will suffer the rest of
their lives.

The company is also facing a class action lawsuit filed by
neighbors.  Both suits note that Bullseye lobbied the U.S.
Environmental Agency to be excluded from 2007 rules that required
tighter controls on glassmaking.

Federal records show that Bullseye repeatedly contacted the agency
and urged for its use of heavy metals to be exempted.


C&N GROCERY: "Galal" Suit to Recover OT Pay, Damages
----------------------------------------------------
Tarek Galal, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
employees, Plaintiff, v. C&N Grocery Store, Inc., d/b/a Andy's
Deli, Nikolas Andriopoulos and Chris Stellatos, individually,
Defendants, Case 004Eo. 1:16-cv-04043 (S.D. N.Y., May 31, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
prejudgment, post-judgment interest, statutory penalties for
failure to provide mandatory written wage notices, unpaid spread
of hours premiums and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to New
York State Labor Laws and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

C & N Grocery Store, Inc. is a domestic business corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York,
with principal place of business located at 295 Amsterdam Avenue,
New York, New York 10023. It operates as Andy's Deli and is owned
by Nikolas Andriopoulos and Chris Stellatos.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
     CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
     708 Third Avenue - 6th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Tel: (212) 209-3933
     Fax: (212) 209-7102
     Email: pcooper@jcplaw.com


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Final Settlement Approval Hearing in August
--------------------------------------------------------------
CEC Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a final hearing to
approve the settlement of the class action lawsuit by Franchesca
Ford is scheduled for August 2016.

On January 27, 2014, former CEC employee Franchesca Ford filed a
purported class action lawsuit against the Company in San
Francisco County Superior Court, California (the "Ford
Litigation"). The plaintiff claims to represent other similarly-
situated hourly non-exempt employees and former employees of the
Company in California who were employed from January 27, 2010 to
the present, and she alleges violations of California state wage
and hour laws. In March 2014, the Company removed the Ford
Litigation to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Francisco Division, and subsequently defeated the
plaintiff's motion to remand the case to California state court.
In May 2015, the parties reached an agreement to settle the
lawsuit on a class-wide basis. The settlement would result in the
plaintiffs' dismissal of all claims asserted in the action, as
well as certain related but unasserted claims, and grant of
complete releases, in exchange for the Company's settlement
payment. On March 24, 2016, the Court issued an order granting
preliminary approval of the class settlement and setting a final
approval hearing regarding the settlement for August 2016.

"The settlement of this action will not have a material adverse
effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity
or capital resources," the Company said.


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Sinohui Litigation Trial in August 2016
----------------------------------------------------------
CEC Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Sinohui litigation
is set for trial in August 2016.

On October 10, 2014, former store General Manager Richard Sinohui
filed a purported class action lawsuit against the Company in the
Superior Court of California, Riverside County (the "Sinohui
Litigation"), claiming to represent other similarly-situated
current and former General Managers of the Company in California
during the period October 10, 2010 to the present. The lawsuit
alleges CEC wrongfully classified current and former California
General Managers as exempt from overtime protections, that such
General Managers worked more than 40 hours a week without overtime
premium pay, paid rest periods and paid meal periods, and that the
Company failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements or to
pay timely wages upon separation from employment, in violation of
the California Labor Code, California Business and Professions
Code, and the applicable Wage Order issued by the California
Industrial Welfare Commission. Additionally, the plaintiff alleged
that the Company failed to reimburse General Managers for certain
business expenses, including for personal cell phone usage and
mileage, in violation of the California Labor Code; he also
asserted a claim for civil penalties under the California Private
Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"). The plaintiff seeks an unspecified
amount in damages.

On December 5, 2014, the Company removed the Sinohui Litigation to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
Southern Division. On March 16, 2016, the Court issued an order
denying in part and granting in part Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification. Specifically, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion
to the extent that he sought to certify a class on Plaintiff's
misclassification and wage statement claims, but certified a class
with respect to Plaintiff's claims that the Company had wrongfully
failed to reimburse him for cell phone expenses and/or mileage.
The Sinohui Litigation is set for trial in August 2016.

"We believe the Company has meritorious defenses to this lawsuit
and we intend to vigorously defend it. While no assurance can be
given as to the ultimate outcome of this matter, we currently
believe that the final resolution of this action will not have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial
position, liquidity or capital resources," the Company said.


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: No Trial Yet in Suit Over Apollo Global Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
CEC Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a court has not yet
set trial in the class action lawsuit related to the merger with a
unit of Apollo Global Management LLC.

Following the January 16, 2014 announcement that the Company had
entered into a merger agreement (the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant
to which an entity controlled by Apollo Global Management, LLC and
its subsidiaries merged with and into CEC Entertainment Inc., with
CEC Entertainment Inc. surviving the merger (the "Merger"), four
putative shareholder class actions were filed in the District
Court of Shawnee County, Kansas, on behalf of purported
stockholders of the Company, against the Company, its directors,
Apollo, Parent and Merger Sub, in connection with the Merger
Agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby. These actions
were consolidated into one action in March 2014.

On July 21, 2015, a consolidated class action petition was filed
as the operative consolidated complaint, asserting claims against
CEC and its former directors, adding The Goldman Sachs Group
("Goldman Sachs") as a defendant, and removing all Apollo entities
as defendants ("Consolidated Class Action Petition"). The
Consolidated Class Action Petition alleges that the Company's
directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's
stockholders in connection with their consideration and approval
of the Merger Agreement by, among other things, conducting a
deficient sales process, agreeing to an inadequate tender price,
agreeing to certain provisions in the Merger Agreement, and filing
materially deficient disclosures regarding the transaction. The
Consolidated Class Action Petition also alleges that two members
of the Company's board who also served as the senior managers of
the Company had material conflicts of interest and that Goldman
Sachs aided and abetted the board's breaches as a result of
various conflicts of interest facing the bank. The Consolidated
Class Action Petition seeks, among other things, to recover
damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

On March 23, 2016, the Court conducted a hearing on the
defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Class Action
Petition, and the parties are currently awaiting the Court's
ruling. The Court has not yet set this case for trial.

The Company believes the Consolidated Class Action Petition is
without merit and intends to defend it vigorously. "While no
assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of the
consolidated matter, we currently believe that the final
resolution of the action will not have a material adverse effect
on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or
capital resources," the Company said.


CECO ENVIRONMENTAL: Stipulation of Settlement Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ceco Environmental Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the parties in the
PMFG shareholder lawsuit have submitted the stipulation of
settlement and release, and the court has not yet scheduled a
hearing on the matter.

Since the public announcement of the proposed merger on May 4,
2015, CECO, Merger Sub I, Merger Sub II, PMFG and the members of
the PMFG board of directors have been named as defendants in three
lawsuits related to the acquisition, which were filed by alleged
stockholders of PMFG on May 17, 2015, June 29, 2015 and July 17,
2015. The first filed lawsuit, which is a derivative action that
also purports to assert class claims, was filed in the District
Court of Dallas County, Texas (the "Texas Lawsuit"). The second
and third filed lawsuits, which are class actions, were filed in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and have now been
consolidated into a single action (the "Delaware Lawsuit," and
collectively with the Texas Lawsuit, the "Lawsuits"). In the
Lawsuits, the plaintiffs generally allege that the merger failed
to properly value PMFG, that the individual defendants breached
their fiduciary duties in approving the related merger agreement,
and that those breaches were aided and abetted by CECO, Merger Sub
I and Merger Sub II.

In the Lawsuits, the plaintiffs allege, among other things, (a)
that the PMFG board of directors breached its fiduciary duties by
agreeing to the merger for inadequate consideration and pursuant
to a tainted process by (1) agreeing to lock up the merger with
deal protection devices that, notwithstanding the ability of PMFG
to solicit actively alternative transactions, prevent other
bidders from making a successful competing offer for PMFG, (2)
participating in a transaction where the loyalties of the PMFG
board of directors and management are divided, and (3) relying on
financial and legal advisors who plaintiffs allege were
conflicted; (b) that those breaches of fiduciary duties were aided
and abetted by CECO, Merger Sub I, Merger Sub II and PMFG, and (c)
that the disclosure provided in the registration statement filed
by CECO on June 9, 2015 was inadequate in a number of respects.

In the Lawsuits, the plaintiffs sought, among other things, (a) to
enjoin the defendants from completing the merger on the agreed-
upon terms, (b) rescission, to the extent already implemented, of
the merger agreement or any of the terms therein, and (c) costs
and disbursements and attorneys' and experts' fees, as well as
other equitable relief as the courts deem proper.

Effective as of August 23, 2015, PMFG and the other defendants
entered a memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs in the
Delaware Lawsuit regarding the settlement of the Delaware Lawsuit.
In connection with this memorandum of understanding, PMFG agreed
to make certain additional disclosures to PMFG's stockholders in
order to supplement those contained in the joint proxy
statement/prospectus. After PMFG enters into a definitive
agreement with the plaintiffs in the Delaware Lawsuit, the
proposed settlement will be subject to notice to the class, Court
approval, and, if the Court approves the settlement, the
settlement, as outlined in the memorandum of understanding, will
resolve all of the claims that were or could have been brought in
the Delaware Lawsuit, including all claims relating to the
decision to enter into the Mergers, entry of the Merger Agreement
and any disclosure made in connection therewith including any such
claims against CECO, Merger Sub I or Merger Sub II, but did not
affect any stockholder's rights to pursue appraisal rights. It is
expected that the resolution of the Delaware Lawsuit will also
resolve the Texas Lawsuit, which was stayed voluntarily by the
plaintiff, but placed on Texas court's two-week docket for a non-
jury trial on August 15, 2016.

On August 24, 2015, PMFG made a filing with the SEC on Form 8-K
satisfying its obligations under the memorandum of understanding
to make additional disclosures to supplement the joint proxy
statement/prospectus relating to the merger, dated as of July 31,
2015.

On February 22, 2016, the Delaware Court asked the parties to
submit a status report regarding the Delaware Lawsuit no later
than March 14, 2016.

On March 2, 2016, the Texas Lawsuit plaintiffs filed a notice of
nonsuit without prejudice.

On April 14, 2016, the parties submitted the stipulation of
settlement and release.  The Court has not yet scheduled a hearing
on that motion.

The memorandum of understanding was not, and should not be
construed as, an admission of wrongdoing or liability by any
defendant.

CECO is a diversified global provider of leading engineered
technologies to the environmental, energy, and fluid handling and
filtration industrial segments, targeting specific niche-focused
end markets through an attractive asset-light business model.


CELLULAR SALES: Arbitration Agreement Lawful, 8th Cir. Rules
------------------------------------------------------------
Bennet D. Alsher, Esq. -- balsher@fordharrison.com -- and Nicole
Bermel Dunlap, Esq. -- ndunlap@fordharrison.com -- of Ford &
Harrison LLP, in an article for Lexology, report that on June 2,
2016, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eighth Circuit held that an arbitration agreement containing a
class action waiver was lawful under the National Labor Relations
Act (NLRA).  Cellular Sales of Missouri, LLC v. NLRB, Nos. 15-1620
and 15-1860.  The Eighth Circuit covers Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota,
Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Only a week
earlier, on May 26, a panel of the Seventh Circuit Court of
Appeals held that class action waivers are unlawful under the
NLRA. Lewis v. Epic Systems Corporation, No. 15-2997. The Fifth
Circuit has previously held that class action waivers are lawful,
rendering such agreements enforceable in Louisiana, Mississippi,
and Texas.  The split in the circuit courts increases the
probability that the U.S. Supreme Court will eventually decide
this issue.

Facts of Cellular Sales of Missouri, LLC

Cellular Sales hired John Bauer and asked him to sign an agreement
in which he agreed to individually arbitrate any claims related to
his employment and to waive the right to any class or collective
proceeding as a condition of his employment.

After Mr. Bauer's employment ended, he filed a class-action
lawsuit alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).  Cellular Sales moved to dismiss the lawsuit and compel
arbitration consistent with the arbitration agreement Bauer
signed.  The district court granted Cellular Sales' motion.
Mr. Bauer filed an arbitration claim, which was ultimately
settled.  He also filed an unfair labor practice charge with the
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) alleging that Cellular
Sales' class action waiver interfered with his right to engage in
protected concerted activity in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of
the NLRA.

An NLRB Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that Cellular
Sales' arbitration agreement violated the NLRA.  In addition, the
ALJ found that Cellular Sales had violated the NLRA by moving to
dismiss Bauer's class-action lawsuit, i.e. seeking to enforce the
unlawful agreement.  The NLRB affirmed the ALJ's decision, and
Cellular Sales petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit for review while the NLRB filed a cross-application for
enforcement.

The Eighth Circuit's Opinion

The Eighth Circuit held that Cellular Sales did not violate
Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by requiring its employees to enter
into an arbitration agreement waiving class or collective actions
in all forums.  The NLRB conceded that the Eighth Circuit was
bound by its decision in Owen v. Bristol Care, Inc., 702 F.3d 1050
(8th Cir. 2013), wherein the Eighth Circuit joined "fellow
circuits that have held that arbitration agreements containing
class waivers are enforceable in claims brought under the FLSA,"
albeit without addressing the NLRB's reasoning articulated in its
decision Murphy Oil U.S.A, Inc.  Accordingly, the Court refused to
enforce the Board's order on this issue.

Employers' Bottom Line

Given the existing split among the federal circuit courts of
appeal, and the NLRB's zealous pursuit of this issue, the legality
of class and/or collective action waivers will likely remain
unresolved until the United States Supreme Court weighs in.  For
now, the enforceability of class and collective action waivers
will be determined on a circuit-by-circuit basis.


COVENANT TRANSPORTATION: Class Suit Pending in Tennessee
--------------------------------------------------------
Covenant Transportation Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that Covenant
Transport, Inc. ("Covenant Transport") is the defendant in a
lawsuit that was filed in August 2015 in the Superior Court of the
State of California, Los Angeles County.  This lawsuit arises out
of the work performed by the plaintiff as a company driver for
Covenant Transport during the period of August, 2013 through
October, 2014.  Plaintiff is seeking class action certification
under the complaint.  The case was removed from state court in
September, 2015 to the U.S. District Court in the Central District
of California, and subsequently, the case was transferred to the
U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Tennessee on
October 5, 2015 where the case is now pending.

The complaint asserts that the time period covered by the lawsuit
is "the four years prior to the filing of this action through the
trial date" and alleges claims for failure to properly pay for
rest breaks, inspection time, waiting time, fueling and paperwork
time, meal periods  and other related wage and hour claims under
the California Labor Code.


CPI CARD: Faces Securities Class Action Over 2015 IPO
-----------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on June 16
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of CPI Card Group Inc. securities pursuant and/or
traceable to CPI's October 8, 2015 Initial Public Offering (the
"IPO").  The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for CPI investors
under the federal securities laws.

To join the CPI class action, go to the firm's website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-911.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq.
or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT
THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

According to the lawsuit, the documents filed in connection with
the IPO contained materially false and misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that CPI had shipped upwards of 100
million more cards to its larger issuer customers than they were
using in the second quarter and third quarter of 2015.  This led
to a massive backlog with those customers, which was significantly
reducing the demand for additional card shipments in the fourth
quarter of 2015 and fiscal 2016.  When the true details entered
the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed.  If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
August 15, 2016.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's
website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-911.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm
toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
kchan@rosenlegal.com

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


CR BARD: Class Actions Over IVC Filters Pile Up in U.S.
-------------------------------------------------------
TheProductLawyers.com reports on a recent class action suit filed
in Canada concerning the use of IVC filters.  According to
reports, one plaintiff in Canada has filed a lawsuit alleging that
she was not warned of the risks associated with IVC filters. The
plaintiff stated that after receiving the implant in August 2013,
doctors later attempted to remove the device only to find that it
had broken.  A piece that had broken off was then piercing her
internal jugular and the rest of the device had moved to her lower
intestine.  It was then determined that the device could not be
removed and the plaintiff now has to remain on blood thinners for
the rest of her life, reports said.

As cases are filed in Canada, these lawsuits continue to build in
the U.S. as well.  According to many plaintiffs who have filed
lawsuits against the devices' manufacturers, such as C.R. Bard and
Cook Medical, the filters can break apart while inside the body,
causing serious side effects.  These lawsuits also claim that
those companies should be held responsible for negligently pushing
the products to market.  The cases allege that despite knowing
about the faulty design of the IVC filters, manufacturers
continued to market them. Cases have been consolidated in MDLs in
the Southern District of Indiana and the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

IVC filters are small devices that are used to catch blood clots
before they are able to travel to the lungs.  They are often used
in patients who are at risk of pulmonary embolism and are unable
to take anticoagulant drugs.  The FDA recommends that the
retrievable devices be removed from patients as soon as possible
after it has been determined that the risk for pulmonary embolism
has subsided.  For many patients who have had IVC filters
inserted, however, the inability to remove them is nothing new.

Banville Law has years of experience fighting large pharmaceutical
companies who have put dangerous drugs or devices into the market.
The firm strongly believes in leveling the playing field by
pursuing justice for those who have been affected by dangerous
devices or drugs.  Banville Law is currently looking to assist
those individuals who believe they have suffered significantly
from the use of an IVC filter. Qualifying persons may be entitled
to legal action and significant financial compensation.

For more information on IVC filters, to ask questions or to
schedule a consultation, contact an attorney at Banville Law by
calling (888) 997-3792.


CTI BIOPHARMA: Defending "Ahrens" and "McGlothlin" Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
CTI Biopharma Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that on February 10, 2016
and February 12, 2016, class action lawsuits entitled Ahrens v.
CTI Biopharma Corp. et al, Case No. 1:16-cv-01044 and McGlothlin
v. CTI Biopharma Corp. et al, Case No. C16-216, respectively, were
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York and the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington, respectively, on behalf of
shareholders that purchased or acquired the Company's securities
pursuant to our September 24, 2015 public offering and/or
shareholders who otherwise acquired our stock between March 4,
2014 and February 9, 2016, inclusive. The complaints assert claims
against the Company and certain of our current and former
directors and officers for violations of the federal securities
laws under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, or the Securities Act, and Sections 10 and 20 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act,
Plaintiffs' Securities Act claims allege that the Company's
Registration Statement and Prospectus for the September 24, 2015
public offering contained materially false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose certain material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations and prospects, including
with respect to the clinical trials and prospects for pacritinib.
Plaintiffs' Exchange Act claims allege that the Company's public
disclosures were knowingly or recklessly false and misleading or
omitted material adverse facts, again with a primary focus on the
clinical trials and prospects for pacritinib. The lawsuits seek
damages in an unspecified amount.

"We believe that the allegations contained in the complaints are
without merit and intend to vigorously defend ourselves against
all claims asserted therein. A reasonable estimate of the amount
of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time
and, as such, we have not recorded an accrual for any possible
loss," the Company said.


CVB FINANCIAL: Status Conference Held in "Lloyd" Case
-----------------------------------------------------
CVB Financial Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a status conference
has been scheduled by the District Court for May 23, 2016, in the
case, Lloyd v. CVB Financial Corp., et al.

A purported shareholder class action complaint was filed against
the Company on August 23, 2010, in an action captioned Lloyd v.
CVB Financial Corp., et al., Case No. CV 10-06256- MMM, in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California. Along with the Company, Christopher D. Myers (our
President and Chief Executive Officer) and Edward J. Biebrich, Jr.
(our former Chief Financial Officer) were also named as
defendants. On September 14, 2010, a second purported shareholder
class action complaint was filed against the Company, in an action
originally captioned Englund v. CVB Financial Corp., et al., Case
No. CV 10-06815-RGK, in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California. The Englund complaint named the
same defendants as the Lloyd complaint and made allegations
substantially similar to those included in the Lloyd complaint. On
January 21, 2011, the District Court consolidated the two actions
for all purposes under the Lloyd action, now captioned as Case No.
CV 10-06256-MMM (PJWx). At the same time, the District Court also
appointed the Jacksonville Police and Fire Pension Fund (the
"Jacksonville Fund") as lead plaintiff in the consolidated action
and approved the Jacksonville Fund's selection of lead counsel for
the plaintiffs in the consolidated action.

On March 7, 2011, the Jacksonville Fund filed a consolidated
complaint naming the same defendants and alleging violations by
all defendants of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and violations by the
individual defendants of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The
consolidated complaint alleges that defendants, among other
things, misrepresented and failed to disclose conditions adversely
affecting the Company throughout the purported class period, which
was originally alleged to be between October 21, 2009 and August
9, 2010 (but which has subsequently been shortened to the period
between March 4, 2010 and August 9, 2010). Specifically,
defendants are alleged to have violated applicable accounting
rules and to have made misrepresentations in connection with the
Company's allowance for loan loss methodology, loan underwriting
guidelines, methodology for grading loans, and the process for
making provisions for loan losses. The consolidated complaint
sought compensatory damages and other relief in favor of the
purported class.

Following the filing by each side of various motions and briefs,
and a hearing on August 29, 2011, the District Court issued a
ruling on January 12, 2012, granting defendants' motion to dismiss
the consolidated complaint, but the ruling provided the plaintiffs
with leave to file an amended complaint within 45 days of the date
of the order. On February 27, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a first
amended complaint against the same defendants, and, following
filings by both sides and another hearing on June 4, 2012, the
District Court issued a ruling on August 21, 2012, granting
defendants' motion to dismiss the first amended complaint, but
providing the plaintiffs with leave to file another amended
complaint within 30 days of this ruling. On September 20, 2012,
the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint against the same
defendants, the Company filed its third motion to dismiss on
October 25, 2012, and following another hearing on February 25,
2013, the District Court issued an order dismissing the
plaintiffs' complaint for the third time on May 9, 2013, which
became a final, appealable order on September 30, 2013.

On October 24, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of
the District Court's final order of dismissal with the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Following the filing of
appellate briefs by the respective parties, the Court of Appeals
conducted a hearing and oral argument in the case on December 10,
2015. On February 1, 2016, the Court of Appeals issued its
decision in the case. The Ninth Circuit opinion affirmed the
district court's decision in part, reversed it in part and
remanded the case for further proceedings in the District Court.
Following remand of the case to the District Court, we expect to
undertake discovery and motion practice with respect to the
remaining claims of the plaintiffs which survived the appeal. A
status conference in the case has been scheduled by the District
Court for May 23, 2016.

The Company intends to continue to vigorously contest and defend
the plaintiff's allegations with respect to the remaining claims
in this case.


CVB FINANCIAL: "Morgan" Case in Discovery
-----------------------------------------
CVB Financial Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the parties in the
case, Glenda Morgan v. Citizens Business Bank, et al., are engaged
in discovery.

A former employee and branch-based service manager filed a
complaint against the Company, on December 29, 2014, in an action
entitled Glenda Morgan v. Citizens Business Bank, et al., Case No.
BC568004, in the Superior Court for Los Angeles County,
individually and on behalf of the Company's branch-based employees
and managers who are classified as "exempt" under California and
federal employment laws. The case is styled as a putative class
action lawsuit and alleges, among other things, that (i) the
Company misclassified certain employees and managers as "exempt"
employees, (ii) the Company violated California's wage and hour,
overtime, meal break and rest break rules and regulations, (iii)
certain employees did not receive proper expense reimbursements,
(iv) the Company did not maintain accurate and complete payroll
records, and (v) the Company engaged in unfair business practices.
On February 11, 2015, the same law firm representing Morgan filed
a second complaint, entitled Jessica Osuna v. Citizens Business
Bank, et al., Case No. CIVDS1501781, in the Superior Court for San
Bernardino County, alleging wage and hour claims on behalf of the
Company's "non-exempt" hourly employees. On April 6, 2015, these
two cases were consolidated in a first amended complaint under the
rubric of the Morgan case in Los Angeles County Superior Court.
The first amended complaint seeks class certification, the
appointment of the plaintiffs as class representatives, and an
unspecified amount of damages and penalties.

On May 11, 2015, the Company filed its answer to the first amended
complaint denying all allegations regarding the plaintiffs' claims
and asserting various defenses. The parties are currently engaged
in discovery, and briefing by the parties in connection with the
class certification motion is not expected to commence until at
least the summer of 2016. The Company intends to vigorously
contest both (x) the allegations that the case should be certified
as one or more class or representative actions as well as (y) the
substantive merits of any consolidated lawsuit in the event that
it is permitted to proceed.


CYTRX CORPORATION: Class Action Settlement Taken Under Submission
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CytRx Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Court has held a
hearing for final approval of the $4,000,000 settlement of a
federal class action lawsuit, requested certain information from
plaintiff's counsel, and took the matter under submission.

The Company said, "As previously reported in our Annual Report
filed with the SEC on March 11, 2016, on June 13, 2014, three
purported securities class action lawsuits pending against us and
certain of our officers and directors in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California were
consolidated in the matter of In re CytRx Corporation Securities
Litigation, 2:14-CV-01956-GHK (PJWx) (the "Federal Class Action"),
and lead plaintiff and lead counsel were appointed. On October 1,
2014, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on behalf
of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired its publicly
traded securities between November 20, 2013 and March 13, 2014,
against us, certain of our officers and directors, a freelance
writer, and certain underwriters, including Jefferies LLC,
Oppenheimer & Co., LLC, Aegis Corp., and H.C. Wainwright & Co.,
LLC. The complaint alleges that certain of the defendants violated
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially false and
misleading statements in press releases, promotional articles, SEC
filings and other public statements. The complaint further alleges
that certain of the defendants violated the Securities Act of 1933
by making materially misleading statements and omitting material
information in its shelf Registration Statement on Form S-3 filed
with the SEC on December 6, 2012 and Prospectus Supplement under
Rule 424(b)(2) filed with the SEC on January 31, 2014. These
allegations arise out of our alleged retention of The DreamTeam
Group and MissionIR, external investor and public relations firms
unaffiliated with them, as well as our December 9, 2013 grant of
stock options to certain board members and officers. The
consolidated amended complaint seeks damages, including interest,
in an unspecified amount, reasonable costs and attorneys' fees,
and any equitable, injunctive, or other relief that the court may
deem just and proper."

"On December 5, 2014, we and the individual defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint. The Court was scheduled to hear
argument on this motion on March 2, 2015. On February 25, 2015,
the Court took this motion under submission and took the hearing
off calendar. On July 13, 2015, the Court issued an order granting
in part and denying in part the motions to dismiss filed by them,
the individual defendants and the underwriters. On August 7, 2015,
the plaintiffs amended their complaint and on September 8, 2015,
the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, in part.
On October 23, 2015, the Court took the motion to dismiss under
submission and, as a result of the settlement of the case . . .,
the motion to dismiss has not been ruled on by the Court.

"On April 3, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against us and certain of our officers and each of our directors,
as well as certain underwriters, in the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles, captioned Rajasekaran v. CytRx
Corporation, et al., BC541426. The complaint purports to be
brought on behalf of all shareholders who purchased or otherwise
acquired its common stock pursuant or traceable to its public
offering that closed on February 5, 2014. The complaint alleges
that defendants violated the federal securities laws by making
materially false and misleading statements in its filings with the
SEC. The complaint seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified
amount, rescission, and attorney's fees and costs. On October 14,
2014, the Court granted the parties' joint ex parte motion to stay
this proceeding pending resolution of motions to dismiss in the
related federal action, In re CytRx Corporation Securities
Litigation, 2:14-CV-01956-GHK (PJWx).  On December 29, 2015, as a
result of the parties informing the Court that the settlement of
the Federal Class Action also resolved the claims and allegations
in the Rajasekaran case, the Superior Court deemed the case
closed.

"On December 10, 2015, we announced that we had reached an
agreement to settle the Federal Class Action and filed a
Stipulation of Settlement with the Court. A hearing on plaintiffs'
motion for preliminary approval of the settlement was held on
January 11, 2016. The agreement contains no admission of liability
or wrongdoing and includes a full release of us and our current
and former directors and officers in connection with the
allegations. The settlement is subject to definitive
documentation, shareholder notice, and Court approval. The terms
of the agreement provide for a settlement payment to the class of
$4,000,000, of which at least $3,500,000 will be paid by its
insurance carriers. We will also issue the equivalent number of
shares of its common stock to the class of $4,500,000 worth of
shares at the prevailing stock price at the time of the Court's
final approval of the settlement agreement, but not less than a
minimum of 1,200,000 shares and not more than a maximum of
1,800,000 shares.

"On January 9, 2016, the Court preliminarily approved the
settlement, and set a settlement fairness hearing for final
approval of the settlement for May 9, 2016. On May 9, 2016, the
Court held the hearing for final approval, requested certain
information from plaintiff's counsel, and took the matter under
submission."


DEAN FOODS: Retailer Class Action Scheduled for Trial on October
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dean Foods Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a retailer class
action is presently scheduled for trial on October 18, 2016.

The Company said, "A putative class action antitrust complaint
(the "retailer action") was filed against Dean Foods and other
milk processors on August 9, 2007 in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. Plaintiffs allege
generally that we, either acting alone or in conjunction with
others in the milk industry, lessened competition in the
Southeastern United States for the sale of processed fluid Grade A
milk to retail outlets and other customers. Plaintiffs further
allege that the defendants' conduct artificially inflated
wholesale prices paid by direct milk purchasers."

"In March 2012, the district court granted summary judgment in
favor of defendants, including the Company, as to all counts then
remaining. Plaintiffs appealed the district court's decision, and
in January 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment as to one of the
five original counts in the Tennessee retailer action. Following
the Sixth Circuit's denial of our request to reconsider the case
en banc, the Company petitioned the Supreme Court of the United
States for review. On November 17, 2014, the Supreme Court denied
our petition and the case returned to the district court. On
January 19, 2016, the district court granted summary judgment to
defendants on claims accruing after May 8, 2009. On January 25,
2016, the district court issued orders denying summary judgment in
other respects and denying plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

"On February 8, 2016, plaintiffs filed a petition for permission
to appeal the district court's order denying class certification.
That petition remains pending before the Sixth Circuit. On March
30, 2016, the court issued an order holding that the case will be
judged under the rule of reason. The case is presently scheduled
for trial on October 18, 2016; it is unclear whether and how the
pending petition for permission to appeal will affect that date."


DEAN FOODS: Indirect Purchaser Action Stayed
--------------------------------------------
An indirect purchaser class action against Dean Foods Company and
various entities remains stayed, Dean Foods said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May
10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016.

On June 29, 2009, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
Eastern District of Tennessee on behalf of indirect purchasers of
processed fluid Grade A milk (the "indirect purchaser action").
This case was voluntarily dismissed, and the same plaintiffs filed
a nearly identical complaint on January 17, 2013. The allegations
in this complaint are similar to those in both the retailer action
and the 2009 indirect purchaser action, but involve only claims
arising under Tennessee law. The Company filed a motion to
dismiss, and on September 11, 2014, the district court granted in
part and denied in part that motion, dismissing the non-Tennessee
plaintiffs' claims. The Company filed its answer to the surviving
claims on October 15, 2014.

On March 16, 2016, the court granted a joint motion to stay the
indirect purchaser action pending the Sixth Circuit's decision on
the pending class certification review petition in the retailer
action.


DUKE UNIVERSITY: "Lee" Sues over Football Health Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------
Derrick Lee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Duke University, Atlantic Coast Conference
and the National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendants, Case
No. 1:16-cv-01411 (S.D. Ind., June 8, 2016), seeks economic,
monetary, actual, consequential, compensatory, and punitive
damages, past, present and future medical expenses, other out-of-
pocket expenses, lost time and interest, lost future earnings,
litigation and attorney fees, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, injunctive and/or declaratory relief and such other and
further relief resulting from negligence, fraudulent concealment,
breach of express contract, breach of implied contract, breach of
third-party express contract and unjust enrichment.

Plaintiff accuses the Defendants of failing to warn collegiate
players of the health hazards of playing football.

Duke University is a private university located at 210 Blackwell
Street, Durham, North Carolina 27701.

ACC is a collegiate athletic conference with its principal office
located at 4512 Weybridge Lane, Greensboro, North Carolina 27407.

NCAA is an unincorporated association with its principal office
located at 700 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana
46206.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     William Winingham
     WILSON KEHOE WININGHAM LLC
     2859 North Meridian Street
     Indianapolis, IN 46208
     Tel: 317.920.6400
     Fax: 317.920.6405
     Email: winingham@wkw.com

          - and -

     Jay Edelson, Esq.
     Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor
     Chicago, IL 60654
     Tel: 312.589.6370
     Fax: 312.589.6378
     Email: jedelson@edelson.com
            brichman@edelson.com

          - and -

     Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
     329 Bryant Street
     San Francisco, CA 94107
     Tel: 415.212.9300
     Fax: 415.373.9435
     Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com

          - and -

     Jeff Raizner, Esq.
     RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
     2402 Dunlavy Street
     Houston, TX 77006
     Tel: 844.456.4823
     Fax: 713.554.9098
     Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


DWELL MEDICAL: "Bell" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------
Justina Bell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Throggs Neck Walk-In Medical Care P.C.,
Adept Inpatient Medical Services, P.C, Walk In Medical Urgent
Care, P.C., First Choice Walk In Medical Care, P.C., South Nassau
Walk-In Medical Care, P.C., Dwell Medical Group, P.C. and
Dr. Jasminder Luthra, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-
04021 (S.D. N.Y., May 31, 2016), seeks to recover overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, statutory penalties and
reasonable attorney fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
and New York Labor Laws.

Defendants are part of a single integrated enterprise that
employed Plaintiff as a physician assistant where they allowed her
to transfer or be shared by and between affiliate clinics. Bell
claims to be denied overtime premium, wage notices and accurate
wage statements.

Walk-In Medical Urgent Care is a domestic corporation existing
under the laws of New York with Dr. Jasminder Luthra as its Chief
Executive Officer. It is located at 15 Hendrick S., Irvington, New
York 10533. Defendant clinics operate under the corporate entity
of Dwell Medical Group, P.C.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
     Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
     Armando A. Ortiz, Esq.
     FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
     28 Liberty Street
     New York, NY 10005
     Telephone: (212) 300-0375


EBIX INC: Suit Over Merger with Goldman Sachs Unit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Ebix, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2016, that the Company continues to defend the
class action related to the merger agreement with a unit of
Goldman Sachs.

Following the announcement on May 1, 2013 of the Company's
execution of a merger agreement with affiliates of Goldman Sachs &
Co., twelve putative class action complaints challenging the
proposed merger were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery.
These complaints name as Defendants some combination of the
Company, its directors, Goldman Sachs & Co. and affiliated
entities. On June 10, 2013, the twelve complaints were
consolidated by the Delaware Court of Chancery, now captioned In
re Ebix, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, CA No. 8526-VCN. On June 19,
2013, the Company announced that the merger agreement had been
terminated pursuant to a Termination and Settlement Agreement
dated June 19, 2013. After Defendants moved to dismiss the
consolidated proceeding, Lead Plaintiffs amended their operative
complaint to drop their claims against Goldman Sachs & Co. and
focus their allegations on an Acquisition Bonus Agreement ("ABA")
between the Company and Robin Raina. On September 26, 2013,
Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Consolidated Complaint.

On July 24, 2014, the Court issued its Memorandum Opinion that
granted in large part the Company's Motion to Dismiss and narrowed
the remaining claims. On September 15, 2014, the Court entered an
Order implementing its Memorandum Opinion.

On January 16, 2015, the Court entered an Order permitting
Plaintiffs to file a Second Amended and Supplemented Complaint. On
February 10, 2015, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Second
Amended and Supplemented Complaint, which was granted in part and
denied in part in a January 15, 2016 Memorandum Opinion and Order.

The remaining claims are as follows:

     (i) a purported class and derivative claim for breach of
fiduciary duty by the individual Defendants for improperly
maintaining the ABA as an unreasonable anti-takeover device;

    (ii) a purported class claim against the individual Defendants
for breach of the fiduciary duty of disclosure to the stockholders
with respect to the Company's 2010 Proxy Statement and 2010 Stock
Incentive Plan,

   (iii) a purported derivative claim against the individual
Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty to the Company in causing
incentive compensation to be awarded to themselves and others
under the 2010 Stock Incentive Plan,

    (iv) a purported class and derivative claim for breach of
fiduciary duty by the individual Defendants in adopting certain
bylaw amendments on December 19, 2014, and

     (v) a purported class and derivative claim seeking
invalidation of the December 19, 2014 bylaw amendments under
Delaware law.

Lead Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief with respect to the 2010
Stock Incentive Plan, the 2010 Proxy Statement, and the bylaw
amendments. Lead Plaintiffs also seek compensatory damages,
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The parties have filed answers to the remaining claims in the
Second Amended and Supplemented Complaint and discovery has
commenced. The Company denies any liability and intends to defend
the action vigorously.


ELWYN INC: Faces "Sims" Suit in E.D. Penn.
------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ELWYN, INC. The case
is captioned ROBERT SIMS ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF, INDIVIDUALLY, AND
ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. ELWYN and ELWYN,
INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-02894-MMB (E.D. Penn., June
10, 2016).

Elwyn is a Human Services organization, serving disabled and
disadvantaged individuals for over 130 years with locations in
Pennsylvania, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Justin F. Robinette, Esq.
           POST & POST LLC
           920 Cassatt Rd., 200 Berwyn Park Suite 102
           Berwyn, PA 19312
           Telephone: (484) 913 3034
           E-mail: jrobinette@postandpost.com

The Defendant is represented by:

           John P. Gonzales, Esq.
           MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN
           2000 Market St Suite 2300
           Philadelphia, PA 19103
           Telephone: (215) 575 2871
           jpgonzales@mdwcg.com


EVOKE NEUROSCIENCE: "Comprehensive Health" Sues Over Faxed Ads
--------------------------------------------------------------
Comprehensive Health Care Systems, Inc., a Florida Corporation,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-
situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Evoke Neuroscience, Inc., and John
Does 1-12 Defendants, Case No. 9:16-cv-80872-WJZ (S.D. Fla., May
31, 2016), seeks appropriate and punitive damages, attorney fees
and costs of suit and such further relief for violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Defendants sent Plaintiff an advertisement by facsimile without
prior consent. Evoke was promoting the eVox system, a clinical
tool used to measure cognitive impairment. Evoke is a Delaware
corporation with its principal place of business in Jacksonville,
North Carolina.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
     Tod A. Lewis, Esq.
     David M. Oppenheim, Esq.
     Daniel J. Cohen, Esq.
     BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
     134 N. La Salle St,, Ste. 1000
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Telephone: 312-658-5500
     Facsimile: 312-658-5555


FACEBOOK INC: Israeli Court Approves Privacy Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Oded Yaron, writing for Haaretz, reports that an Israeli court has
approved a class-action suit against Facebook for violating users'
privacy, ruling that a clause in Facebook's terms of use requiring
all suits to be heard in California courts is invalid.
The ruling is expected to spark other, similar suits by Israelis.
The $400-million suit, filed in the Central District Court by Ohad
Ben Hamo, argued that Facebook violates users' privacy by using
their private posts to determine which advertisements they should
see, without obtaining their knowing consent to this policy.  The
suit also accused Facebook of violating Israeli law by not
registering its database in the national database registry.

Facebook argued that the suit should be thrown out because, among
other reasons, its terms of use -- which all regular users must
sign -- explicitly require all suits against it to be heard by one
of two specified California courts.  Moreover, it said, its
relationship with users is governed by California law, which would
also preclude Israeli courts from hearing such suits.
But Judge Esther Stemmer, whose ruling was first reported by the
journal Seventh Eye, rejected these arguments, despite
acknowledging that legal precedent does award jurisdictional
priority to the courts stipulated in the users' agreement.
"Perhaps the time has come to examine the issue from a different
angle, from the customer's standpoint, especially when he's the
customer of huge international corporations that deal with
customers all over the world," Judge Stammer explained.

An owner's right to have legal proceedings take place on his own
territory "may lose some of its weight" when his product is
distributed not just to a few users, but "to most of the country's
residents," Judge  Stemmer continued.  "It's not clear that
Facebook's right to litigate in one single place in the world, as
stipulated in the uniform contracts it had users' sign, overrides
the right of all the users to readily obtain legal remedy in their
own countries.

"It seems anyone who disseminates his wares must be ready to be
sued in any country where he does a significant amount of
business," she wrote.  "That's especially true when there's such a
large gap between Facebook's size in Israel, and apparently also
its net worth, and each of its users, or even all of them
together. The burden imposed on each of them by litigating abroad,
or according to California law, is a significant one that's liable
to prevent litigation in many cases."

Stemmer charged Facebook 10,000 shekels ($2,600) in court costs
and gave it 90 days to respond to the suit.


FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Faces "Church" Suit in W.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Financial Recovery Services, Inc.
The case is entitled Mary Rozzi Church, an individual, on behalf
of herself and those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Financial Recovery Services, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, the
Defendant, Case No. 6:16-cv-06391-FPG (W.D.N.Y., June 10, 2016).
The Assigned Judge is Hon. Frank P. Geraci, Jr.

Financial Recovery offers collection services to mid-size
companies across the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander Jerome Douglas, Esq.
          GESUND AND PAILET
          11 Alger Dr
          Rochester, NY 14624
          Telephone: (585) 703 9783
          Facsimile: (504) 265 9492
          E-mail: alex@gp-nola.com


FLINT, MI: AG Sues Two Engineering Cos. Over Water Crisis
---------------------------------------------------------
Mike Householder and David Eggert, writing for The Associated
Press, report that Michigan's attorney general filed a civil
lawsuit on June 22 against two water engineering companies, saying
their negligence caused and exacerbated Flint's lead-tainted water
crisis and demanding what could total hundreds of millions of
dollars in damages.

Veolia and Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam, also known as LAN, were
sued in Genesee County Circuit Court.  The firms already are
facing suits from Flint residents over the disaster, in which
improperly treated water from the Flint River scraped toxic lead
from pipes into tap water.

Houston-based LAN -- whose Flint office in 2013 and 2014 helped
the city of nearly 100,000 switch to the Flint River as its
primary water supply after decades of buying treated water from
Detroit -- was accused of professional negligence and public
nuisance.

Veolia, a French multinational corporation with U.S. offices,
faces the same allegations along with a fraud count.

Veolia was hired in 2015 after Flint began encountering numerous
water problems but, according to the suit, it and LAN didn't
detect the lack of a corrosion control chemical and instead
recommended the addition of a chloride that made the problem
worse.

"In Flint, Veolia and LAN were hired to do a job and failed
miserably," Attorney General Bill Schuette said at a news
conference in Flint.  "They basically botched it, didn't stop the
water in Flint from being poisoned. They made it worse."

In a statement, Veolia North America said it "will vigorously
defend itself against these unwarranted allegations of
wrongdoing."  It noted that a task force appointed by Gov.
Rick Snyder largely blamed the state for the emergency and did not
even mention the company or assign it any blame.

"The Attorney General has not talked to Veolia about its
involvement in Flint, interviewed the company's technical experts
or asked any questions about our one-time, one-month contract with
Flint," Veolia said in a statement.  "Veolia's engagement with the
city was wholly unrelated to the current lead issues."

LAN spokesman Tim Coffey said Mr. Schuette "blatantly
mischaracterized" the company's role.  The decision to not add
corrosion controls was made by the city and state regulators, not
LAN, according to the company, which said it had regularly pushed
for corrosion control.

Gov. Snyder has apologized for regulatory failures while the
poverty-stricken city was under state financial management and
began drawing its drinking water from the local river in a cost-
cutting move.  The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
told the city that it was not required to add an anti-corrosion
chemical until after a year of testing.

Lead from old pipes leached into homes and businesses, leading to
a public health emergency.  There also were earlier E. coli
detections; resident complaints about color, odor and taste; and
high levels of a disinfectant byproduct.  A General Motors plant
had stopped using the water just six months after the 2014 switch
because it was rusting engine parts, and experts suspect a deadly
Legionnaires' disease outbreak was tied to the water.

Flint returned to the Detroit water system in October.

Criminal charges have already been filed against two state
environmental officials, while Flint's utilities administrator
pledged cooperation in exchange for reduced charges.

Once Gov. Snyder signs budget legislation, Michigan will have
allocated at least $240 million to resolve the water crisis in
Flint.

Noah Hall, a special assistant attorney general on Mr. Schuette's
investigatory team, said the investigators "can't get the lead out
of kids' blood."  But they can hold accountable those responsible
and collect money so "the people of Michigan and the state of
Michigan can provide the kind of services needed to help this
community recover from the devastating impacts of lead poisoning,"
he said.

Legal damages could be used in part to replace thousands of lead
service lines and pipes, according to the suit.

Mr. Schuette on June 22 again promised additional criminal
charges, saying some will be filed "soon."  Special Counsel Todd
Flood acknowledged difficulty obtaining documents and other
information from agencies, including the governor's office, but he
pledged to go to court to get them if needed.

Gov. Snyder spokeswoman Anna Heaton said lawyers in the attorney
general's office have produced hundreds of thousands of documents
from the governor's office and state departments for Flood, and
"we will continue cooperating fully with all investigations, as we
have from the beginning."


FRANKLIN COUNTY, OH: Jail Inmates Sue Over Personal Tattoo Photos
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Rouan, writing for The Columbus Dispatch, reports that a
woman who says she was forced to disrobe at the Franklin County
jail so photos could be taken of tattoos on her genitals is
leading a class-action lawsuit against the county.

The lawsuit, which was filed more than three years ago, says
Kristen McDonald and other jail inmates who were arrested for
minor crimes were made to strip naked so their tattoos could be
recorded for identification purposes.

Now, attorneys representing Ms. McDonald are trying to round up
about 800 other former inmates who might have a claim in the
lawsuit.

Women eligible for the class action lawsuit were charged with
minor crimes, including misdemeanors, probation violations and
traffic infractions.  Jail personnel photographed their breasts,
lower abdomen, genitals and buttocks at the Jackson Pike jail
between May 23, 2011 and April 30, 2014, the suit says.

Ms. McDonald joined other students to celebrate their recent
graduation from Ohio State University at a bar near campus in June
2012, but she was arrested for disorderly conduct after leaving
the bar and taken to the Franklin County jail on Jackson Pike,
according to court records.

There, she was told to disrobe in front of other inmates to be
searched and then told to remove clothes so that her tattoos could
be photographed by a male technician.  Ms. McDonald objected, but
she said in a deposition that the county employees handling inmate
identification told her that everyone booked at the jail was
subject to the same policy.

A male employee then took photos of several tattoos, including one
on her genitals, after she was asked to remove her pants and
underwear, according to her testimony.

Ms. McDonald was released on bail the next day, and the charges
eventually were dismissed.

The lawsuit says that the county violated Ms. McDonald's fourth
amendment right against illegal search and seizure when its
employees took the photos and kept them after the charges were
dismissed.

Sheriff Zach Scott declined to comment.  Franklin County
Prosecutor Ron O'Brien said the sheriff's office changed its
policy for photographing tattoos about two years ago.

The new policy limits photographing of tattoos on the buttocks,
genitals and female breasts to those women charged with felonies,
according to court documents.

"They've admitted 'we're stopping this,' but they've refused to
say they're stopping it permanently," said Elmer Robert Keach III,
an attorney for Ms. McDonald.  "There's a very real possibility
that they could revert back to this procedure in the future."

He said he will pursue a permanent injunction against the
practice.

"This has been going on for a long time," Mr. Keach said.
"Obviously, nobody challenged it until now."


GC SERVICES: Macy Seeks Certification of FDCPA Class in Kentucky
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wilbur Macy and Pamela J. Stowe ask the Court certify the action
styled WILBUR MACY and PAMELA J. STOWE, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated v. GC SERVICES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
Case No. 3:15-cv-00819-DJH (W.D. Ky.), as a class action pursuant
to claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  They want
the Court to certify this class:

     (1) All persons with a Kentucky or a Nevada address, (2) to
     whom GC Services Limited Partnership mailed an initial
     communication that stated: (a) "if you do dispute all or any
     portion of this debt within 30 days of receiving this
     letter, we will obtain verification of the debt from our
     client and send it to you," and/or (b) "if within 30 days of
     receiving this letter you request the name and address of
     the original creditor, we will provide it to you in the
     event it differs from our client," (3) between November 5,
     2014 and November 5, 2015, (4) in connection with the
     collection of a consumer debt, (5) that was not returned as
     undeliverable to GC Services Limited Partnership.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as class
representatives, and appoint their counsel as class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=VNbP72NU

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shireen Hormozdi, Esq.
          1770 Indian Trail Lilburn Road, Suite 175
          Norcross, GA 30093
          Telephone: (800) 994-9855
          Facsimile: (866) 929-2434
          E-mail: shireen@norcrosslawfirm.com

               - and -

          James L. Davidson, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 826-5477
          Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
          E-mail: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          William S. Helfand, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
          24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1400
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 654-9630
          E-mail: bill.helfand@lewisbrisbois.com


GENENTECH INC: Comanche Suit Consolidated in MDL 2700
-----------------------------------------------------
Comanche County Memorial Hospital on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Genentech Inc., Roche
Holding AG, Roche Holding, Ltd., and Roche Holdings, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-02498, was removed from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma (Tulsa).
The Oklahoma Northern District assigned Case No. 4:16-cv-00347-
TCK-TLW to the proceeding.

Genentech is a biotechnology company that discovers, develops,
manufactures and commercializes medicines to treat patients with
serious or life-threatening medical conditions.

The Comanche case is being consolidated with MDL 2700 IN RE:
GENENTECH HERCEPTIN (TRASTUZUMAB) MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES
LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on April 7, 2016. These
actions share factual questions arising from Genentech's marketing
and sales of Herceptin (trastuzumab), a prescription medication
for the treatment of certain types of breast cancer.
Plaintiffs in all the actions are oncology providers who allege
that Genentech breached its warranties regarding the amount,
volume, or concentration of Herceptin that it sold them. In its
April 7, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this
MDL suggests that centralization of these nine actions before a
single judge likely will yield greater efficiency and cost
benefits for both the parties and the courts than informal
cooperation and coordination. Centralization will eliminate
duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings; and
conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the
judiciary. Presiding Judges in the MDL is Hon. Terence C. Kern,
United States District Judge. The lead case is 4:16-md-02700-TCK-
TLW.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elise Rochelle Sanguinetti, Esq.
          ARIAS, SANGUINETTI, STAHLE & TORRIJOS
          555 12th St Ste 1230
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (510) 629 4877
          Facsimile: (510) 291 9742

The Defendant is represented by:

          Alicia Jane Donahue, Esq.
          SHOOK HARDY & BACON LLP (SAN FRANCISCO)
          One Montgomery Ste 2700
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 544 1900
          Facsimile: (415) 391 0281
          E-mail: adonahue@shb.com


GVC: May Face Class Action Over Customer Data Privacy Risks
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ben Martin, writing for The Telegraph reports that more than
20,000 people could join a class action against online gambling
giant GVC, the law firm spearheading a potential legal fight with
the Sportingbet owner has claimed.

GVC has been embroiled in a legal spat with Doug Honegger, a
former ice hockey player who has claimed the London-listed
business went back on an agreement to partner with his firm 37
Entertainment on two Sportingbet websites in Canada.  GVC's boss
Kenny Alexander has always dismissed 37E's claims.

However, as a result of 37E's dispute with GVC, law firm Findlay
McCarthy has been investigating whether the British company
breached its customers' privacy by allowing Honegger's business
access to their data.

Findlay McCarthy said on June 16 that it had been "retained by a
client willing to act as lead plaintiff in a foreseen class
proceeding" and that "it is estimated by the firm that the total
number of potential class members in this action could exceed
20,000".

The law firm added: "So far, those who have come forward have
confirmed that GVC did not inform them it would be allowing
another company, namely 37 Entertainment Inc and its partner,
Barry Alter, daily access to, and control over, confidential
customer data dating back to 2005.

"Such unfettered access was granted without the appropriate
privacy measures being put into place."

The potential class action is a distraction for Mr. Alexander, who
is focusing on integrating rival Bwin.  Party, which GVC agreed to
buy for about GBP1 billion last year, after a lengthy bidding war
with 888.

The Sportingbet owner said on June 16: "GVC has maintained
throughout this process that these allegations are spurious and
unfounded. GVC has no doubt in its ability defend itself if they
choose to pursue them."


H&M HENNES: Faces "Gomez" Suit in S.D. Fla.
-------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against H&M Hennes & Mauritz LP.  The
case is captioned Andres Gomez, 1251 NW 20th St., Apt. 705, Miami,
FL 33142, On His Own Behalf, and On Behalf of All Other
Individuals Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. H&M Hennes &
Mauritz LP, 1200 S Pine Island Rd, Plantation, FL 33314, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-22129-FAM (S.D. Fla., June 10, 2016).
The Assigned Judge is Hon. Federico A. Moreno.

H&M Hennes sells apparel and cosmetics for men, women, teenagers,
and children.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Richard Dinin, Esq.
          SCOTT R. DININ, P.A.
          4200 NW 7th Avenue
          Miami, FL 33127
          Telephone: (786) 431 1333
          Facsimile: (786) 513 7700
          E-mail: srd@dininlaw.com


HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Wolf Seeks Certification of Consumer Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled ANNE WOLF, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. HEWLETT PACKARD
COMPANY, Case No. 5:15-cv-01221-BRO-GJS (C.D. Cal.), asks the
Court to certify a consumer class consisting of:

     All consumers, who, between in or about April 2014, and the
     present, purchased one or more HP Laserjet P1102 printers in
     the United States, and whose printer was advertised to
     include the HP Smart Install feature, but was in fact
     subject to HP's disablement of the Smart Install Feature.

Anne Wolf also moves the Court to certify the California subclass
consisting of:

     All consumers, who, between in or about April 2014, and the
     present, purchased one or more HP Laserjet P1102 printers in
     the state of California, and whose printer was advertised to
     include the HP Smart Install feature, but was in fact
     subject to HP's disablement of the Smart Install Feature.

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

The Court will commence a hearing on August 22, 2016, at 1:30
p.m., to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=rqCG5k5Z

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, 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


HONEYWELL INT'L: Chandra Files Appeal From "Halley" Suit Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Maureen Chandra filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled Mattie Halley, et al. v. Honeywell
International Inc, et al., Case No. 2-10-cv-03345, in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The Plaintiffs alleged that the chromium ore processing residue
contamination and associated hexavalent chromium at or in the
vicinity of the Mutual Chemical Company plant in Jersey City and
within the Settlement Class Boundaries has interfered with their
use and enjoyment of their properties, and has diminished their
property values.

On May 10, 2016, the Court entered the Order and Final Judgment
Approving Class-Action Settlement authorizing the distribution of
the Settlement proceeds to eligible Class Members.

The settlement provides a $10,017,000 non-reversionary settlement
fund for the benefit of residential property owners in two class
areas within the vicinity of the former plant.  Under the
settlement, the owners of more than 2,000 residential properties
will be entitled to a payment of nearly $3,000 per property.

Chandra's appeal has delayed, indefinitely, the plan to distribute
the settlement funds this summer.

"On May 26th, the sole class member who objected to the settlement
filed, through her attorneys, an Appeal of the Order of the
District Court approving the settlement. It is impossible to know
how long the appeal will delay distribution but, if the appeal is
fully pursued, it would likely be over a year," according to the
Settlement's web site.

Additional information on the case is available at:

            http://honeywelljerseycitysettlement.com/

The appellate case is captioned as Mattie Halley, et al. v.
Honeywell International Inc, et al., Case No. 16-2712, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellant Maureen Chandra is represented by:

          Thomas Paciorkowski, Esq.
          P.O. Box 24182
          Jersey City, NJ 07304
          Telephone: (201) 823-0901

               - and -

          Thomas F. Shebell, III, Esq.
          SHEBELL & SHEBELL LLC
          655 Shrewbury Avenue, Suite 314
          Shrewsbury, NJ 07702
          Telephone: (866) 957-5237
          E-mail: tshebell@shebell.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees Mattie Halley and Shem Onditi are represented
by:

          Esther E. Berezofsky, Esq.
          WILLIAMS CUKER BEREZOFSKY
          210 Lake Drive East
          Woodland Falls Corporate Park, Suite 101
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
          Telephone: (856) 667-0500
          E-mail: eberezofsky@wcblegal.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees Mattie Halley, Shem Onditi, Leticia Malave
and Temporary Administrator of the Estate of Sergio De La Cruz are
represented by:

          Steven J. German, Esq.
          Joel M. Rubenstein, Esq.
          GERMAN RUBENSTEIN LLP
          19 West 44th Street, Suite 1500
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 724-6284
          E-mail: SGerman@germanrubenstein.com
                  JRubenstein@germanrubenstein.com

Defendant-Appellee Honeywell International Inc. is represented by:

          Kim M. Catullo, Esq.
          Jason R. Halpin, Esq.
          Michael R. McDonald, Esq.
          Edward F. McTiernan, Esq.
          Damian V. Santomauro, Esq.
          GIBBONS P.C.
          One Gateway Center
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 596-4500
          E-mail: kcatullo@gibbonslaw.com
                  jhalpin@gibbonslaw.com
                  mmcdonald@gibbonslaw.com

Defendant-Appellee PPG Industries Inc. is represented by:

          Joseph F. Lagrotteria, Esq.
          Dorothy M. Laguzza, Esq.
          Karol C. Walker, Esq.
          LECLAIRRYAN
          1037 Raymond Boulevard
          One Riverfront Plaza, 16th Floor
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 491-3516
          Facsimile: (973) 491-3485
          E-mail: joseph.lagrotteria@leclairryan.com
                  dorothy.laguzza@leclairryan.com
                  karol.corbinwalker@leclairryan.com


HOUSEHOLD INT'L: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $1.575MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on June 16 disclosed that just
hours before a second jury trial was scheduled to begin before the
Honorable Jorge L. Alonso in Chicago federal court, the parties in
the Household International (now HSBC Finance Corporation)
securities class action reached an agreement, subject to court
approval, to settle the action for a total of $1.575 billion in
cash.  The $1.575 billion recovery is a record; it is the largest
ever following a securities fraud class action trial, the largest
securities fraud settlement in the Seventh Circuit and the seventh
largest settlement ever in a post-PSLRA securities fraud case.
According to published reports, the case was just the seventh
securities fraud case tried to a verdict since the passage of the
PSLRA.

The case was filed on August 19, 2002, and a six-week jury trial
began on March 30, 2009. On May 7, 2009, a jury returned a
securities fraud verdict in favor of the class, finding that
Household and the individual defendants, William Aldinger, David
Schoenholz and Gary Gilmer, collectively made 17 false and
misleading statements concerning the Illinois lender's financial
results and operations in violation of Sec. 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5.  Plaintiffs'
counsel, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP ("Robbins Geller"),
fought the defendants' repeated attempts to derail the litigation
after the verdict, which included several post-trial motions to
invalidate the verdict, objections to tens of thousands of claims
by injured class members, and an appeal to the Seventh Circuit
Court of Appeals.

On May 21, 2015, the appellate court upheld the jury's verdict
that defendants made false or misleading statements of material
fact about the company's predatory lending practices, the quality
of its loan portfolio and the company's financial results between
March 23, 2001 and October 11, 2002, but sent the case back for a
retrial limited to whether the individual defendants "made"
certain false statements, whether those false statements caused
plaintiffs' losses, and the amount of damages.  The retrial was
scheduled to begin on June 6, 2016.

"I am very happy with the great job that our lawyers Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and everyone at Glickenhaus & Co. did
over many, many years to achieve this incredible result.  The
mills of Justice grind slowly, but sometimes they do grind
exceedingly fine," said James Glickenhaus of Glickenhaus & Co.,
one of three lead plaintiffs appointed by the court in 2002 to
represent the class. The International Union of Operating
Engineers Local No. 132 Pension Plan and PACE Industry Union-
Management Pension Fund also represented the class.

Robbins Geller, lead counsel in this record-breaking recovery, is
uniquely equipped to handle trials in securities fraud cases.  The
Firm's teams of former federal and state prosecutors and other
experienced trial lawyers make Robbins Geller distinctive among
firms that specialize in plaintiffs' class action litigation and
enable it to see cases such as this through trial and appeal.

"This case showcased our willingness to shoulder the burden of
sustained litigation," said Robbins Geller lead trial attorney
Mike Dowd.  "The fact that, after 14 years of hard-fought
litigation -- including a trial and an appeal -- we obtained a
record recovery demonstrates our firm's resolve to vindicate the
rights of defrauded investors.  With my partners Spence Burkholz,
Dan Drosman, Luke Brooks and Maureen Mueller, we were ready to try
the case to verdict a second time.  We moved more than a dozen
attorneys, other professionals and support staff to Chicago for
the trial, and again for the retrial, and I'm glad their hard work
paid off for the class."

The case, Lawrence E. Jaffe Pension Plan v. Household
International, Inc., et al., Case No. 02-C-5893, is pending in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.  Robbins Geller, lead counsel in this record-breaking
recovery, represents U.S. and international institutional
investors in contingency-based securities and corporate
litigation.  With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller --
http:/www.rgrdlaw.com -- has obtained many of the largest
securities class action recoveries in history and was ranked first
in both the total amount and number of shareholder class action
recoveries in ISS's SCAS Top 50 Report for the last two years.


IL GABBIANO MIAMI: Conditional Cert. Granted in "Sulaj" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Ursula Ungaro granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiffs' motion to certify collective action and facilitate
notice to potential class members in the lawsuit titled VALDO
SULAJ, et al. v. IL GABBIANO MIAMI, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-
21239-UU (S.D. Fla.).

Judge Ungaro:

   (1) grants conditional certification of this class:

       "All persons who worked for Defendants as servers at their
        restaurant Il Gabbiano during the three (3) years
        preceding this lawsuit and who, as a result of
        Defendants' policy of requiring tipped employees to pool
        tips with employees who do not customarily and regularly
        receive tips, earned less than the applicable minimum
        regular and overtime wage for one or more weeks during
        the Relevant Time Period."

   (2) denies conditional certification of any class pertaining
       to, or otherwise including, bartenders at the Defendants'
       restaurant;

   (3) directs the parties to meet and confer to revise the
       proposed notice and consent forms to conform to the
       rulings in this Order.  The proposed notice and consent
       forms must include language explaining that opt-in
       plaintiffs: (1) may be required to pay Defendants' costs
       and attorneys' fees in connection with this action; and
       (2) will be required to participate in discovery in
       accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
       this Court's Orders.  The parties must provide amended and
       agreed forms of proposed notice and consent forms no later
       than Friday, July 1, 2016; and

   (4) orders the Plaintiffs and their counsel not to distribute
       notice or consent forms without express authorization by
       the Court.

Based on the parties' briefing and the parties' counsel's argument
at the June 17, 2016 Initial Planning and Scheduling Conference,
the Court concludes that servers at the Defendants' restaurant are
"similarly situated," such as to justify conditional certification
of a class of servers.  In sum, Judge Ungaro opines, the possible
existence of the two different tip pools, thus, raises distinct
issues of law and fact that cannot be resolved at this juncture
and, therefore, preclude inclusion of the bartenders in the
conditional certification at this time.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=LC5SEvd7


ISORAY INC: Defends Bid to Dismiss Amended Complaint
----------------------------------------------------
IsoRay, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that IsoRay has filed a
reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint for
Violations of the Federal Securities Laws.

On May 22, 2015, the first of three lawsuits was filed against
IsoRay, Inc. and two of its officers -- Dwight Babcock (the
Company's retired CEO) and Brien Ragle -- related to a press
release on May 20, 2015 regarding a May 19 online publication of
the peer-reviewed article in the journal Brachytherapy titled
"Analysis of Stereotactic Radiation vs. Wedge Resection vs. Wedge
Resection Plus Cesium-131 Brachytherapy in Early-Stage Lung
Cancer" by Dr. Bhupesh Parashar, et al. The lawsuits are class
actions alleging violations of the federal securities laws. By
Order dated August 17, 2015, all of the pending lawsuits were
consolidated into one case -- In re IsoRay, Inc. Securities
Litigation; Case No. 4:15-cv-05046-LRS, in the US District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington. IsoRay retained Wilson
Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati as its and its officers' defense
counsel.

On October 16, 2015, an amended complaint was filed with more
detailed allegations relating to violations of federal securities
laws and requesting damages through a jury trial. Mr. Ragle was
dismissed from the complaint.

On December 15, 2015, IsoRay filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint altogether. Oral argument was scheduled on this motion
on April 2016 but was rescheduled at the request of the
plaintiff's attorney to May 12, 2016.

On April 1, 2016, IsoRay filed a reply in Support of Motion to
Dismiss Amended Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities
Laws. IsoRay believes the lawsuit is without merit and is seeking
its dismissal.

IsoRay, Inc. is a brachytherapy device manufacturer with FDA
clearance and CE marking for a single medical device that can be
delivered to the physician in multiple configurations as
prescribed for the treatment of cancers in multiple body sites.


J & J AIR: Certification of FLSA Class Sought in "Zurlo" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled AARON ZURLO and MATTHEW
SHEARER, on their own behalf, on behalf of a class of similarly
situated workers and in the interest of the general public v. J &
J AIR CONDITIONING, INC. and GERALD I. HURWITZ, Case No. 5:16-cv-
00723-NC (N.D. Cal.), moves the Court to preliminarily certify a
class of similarly situated "opt-in" workers under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and for an order to approve a "Notice of Election to
Opt-In."  The Plaintiffs propose this FLSA opt-in class:

     All Service Technicians who worked for any of the named
     Defendants at any time after June 10, 2013.

The Case involves Service Technicians in the Heating, Ventilation
and Air Conditioning "HVAC" industry, who are allegedly not paid
wages for all hours worked under Federal and California law such
that they are not properly paid overtime and minimum wage.

The Plaintiffs also seek to toll the statute of limitations from
June 10, 2016, through a contemplated 45 day opt in period.

The Court will commence a hearing on July 27, 2016, at 1:00 p.m.,
to consider the Motion.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Tomas E. Margain, Esq.
          JUSTICE AT WORK LAW GROUP, LLP
          84 W. Santa Clara Street, Suite 790
          San Jose, CA 95113
          Telephone: (408) 317-1100
          Facsimile: (408) 351-0105
          E-mail: Tomas@jawlawgroup.com


LAKELAND BANCORP: Class Suit Deal Has Preliminary Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
Lakeland Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the court gave
preliminary approval to the settlement in a class action lawsuit.

Certain former shareholders of Pascack Bancorp, Inc. brought a
purported class action (the "Action") in the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Bergen County, in connection with the merger of Pascack
Bancorp with and into the Company, and the merger of Pascack
Community Bank with and into Lakeland Bank. The complaint alleged
that the Company had aided and abetted the individual defendants
(former board members of Pascack Bancorp) in their alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty. The parties reached an agreement-in-
principle concerning the proposed settlement of the Action on
December 1 and December 2, 2015. The mergers were consummated on
January 7, 2016. The parties have agreed to a stipulation of
settlement which is pending court approval. On April 1, 2016, the
court gave preliminary approval to the settlement.


LEXISNEXIS: Cato Files Amicus Brief to Review Schulman Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ilya Shapiro and Jayme Weber, writing for CATO Institute, report
that when a class action is settled, class members accept the
benefits of the settlement while giving up any legal claims they
may otherwise have against the defendant.  When the class members'
claims are for money-damages, the rule of civil procedure require
that prospective class members must be given the opportunity to
opt out of the class to pursue their individual claims
independently.  This opt-out requirement is a barrier to collusion
between defendants and class counsel, who could negotiate a low
per-member monetary (or coupon) award in exchange for
extinguishing the claims of a large number of people.

An exception to this general rule exists, however, when the claim
is not for money but rather for declaratory or injunctive relief--
in other words, that the defendant do or stop doing something.  In
that case, individual class members would have no need to pursue a
separate claim for personalized relief.  Put simply, in a case
seeking an injunction, there's no possibility that a different
attorney would be able to get any one class member more stuff--
because there's no money or other goodies to be gotten anyway.

This commonsense reasoning for the exception to the opt-out
requirement breaks down, however, when a case involves both
injunctive and monetary relief.  Denying an opt-out mechanism in
these cases is not only illogical, but depriving class members of
their money-damages claims without an opportunity to opt out of
the class violates the constitutional rights of absent class
members.  Specifically, the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause
protects class members' rights to remove themselves from the
class, pursue separate claims against the defendant, and be
represented by their counsel of choice. The Supreme Court has said
that "due process requires at a minimum that an absent plaintiff
be provided with an opportunity to remove himself from the class
by executing and returning an 'opt out' or 'request for exclusion'
form to the court." Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts (1985).

While the right to opt out of the class alone is insufficient to
prevent self-dealing by -- and collusion between -- class counsel
and defendants, it gives class members the final word on whether a
settlement sufficiently compensates them for surrendering their
legal claims.  Despite all this, the Richmond-based U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently upheld a settlement
certification without opt-out in a case that originally made
claims only for monetary relief, Schulman v. LexisNexis.

The statute under which the class sought relief, the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, provides for money-damages remedies only, not for
injunctive relief.  Nevertheless, the settlement reached by class
counsel and defendants would extinguish class members' money-
damages claims while awarding them merely the defendants'
agreement forever to cease harmful actions.  Moreover, the court
certified the settlement without requiring that class members
receive notice and opportunity to opt out precisely because the
settlement provides for no monetary relief.  If allowed to stand,
this precedent will be a wink and a nod to class counsel and
defendants everywhere that, if sufficient care is taken in
crafting a settlement, they need not worry about the rights and
interests of those pesky class members.

Cato has filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to review
Schulman and ensure that the due process rights of class members
are protected nationwide.


MEDIA MARKETING: "Mendoza" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------
Jose Mendoza, on behalf of himself, Plaintiff, v. Media Marketing
Research Inc., Yazid Mourani and Magid Mourani, Defendants, Case
No. 1:16-cv-02950 (E.D. N.Y., June 8, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime, unpaid spread-of-hours premium, statutory
penalties, unpaid spread-of-hours premium, statutory penalties,
liquidated damages and attorney fees and costs pursuant to the New
York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Media Marketing Research Inc., is a domestic business corporation
organized under the laws of New York, with a principle place of
work and address for service of process located at 52-01 29th
Street, Long Island City, NY 11101, where Yazid Mourani and Magid
Mourani served as co-owners and principal officers. It is into
magazine distribution and warehousing. Mendoza was hired as a
warehouse worker.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     C.K. Lee, Esq.
     Anne Seelig, Esq.
     LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
     30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Tel: (212) 465-1188
     Fax: (212) 465-1181


MERRILL LYNCH: To Pay $415MM for Misusing Customer Cash
-------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission on June 23 announced that
Merrill Lynch has agreed to pay $415 million and admit wrongdoing
to settle charges that it misused customer cash to generate
profits for the firm and failed to safeguard customer securities
from the claims of its creditors.

An SEC investigation found that Merrill Lynch violated the SEC's
Customer Protection Rule by misusing customer cash that rightfully
should have been deposited in a reserve account.  Merrill Lynch
engaged in complex options trades that lacked economic substance
and artificially reduced the required deposit of customer cash in
the reserve account.  The maneuver freed up billions of dollars
per week from 2009 to 2012 that Merrill Lynch used to finance its
own trading activities.  Had Merrill Lynch failed in the midst of
these trades, the firm's customers would have been exposed to a
massive shortfall in the reserve account.

According to the SEC's order instituting a settled administrative
proceeding, Merrill Lynch further violated the Customer Protection
Rule by failing to adhere to requirements that fully-paid for
customer securities be held in lien-free accounts and shielded
from claims by third parties should a firm collapse.  From 2009 to
2015, Merrill Lynch held up to $58 billion per day of customer
securities in a clearing account that was subject to a general
lien by its clearing bank and held additional customer securities
in accounts worldwide that similarly were subject to liens.  Had
Merrill Lynch collapsed at any point, customers would have been
exposed to significant risk and uncertainty of getting back their
own securities.

"The rules concerning the safety of customer cash and securities
are fundamental protections for investors and impose lines that
simply can never be crossed," said Andrew J. Ceresney, Director of
the SEC's Division of Enforcement.  "Merrill Lynch violated these
rules, including during the heart of the financial crisis, and the
significant relief imposed today reflects the severity of its
failures."

In conjunction with this case, the SEC announced a two-part
initiative designed to uncover additional abuses of the Customer
Protection Rule.  The first encourages broker-dealers to
proactively report potential violations of the rule to the SEC and
provides for cooperation credit and favorable settlement terms in
any enforcement recommendations arising from self-reporting.
Second, the Enforcement Division, in coordination with the
Division of Trading and Markets and the Office of Compliance
Inspections and Examinations, will conduct risk-based examinations
of certain broker-dealers to assess their compliance with
the Customer Protection Rule.

"Simultaneous with today's action, SEC staff will begin a
coordinated effort across divisions to find potential violations
by other firms through a targeted sweep and by encouraging firms
to self-report any potential violations of the Customer Protection
Rule," said Michael J. Osnato, Chief of the SEC Enforcement
Division's Complex Financial Instruments Unit.

In addition to the Customer Protection Rule violations, Merrill
Lynch violated Exchange Act Rule 21F-17 by using language in
severance agreements that operated to impede employees from
voluntarily providing information to the SEC.  Merrill Lynch also
engaged in significant remediation in response to the Rule 21F-17
violation, including the revision of its agreements, policies and
procedures, and the implementation of a mandatory annual
whistleblower-training program for all employees of Merrill Lynch
and its parent corporation, Bank of America.  Merrill Lynch and
Bank of America also agreed to provide employees, on an annual
basis, with a summary of their rights and protections under the
SEC's Whistleblower Program.

The SEC separately announced a litigated administrative proceeding
against William Tirrell, who served as Merrill Lynch's Head of
Regulatory Reporting when the firm was misusing customer cash in
violation of the Customer Protection Rule.  The SEC's Enforcement
Division alleges that Tirrell was ultimately responsible for
determining how much money Merrill Lynch would reserve in its
special account, and failed to adequately monitor the trades and
provide specific information to the firm's regulators about the
substance and mechanics of the trades.  The litigated
administrative proceeding against Tirrell will be scheduled for a
public hearing before an administrative law judge who will issue
an initial decision stating what, if any, remedial actions are
appropriate.

The SEC's order finds that Merrill Lynch violated Securities
Exchange Act Sections 15(c)(3) and 17(a)(1) and Rules 15c3-3, 17a-
3(a)(10), 17a-5(a), 17a-5(d)(2)(ii), 17a-5(d)(3), 17a-11(e), and
21F-17.  Its subsidiary Merrill Lynch Professional Clearing
Corporation is charged with violating Sections 15(c)(3) and
17(a)(1) and Rules 15c3-3, 17a-3(a)(10) and 17a-5(a).  Merrill
Lynch cooperated fully with the SEC's investigation and has
engaged in extensive remediation, including by retaining an
independent compliance consultant to review its compliance with
the Customer Protection Rule.  Merrill Lynch agreed to pay $57
million in disgorgement and interest plus a $358 million penalty,
and publicly acknowledged violations of the federal securities
laws.

The SEC's investigation was conducted by Jeff Leasure and James
Murthacwith assistance from Eli Bass and Michael Birnbaum.  The
case was supervised by Mr. Osnato and Daniel Michael.  The SEC's
litigation against Mr. Tirrell will be led by Michael Birnbaum,
Jeff Leasure, and James Murtha.  The SEC appreciates the
assistance of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board.


MERRILL LYNCH: Pays $10MM Penalty for Misleading Investors
----------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission on June 23 said that
Merrill Lynch has agreed to pay a $10 million penalty to settle
charges that it was responsible for misleading statements in
offering materials provided to retail investors for structured
notes linked to a proprietary volatility index.

According to the SEC's order instituting a settled administrative
proceeding, the offering materials emphasized that the notes were
subject to a 2 percent sales commission and 0.75 percent annual
fee.

Due to the impact of these costs over the five-year term of the
notes, the volatility index would need to increase by 5.93 percent
from its starting value in order for investors to earn back their
original investment on the maturity date.  But the offering
materials failed to adequately disclose a third cost included in
the volatility index known as the "execution factor" that imposed
a cost of 1.5 percent of the index value each quarter.

The notes were issued by Merrill Lynch's parent company Bank of
America Corporation, and Merrill Lynch had principal
responsibility for drafting and reviewing the retail pricing
supplements.  The SEC's order finds that Merrill Lynch did not
have in place effective policies or procedures to ensure its
personnel drafted and approved disclosures that adequately
disclosed the impact of the execution factor.

This is the agency's second case involving misleading statements
by a seller of structured notes.  In October 2015, UBS AG agreed
to pay $19.5 million to settle charges that it made false or
misleading statements and omissions in offering materials provided
to U.S. investors in structured notes linked to a proprietary
foreign exchange trading strategy.

"This case continues our focus on disclosures relating to retail
investments in structured notes and other complex financial
products. Offering materials for such products must be accurate
and complete, and firms must implement systems and policies to
ensure investors receive all material facts," said Andrew J.
Ceresney, Director of the SEC Enforcement Division.

Michael J. Osnato, Chief of the SEC Enforcement Division's Complex
Financial Instruments Unit, added, "This case demonstrates the
SEC's ongoing commitment to creating a level playing field when it
comes to the sale of highly complex financial products to retail
investors."

The SEC's order finds that Merrill Lynch violated Section 17(a)(2)
of the Securities Act of 1933, which prohibits obtaining money or
property by means of material misstatements and omissions in the
offer or sale of securities.  Without admitting or denying the
findings, Merrill Lynch agreed to cease and desist from committing
or causing any similar future violations and pay a penalty of $10
million.

The SEC's investigation was conducted by Christopher C. Nee,
Thomas D. Silverstein, and Kapil Agrawal with assistance from
Thomas A. Bednar and David S. Johnson.  The case was supervised by
Andrew B. Sporkin, Reid A. Muoio, and Mr. Osnato.  The SEC
appreciates the assistance of the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority.


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Ray Griffin Files Suit Over Concussions
------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Solomon, writing for CBSSports.com, reports that former Ohio
State All-American Ray Griffin, the younger brother of two-time
Heisman Trophy winner Archie Griffin, claims his life began going
downhill after he suffered a concussion as a junior in college.

In an interview with CBS Sports, Mr. Griffin said he became "a
different person" in future years, including getting involved with
drugs and alcohol and making "major mistakes" in his life. For the
longest time, Mr. Griffin said, he didn't understand why he acted
that way.  He believes he now knows.

According to Mr. Griffin, his recent participation in a Boston
University study showed the odds are "extremely high" that he has
chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), a degenerative brain
disease linked with repetitive brain trauma.  For now, CTE can
only be diagnosed after a person dies.

"I thank God I'm alive today," Mr. Griffin said.  "For the longest
time I was preoccupied with dying and now I know why.  I was
always thinking, 'I'm going to die. I'm going to die.  I'm not
going to get that far.'  My depression was so bad I could just
cry.  I'd be driving in the car and just bust out crying."

This month, Mr. Griffin became arguably the highest-profile player
to legally challenge college football over how the game once
handled concussions.  Four more class-action lawsuits were
recently filed in an attempt to get money for ex-college players
who claim they're suffering from injuries related to head trauma.
Griffin and former Michigan starting linebacker Steve Strinko are
each separately suing the NCAA and Big Ten.  Ex-Tennessee
defensive back O.J. Owens is suing the NCAA and SEC.  Ex-Duke
defensive back Derrick Lee is suing the NCAA, ACC and Duke.
Griffin, a member of Ohio State's athletic Hall of Fame, was a
three-year starter from 1974-77 and a first-team All-American
safety in 1977.  The Buckeyes went 29-6-1 and won three Big Ten
championships in Griffin's three seasons as a starter.  He later
played seven years in the NFL for the Cincinnati Bengals.
Griffin comes from Ohio State royalty.  His older brother Archie
is one of college football's living legends.

"I don't talk to Archie about my personal business and he doesn't
talk about his," Ray Griffin said on the day the lawsuit was
filed.  "This is my fight.  It has nothing to do with him. He
doesn't even know I'm taking this on, but he will find out.  This
is something I want to do.  I need to do this, for me and for
others."

Following the pattern of similar cases, Mr. Griffin's lawsuit
alleges the NCAA and Big Ten should have been fully aware of the
growing dangers of multiple concussions beginning in 1952 until
the NCAA began protocols in 2010.  Some lawyers who have worked on
other concussion cases are skeptical that attorney
Jay Edelson's series of class-action lawsuits will succeed given
legal challenges.  They're also concerned that blanketing the
country with class-action lawsuits isn't the best approach for
success.

A federal judge is expected to soon finalize the NCAA's $75
million settlement from consolidated concussion lawsuits.  The
settlement would allow ex-athletes in all sports -- if they pass a
screening questionnaire -- to get tested for cognitive problems
over a 50-year period.  What the deal won't do is pay for medical
care if the tests or other doctors determine the athletes need
treatment. A status hearing on the settlement is scheduled for
July 14.

In an opinion earlier this year, U.S. District Judge John Lee said
the facts produced in discovery do not show the NCAA's alleged
conduct injured college athletes in the same way as conclusions
reached in the NFL concussion case.  The need to make "individual,
fact-intensive determinations as to liability with respect to each
class member eclipses any common issues as to whether the NCAA had
a duty to protect players from concussion-related risks, breached
that duty, and fraudulently concealed those risks," Judge Lee
wrote.

Mr. Griffin is an example of an ex-NFL player now suing college
football governing bodies after likely not getting paid from the
NFL settlement.  A plaintiff in the NFL litigation, Griffin said
he doesn't think he will get an award based on his current
diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment.

The NFL reached a $900 million settlement with more than 5,000
retired players.  Players diagnosed with certain neurological
disorders can receive payments of up to $5 million each.  Critics
complain the settlement doesn't provide awards for players who are
later diagnosed with CTE.  An appellate court that upheld the
settlement noted there's no current way to test for CTE in the
living, and many symptoms associated with the disease -- such as
memory loss -- are eligible for compensation.

"Guys like me, we were not represented in the (NFL) case," said
Mr. Griffin, who is part of a study that could soon allow living
people to be diagnosed with CTE.  "They had all my medical
records. They knew my symptoms, and most guys in the NFL are just
like me."

Mr. Griffin said injuries incurred in football ended up damaging
his income.  Ray and Archie Griffin filed for bankruptcy in 1981,
according to a United Press International article that year.  They
were partners in a defunct chain of sporting goods stores in
central Ohio.  Ray Griffin claimed debts of $539,100 and assets of
$93,350.

Court records show that in 2004, Ray Griffin sued the city of
Heath, Ohio, alleging misconduct by police officers due to his
race.  Mr. Griffin claimed he was sprayed with mace by a police
officer during a dispute over moving his Mercedes Benz and Lincoln
Continental from the street due to a snow emergency.  The parties
agreed to dismiss the case in 2006.

Mr. Griffin, who turns 60 this month, said he has seen behavioral
changes for years in former Ohio State players, including the
recent death of Willie "Chico" Nelson that police called a likely
suicide.  Mr. Griffin acknowledged he can't know for certain if
ex-college players are dying due to CTE, but he believes that to
be the case.  When asked what he hopes to get from suing the NCAA
and Big Ten, Mr. Griffin said, "You've got to make it right," but
added he's not sure how.

"I know it's not going to be perfect," he said.  "But it's got to
be something where everyone is at least satisfied, something that
shows the NCAA, the Big Ten, college football knows that they did
harm and they're admitting they did harm and they want to make it
right with you."

Mr. Griffin questioned why the NCAA did not properly address the
dangers of head trauma earlier given that "punch-drunk syndrome"
was first described for boxers in the 1920s.  The syndrome is
formally known as dementia pugilistica, a type of CTE that can
affect athletes who suffer concussions.  "The reason I didn't want
(to be a boxer) was I never wanted to be punch drunk," Griffin
said. "Never did I know that playing football would cause me to be
punch drunk."

In recent years, football has tried to make the game safer through
rules changes, concussion protocol and education.  Still, Mr.
Griffin said he would not play football again knowing what he
knows now and doesn't want his grandchildren to play.

An interesting question in these series of NCAA lawsuits is to
what extent college football players really want to sue their old
school.  Technically, Mr. Griffin is not suing Ohio State.
Edelson, the attorney leading the cases, said some of the lawsuits
don't name the university as a defendant because state schools
often have sovereign immunity from liability.

Still, Mr. Griffin continues to live in Columbus, Ohio.  He knows
how his lawsuit may be received in the college football hotbed
where he lives.

"I'm going to catch a lot of flak," he said.  "But that's OK
because those people who are giving me flak, they really don't
understand and I'm not going to blame them for that.  But I'm not
going to change my mind. . . . Football is killing a lot of people
and we need to become more aware of this.  It is a serious,
serious problem."

Wrongful death lawsuit vs. NCAA is getting settled

On the eve of trial, a wrongful death lawsuit brought by the
family of a Division III football player against the NCAA is
getting settled, according to a court filing on June 16 in
Rockville, Maryland.  The Derek Sheely trial against the NCAA, ex-
Frostburg State employees and helmet manufacturer Schutt Sports
had been scheduled to start on June 13 and last 24 days.

On June 16, the court docket showed a joint line saying the case
is being stayed for 60 days "to complete the settlement process."
Terms of the settlement were not disclosed.  Mr. Sheely attorney
Paul Anderson said in a statement: "The trial has been postponed
to allow the parties to complete the process of settling this
matter."  The NCAA declined to comment beyond the court filing.
Mr. Sheely was a Frostburg State football player who collapsed
during a 2011 practice after suffering a head injury and later
died.  Two years later, his family sued the NCAA, head coach
Tom Rogish, running backs coach Jamie Schumacher, trainer Michael
Sweitzer Jr., and Schutt Sports.  The Sheely family claimed the
Frostburg State employees missed multiple opportunities to treat
their son's head injury, and the NCAA failed to implement
concussion rules or investigate his death.

Mr. Sheely's parents previously said they never wanted to sue the
NCAA and did so to get the association's attention to make
football safer.  In 2015, Mr. Sheely's father Ken discussed a list
of items he said the family once requested from the NCAA in
mediation: NCAA concussion rules named after their son;
standardized hitting limits at practices for all sports in all
NCAA divisions; banning certain practice drills, including the one
Derek was participating in when he collapsed; and a Derek Sheely
Safety Award to recognize players who speak up for teammates who
won't sit down with concussion symptoms.

The NCAA argued in court that it has no legal duty to protect
players because it's a sports organization.  But in a sign of how
concussions are evolving before the courts, Montgomery County
Circuit Judge David Boynton denied the NCAA's motion for summary
judgment in April, setting the stage for a potential trial.
Boynton determined that the NCAA has a "special relationship"
since its mission statement is to protect college athletes and the
type of head injury that allegedly killed Mr. Sheely -- second-
impact syndrome from multiple concussions -- is not a known
inherent risk of playing football.

A five-week trial could have been embarrassing publicity for the
NCAA.  For the Sheely family, there was no guarantee of a long-
term victory given certain state laws in Maryland and a 1994
appellate ruling regarding the liability of sports organizations.
Scholarship plaintiffs seek TV deals from Power Five
Lawyers in the scholarship lawsuit seeking to let college athletes
be paid filed a motion to compel the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12 and Pac-
12 to produce financial, media and marketing contracts.  This
stems from the Shawne Alston/Martin Jenkins lawsuits against the
NCAA and five major conferences, a case led in part by prominent
attorney Jeffrey Kessler.
In a recent court filing, the Alston/Jenkins lawyers said the SEC
has agreed to produce most of its contracts, including agreements
with ESPN and CBS.  It's subject to an agreed-upon redactional
protocol in which a judge can resolve disputes.  ESPN agreed it
won't redact any provisions related to payment terms of the
contracts, according to the filing.

The plaintiffs said they continue to negotiate with the Pac-12 and
Big 12, but the Big Ten and ACC have declined to enter into any
further negotiations.  The filing said Fox, which has media deals
with the Pac-12, Big 12 and Big Ten, believes its contracts should
not be produced at all.

The Alston and Jenkins plaintiffs said these documents are
relevant because the NCAA and conferences "are grounding their
defenses on arguments relating to financial, consumer interest,
and student welfare issues."  The defendants have claimed that
allowing athletes to be paid would mean reduced scholarships and
opportunities for athletes.

A key issue for the Alston/Jenkins plaintiffs is proving consumer
demand won't be hurt if athletes are paid.  Given that TV money
continues to escalate even as football and basketball players got
paid for the full cost of attendance last year, the plaintiffs
wrote that "shows that loosening restrictions on payments to
athletes has had no adverse impact on the attractiveness of these
media properties to networks and consumers."

The plaintiffs said they also want the documents to show contract
terms illustrating the increasing time demands imposed on athletes
with weeknight games.  They cited North Carolina coach Roy
Williams' outrage at late-night start times for TV, in which he
said, "We sacrifice your third child and anything else for the
dollar."  One defense by the NCAA and conferences against paying
players is the quality of the collegiate experience while
integrating them with other students.

The NCAA and conferences are trying to dismiss the Jenkins case,
arguing that its merits have already been settled by an appellate
court's decision in the Ed O'Bannon case.  A hearing is scheduled
for Aug. 2.  Hearings and motion deadlines for the Jenkins and
Alston cases are currently scheduled through September 2017.


NATURE'S PATH: "Esparza" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------
Giselle Esparza, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Nature's Path USA II LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 16-CV-635 (E.D. Wis., May 31, 2016), seeks
unpaid overtime compensation, civil penalties, costs, attorney
fees, declaratory and/or injunctive relief and/or any such other
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Esparza has been denied overtime premium compensation for all
hours worked beyond forty in a workweek.

Nature's Path USA II LLC is a producer and international
distributor of organic foods. Defendant Nature's Path USA II LLC
runs its two United States production and distribution plants out
of Blaine, Washington and Sussex, Wisconsin.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Summer H. Murshid, Esq.
     Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
     Timothy P. Maynard, Esq.
     HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
     222 East Erie, Suite 210
     P.O. 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


NEW PORT RICHEY, FL: Red-Light Camera Contract Renewed Amid Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Napper, writing for Tampa Bay Times, reports that in a vote
that fell far short of a ringing endorsement, the New Port Richey
City Council has opted to keep the city's red-light camera program
alive on U.S. 19 for another year.


During a meeting, a split council voted 3-2 to renew its contract
with American Traffic Solutions.  The current contract was set to
expire on June 13.

The council, however, decided to scale back the program
considerably, cutting nearly in half the number of cameras it will
continue to use.  The council also opted for the one-year contract
in lieu of a five-year deal ATS sought.

The council's reasons for slashing the program varied, from
statistics showing that the number of drivers who run red lights
has been reduced dramatically at some intersections, to criticisms
of the program, including poor customer service from ATS; a
negative public perception the program gives the city, and an
ongoing red-light camera class-action suit against several Florida
cities including New Port Richey.

Under the new contract, which city officials say meets the
approval of ATS, the company will discontinue operation of four of
its nine cameras on U.S. 19 at midnight on June 13 -- southbound
at Marine Parkway, southbound at Main Street, and north and
southbound at Cross Bayou Boulevard.  City staffers selected those
intersections after an analysis by the New Port Richey Police
Department showed violations had fallen dramatically there.

The council did opt to keep cameras going for a year on U.S. 19
northbound at Trouble Creek Road, northbound at Floramar Terrace,
and north and southbound at Gulf Drive. The city will also keep a
camera on the westbound lanes of Main Street heading onto U.S. 19.

Police Chief Kim Bogart recommended keeping cameras at those
intersections, telling the council that the cameras generate as
many as 400 violations a month.

"To just ignore that and just look the other way troubles me a
lot," Mr. Bogart said.

City Manager Debbie Manns acknowledged that public perception of
the program is "poor" and offered up a plan to launch a public
information campaign, outlining the cameras' public safety
successes.

For Deputy Mayor Bill Phillips, who along with council member
Chopper Davis voted against a new contract, negative public
perception has been the driver of his longtime opposition to the
program.

"I just believe that it's a program that really doesn't help a
small city like New Port Richey market itself," he said.

It is estimated the program will provide the city with a windfall
of $700,000 this year, as violations have increased with the
completion of construction on U.S. 19, which city officials
believe brought down red-light citations and revenue in recent
years.  Revenue from the citations is divided among the city, the
state and ATS.

While the remaining three council members voted for the one-year
extension, support for keeping the program going longer appears to
be dwindling.  Mayor Rob Marlowe said he has been "underwhelmed"
by ATS's customer service, so he deemed a five-year contract to be
a mistake.

Council member Jeff Starkey expressed concern that, should the
pending class-action case go against the municipalities, New Port
Richey could be on the hook for paying back money collected from
drivers, dating back to the program's inception in 2011.  City
Attorney Joseph Poblick told the council he believes the city is
on solid legal ground, but the "worst-case scenario" is the city
could have to pay back an estimated $7 million should a court
ruling go against it.

Mr. Starkey went on to urge his colleagues not to rely on
red-light camera income in crafting budgets down the road.

"This isn't something we need to be dependent on for years to
come," he said.


NEW YORK COMMUNITY: Settlement Reached in Merger Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
New York Community Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the parties to
the New York Action have entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding ("MOU") setting out the terms of an agreement in
principle to settle all claims alleged on behalf of the putative
class relating to the merger.

Following the announcement on October 29, 2015 of the execution of
the Company's merger agreement with Astoria Financial, six
putative class action lawsuits filed in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, County of Nassau, challenging the proposed
merger between Astoria Financial Corporation ("Astoria") and New
York Community Bancorp, Inc. ("NYCB"). These actions are
captioned: (1) Sandra E. Weiss IRA v. Chrin, et al., Index No.
607132/2015 (filed November 4, 2015); (2) Raul v. Palleschi, et
al., Index No. 607238/2015 (filed November 6, 2015); (3) Lowinger
v. Redman, et al., Index No. 607268/2015 (filed November 9, 2015);
(4) Minzer v. Astoria Fin. Corp., et al., Index No. 607358/2015
(filed November 12, 2015); (5) MSS 12-09 Trust v. Palleschi, et
al., Index No. 607472/2015 (filed November 13, 2015); and (6)
Firemen's Ret. Sys. of St. Louis v. Keegan, et al., Index No.
607612/2015 (filed November 23, 2015 ). On January 15, 2016, the
court consolidated the New York Actions under the caption In re
Astoria Financial Corporation Shareholders Litigation, Index No.
607132/2015 (the "New York Action"), and a consolidated amended
complaint was filed on January 29, 2016. In addition, a seventh
lawsuit was filed challenging the proposed transaction in the
Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned O'Connell v. Astoria
Financial Corp., et al., Case No. 11928 (filed January 22, 2016)
(the "Delaware Action").

Each of the lawsuits challenging the proposed transaction is a
putative class action filed on behalf of the stockholders of
Astoria Financial and names as defendants Astoria Financial, its
directors, and the Company. The complaint in the New York Action
and the Delaware Action are substantially identical. The
complaints allege, among other things, that the directors of
Astoria breached their fiduciary duties in connection with their
approval of the merger agreement, including by: agreeing to an
allegedly unfair price for Astoria; approving the transaction
notwithstanding alleged conflicts of interest; agreeing to deal
protection devices that plaintiffs allege are unreasonable; and by
failing to disclose certain facts about the process that led to
the merger and financial analyses performed by Astoria's financial
advisors. The complaints also allege that NYCB aided and abetted
those alleged fiduciary breaches. The actions seek, among other
things, an order enjoining completion of the proposed merger.

On April 6, 2016, the parties to the New York Action entered into
a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") setting out the terms of an
agreement in principle to settle all claims alleged on behalf of
the putative class relating to the merger, which were disclosed on
April 8, 2016. The MOU provides, among other things, that Astoria
will make certain supplemental disclosures relating to the merger.
The settlement is subject to, among other things, the execution of
definitive documentation, the completion of the merger, and the
approval by the court of the proposed settlement. There can be no
assurance that the court will approve the settlement contemplated
by the MOU. If the court does not approve the settlement, or if
the settlement is otherwise disallowed, the proposed settlement as
contemplated by the MOU may be terminated.

The Company believes that the factual allegations in the lawsuits
are without merit and, having reached agreement in principal on
the resolution of the In re Astoria Financial Corporation
Shareholders Litigation matter, would intend to defend vigorously
against the allegations made by the plaintiffs in such matter in
the event that the settlement is not concluded as currently
intended and also intends to defend vigorously against the
allegations made by the plaintiffs in the Delaware Action.


NWP SERVICES: Cert. Bid in "Junod" Suit Taken under Submission
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California entered a civil minutes in matters before the Hon.
Josephine L. Staton in the lawsuit styled Michael Junod v. NWP
Services Corporation, et al., Case No. 8:14-cv-01734-JLS-JCG (C.D.
Cal.).

The Civil Minutes stated that a hearing was held on the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  The Civil Minutes
added that oral arguments were heard and the matter was taken
under submission.

A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=dx9AxQnq


ONE INC: "Warciak" Suit Seeks to Stop Unsolicited Phone Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW WARCIAK, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ONE, INC., a Delaware
corporation, the Defendant. Case No. 2016-CH-07881 (Ill. Cir. Ct.,
June 10, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of making
unwanted and unsolicited text message and calls to the cellular
telephones of consumers nationwide and to obtain redress for all
persons injured by its conduct.

The Defendant operates a social network for high school students.
Through its mobile application called "After School" (the "After
School App" or "App"), the Defendant lets teenagers connect and
share information anonymously with their classmates. Unbeknownst
to the users, Defendant programmed its After School App to cause
text messages promoting the After School App to be created and
sent to the individuals selected through the verification process.
That is, Defendant's mobile application communicates with
Defendant's servers and causes an automatic telephone dialing
system controlled by Defendant to transmit text messages drafted
by Defendant to the user's purported classmates.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PACKERS PLUS: "Jimenez" Labor Case Transferred to S.D. Tex.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Obed Jimenez on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Packers Plus Energy Services
(USA) Inc., Defendant, 4:16-cv-01625 (D.N.M., September 11, 2015),
has been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas on June 8, 2016.

Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Packers Plus is an oilfield services company that provides
specialized well drilling tools and equipment. Plaintiff worked
for Defendant as a field hand in their Texas, New Mexico and
Oklahoma locations.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel M. Faber, Esq.
     4620C Jefferson Lane NE
     Albuquerque, NM 87109
     Tel: (505) 830-0405
     Email: dan@danielfaber.com

          - and -

     Don J. Foty, Esq.
     John Neuman, Esq.
     KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
     711 W. Alabama St.
     Houston, TX 77006
     Telephone: (713) 523-0001
     Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
     Email: DFoty@kennedyhodges.com

Defendant is represented by

     David Anthony Roman
     ROBLES RAEL & ANAYA PC
     500 Marquette Ave NW, Suite 700
     Albuquerque, NM 87102

          - and -

     Andrea M. Johnson, Esq.
     Kane Russell Coleman & Logan PC
     1601 Elm Street
     3700 Thanksgiving Tower
     Dallas, TX 75201
     Website: www.krcl.com
     Phone: 214-777-4200
     Fax: 214-777-4299

          - and -

     Brian S. Colon, Esq.
     Robles Rael & Anaya, P.C.
     500 Marquette Ave. NW Suite 700
     Albuquerque, NM
     Tel: (505) 242-2228
     Email: info@roblesrael.com


PAD AND PUBLICATION: TCPA Class Certification Sought in PIMI Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned PODIATRY IN MOTION, INC.,
on behalf of plaintiff and the class members defined herein v. PAD
AND PUBLICATION ASSEMBLY CORPORATION doing business as LRP & P
GRAPHICS, and TRIPLEIRXPADS.COM and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 1:16-
cv-06357 (N.D. Ill.), asks the Court to certify these classes:

     For purposes of Count I, alleging violation of the Telephone
     Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227, plaintiff
     seeks to represent a class consisting of (a) all persons (b)
     who, on or after a date four years prior to the filing of
     this action (28 U.S.C. Section 1658), (c) were sent faxes by
     or on behalf of defendant, Pad and Publication Assembly
     Corporation doing business as LRP & P Graphics and
     TripleiRXpads.com, promoting its goods or services for sale
     (d) and which did not contain an opt out notice as described
     in 47 U.S.C. Section 227.

     For purposes of Count II, alleging violation of the Illinois
     Consumer Fraud Act, 815 ILCS 505/2, plaintiff seeks to
     represent a class consisting of (a) all persons and entities
     with Illinois fax numbers (b) who, on or after a date three
     years prior to the filing of this action, (c) were sent
     faxes by or on behalf of defendant, Pad and Publication
     Assembly Corporation doing business as LRP & P Graphics and
     TripleiRXpads.com, promoting its goods or services for sale
     (d) and which did not contain an opt out notice as described
     in 47 U.S.C. Section 227.

     For purposes of Count III, alleging conversion; Count IV,
     alleging nuisance; and Count V, alleging trespass to
     chattels, plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of
     (a) all persons with Illinois fax numbers (b) who, on or
     after a date five years prior to the filing of this action,
     (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendant, Pad and
     Publication Assembly Corporation doing business as LRP & P
     Graphics and TripleiRXpads.com, promoting its goods or
     services for sale (d) and which did not contain an opt out
     notice as described in 47 U.S.C. Section 227.

The Plaintiff further asks that it be appointed class
representative and that Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC
be appointed counsel for the class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=JqCyR8oz

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Dulijaza Clark, 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
                  ccombs@edcombs.com
                  jlatturner@edcombs.com
                  jclark@edcombs.com


PALO ALTO, CA: Faces "Slezak" Suit in N.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against City of Palo Alto. The case is
styled Doug Slezak, on behalf of himself and all similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. City of Palo Alto, the
Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-03224 (N.D. Cal., June 10, 2016).

Palo Alto is a charter city located in the northwest corner of
Santa Clara County, California, in the San Francisco Bay Area of
the United States.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


PFIZER INC: "Grisafi" Sues Over Viagra Side Effects
-----------------------------------------------------
Linda L. Grisafi, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate
of Vincent J. Grisafi, Jr., Deceased, Plaintiff, v. Pfizer Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-02904 (N.D. Cal., May 31, 2016), seeks
compensatory damages, punitive damages, equitable relief and such
other relief arising from negligence, strict products liability,
breach of implied and express warranty, fraudulent
misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment and negligent
misrepresentation.

Pfizer Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws
of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business in
the State of New York. It is engaged in the business of designing,
developing, manufacturing, labeling, promoting, marketing,
distributing and selling pharmaceutical drugs, including Viagra.

Grisafi contracted a destructive mass involving the right nasal
cavity, where the pathology report confirmed malignant melanoma
with abundant necrotic debris in nasal cavity.

Plaintiff died on February 12, 2015 as a result of metastatic
melanoma, allegedly resulting from the ingestion of Viagra.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kimberly D. Barone Baden, Esq.
     Ann E. Rice Ervin, Esq.
     MOTLEY RICE LLP
     28 Bridgeside Boulevard
     Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
     Tel: (843) 216-9265
     Fax: (843) 216-9450
     Email: kbarone@motleyrice.com
            ariceervin@motleyrice.com


PFIZER INC: "Battelline" Sues Over Viagra Side Effects
------------------------------------------------------
Robert D. Battelline, Plaintiff, v. Pfizer Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 3:16-cv-02911 (N.D. Cal., May 31, 2016), seeks compensatory
damages, punitive damages, equitable relief and such other relief
arising from negligence, strict products liability, breach of
implied and express warranty, fraudulent misrepresentation,
fraudulent concealment and negligent misrepresentation.

Pfizer Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws
of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business in
the State of New York. It is engaged in the business of designing,
developing, manufacturing, labeling, promoting, marketing,
distributing and selling pharmaceutical drugs, including Viagra.

Plaintiff contracted melanoma allegedly as a result of ingesting
Viagra.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kimberly D. Barone Baden, Esq.
     Ann E. Rice Ervin, Esq.
     MOTLEY RICE LLP
     28 Bridgeside Boulevard
     Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
     Tel: (843) 216-9265
     Fax: (843) 216-9450
     Email: kbarone@motleyrice.com
            ariceervin@motleyrice.com


PLE SECURITY: "Elam" Suit to Recover Overtime, Back Pay
-------------------------------------------------------
Kyle D. Elam, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated employees, Plaintiff, v. PLE Security, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 3:16-cv-00204-WHR (S.D. Ohio, May 31, 2016), seeks back
pay, liquidated damages, and reimbursement of costs and attorney
fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

PLE Security is a security system supplier located at 533 E Stroop
Rd, Kettering, OH 45429.

Elam was allegedly denied overtime pay and claims back wages.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ryan K. Hymore, Esq.
     MANGANO LAW OFFICES CO., L.P.A.
     3805 Edwards Road, Suite 550
     Cincinnati, OH 45209
     Tel: (513) 255-5888
     Fax: (216) 397-5845
     Email: rkhymore@bmanganolaw.com


POPULAR INC: Class Cert. Bid in "Valle" Action Due Aug. 19
----------------------------------------------------------
Popular, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that plaintiffs in the
class action by Josefina Valle have until Aug. 19 to file a motion
for class certification.

PCB has been named a defendant in a putative class action
complaint captioned Josefina Valle, et al. v. Popular Community
Bank, filed in November 2012 in the New York State Supreme Court
(New York County). Plaintiffs, PCB customers, allege among other
things that PCB has engaged in unfair and deceptive acts and trade
practices in connection with the assessment of overdraft fees and
payment processing on consumer deposit accounts. The complaint
further alleges that PCB improperly disclosed its consumer
overdraft policies and, additionally, that the overdraft rates and
fees assessed by PCB violate New York's usury laws. The complaint
seeks unspecified damages, including punitive damages, interest,
disbursements, and attorneys' fees and costs.

PCB removed the case to federal court (SDNY) and plaintiffs
subsequently filed a motion to remand the action to state court,
which the Court granted on August 6, 2013. A motion to dismiss was
filed on September 9, 2013. On October 25, 2013, plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint seeking to limit the putative class to New
York account holders. A motion to dismiss the amended complaint
was filed in February 2014. In August 2014, the Court entered an
order granting in part PCB's motion to dismiss. The sole surviving
claim relates to PCB's item processing policy. On September 10,
2014, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a second amended
complaint to correct certain deficiencies noted in the court's
decision and order. PCB subsequently filed a motion in opposition
to plaintiff's motion for leave to amend and further sought to
compel arbitration.

In June 2015, this matter was reassigned to a new judge and on
July 22, 2015, such Court denied PCB's motion to compel
arbitration and granted plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the
complaint to replead certain claims based on item processing
reordering, misstatement of balance information and failure to
notify customers in advance of potential overdrafts. The Court did
not, however, allow plaintiffs to replead their claim for the
alleged breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing. On August 12, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint. On August 24, 2015, PCB filed a Notice of Appeal as to
the order granting leave to file the second amended complaint and
on September 17, 2015, it filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint. On February 18, 2016, the Court granted in part
and denied in part PCB's pending motion to dismiss. The Court
dismissed plaintiffs' unfair and deceptive acts and trade
practices claim to the extent it sought to recover overdraft fees
incurred prior to September 2011. On March 28, 2016, PCB filed an
answer to second amended complaint and on April 7, 2016, it filed
a notice of appeal the partial denial of PCB's motion to dismiss.
Plaintiffs are to file a motion requesting class certification by
August 19, 2016. Discovery is ongoing.


POPULAR INC: Awaits Court's Ruling on "Quiles" Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Popular, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the parties in the
class action lawsuit by Neysha Quiles are awaiting the Court's
ruling on a settlement agreement.

BPPR has been named a defendant in a putative class action
complaint captioned Neysha Quiles et al. v. Banco Popular de
Puerto Rico et al., filed in December 2013 in the United States
District Court for the District of Puerto Rico (USDC-PR).
Plaintiffs essentially allege that they and others, who have been
employed by the Defendants as "bank tellers" and other similarly
titled positions, have been paid only for scheduled work time,
rather than time actually worked. The complaint seeks to maintain
a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") on
behalf of all individuals formerly or currently employed by BPPR
in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands as hourly paid, non-exempt,
bank tellers or other similarly titled positions at any time
during the past three years. Specifically, the complaint alleges
that BPPR violated FLSA by willfully failing to pay overtime
premiums. Similar claims were brought under Puerto Rico law.

On January 31, 2014, the Popular defendants filed an answer to the
complaint. On January 9, 2015, plaintiffs submitted a motion for
conditional class certification, which BPPR opposed.

On February 18, 2015, the Court entered an order whereby it
granted plaintiffs' request for conditional certification of the
FLSA action. Following the Court's order, plaintiffs sent out
notices to all purported class members with instructions for
opting into the class. Approximately sixty potential class members
opted into the class prior to the expiration of the opt-in period.

On June 25, 2015, the Court denied with prejudice plaintiffs'
motion for class certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. On October 20, 2015, the parties reached an
agreement in principle to resolve the referenced action for an
immaterial amount, subject to their reaching an agreement on the
payment of reasonable attorneys' fees. The parties submitted
briefing to the Court on this issue and are currently awaiting the
Court's final determination.


POPULAR INC: Motions Pending in "Fernandez" Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------
Popular, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that motions remain pending
in the case by Nora Fernandez.

BPPR and Popular Securities have been named defendants in a
putative class action complaint captioned Nora Fernandez, et al.
v. UBS, et al., filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York (SDNY) on May 5, 2014 on behalf of
investors in 23 Puerto Rico closed-end investment companies. UBS
Financial Services Incorporated of Puerto Rico, another named
defendant, is the sponsor and co-sponsor of all 23 funds, while
BPPR was co-sponsor, together with UBS, of nine (9) of those
funds. Plaintiffs allege breach of fiduciary duty and breach of
contract against Popular Securities, aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty against BPPR, and similar claims against the UBS
entities. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, including
disgorgement of fees and attorneys' fees. On May 30, 2014,
plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their class action in the SDNY
and on that same date, they filed a virtually identical complaint
in the USDC-PR and requested that the case be consolidated with
the matter of In re: UBS Financial Services Securities Litigation,
a class action currently pending before the USDC-PR in which
neither BPPR nor Popular Securities are parties. The UBS
defendants filed an opposition to the consolidation request and
moved to transfer the case back to the SDNY on the ground that the
relevant agreements between the parties contain a choice of forum
clause, with New York as the selected forum. The Popular
defendants joined this opposition and motion. By order dated
January 30, 2015, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to
consolidate. By order dated March 30, 2015, the court granted
defendants' motion to transfer. On May 8, 2015, plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint in the SDNY containing virtually identical
allegations with respect to Popular Securities and BPPR.
Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint on June
18, 2015. Those motions remain pending to date.

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


POPULAR INC: July 18 Final Settlement Hearing in RadioShack Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Popular, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a settlement fairness
hearing has been set for July 18, 2016, on the settlement in the
In re 2014 RadioShack ERISA Litigation.

BPPR has been named a defendant in a putative class action
complaint titled In re 2014 RadioShack ERISA Litigation, filed in
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The
complaint alleges that certain employees of RadioShack incurred
losses in their 401(k) plans because various fiduciaries elected
to retain RadioShack's company stock in the portfolio of potential
investment options. The complaint further asserts that once
RadioShack's financial situation began to deteriorate in 2011, the
fiduciaries of the RadioShack 401(k) Plan and the RadioShack
Puerto Rico 1165(e) Plan (collectively, "the Plans") should have
removed RadioShack company stock from the portfolio of potential
investment options.

Popular was a directed trustee, and therefore a fiduciary, of the
RadioShack Puerto Rico 1165(e) Plan ("PR Plan"). Even though the
PR Plan directed BPPR to retain RadioShack company stock within
the portfolio of investment options, the complaint alleges that a
trustee's duty of prudence requires it to disregard plan documents
or directives that it knows or reasonably should know would lead
to an imprudent result or would otherwise harm plan participants
or beneficiaries. It further alleges that BPPR breached its
fiduciary duties by (i) failing to take any meaningful steps to
protect plan participants from losses that it knew would occur;
(ii) failing to divest the PR Plan of company stock; and (iii)
participating in the decisions of another trustee (Wells Fargo) to
protect the Plans from inevitable losses.

On November 23, 2015, the parties attended a mediation session, as
a result of which the parties agreed to settle this matter for an
immaterial amount, with BPPR contributing approximately $45,000.
On February 22, 2016, the RadioShack defendants submitted an
opposition to the bar provisions of BPPR's proposed settlement
whereby they conditioned such settlement to BPPR's agreement to a
proportional methodology to any subsequent settlement. Under this
scenario, BPPR could remain potentially liable for an additional
proportional amount, should plaintiffs appeal the dismissal of
their claim and win on appeal. A settlement fairness hearing has
been set for July 18, 2016.


POWER DESIGN: DCMWRA Class Certification Sought in "Rivera" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled ALEX RIVERA, et al. v. POWER
DESIGN, INC., Case No. 15-cv-00975-TSC (D.D.C.), move for
conditional certification of a class of persons similarly situated
pursuant to the D.C. Minimum Wage Revision Act and defined as:

     "all non-exempt employees who performed construction duties
      for Power Design at the condominium development project at
      460 New York Ave. NW, Washington, D.C. from April 2012 to
      the final disposition of this action."

The Plaintiffs also seeks to authorize and facilitate the
Plaintiffs' counsel to provide notice to all such persons of their
rights to join in this Case as represented plaintiffs.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=M8q4uCFA

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Andrew J. Hass, Esq.
          D.C. EMPLOYMENT JUSTICE CENTER
          1413 K Street, NW, 5th Floor
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 645-6356
          Facsimile: (202) 828-9190
          E-mail: ahass@dcejc.org


RABOBANK NA: Faces "McGarry" Suit in Illinois
---------------------------------------------
McGarry & McGarry, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Rabobank, N.A.,
Defendant., Case 1:16-cv-05978 (N.D. Ill., June 8, 2016), seeks to
recover treble damages, compensatory damages and attorney fees
resulting from the anti-competitive effects of contracts
concerning bankruptcy services in violation of the Bank Company
Holding Act.

McGarry is a limited liability company organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Illinois, with its place of
business in Chicago, Illinois.

Rabobank is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
the United States, with its principal place of business in
Roseville, California.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marianne C. Holzhall, Esq.
      120 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1100
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 345-4600
      Email: mch@mcgarryllc.com

          - and -

      DUNNEGAN & SCILEPPI LLC
      350 Fifth Avenue
      New York, NY 10118
      Tel: (212) 332-8300


RETAIL ON OCEAN: "Legan" Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------
Syzmon Legan, Plaintiff, v. Retail On Ocean Dr., Inc., a Florida
Corporation, and Gerald Bouhadana, an individual, Defendants, Case
No. 1:16-cv-22098-RNS (S.D. Fla., June 8, 2016), seeks to recover
monetary damages, liquidated damages, interests, costs and
attorney fees for willful violations of overtime wage pay under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Retail is a Florida corporation that operates a clothing store in
Miami-Dade where Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a
store clerk. Legan claims to be denied overtime pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel T. Feld, Esq.
     Law Office of Daniel T. Feld, P.A.
     20801 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 403
     Aventura, FL 33180
     Tel: (786) 923-5899
     Email: DanielFeld.Esq@gmail.com

          - and -

     Isaac Mamane, Esq.
     Mamane Law LLC
     1150 Kane Concourse, Fourth Floor
     Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154
     Telephone 305-773-6661
     E-mail: mamane@gmail.com


RIGHTSOURCEING INC: Faces "Scolaro" Suit in C.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against RightSourceing, Inc. The case is
captioned Angela Scolaro, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. RightSourceing, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-01083 (C.D. Cal., June 10, 2016).

RightSourcing offers healthcare workforce solutions.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


RUSSELL BRANDS: Faces "Markos" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Russell Brands, LLC. The case is
styled Jaish Markos, individually on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Russell Brands, LLC,
the Defendant, Case No. 7:16-cv-04362 (S.D.N.Y., June 10, 2016).

Russell Brands is an American manufacturer of sports equipment
headquartered in Bowling Green, Kentucky.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
           THE SULTZER LAW GROUP PC
           77 Water Street, 8th Floor
           New York, NY 10005
           Telephone: (646) 722 4266
           Facsimile: (888) 749 7747
           E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com


SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: "Brown" Suit Moved to D.N.H.
------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Brown, Christopher Blundon, and Adam W. Dyer, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corporation, and Gwenael Busnel,
the Defendant, Case No. 226-2016-CV-00252, was removed from
Hillsborough Superior Court - Southern District, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Hampshire (Concord). The
District of New Hampshire assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-00242 to the
proceeding.

Saint-Gobain designs, manufactures, and markets polymer products
for various industries in the United States and internationally.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Merritt Schnipper, Esq.
          DOWNS RACHLIN MARTIN PLLC
          28 Vernon St, Ste 501
          Brattleboro, VT 05302
          Telephone: (802) 258 3070
          E-mail: mschnipper@drm.com


SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: "Herrera" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
Marco Herrera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. Schlumberger Technology Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-00526 (W.D. Tex., June 8, 2016), seeks
to recover the unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Schlumberger provides services and devices to its clients in the
oil and gas industry where Plaintiff worked as cement field
specialists.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

          - and -

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


SHOP-VAC MARKETING: Settles Class Action, Sept. 15 Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg LLP on June 16 disclosed that a settlement has been
proposed in a class action lawsuit (In re: Shop-Vac Marketing and
Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2380) about certain
advertising related to Shop-Vac(R) brand wet/dry vacuums (the
"Vacuums").  The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania authorized this Notice and will decide whether to
approve the settlement.

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants Shop-Vac Corporation and Lowe's
Home Centers, LLC misrepresented the peak horsepower ratings and
tank capacity of the Vacuums.  Defendants deny these allegations.

The Settlement would extend the manufacturer's warranty on the
motors of the Vacuums for at least 2 years.  The proposed
Settlement also includes changes to the descriptions of peak
horsepower ratings and tank capacity on marketing materials.

"Settlement Class Members" are each person in the United States
and its territories who, from January 1, 2006 to May 26, 2016,
either (1) purchased a Vacuum, or (2) received a Vacuum as a gift,
or (3) acquired possession of a Vacuum through other lawful means,
other than for resale or distribution.

Settlement Class Members do not need to do anything in order to
qualify for the settlement benefits.  The manufacturer's warranty
extension will automatically apply and the changes to the peak
horsepower ratings and tank capacity descriptions will be made.

The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing at the Ronald Reagan
Federal Bldg. & U.S. Courthouse, 228 Walnut Street, Harrisburg, PA
17101 on September 15, 2016 at 9:30 a.m. to determine whether the
Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate and to consider
interim Class Counsel's applications for attorneys' fees and
expenses of up to $4,250,000 to be paid by Defendants and for
awards up to $5,000 each for the five plaintiffs to be paid from
the attorneys' fees awarded.  Settlement Class Members or their
lawyers may ask to appear and speak at the hearing at their own
expense, but do not have to.

If the Settlement is approved by the Court, any Settlement Class
Members who do not exclude themselves will be bound by the
judgment and legal claims that they may have against Defendants
related to the Vacuums will be released. Settlement Class Members
who do not wish to be bound by the Settlement must mail a written
request for exclusion to Shop-Vac Wet/Dry Vacuum Class Settlement,
Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 4129, Portland, OR 97208-4129
postmarked by August 15, 2016. Or, Settlement Class Members may
file a formal written objection to the Settlement by August 15,
2016.

This notice is only a summary.  For more information, visit
www.ShopVacPHPSettlement.com or call 1-844-807-7711.  Do not
contact the Court.

Key Dates

Deadline to request exclusion from the Settlement Class
Must be postmarked or received by August 15, 2016
Deadline to object to the Settlement
Must be postmarked or received by August 15, 2016
Deadline to send your Notice of Intention to Appear at the
Fairness Hearing
Must be postmarked or received by August 15, 2016
Court's Fairness Hearing
September 15, 2016 at 9:30 a.m.


SOUTHEASTERN CONFERENCE: "Owens" Sues Over Football Health Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Orenthal James Owens, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Southeastern Conference and the
National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-01409 (S.D. Ind., June 8, 2016), seeks economic, monetary,
actual, consequential, compensatory, and punitive damages, past,
present and future medical expenses, other out-of-pocket expenses,
lost time and interest, lost future earnings, litigation and
attorney fees, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, injunctive
and/or declaratory relief and such other and further relief
resulting from negligence, fraudulent concealment, breach of
express contract, breach of implied contract, breach of third-
party express contract and unjust enrichment.

Plaintiff accuses the Defendants of failing to warn collegiate
players of the health hazards of playing football.

Southeastern Conference is a collegiate athletic conference with
its principal office located at 2201 Richard Arrington Jr.
Boulevard North, Birmingham, Alabama 35203, and with member
institutions in numerous states.

NCAA is an unincorporated association with its principal office
located at 700 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana
46206.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     William Winingham
     WILSON KEHOE WININGHAM LLC
     2859 North Meridian Street
     Indianapolis, IN 46208
     Tel: 317.920.6400
     Fax: 317.920.6405
     Email: winingham@wkw.com

          - and -

     Jay Edelson, Esq.
     Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor
     Chicago, IL 60654
     Tel: 312.589.6370
     Fax: 312.589.6378
     Email: jedelson@edelson.com
            brichman@edelson.com

          - and -

     Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
     329 Bryant Street
     San Francisco, CA 94107
     Tel: 415.212.9300
     Fax: 415.373.9435
     Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com

          - and -

     Jeff Raizner, Esq.
     RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
     2402 Dunlavy Street
     Houston, TX 77006
     Tel: 844.456.4823
     Fax: 713.554.9098
     Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


SPOTOS RESTAURANT: "Lopez" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------
Oscar Martinez Lopez, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Spoto's Restaurant, Inc. and
Peter Spoto, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-04049 (S.D. N.Y., May
31, 2016), seeks unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, New York Labor Laws and Overtime
Wage Orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor, including
applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorney fees and costs.

Spoto's Italian Cuisine is an Italian restaurant owned by Peter
Spoto located at 40-05 East Tremont Avenue, Bronx, New York 10465
operating as Spoto's Italian Cuisine, where Martinez was employed
as a salad preparer, grill worker, cook and general assistant.

Martinez worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week,
without receiving the applicable minimum wage or appropriate
compensation for the hours over 40 per week that he worked.
Defendants also failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of his
hours worked and failed to pay Martinez the applicable minimum
wage and the required spread-of-hours pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TALISMAN ENERGY: "Regmund" Sues Over Breach of Contract
-------------------------------------------------------
Rayanne Regmund, Gloria Jenssen, Michael Newberry and Carol
Newberry, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Talisman Energy USA, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 2:16-cv-00711-RCM (W.D. Pa., May 31, 2016), seeks
consequential damages, applicable statutory penalties, punitive
damages, equitable and/or declaratory relief, costs of suit
including reasonable attorney fees and pre-and post-judgment
interest and such other and further relief resulting from breach
of contract.

Talisman Energy USA, Inc. allegedly failed to pay contractually
owed oil and gas royalties by altering wellhead production data to
arbitrarily and improperly reduce the measured volume by up to 20-
30%.

Rayanne Regmund has a lease agreement with Enduring Resources,
LLC, for the development, production and sale of oil and gas from
her one acre property located in Karnes County, Texas. Her lease
was subsequently assigned, including all rights and obligations
thereto, in favor of Talisman Energy USA, Inc. and Statoil Texas
Onshore Properties, LLC as part of their joint development
agreement.

Jenssen entered into an oil and gas lease agreement with Talisman
and Statoil for the development, production and sale of oil and
gas from approximately 4.292 acres over 10 tracts located in
Karnes County, Texas.

Michael Newberry and Carol Newberry jointly own oil and gas rights
in a property in South Texas and granted lease interests to
Talisman.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph N. Kravec, Jr., Esq.
     Wyatt A. Lison, Esq.
     FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC
     429 Forbes Avenue, 17th Floor
     Pittsburgh, PA 15219
     Phone: (412) 281-8400
     Fax: (412) 281-1007
     Email: jkravec@fdpklaw.com
            wlison@fdpklaw.com

          - and -

     Bryan O. Blevins, Jr., Esq.
     PROVOST UMPHREY LAW FIRM, L.L.P.
     490 Park Street
     P.O. Box 4905
     Beaumont, TX 77701
     Phone: (409) 203-5030
     Fax: (409) 813-8610
     Email: BBlevins@provostumphrey.com

          - and -

     W. Michael Hamilton, Esq.
     PROVOST UMPHREY LAW FIRM, L.L.P.
     Hobbs Building, Suite 303
     4205 Hillsboro Road
     Nashville, TN 37215
     Phone: (615) 297-1932
     Fax: (615) 297-1986
     Email: MHamilton@provostumphrey.com

          - and -

     T. Ernest Freeman, Esq.
     Stephen G. Scholl, Esq.
     THE FREEMAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
     1770 St. James Place, Suite 120
     Houston, TX 77056
     Phone: (713) 973-1000
     Fax: (713) 973-1004
     Email: ernest@thefreemanlawfirm.com
            steve@thefreemanlawfirm.com


TRICO BANCSHARES: Mediation in Ex-Banker's Suit Set for July
------------------------------------------------------------
TriCo Bancshares said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the parties in a class
action lawsuit by a former personal banker are in the process of
scheduling the matter for mediation in the July, 2016 time period.

On September 15, 2014, a former Personal Banker at one of the
Bank's in-store branches filed a Class Action Complaint against
the Bank in Butte County Superior Court, alleging causes of action
related to the observance of meal and rest periods and seeking to
represent a class of current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt
personal bankers, or employees with the same or similar job
duties, employed by Defendants within the State of California
during the preceding four years.

On or about June 25, 2015, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint
expanding the class definition to all current and formerly hourly-
paid or non-exempt branch employees employed by Defendant's within
the State of California at any time during the period from
September 15, 2010 to final judgment. The Bank has responded to
the First Amended Complaint, denying the charges, and the parties
have engaged in written discovery. The parties are in the process
of scheduling the matter for mediation in the July, 2016 time
period.


TRICO BANCSHARES: Current Banker's Suit Goes to Mediation
---------------------------------------------------------
TriCo Bancshares said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the parties in a class
action lawsuit by a current personal banker are in the process of
scheduling the matter for mediation in the summer.

On January 20, 2015, a current Personal Banker at one of the
Bank's in-store branches filed a First Amended Complaint against
Tri Counties Bank and TriCo Bancshares, dba Tri Counties Bank, in
Sacramento County Superior Court, alleging causes of action
related to wage statement violations. Plaintiff seeks to represent
a class of current and former exempt and non-exempt employees who
worked for the Bank during the time period beginning October 18,
2013 through the date of the filing of this action. The Company
and the Bank have responded to the First Amended Complaint, deny
the charges, and has engaged in written discovery with Plaintiff.
The parties intend to mediate this matter in a joint mediation
this summer.


TRIMBLE NAVIGATION: Non-Cash Settlement Reached
-----------------------------------------------
Trimble Navigation Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended April 1, 2016, that the Court scheduled a
hearing on June 10, 2016, to consider any objections to the class
action settlement.

On March 12, 2015, Rachel Thompson filed a putative class action
complaint in California Superior Court against the Company, the
members of its Board of Directors, and JP Morgan Chase Bank.  The
suit alleges that the Company's Board of Directors breached their
fiduciary obligations to the Company's shareholders by entering
into a credit agreement with JP Morgan Chase Bank that contains
certain change of control provisions that plaintiff contends are
disadvantageous to shareholders.  The complaint seeks declaratory
relief, injunctive relief, and costs of the action but does not
seek monetary damages.

The parties have reached a proposed settlement, which would modify
one provision of the credit agreement and permit the named
plaintiff to seek recovery of attorney's fees.  There would be no
payments to individual stockholders, but Trimble and JPMorgan
Chase Bank would be required to amend the change of control
provisions in the credit agreement.

By order filed February 1, 2016, the Court granted preliminary
approval of the proposed settlement, ordered that notice be
provided to shareholders, and scheduled a hearing on June 10, 2016
to consider any objections to the settlement.

The case is captioned Rachel Thompson, On Behalf of Herself and
All Others Similarly Situated v. Trimble Navigation Limited,
Steven W. Berglund, John B. Goodrich, Merit E. Janow, Ulf
Johansson, Mark S. Peek, Nickolas W. Vande Steeg, Ron Nersesian,
and JPMorgan Chase Bank, Case No. 1-15-cv-27798.


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Hearing May Affect Defense Litigation Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Hibbard, writing for Forward Forensics, reports that a
hearing in July in Low v. Trump University may affect the amount
of damages the defendants have to shell out if they lose at trial
later this year--including any payments from a certain citrus-hued
defendant.

Earlier this month, the defense asked the court for permission to
file a renewed motion for decertification.  The motion would be
Trump University's second attempt to force each of its
dissatisfied former students to file individual lawsuits rather
than a class action.  Judge Gonzalo Curiel partly granted the
defense's first motion for decertification last year by
bifurcating the upcoming trial into a liability phase and a
subsequent damages phase.

The liability phase would determine whether all the former
students were harmed by misrepresentations that Trump University
allegedly made, regardless of the different amounts in which each
was harmed.  The damages phase would divide the former students
into five sub-classes and award damages to each group based on its
unique characteristics, such as the state in which the members
reside and whether financial elder abuse laws apply to them.

Full Refund

The plaintiffs proposed that the court award total damages in one
lump sum based on a full-recovery theory of restitution. According
to that theory, each class member would be entitled to a full
refund of the money he or she paid to Trump University plus
interest.  The defense opposed the idea, saying that any damages
should be offset by the value of services the former students
received.  As authority, they cited Comcast v. Behrend, which the
U.S. Supreme Court decided in 2013.

The Comcast decision said that when certifying a class, the court
must ensure that the plaintiff's damages case is consistent with
its liability case.  Trump University argued that full recovery
would be inconsistent with its alleged liability since some former
students testified that they had received some value from the
classes they took.

But the plaintiffs said Trump University's liability was based on
its broken promise that students would learn Donald Trump's
secrets of success directly from the Donald himself.  Since no
such pearls of wisdom were delivered, the school's services were
worthless, they claimed.  Judge Curiel saw no inconsistency
between that liability theory and a full-recovery damages model.

Trump Gets Due Process

However, the judge added that consistency doesn't preclude Trump
University from defending against individual claims. Citing FTC v.
Kuykendall, Judge Curiel said that full recovery would serve
merely as a starting point for damages.  From there, the defense
could make its case for an offset to arrive at the actual amount
of the loss.  This led to the judge's decision to bifurcate the
trial and establish sub-classes.

His decision apparently didn't satisfy the defense, which will
take another swing at class certification in July.  In its request
to file a renewed motion, Trump University argued that the facts
and circumstances of the case have changed since Judge Curiel's
decision, and that the court is obligated to reexamine
certification under FRCP 23.

The defense said it has obtained new information through
depositions and expert discovery showing "that students attended
TU for different reasons, relied on TU's marketing (if at all) in
vastly different ways, and were exposed to varying interactions
with individual TU employees before attending live events."  These
differences make it impossible to prove reliance, causation, and
materiality in a uniform manner throughout the entire class, the
defense said.

If Trump University succeeds in decertifying the class, many
former students will likely file individual lawsuits.  Then
damages would be decided on a case-by-case basis, and the total
pay-out would accumulate over time.  Alternatively, Judge Curiel
could further adjust the sub-classes based on new information but
allow the class action to proceed.  In either scenario, the threat
of a multi-million-dollar debt still hangs over Trump University
and the Republican Party's presumptive presidential candidate.


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Lawyers Partied with Judge Amid Pending Motions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jerome Corsi, writing for WND, reports that the San Diego judge in
the Trump University case, U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, and
friends who are partners in the San Diego-based law firm bringing
the case against Trump, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLC, were
seen partying together while two key motions in the case were
pending before the court.

The event was a retirement party held on Aug. 28, 2015, for
Assistant U.S. Attorney Randy Jones and included a formal "roast"
dinner with numerous colleagues paying tribute, followed by a
cocktail after-party at San Diego's fashionable Rooftop 600, an
open-air rooftop bar complete with swimming pool, dance floor and
city views, on top of the boutique Andaz Hotel near San Diego's
downtown Gaslight Quarter.

At the party for Jones, Curiel, a judge now but from 1989-2002 an
assistant U.S. attorney in San Diego, mixed with reputedly close
friends, including Mike Dowd -- miked@rgrdlaw.com -- one of the
named partners who founded the Robbins Geller firm.  He remains a
member of the firm's executive and management committee but also
served two terms as an assistant U.S. attorney in Southern
District of California, from 1987-1991 and again from 1994-1998,
the second time contemporaneously with Judge Curiel.

A potentially embarrassing affair

According to reports WND received from attendees, Judge Curiel and
Mr. Dowd gave testimonials at the "roast" dinner for
Mr. Jones, with each recounting what were described by attorneys
in attendance as typical for "roast" dinner testimonials
lambasting the African-American attorney with off-color stories
including racial-overtones that would prove embarrassing should a
video or audio tape of the occasion become public.

At the rooftop after-party, Judge Curiel had his photo taken with
various alumni of the San Diego U.S. attorney's office, including
Dowd and U.S. District Judge "Billy" Hayes.

At the time Judge Curiel was seen in public partying with Dowd,
the judge had yet to rule on two important Robbins Geller
procedural motions that would decide the future of the two
companion cases brought by Robbins Geller in the Trump University
case: namely, Tarla Makaeff v. Trump University, the companion
class action suit to Cohen v. Trump, brought by Robbins Geller
against Trump University.

Within three weeks of the after-party at Rooftop 600, Judge Curiel
decided both motions against Trump.

On Sept. 18, 2015, Judge Curiel issued the order that allowed
Tarla Makeaff v. Trump to proceed in his court as a class action
suit separate from Cohen v. Trump, such that Tarla Makeaff v.
Trump would be limited to plaintiffs in New York, California, and
Florida, while Cohen v. Trump would proceed in his court
simultaneously, certified as a national class action suit.
Then, on Sept. 21, 2015, Judge Curiel ruled in Tarla Makeaff v.
Trump that Robbins Geller could advertise on the Internet and in
national print media soliciting for a potential plaintiff to
participate or opt-out of participation in either (or both) in
Tarla Makeaff v. Trump and/or Cohen v. Trump, provided potential
plaintiff was on a court-approved list of those documented to have
attended Trump University in the relevant time period.
Note: after Judge Curiel allowed lead plaintiff Tarla Makaeff to
drop off the class action lawsuit, he allowed Robbins Geller to
produce a substitute lead plaintiff, with the result Makaeff v.
Trump now appears in U.S. District Court records as Low v. Trump
University.

A San Diego fraternity of former U.S. attorneys

Judge Curiel's network of friends include two additional Robbins
Geller partners with prior experience as U.S. attorneys in San
Diego who are listed on court records as participating in the
class action suits against Trump University.

Patrick J. Coughlin -- patc@rgrdlaw.com -- the senior Robbins
Geller partner serving as attorney of record in the case, was also
a former assistant U.S. attorney general both in Washington, D.C.,
and in San Diego, in an era prior to Judge Curiel.  Coughlin's
brother, Timothy Coughlin, is currently serving as an assistant
U.S. attorney in San Diego.

In addition to Mike Dowd and Patrick Coughlin, Judge Curiel is
also known in San Diego legal circles to be friends with X. Jay
Alvarez, another Robbins Geller partner representing plaintiffs in
the Cohen v. Trump case, who also served as an assistant U.S.
attorney for the Southern District of California from 1991-2004.

Other former San Diego assistant U.S. attorneys who are partners
at Robbins Geller include Jonah Goldstein -- jonahg@rgrdlaw.com
-- Scott Saham -- scotts@rgrdlaw.com -- and David Mitchell.

The Robbins Geller office at 655 W. Broadway in downtown San Diego
is a 5-minute walk to Curiel's courtroom at 221 West Broadway, and
an equally short walk to the U.S. attorney's office at 880 Front
Street.

An impartial judge?

Nowhere in the case record of Cohen v. Trump does Curiel disclose
that he is a close friend of Mike Dowd, a Robbins Geller senior
partner whose name appears in the law firm's name, not even when
he certifies the lawsuit as a class action lawsuit and makes the
highly lucrative appointment of Robbins Geller to represent the
class.

In confidential emails to WND, several San Diego-based lawyers
have pointed out that 28 U.S. Code Sec. 455, dealing with the
disqualification of judges, states in paragraph (a) that any judge
of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in
which his impartiality might be reasonably questioned, unless the
judge provides full disclosure.

On Friday, May 27, Judge Curiel ordered unsealed and available for
public view nearly 400 pages of Trump University "playbooks" that
described sales techniques and investment strategies taught at the
Trump University real estate seminar, after Judge Curiel granted a
motion by the Washington Post to release the documents against the
objections of legal counsel representing Trump.

Judge Curiel's order did not release any similarly sealed
documents that might have been favorable to Trump, with the result
that LawNewz.com reported the release caused a "mini-media storm"
with news outlets rushing to report on the contents of the various
released documents.

Late that same day, Judge Curiel entered a new order that Law
Newz.com described as essentially "trying to put the toothpaste
back in the tube after realizing he had 'mistakenly' allowed
certain documents to be unsealed without proper redactions,
including for personal information."

The reversal of the order did little to remedy the situation
because, as LawNewz.com pointed out, several news media outlets
had already obtained and posted the un-redacted versions online.

The incident served as fuel for inflammatory charges Trump had
made earlier that same day at a rally in San Diego where Trump
charged Judge Curiel with bias in the Trump University case.

"I have a judge who is a hater of Donald Trump, a hater.  He's a
hater.  His name is Gonzalo Curiel. . . I think Judge Curiel
should be ashamed of himself," Trump said at the rally, as
reported by Politico.  "I'm telling you, this court system, judges
in this court system, federal court, they ought to look into Judge
Curiel.  Because what Judge Curiel is doing is a total disgrace,
OK?"


TUCANOS DEVELOPMENT: "Arce" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT, Minimum Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Arce on behalf of herself individually, and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Tucanos Development, L.L.C..
d/b/a Tucanos Brazilian Grill, Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-01515
(S.D. Tex., May 31, 2016), seeks equitable relief, compensatory
and liquidated damages, attorney fees, taxable costs of court and
post-judgment interest for failure to pay overtime wages and
compensation for hours worked, and minimum wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Tucanos Development, L.L.C. operates as Tucanos Brazilian Grill
located in Texas, Colorado, New Mexico, Idaho, Indiana, South
Carolina, Virginia, Utah and Missouri. Plaintiff worked at their
restaurant located at 16535 Southwest Freeway #2001, Sugar Land
Texas 77479.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joe Williams. Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICES OF JOE M. WILLIAMS & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
     810 Highway 6 South, Suite 111
     Houston, TX 77079
     Telephone: (832) 230-4125
     Facsimile: (832) 230-5130


TWITTER INC: Judge Dismisses "Lone Wolf" Terrorism Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Blake, writing for The Washington Times, reports that
Twitter has won -- for now -- a legal battle brought by attorneys
for a woman who says the social media service is responsible in
part for a 2015 terror attack that resulted in her husband's
death.

U.S. District Judge William Orrick said on June 15 that he was
dismissing a class-action lawsuit filed against Twitter on behalf
of lead plaintiff Tamara Fields, a Florida woman who became
widowed when a "lone wolf" terrorist opened fire inside a police
training center last November in Amman, Jordan.

In the initial complaint filed against Twitter in January,
attorneys for the woman accused the company of contributing to the
rise of the Islamic State terror group, also known as ISIS, by
failing to keep extremists off its service.

There was "no doubt" Twitter "permitted ISIS to spread its lies
and plan its attacks," an attorney for the woman told the court
during the June 15 hearing, Bloomberg News reported.

In issuing a decision, however, the federal judge said he couldn't
find a link between Twitter and Anwar Abu Zaid, a 28-year-old
Jordanian police captain who conducted the attack.
"I just don't see causation under the Antiterrorism Act," he said,
according to Courthouse News.  "There's no allegation that ISIS
used Twitter to recruit Zaid."

Islamic State and its sympathizers have previously been accused of
operating tens of thousands of social media accounts across
various online platforms, and CIA Director John Brennan referenced
Twitter, as well as Tumblr and Telegram, while testifying before
Congress on June 15 with regards to the terror group's success in
disseminating propaganda.

Despite the group's reliance on social media, however, Twitter
attorney Seth Waxman rejected claims during the June 15 court
hearing that his company has provided material support to
terrorists, contrary to arguments made in the plaintiff's
complaint, Bloomberg reported.

Attorneys for Twitter and Ms. Fields debated the suit for around
40 minutes before the judge agreed to dismiss the suit on
June 15, albeit while allowing plaintiffs to amend their complaint
and revisit their claims later, Courthouse News reported.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Various Lawsuits, Class Actions Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kristen V. Brown, writing for Fusion, reports that Uber is being
sued by so many people right now that it can be hard to keep
track.  Last year, 50 lawsuits were filed against Silicon Valley's
favorite start-up in U.S. federal court alone -- and since then,
still more suits have been filed, while others have settled.

Some of these suits could spell big trouble for Uber.  Many of the
cases challenge Uber's basic business model, arguing that that
Uber misclassifies drivers as independent contractors, rather than
employees.  Right now, though, Uber seems in a rush to quash its
legal troubles, having made settlement offers on at least four
cases already this year, totaling up to $146 million. This could
be a sign that Uber has an IPO on its mind: the company definitely
won't want to be dealing with a bunch of potentially business-
altering lawsuits when it makes its public debut.

Because it can be a challenge to keep track of all of the
different people who have a beef with Uber, here is a handy guide
to everything going on right now with all of Uber's major suits.

The big class action suit
Back in 2013, attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan hit Uber with a big
blow when she sued the company on behalf of about 385,000 current
and former Uber drivers in California and Massachusetts, arguing
that Uber was obligated to give them the kind of pay and benefits
usually afforded to employees.  The case was finally slated to go
to trial this month, but in April Liss-Riordan negotiated an $84
million settlement, to be paid out to drivers based on how many
miles they had driven (it would go up to $100 million if the
company goes public).

The settlement, though, was controversial, attracting criticism
from both drivers and the San Francisco judge overseeing the case
that the proposed deal doesn't do enough for drivers.
Ms. Liss-Riordan offered to cut her own $21 million attorney's fee
by almost half in order to help the settlement go through. For
now, the case waits in limbo for the judge to either approve or
deny the settlement.  The judge hinted at an earlier settlement
hearing that he is likely to reject the deal, citing concerns that
it could put the kibosh on other litigation against Uber and make
it harder for drivers to sue the company in the future.

All those other employment classification suits

For Uber, employment classification lawsuits have become a game of
legal Whack-A-Mole: as soon as it looks like one may be taken care
of, another one pops up. Earlier this month, a group representing
5,000 Uber drivers in New York City filed a lawsuit arguing that
drivers were misclassified as independent contractors by the
company.  In Boston, yet another driver filed a similar suit.  At
least eight other employment classification cases are pending in
states including Indiana and Texas.  Four others have been sent to
arbitration, where drivers can bring individual claims rather than
seek a settlement as a class.

The background check suit
In 2014, a Boston driver filed a class-action suit against Uber in
San Francisco, arguing that the company had conducted illegal
background checks and then terminated drivers from its platform
after obtaining consumer background reports without authorization.
On June 15, on the eve of Uber's appeal of a 2015 ruling in the
case that found the company's arbitration agreements with drivers
were not enforceable, Uber agreed to shell out $7.5 million to
settle the suit.  That settlement awaits approval from the same
San Francisco judge as the employment class action litigation.
(Interestingly, Ms.
Liss-Riordan had asked the judge to stay the case, fearing that it
could interfere with her own class-action case's settlement.)

Those rider safety suits
That Boston Uber driver was not the only one to take issue with
Uber's background check practices.  In April, the company coughed
up $10 million to settle allegations by California prosecutors
that the company misled riders about the quality of its driver
background checks, with the stipulation that it pay an additional
$15 million if it fails to comply with settlement terms aimed at
improving safety within two years.  And in February it agreed to
pay $28.5 million to settle similar litigation brought by
customers. A fter that suit, Uber renamed its "Safe Rides Fee" to
a "Booking Fee" in the app.

The Austin suit
After Uber and Lyft pulled out of Austin, Texas on the heels of a
failure to overturn city rules requiring drivers with ride-hailing
services to be finger-printed, a pair of former drivers brought a
lawsuit alleging that the companies violated federal law by
failing to properly notify drivers of the shutdown.  The suit,
filed in San Francisco, could force both companies to pay out
wages and benefits drivers would have earned during the legally
required 60-day notice period.  But more importantly, it is yet
another challenge to Uber's assertion that its drivers are
independent contractors, arguing that drivers are entitled to the
benefits and job protections of employees.


UNITED COLLECTION: Faces "Anteby" Suit in D.N.J.
------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against UNITED COLLECTION BUREAU, INC.
The case is captioned CHARLES ANTEBY, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. UNITED
COLLECTION BUREAU, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-25, the Defendant, Case
No. 3:16-cv-03401-PGS-TJB (D.N.J., June 10, 2016). The Assigned
Judge is Hon. Peter G. Sheridan.

United Collection provides debt collection services for companies,
government, healthcare, utility, financial service, and
communication.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UNITED SERVICES: Class Action Lawyers Call for Leniency
-------------------------------------------------------
Dave Hughes, writing for Arkansas Online, reports that a group of
attorneys have asked a federal judge not to punish them for
seeking a more favorable forum in a class-action lawsuit, arguing
punishment would be unnecessary and overly harsh.

Thirteen attorneys in the 2014 case Adams v. United Services
Automobile Association are to go before Chief U.S. District Judge
P.K. Holmes III the morning of June 24 for a hearing on sanctions
Holmes said he plans to impose on the attorneys.

The lawyers argued, among other things, that they did not act
improperly, as Judge Holmes had ruled, because federal judges in
Arkansas and elsewhere allow forum shopping and federal appeals
courts have upheld the practice.  Additionally, the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure that guide their conduct were amended in 2003
to allow moving class-action lawsuits to courts where they can get
more favorable treatment.

The attorneys pointed out that Judge Holmes has discretion in
handing out sanctions and asked him to spare them from punishment.

"'In this day and age, sanctions are a badge of reprobation that
can haunt an attorney throughout his or her career,'" the
attorneys quoted a 2014 federal ruling.  "'They can have
ramifications that go far beyond the particular case.'"

In Adams v. United Services Automobile Association, Judge Holmes
ruled that the lawyers improperly moved the case in mid-litigation
from federal court, where he said he worked on the case for 17
months, to Polk County Circuit Court so they would face less
scrutiny and could settle the case on more favorable terms.

Judge Holmes ruled April 14 that the attorneys used the federal
court for improper purposes, violating Rule 11 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedures, through dismissal of the federal suit
in mid-litigation to seek a more favorable forum and avoid an
adverse decision.

Judge Holmes found that the attorneys' forum shopping was
unreasonable and found evidence of improper and misleading conduct
and, at times, bad faith.

"Respondents have jointly abused the federal court system through
their conduct in this case," Judge Holmes wrote in the order.

Regarding sanctions, Judge Holmes wrote in his ruling that he was
considering ordering any of the attorneys whose Rule 11 violation
was characterized by bad faith to file notice in any federal class
action in which the attorney is representing a party that the
attorney "has previously been sanctioned for improper conduct in
connection with a class action settlement agreement."

Attorneys whose violations are not characterized by bad faith,
Judge Holmes wrote, could face "an admonition, reprimand, caution,
censure or similar sanction."

Attorneys named in their memorandum concerning the imposition of
sanctions filed in court on June 15 are Kenneth Castleberry, D.
Matt Keil, Matthew L. Mustokoff, Timothy J. Myers, Richard E.
Norman, William B. Putman, Jason Ernest Roselius, Stevan Earl
Vowell, W.H. Taylor, A.F. Thompson III, Robert Martin Weber Jr.,
Stephen C. Engstrom and John C. Goodson.

Mr. Goodson of Texarkana has won millions of dollars in class
actions in his home court in Miller County and elsewhere.  He is a
member of the University of Arkansas System board of trustees and
is married to Arkansas Supreme Court Justice Courtney Goodson.

Judge Holmes wrote in his April 14 order that at the June 24
hearing he would not reconsider his intentions to impose
sanctions.

But in the 20-page memorandum, the attorneys argue that many
Arkansas federal judges -- including Susan O. Hickey, Billy Roy
Wilson, Susan Webber Wright and Jimm Larry Hendren -- have allowed
procedures for which Holmes wants to punish the attorneys.

"In each case, the federal judge facilitated the process," the
memorandum says.  "There was no reason for any of the respondents
-- all of whom were involved in at least one of these cases -- to
believe that the same conduct would be deemed sanctionable in this
case."

The memorandum says the sanctions would be unnecessary because
Holmes stated in his order that the attorneys are unlikely to
repeat their actions now that Judge Holmes ruled they were
"unequivocally improper."

The attorneys also have been "punished severely" by many articles
that have appeared to publicize Holmes' ruling on the actions of
the attorneys, the memorandum says.

The memorandum says articles have appeared in the Arkansas
Democrat-Gazette, Forbes, ABA Journal, Reuters news service,
Law360, Legal News Line, Arkansas Business, Arkansas Times, San
Antonio Business Journal, San Antonio Express-News and Times
Record.

The memorandum says the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed
sanctions imposed by a judge last year, ruling that once sanctions
are made public, the damage to reputations, careers and future
professional opportunities can be difficult to repair.


VAALCO ENERGY: Court Dismissed Class Action
-------------------------------------------
VAALCO Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a court has approved a
Stipulation and Order of Dismissal in a class action lawsuit.

On December 7, 2015, Plaintiff Vladimir Gusinsky Living Trust
filed a stockholder class action lawsuit in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware (the "Court") against the Company and all
of its directors alleging that certain provisions of the Company's
Restated Charter and Second Amended and Restated Bylaws that
restricted the removal of its directors to removal for cause only
(the "director removal provisions") were invalid as a matter of
Delaware law. Plaintiff George Shapiro also filed a similar
stockholder class action lawsuit in the Court on December 7, 2015.
Thereafter, the plaintiffs agreed to the consolidation of their
cases (the "Consolidated Case").

After a hearing on the Consolidated Case on December 21, 2015,
Vice Chancellor Laster issued an opinion in In re VAALCO Energy,
Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 11775-VCL holding
that, in the absence of a classified board or cumulative voting,
the director removal provisions conflicted with Section 141(k) of
the Delaware General Corporation Law and are therefore invalid.

On April 20, 2016, the Court approved a Stipulation and Order of
Dismissal entered into by the parties in the Consolidated Case.

"We agreed to settle plaintiffs' application for an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses due to the costs of defense of that
application and litigation risk associated therewith," the Company
said.


WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY: "Kepner" Suit to Recover Withheld Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Kepner, Byron Carrier, Steven Shull, and Eric Saukkonen,
Plaintiffs, v. Weyerhaeuser Company, a Washington corporation,
Defendant v. Case No. 6:16-cv-01040-AA (D. Or., June 8, 2016),
seeks reinstatement of healthcare benefits, damages, reimbursement
of healthcare benefits improperly withheld, prejudgment interest
on all damages and reasonable attorneys' fees, expenses and costs
incurred under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974.

Weyerhaeuser Company is a Washington corporation with its
principal place of business located at 33663 Weyerhaeuser Way
South, Federal Way, Washington. Weyerhaeuser owns more than one
million acres of forest in the State of Oregon including
significant holdings in the Coos Bay, Springfield, North Valley,
South Valley, and Columbia and is one of the largest forest
products companies in the world.

The Company's benefits packages contained a host of retiree
benefits including pension benefits, continued healthcare, and
life insurance where Plaintiff made the required monthly payments
to continue coverage for continued healthcare benefits provided by
the Company. Plaintiff accuses the Defendants of arbitrary
termination or downgrading retiree benefits.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Eric J. Brickenstein, Esq.
     Michael Haglund, Esq.
     HAGGLUND KELLEY LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW
     200 SW Market St., Suite 1777
     Portland, Or 97201
     Email: ebrickenstein@hk-law.com
            mhaglund@hk-law.com


WHITE CASTLE: "Irwin" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------
Jackie Irwin, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. White Castle Rose, LLC, and Bobby
Mcconal, Individually and in his Official Capacity, Defendants,
Case No. 5:16-cv-00525 (W.D. Tex., June 8, 2016), seeks to recover
monetary damages, liquidated damages, punitive damages, pre and
post-judgment interest, civil penalties and costs, and reasonable
attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

White Castle Rose, LLC is an oilfield service company doing
business in the South Texas area where Plaintiff worked as a
vacuum truck operator.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Glenn D. Levy, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF GLENN D. LEVY
     906 West Basse Road | Suite 100
     San Antonio, TX 78212
     Telephone: (210) 822-5666
     Facsimile: (210) 822-5650


WORDLWIDE DISTRIBUTION: RICO Class Certified in Castellanos Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Stephen J. Murphy, III, entered an order the lawsuit
titled NARCISO JOSE ALEJANDRO CASTELLANOS v. WORDLWIDE
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS USA, LLC et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-12609-SJM-
RSW (E.D. Mich.):

   -- granting in part the Plaintiff's motion to certify class as
      to claims the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
      Organizations Act; and

   -- denying, without prejudice, in part claims under the
      Trafficking Victims Protection Act.

Judge Murphy also directed the Plaintiff to make all reasonable
efforts to contact class members and inform them of their right to
opt-out of the class litigation.

Mr. Castellanos is a Mexican citizen and trained computer analyst.
Trade Nafta or "TN" Visas allow Canadian and Mexican professionals
to work temporarily in the United States.  He alleges that he
accepted the Defendant's offer of employment, and personally paid
the fees to obtain the TN Visa and travel to the United States.
However, he said, he was greeted not with a job but with a further
hurdle: he was told that he did not have a job, but had to
interview with the Defendant's clients for position.

Eventually, three clients declined to hire him, Mr. Castellanos
said, and the Defendant apparently ended its relationship with
him.  He has identified "59 other individuals [who] fall into the
proposed class of foreign nationals who were offered full-time
employment by defendant Systems USA, who accepted employment and
traveled to the United States to secure employment, but who were
not paid for varying amounts of time."

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


XENOPORT INC: "Gilmore" Suit Seeks to Block Merger with Arbor
-------------------------------------------------------------
WENDY GILMORE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. VINCENT J. ANGOTTI, DENNIS M.
FENTON, JOHN G FREUND, CATHERINE J. FRIEDMAN, JERYL L. HILLEMAN,
WILLIAM J. RIEFLIN, WENDELL WIERENGA, XENOPORT, INC., ARBOR
PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC, and AP ACQUISITION SUB, INC., the
Defendants, Case No. CIV539069 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 10, 2016),
seeks to enjoin a proposed Merger between XenoPort and Arbor
Pharmaceuticals, LLC, alternatively, to rescind the proposed
Merger, in the event that it is consummated, and recover damages.

On May 23, 2016, XenoPort announced that it had entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger under which Arbor, through Merger
Sub, would acquire all of the outstanding shares of XenoPort
common stock for $ 7.03 per share in cash, or a total of
approximately $467 million. The Acquisition is being effectuated
through a tender offer. Arbor commenced the tender offer on June
6, 2016, and the tender offer is scheduled to expire on July 1,
2016 at 11: 59 p.m. E.D.T. As alleged, the XenoPort Board breached
its fiduciary duties to Plaintiff and the Class by accepting
inadequate consideration following a deficient process that was
tainted with self-interest. Rather than opting to conduct a narrow
market check to maximize stockholder value, the Board permitted
XenoPort's President and CEO, Defendant Vincent J. Angotti and
various conflicted members of XenoPort's management to sell the
Company for their personal gain. Defendant Angotti and XenoPort's
management will benefit substantially from the Merger in ways that
other common stockholders will not, and are set to receive
millions from the accelerated vesting of their extensive unvested
and restricted XenoPort stock holdings. By contrast, public
XenoPort stockholders will receive only $7.03 per share, which is
far less than what the Company is worth.

XenoPort is a biopharmaceutical company that was incorporated in
1999 and currently boasts one commercialized drug, Horizanto (TM)
(gabapentin enacarbil), as well as numerous pipeline candidates.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Frank J. Johnson, Esq.
          JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
          600 West Broadway, Suite 1540
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 230 0063
          Facsimile: (619) 255 1856
          E-mail: frankj@johnsonandweaver.com


XENOPORT INC: "Bushansky" Suit Seeks to Block Merger with Arbor
---------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN BUSHANSKY, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. XENOPORT, INC., VINCENT J. ANGOTTI,
DENNIS M. FENTON, JOHN G. FREUND, CATHERINE J. FRIEDMAN,
JERYL L. HILLEMAN, WILLIAM J. RIEFLIN, WENDELL WIERENGA,
ARBOR PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC, AP ACQUISITION SUB, INC., and DOES 1-
25, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. CIV539071 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
June 10, 2016), seeks to enjoin a proposed Merger between XenoPort
and Arbor Pharmaceuticals, LLC, alternatively, to rescind the
proposed Merger, in the event that it is consummated, and recover
damages.

On May 23, 2016, XenoPort and Arbor issued a joint press release
announcing that they entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger
(Merger Agreement) to sell XenoPort to Arbor. Subject to the terms
of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will commence a tender offer
to purchase all of the outstanding shares of XenoPort common stock
for $7. 03 in cash for each share of XenoPort they own (Offer
Price). Following consummation of the Offer,
Merger Sub will merge with and into XenoPort with the Company
surviving as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent. The Proposed
Transaction is valued at approximately $467 million. The Offer
commenced on June 6, 2016 and will expire on July 1, 2016, and
thus, time is of the essence. The Proposed Transaction is the
result of an unfair process and provides the Company's
stockholders with inadequate consideration. The inadequacy of the
Offer Price is evidenced by the fact that as recently as May 6,
2016, an analyst with RBC Capital Markets set a 10.00 per share
price target for the Company -- a nearly $3.00 premium to the
Offer Price, says the complaint.

XenoPort is a biopharmaceutical company that was incorporated in
1999 and currently boasts one commercialized drug, Horizanto (TM)
(gabapentin enacarbil), as well as numerous pipeline candidates.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Leigh A. Parker, Esq.
          WEISSLAW LLP
          1516 South Bundy Drive, Suite 309
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 208 2800
          Facsimile: (310) 209 2348
          E-mail: parker@weisslawllp.com


ZEBRA TECHNOLOGIES: Completion of Discovery Expected by June 17
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zebra Technologies Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended April 2, 2016, that the parties in a
consolidated class action lawsuit have agreed to complete
discovery by approximately June 17, 2016.

In connection with the acquisition of the Enterprise business from
Motorola Solutions, Inc., the Company acquired Symbol
Technologies, Inc., a subsidiary of Motorola Solutions ("Symbol").
A putative federal class action lawsuit, Waring v. Symbol
Technologies, Inc., et al., was filed on August 16, 2005 against
Symbol Technologies, Inc. and two of its former officers in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
by Robert Waring. After the filing of the Waring action, several
additional purported class actions were filed against Symbol and
the same former officers making substantially similar allegations
(collectively, the New Class Actions"). The Waring action and the
New Class Actions were consolidated for all purposes and on April
26, 2006, the Court appointed the Iron Workers Local # 580 Pension
Fund as lead plaintiff and approved its retention of lead counsel
on behalf of the putative class.

On August 30, 2006, the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint (the "Amended Complaint"), and
named additional former officers and directors of Symbol as
defendants. The lead plaintiff alleges that the defendants
misrepresented the effectiveness of Symbol's internal controls and
forecasting processes, and that, as a result, all of the
defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and the individual defendants
violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The lead plaintiff
alleges that it was damaged by the decline in the price of
Symbol's stock following certain purported corrective disclosures
and seeks unspecified damages. By orders entered on June 25 and
August 3, 2015, the court granted lead plaintiff's motion for
class certification, certifying a class of investors that includes
those that purchased Symbol common stock between April 29, 2003
and August 1, 2005. The parties have substantially completed fact
and expert discovery. However, by order entered on January 8,
2016, the court granted Symbol's request for certain additional
fact and expert discovery; pursuant to a proposed scheduling order
filed on January 21, 2016, the parties agreed to complete that
discovery by approximately June 17, 2016.

There are also certain discovery motions pending that could, if
granted, reopen fact discovery. The court has held in abeyance all
other deadlines, including the deadline for the filing of
dispositive motions, and has not set a date for trial. One of the
insurers in the Company's insurance group has denied insurance
coverage and is not agreeing to reimburse defense costs incurred
by the Company in connection with this matter.


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Amtrak Loses Bid to Dismiss Whistleblower Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case styled ANDREW J. ROSSI, IV v. NATIONAL RAILROAD
PASSENGER CORPORATION a/k/a AMTRAK and MICHAEL DEVINE, Civil
Action No. 16-1111 (E.D. Pa.), Plaintiff Andrew J. Rossi, IV,
claims he was unlawfully discharged for engaging in protected
activity under the whistleblower provisions of the Federal Rail
Safety Act. Moving to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), defendant National Railroad Passenger
Corp., a/k/a Amtrak, contends Rossi has not adequately pleaded
that he had engaged in a protected activity and that Amtrak knew
of his protected activity.

Rossi began his employment with Amtrak as an electrician in
November 2008.  While working in Amtrak's asbestos program in
2010,4 he had an acrimonious relationship with defendant Michael
Devine, a car repairman in the asbestos program and Rossi's co-
worker. Devine had a history of usurping overtime from other
employees in the department through intimidation and threats of
physical injury. Devine also performed asbestos work without
properly sealing the area.

Judge Timothy J. Savage of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in a memorandum opinion
dated May 5, 2016, held that because Rossi has sufficiently
alleged facts supporting a plausible inference that he was engaged
in a protected activity and Amtrak fired him for doing so,
Amtrak's motion must be denied.

A full-text copy of Judge Savage's Decision is available at
https://is.gd/ZvLEmt from Leagle.com.

ANDREW J. ROSSI, IV, Plaintiff, represented by PATRICK J. FINN,
Esq. -- patrick@myerslafferty.com -- MYERS LAFFERTY LAW OFFICES
PC.

NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by
DAVID M. MURDZA, Esq. -- dmurdza@lcbf.com -- LANDMAN CORSI
BALLAINE & FORD PC & MARK S. LANDMAN, Esq. -- mlandman@lcbf.com --
LANDMAN, CORSI, BALLAINE AND FORD, P.C..


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. Appeals Ct. Flips Hennessy Summary Judgment
----------------------------------------------------------------
Appellant Renee Rondon, as the successor-in-interest to her late
husband Frank Rondon, appeals the trial court's award of summary
judgment in favor of Hennessy Industries, Inc.

Frank Rondon developed mesothelioma as the result of exposure to
asbestos while working as a mechanic. Mr. Rondon brought claims
for strict liability and negligence against Hennessy, alleging
that its brake arcing machines released asbestos dust that caused
him injury when he used them to grind standard brake linings.
Hennessy moved for summary judgment, arguing it was not liable as
a matter of law because its brake arcing machines did not contain
asbestos, Hennessy did not produce the asbestos-containing brakes
linings, and its machines were not used exclusively to grind brake
linings containing asbestos. The trial court found there was no
triable issue of fact and granted the motion.

The Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Four,
reversed, concluding that the recent decision from the Second
District Court of Appeal in Sherman v. Hennessy Industries, Inc.
(2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 1133 is directly on point, and is
persuasive.  That opinion held that the proper test is not the
"exclusive use" standard argued by Hennessy and relied on by the
trial court, but whether the "inevitable use" of Hennessy's
machines would expose a worker like Rondon to asbestos dust absent
safety protection or adequate warning. Because Rondon produced
sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether
the "inevitable use" standard was met, the trial court erred in
granting summary judgment.

The case is RENEE RONDON, individually and as successor-in-
interest etc., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. HENNESSY INDUSTRIES,
INC., Defendant and Respondent, Nos. A141686, A142411 (Cal. App.).

A full-text copy of the Opinion dated May 9, 2016, is available at
https://is.gd/Ht6VeM from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: O'Connor Loses Bid to Dismiss "Koulermos"
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case styled IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION
relating to MICHAEL KOULERMOS and MARIAN KOULERMOS, Plaintiffs, v.
A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS, et al., Defendants, 2016 NY Slip Op
30841(U), Docket No. 190406/2014, Seq. 006 (N.Y. Sup.), Michael
Koulermos contends that he developed mesothelioma as a result of
working at the Northport Power Station in Northport, Long Island,
near various trades that used asbestos-containing products.

O'Connor Constructors, Inc., a mechanical contractor, moves for
summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's claims and all cross-
claims against it.  The motion is opposed only by co-defendants
National Grid USA and National Grid USA Service Company (the
successor to Long Island Lighting Company.

In a decision dated May 5, 2016, Judge Peter H. Moulton of the
Supreme Court, New York County, denied the motion, holding that no
affidavit was proffered regarding the dates that O'Connor's
employees worked at the power station.  Moreover, Judge Moulton
pointed out that no affidavit was submitted demonstrating that
O'Connor's work involving dust collectors, force draft fans and
breeching was not in the vicinity of the areas where plaintiff
worked.  Nor did O'Connor submit an affidavit that it did not use
asbestos products at the power station, the judge said.

Judge Moulton further held, "Instead of proffering evidentiary
proof to demonstrate that its work could not have contributed to
the causation of plaintiff's injury, defendant points to gaps in
plaintiff's testimony. Such evidence "pointing to gaps in an
opponent's evidence is insufficient to demonstrate a movant's
entitlement to summary judgment." By not proffering affirmative
evidence that its product could not have contributed to
plaintiff's injury, defendant has failed to establish that its
product could not have contributed to plaintiff's injury."

A full-text copy of Judge Moulton's Decision is available at
https://is.gd/X9VhYI from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Time to Appeal in 9 NYCAL Suits Moved to 2017
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, in separate decisions dated May 10, 2016, enlarged the
time to perfect appeal to the March 2017 Term in the following
cases:

   * IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to ENGLE,
v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION -- CRANE CO., 2016 NY Slip Op
73020(U), Motion No. M-1602, (N.Y. App. Div.).  A full-text copy
of the Decision is available at https://is.gd/ngOJd4 from
Leagle.com.

   * IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. D'ANDRADE, v. A.W.
CHESTERTON COMPANY -- CRANE CO., 2016 NY Slip Op 73019(U), Motion
No. M-1599 (N.Y. App. Div.). A full-text copy of the Decision is
available at https://is.gd/DWV3X7 from Leagle.com.

   * IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. CICHY, v. A.O.
SMITH WATER PRODUCTS -- CRANE CO., 2016 NY Slip Op 73018(U),
Motion No. M-1588 (N.Y. App. Div.).  A full-text copy of the
Decision is available at https://is.gd/XaaK7i from Leagle.com.

   * IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. GILL, v. A.O. SMITH
WATER PRODUCTS -- CRANE CO., 2016 NY Slip Op 73021(U), Motion No.
M-1590 (N.Y. App. Div.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is
available at https://is.gd/UjBqgx from Leagle.com.

   * IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. McLAUGHLIN, v. AIR
& LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION -- CRANE CO., 2016 NY Slip Op
73023(U), Motion No. M-1586 (N.Y. App. Div.).  A full-text copy of
the Decision is available at https://is.gd/rJ07Fq from Leagle.com.

   * IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. HISCHE. v. AIR &
LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION -- CRANE CO., 2016 NY Slip Op 73022(U),
Motion No. M-1601 (N.Y. App. Div.).  A full-text copy of the
Decision is available at https://is.gd/Nsryiq from Leagle.com.

   * IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. BATTIPAGLIA, v.
A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS -- CRANE CO., 2016 NY Slip Op 73017(U),
Motion No. M-1585 (N.Y. App. Div.).  A full-text copy of the is
available at https://is.gd/MXELYx from Leagle.com.

   * IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. PORTA, v. A.O.
SMITH WATER PRODUCTS -- CRANE CO., 2016 NY Slip Op 73024(U),
Motion No. M-1605 (N.Y. App. Div.).  A full-text copy of the is
available at https://is.gd/mNi9ge from Leagle.com.

   * IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. VIOHL, v. A.O.
SMITH WATER PRODUCTS -- CRANE CO., 2016 NY Slip Op 73025(U),
Motion No. M-1587 (N.Y. App. Div.).  A full-text copy of the is
available at https://is.gd/yxVQvX from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Not "Apparent Manufacturer" of Insulag
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland denied the motion to take
judicial notice and affirmed the summary judgment grant of the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City in the case captioned HARRIETTE
STEIN, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF CARL STEIN, et al.
v. PFIZER INC., No. 1231 (Md. Ct. Spec. App.).

The issue is whether Pfizer Inc., appellee, may be deemed an
"apparent manufacturer" of an asbestos-containing cement,
"Insulag," which purportedly caused the illness and subsequent
death of Carl Stein from mesothelioma.  The product at issue was
manufactured and sold to Mr. Stein's employer, Bethlehem Steel
Corporation, by Quigley, Inc., both before and after it became a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Pfizer.

The Baltimore City circuit court resolved this issue, by granting
summary judgment in favor of Pfizer, after determining that it did
not qualify as an "apparent manufacturer." The Stein family has
failed to make its case that, under any of the three
aforementioned tests, Pfizer should be deemed an "apparent
manufacturer" of Insular.

A full-text copy of the Opinion dated May 31, 2016, is available
at https://is.gd/JJeDHn from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 11th Cir. Affirms Crane Co. Summary Judgment
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
affirmed the district court's grant of Crane Co.'s motion for
summary judgment in the case captioned MIKE THURMON, in his
capacity as Executor of the Estate of William H. Thurmon, Sr.,
deceased, MARY K. THURMAN, HELEN JOHNSON, WILLIAM H. THURMON, JR.,
GEORGE THURMON, ESTHER RIDENHOUR, MARK THURMON, PATRICIA GUTHRIE,
JOAN GREENLESS, JULIE CHAMBERS, in their capacities as the
surviving children of William H. Thurmon, Sr., deceased,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, JIM CHAMBERS, in his capacity as Executor
of the Estate of William H. Thurmon, Sr., deceased, Plaintiff, v.
GEORGIA PACIFIC, LLC, et al., Defendants, CRANE CO., Defendant-
Appellee, No. 14-15703 (11th Cir.).

The district court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove that
a Crane Co. product proximately caused the decedent's asbestos-
related injuries.

A full-text copy of the Opinion dated May 27, 2016 is available at
https://is.gd/Mnt6A1 from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Take-Home Suit vs. Honeywell, et al., Junked
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DORIS JANE NEUMANN, Plaintiff, v. BORG-
WARNER MORSE TEC LLC, et al., Defendants, No. 15 C 10507 (N.D.
Ill.), Judge Marvin E. Aspen of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denied
plaintiff Doris Jane Neumann's motion for reconsideration and
granted Defendants Honeywell International Inc., Borg-Warner TEC
LLC, Dana Companies LLC, Federal-Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury
Trust, Hollingsworth & Vose Company and Union Carbide
Corporation's motions to dismiss the case.

The Plaintiff filed the negligence action in Illinois state court
against several manufacturers and distributors of asbestos-laden
products.  In this "take-home" or "secondary" asbestos lawsuit,
Neumann alleges that she contracted malignant mesothelioma through
her exposure to asbestos fibers unwittingly brought home by her
son, who utilized Defendants' products at work.

Defendant MW Custom Papers, LLC, as successor-in-interest to the
Mead Corporation, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which
was granted on March 10, 2016.  In that opinion, the court
concluded that MW Custom Papers did not owe a duty to Neumann
under the law governing negligence claims in Illinois and
dismissed the claims against MW Custom Papers.

Neumann has now filed a motion for reconsideration, asking for
reversal of the holding.  In addition, the remaining six
defendants filed their own Rule 12 motions, seeking dismissal of
Neumann's claims for the reasons set forth in the Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order dated May 31,
2016, is available at https://is.gd/BbySAU from Leagle.com.

Doris Jane Neumann, Plaintiff, is represented by Dana C. Simon,
Esq. -- dsimon@sgpblaw.com -- Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett,
PC & Robert Neil Wadington, Esq. -- rwadington@wadingtonlaw.com --
Robert N. Wadington & Associates.

Honeywell International Inc., Defendant, is represented by
Jennifer Jerit Johnson, Esq. -- jjohnson@tresslerllp.com --
Tressler LLP & Si-Yong Yi, Tressler LLP.

Borg-Warner Morse TEC LLC, Defendant, is represented by Bradley
Charles Nahrstadt, Esq. -- bcn@lipelyons.com -- Lipe Lyons Murphy
Nahrstadt & Pontikis, Ltd., Derek John Crimando, Esq. --
djc@lipelyons.com -- Lipe Lyons Murphy Nahrstadt & Pontikis, Ltd.,
Frank Tung, Esq. -- ft@lipelyons.com -- Lipe Lyons Murphy
Nahrstadt & Pontikis Ltd. & Kelly M Cronin, Esq. --
kmc@lipelyons.com -- Lipe Lyons Murphy Nahrstadt & Pontikis Ltd..

Dana Companies LLC, Defendant, is represented by Kaitlyn Noel
Chenevert, Esq. & Nathan Antony Quaglia, Esq. --
nquaglia@smbtrials.com -- Swanson, Martin & Bell, LLP.

Federal-Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury Trust, Defendant, is
represented by John J. Kurowski, Esq. -- jkurowski@kslfllc.com --
Kurwoski Shultz, LLC & Lindsay A. Dibler, Esq. --
ldibler@kslfllc.com -- Kurowski Shultz LLC.

Hollingsworth & Vose Company, Defendant, is represented by Kevin
C. Mcginley, Esq. -- kmcginley@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson
Coburn Llp.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Tobin J
Taylor, Esq. -- ttaylor@heylroyster.com -- Heyl Royster Voelker &
Allen, P.C. & Stephanie Anali Garces, Esq. --
sanali@heylroyster.com -- Heyl Royster Voelker & Allen.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies Bid to Consolidate 3 NY Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION
relating to JACQUELINE A. CICIO, as Executrix for the Estate of
FREDERICK J. CICIO, SR. and JACQUELINE A. CICIO, as Spouse, ET AL,
Plaintiff, v. ALFA LAVAL, INC., et al., Defendants, Docket No.
190207/14, 2016 NY Slip Op 30936(U), Judge Barbara Jaffe of the
Supreme Court, New York County, denied the plaintiffs' motion to
consolidate and the cases will be tried individually in
alphabetical order and ordered that the parties in all three
actions are directed to appear for the previously scheduled
settlement conference in order to set trial dates in each case.

By order to show cause, the plaintiffs move pursuant to CPLR 602
for an order consolidating the following in extremis cases for a
joint trial: (1) Frederick Joseph Cicio, Index Nos. 190206/14 and
190207/14; (2) Harry Franklin Keeny, III, Index No. 190203/14; and
(3) Charles Anthony Matuk, Index Nos. 190314/14 and 190315/14.
Defendants American Biltrite, Inc. and Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc.
oppose.

A full-text copy of the Decision and Order dated May 17, 2016 is
available at https://is.gd/LxNYRi from Leagle.com.

Derell D. Wilson, Esq., The Early Law Firm, 360 Lexington Ave.,
20th Fl., New York, NY 10017, 212-986-2233. For plaintiff.

Kimberly A. Perez, Esq. -- kperez@lcbf.com -- Landman Corsi et
al., 120 Broadway, Ste. 27, New York, NY 10271, 212-238-4800, For
Am. Biltrite.

Steven T. Corbin, Esq. -- Steven.Corbin@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis
Brisbois et al., 77 Water St., Ste. 2100, New York, NY 10005, 212-
232-1300, For Kaiser Gypsum.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bids for Summary Judgment in "Lund" Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge William G. Young of the United States District Court for the
Central District of California rejected each of the proffered
grounds for summary judgment and denied the motions filed by
defendants Electric Boat Corporation and General Dynamics
Corporation in the case captioned VICTORIA LUND, individually and
as successor-in-interest to WILLIAM LUND deceased; DAVID LUND, an
individual; and SHEILA LUND, an individual, as legal heirs of
WILLIAM LUND, deceased, Plaintiffs, v. CRANE COMPANY, GENERAL
DYNAMICS CORPORATION, ELECTRIC BOAT CORPORATION, Defendants, Case
No. 2:13-cv-02776-WGY (C.D. Cal.).

This action arises out of a suit brought by Victoria Lund
(individually and as personal representative of the estate of
William Lund), David Lund, and Sheila Lund (the latter two both
individually and as legal heirs of William Lund) (collectively,
the "Plaintiffs") to recover for injuries suffered by the deceased
William Lund, a former U.S. Navy Machinist Mate. The Plaintiffs
claim Lund's injuries are attributable to his exposure to asbestos
dust and fibers from products manufactured by Defendants Electric
Boat Corporation and General Dynamics Corporation.

The Plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Superior Court for the
County of Los Angeles, bringing claims for negligence, breach of
express and implied warranties, strict liability in tort, and
premises owner/contractor liability.

Subsequent to discovery, Electric Boat and General Dynamics filed
motions for summary judgment.

A full-text copy of the Memorandum of Decision dated May 10, 2016
is available at https://is.gd/jgpv9r from Leagle.com.

Victoria Lund, Plaintiff, is represented by Benno B Ashrafi, Esq.
-- Weitz and Luxenberg PC, Alexandra Shef, Esq. -- Weitz and
Luxenburg PC., Josiah W Parker,Esq. --  Weitz and Luxenberg PC,
Mark D Bratt, Esq. -- Weitz and Luxenberg PC, Peter C Beirne, Esq.
-- Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C. & Tyler Robert Stock, Esq.

David Lund, Plaintiff, is represented by Benno B Ashrafi, Weitz
and Luxenberg PC, Alexandra Shef, Weitz and Luxenburg PC., Josiah
W Parker, Weitz and Luxenberg PC, Mark D Bratt, Weitz and
Luxenberg PC, Peter C Beirne, Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C. & Tyler
Robert Stock.

Sheila Lund, Plaintiff, is represented by Benno B Ashrafi, Weitz
and Luxenberg PC, Alexandra Shef, Weitz and Luxenburg PC., Josiah
W Parker, Weitz and Luxenberg PC, Mark D Bratt, Weitz and
Luxenberg PC, Peter C Beirne, Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C. & Tyler
Robert Stock.

Blackmer Pump Company, Defendant, is represented by James P
Cunningham, Esq. -- james.cunningham@tuckerellis.com -- Tucker
Ellis LLP.

BW IP Inc, Defendant, is represented by Holly Acevedo, Esq. --
hacevedo@foleymansfield.com -- Foley and Mansfield PLLP, Keith M
Ameele, Esq. -- kameele@foleymansfield.com -- Foley and Mansfield
PLLP, Stephen J Foley, Esq. -- sfoley@foleymansfield.com -- Foley
and Mansfield PLLP & Joshua R Shoumer, Esq. --
jshoumer@foleymansfield.com -- Foley and Mansfield PLLP.

Crane Co, Defendant, is represented by Geoffrey M Davis, Esq. --
geoff.davis@klgates.com -- K&L Gates LLP, Bradley W Gunning, Esq.
-- bradley.gunning@klgates.com -- K&L Gates LLP, Kathleen L
Beiermeister, Esq. -- kbeiermeister@meagher.com -- Meagher and
Geer PLLP, pro hac vice, Michael J Sechler, Esq. --
michael.sechler@klgates.com -- K&L Gates LLP, pro hac vice &
William M Starr, Esq. -- bill.starr@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson
Mullins Riley and Scarborough LLP, pro hac vice.

Electric Boat Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Charles S
Park, Hugo Parker, LLP, Christina M Glezakos, Hugo Parker LLP,
Edward R Hugo, Brydon Hugo and Parker, Gregory S Rosse, Hugo and
Parker, Jeffrey P Wilson, Jackson Jenkins Renstrom LLP, Lisa M
Rickenbacher, Hugo Parker LLP, Paul M Bessette, Demler Armstrong
and Rowland LLP & Shelley K Tinkoff, Brydon Hugo & Parker.

General Dynamics Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Charles
S Park, Hugo Parker, LLP, Christina M Glezakos, Hugo Parker LLP,
Edward R Hugo, Brydon Hugo and Parker, Gregory S Rosse, Hugo and
Parker, Jeffrey P Wilson, Jackson Jenkins Renstrom LLP, Lisa M
Rickenbacher, Hugo Parker LLP, Paul M Bessette, Demler Armstrong
and Rowland LLP & Shelley K Tinkoff, Brydon Hugo & Parker.

Goulds Pumps Inc, Defendant, is represented by Michael J
Pietrykowski, Gordon and Rees LLP, G. Jeff Coons, Gordon and Rees
LLP & Glen R Powell, Gordon and Rees LLP.

Hopeman Brothers Inc, Defendant, is represented by Jonathan E
Meislin, Bassi Edlin Huie and Blum LLP, Robert S Kraft, Bassi
Edlin Huie and Blum LLP & E Reno Cross, Bassi Edlin Huie and Blum
LLP.

The Nash Engineering Company, Defendant, is represented by Arturo
E Sandoval, Foley and Mansfield PLLP, Douglas G Wah, Foley and
Mansfield PLLP & Khaled Taqi-Eddin, Foley and Mansfield PLLP.

The William Powell Company, Defendant, is represented by Arturo E
Sandoval, Foley and Mansfield PLLP, Douglas G Wah, Foley and
Mansfield PLLP & Khaled Taqi-Eddin, Foley and Mansfield PLLP.

Viad Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Peter B Langbord,
Foley and Mansfield PLLP & Anna K Milunas, Foley and Mansfield
PLLP.

Warren Pumps LLC, Defendant, is represented by Glen R Powell,
Gordon and Rees LLP.

Crosby Valve, LLC, Defendant, is represented by Kevin D Jamison,
Pond North LLP, Rochelle R Ileto, Pond North LLP, Russell W
Schatz, Jr., Pond North LLP & Joseph Duffy, Morgan Lewis and
Bockius LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Harrison" Remanded to Missouri State Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Carol E. Jackson of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, remanded to the
Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit Court of Missouri (City of St.
Louis), the case captioned DONNA LEE HARRISON and JERRY HARRISON,
Plaintiffs, v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 4:16-CV-740-CEJ (E.D. Mo.).

The Plaintiffs filed the action in the Circuit Court for City of
St. Louis, Missouri, alleging that plaintiff Donna Harrison
developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos.
According to the notice of removal, plaintiffs are residents of
Nebraska. Their citizenship, however, is not alleged either in the
complaint or in the notice of removal. According to the
citizenship allegations in the notice of removal, none of the
defendants is a citizen of Nebraska.

The lawsuit initially named 28 defendants, but at the time of
removal only five defendants remained. One of the remaining
defendants, J.P. Bushnell Packing Supply Company (J.P. Bushnell),
is a Missouri corporation. Defendant Volkswagen Group of America,
Inc. (Volkswagen), a New Jersey corporation, removed the action on
May 24, 2016. In its notice of removal, Volkswagen contends that
J.P. Bushnell was fraudulently joined.

A full-text copy of the Memorandum and Order dated May 26, 2016 is
available at https://is.gd/mRTP8K from Leagle.com.

Donna Lee Harrison, Plaintiff, is represented by Carson C. Menges,
FLINT AND ASSOCIATES LLC & Laci M. Whitley, FLINT AND ASSOCIATES,
LLC.

Jerry Harrison, Plaintiff, is represented by Carson C. Menges,
Esq. --cmenges@flintfirm.com -- FLINT AND ASSOCIATES LLC & Laci M.
Whitley, Esq. --lwhitley@flintfirm.com -- FLINT AND ASSOCIATES,
LLC.

Borg-Warner Morse TEC LLC, Defendant, is represented by Andrew M.
Voss, Esq. -- amv@greensfelder.com -- GREENSFELDER AND HEMKER, PC.

Ford Motor Company, Defendant, is represented by Rodney E. Loomer,
Esq. -- rloomer@trdlp.com -- TURNER AND REID & Ty Zackery Harden,
Esq. -- tharden@trdlp.com -- TURNER AND REID.

General Gasket Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Albert J.
Bronsky, Esq. -- ajbronsky@bjpc.com -- BROWN AND JAMES, P.C..

Genuine Parts Company, Defendant, is represented by Clayton E.
Dickey, Esq. -- cdickey@rwdmlaw.com -- RASMUSSEN AND WILLIS.

Hennessy Industries, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Vincent
Edward Gunter, Esq. -- vgunter@rwdmlaw.com -- SHOOK AND HARDY,
LLP.

Honeywell International Inc., Defendant, is represented by Anthony
L. Springfield, Esq. -- aspringfield@polsinelli.com -- POLSINELLI
PC.

J.P. Bushnell Packing Supply Co., Defendant, is represented by
Stephen J. Maassen, Esq. -- HOAGLAND AND FITZGERALD.

Meadwestvaco Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Brian J.
Huelsmann, Esq. -- brian.huelsmann@wilsonelser.com -- WILSON AND
ELSER, LLP.

O'Reilly Automotive Stores, Inc., Defendant, is represented by
Rebecca Ann Nickelson.

Pneumo Abex Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Thomas L.
Orris, WILLIAMS AND VENKER, LLC.

Standard Motor Products, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Dale
M. Weppner, GREENSFELDER AND HEMKER, PC.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Defendant, is represented by
Tracy J. Cowan, HAWKINS AND PARNELL, LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMEC Suit vs. FFIC Stayed Pending DQ Motion
------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Erin Wilder-Doomes of the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Louisiana granted the parties'
Joint Motion to Stay Proceedings in the case captioned AMEC
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, INC., v. FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE
COMPANY.Civil Action. No. 13-00718-JJB-EWD (M.D. La.), and,
accordingly, the matter is stayed until resolution of the Motion
to Disqualify AMEC's Counsel of Record, Deutsch, Kerrigan &
Stiles, filed by FFIC.

AMEC is granted an extension of time, through June 30, 2016, to
respond to the Motion to Disqualify.

A full-text copy of the Ruling and Order dated May 31, 2016 is
available at https://is.gd/LWVzwE from Leagle.com.

AMEC Construction Management, Inc., Plaintiff, is represented by
Sean Patrick Mount, Esq. -- smount@deutschkerrigan.com -- Deutsch
Kerrigan, LLP, Anne Elizabeth Medo, Esq. --
amedo@deutschkerrigan.com -- Deutsch, Kerrigan & Lauren E. Brisbi,
Esq. -- lbrisbi@deutschkerrigan.com -- Deutsch Kerrigan, LLP.

Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, Defendant, is represented by
Julia Ann Dietz, Esq. -- jdietz@degan.com -- Degan, Blanchard &
Nash, Charles Belsome Long, Esq. -- clong@degan.com -- Degan,
Blanchard & Nash, Renee F Smith Auld, Esq. -- rauld@degan.com --
Degan, Blanchard & Nash & Sidney W. Degan, III, Esq. --
sdegan@degan.com -- Degan, Blanchard & Nash.

Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, Counter Claimant, is represented
by Julia Ann Dietz, Degan, Blanchard & Nash, Charles Belsome Long,
Degan, Blanchard & Nash, Renee F Smith Auld, Degan, Blanchard &
Nash & Sidney W. Degan, III, Degan, Blanchard & Nash.

AMEC Construction Management, Inc., Counter Defendant, is
represented by Sean Patrick Mount, Deutsch Kerrigan, LLP, Anne
Elizabeth Medo, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Lauren E. Brisbi, Deutsch
Kerrigan, LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Still Faces NARCO PI Suits at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. continues to face asbestos-related
personal injury actions from its predessesor, North American
Refractories Company, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2015.

The Company states "Honeywell's involvement in asbestos related
personal injury actions relates to two predecessor companies.
Regarding North American Refractories Company (NARCO) asbestos
related claims, we accrued for pending claims based on terms and
conditions in agreements with NARCO, its former parent company,
and certain asbestos claimants, and an estimate of the unsettled
claims pending as of the time NARCO filed for bankruptcy
protection. We also accrued for the estimated value of future
NARCO asbestos related claims expected to be asserted against the
NARCO Trust through 2018. In light of the inherent uncertainties
in making long term projections and in connection with the initial
operation of a 524(g) trust, as well as the stay of all NARCO
asbestos claims from January 2002 through the effective date of
the NARCO Trust on April 30, 2013, we do not believe that we have
a reasonable basis for estimating NARCO asbestos claims beyond
2018."

Honeywell International Inc. operates as a diversified technology
and manufacturing company worldwide. The company was founded in
1920 and is based in Morris Plains, New Jersey.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Still Faces Bendix Suits at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. continues to face asbestos-related
claims from its predecessor, Bendix, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015.

The Company states, "Regarding Bendix asbestos related claims, we
accrued for the estimated value of pending claims using average
resolution values for the previous five years. We also accrued for
the estimated value of future anticipated claims related to Bendix
for the next five years based on historic claims filing experience
and dismissal rates, disease classifications, and average
resolution values in the tort system for the previous five years.
In light of the uncertainties inherent in making long-term
projections, as well as certain factors unique to friction product
asbestos claims, we do not believe that we have a reasonable basis
for estimating asbestos claims beyond the next five years."

Honeywell International Inc. operates as a diversified technology
and manufacturing company worldwide. The company was founded in
1920 and is based in Morris Plains, New Jersey.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Still Faces NARCO PI Suits at March 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. is a defendant in asbestos-related
personal injury actions related to North American Refractories
Company, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2016.

NARCO was sold in 1986, produced refractory products (bricks and
cement used in high temperature applications).  Claimants consist
largely of individuals who allege exposure to NARCO asbestos-
containing refractory products in an occupational setting.

The Company states, "In connection with NARCO's emergence from
bankruptcy on April 30, 2013, a federally authorized 524(g) trust
(NARCO Trust) was established for the evaluation and resolution of
all existing and future NARCO asbestos claims. Both Honeywell and
NARCO are protected by a permanent channeling injunction barring
all present and future individual actions in state or federal
courts and requiring all asbestos related claims based on exposure
to NARCO asbestos-containing products to be made against the NARCO
Trust. The NARCO Trust reviews submitted claims and determines
award amounts in accordance with established Trust Distribution
Procedures approved by the Bankruptcy Court which set forth the
criteria claimants must meet to qualify for compensation
including, among other things, exposure and medical criteria that
determine the award amount. In addition, Honeywell provided, and
continues to provide, input to the design of control procedures
for processing NARCO claims, and has on-going audit rights to
review and monitor the claims processors' adherence to the
established requirements of the Trust Distribution Procedures.

"Honeywell is obligated to fund NARCO asbestos claims submitted to
the NARCO Trust which qualify for payment under the Trust
Distribution Procedures (Annual Contribution Claims), subject to
annual caps of $140 million in the years 2016 through 2018 and
$145 million for each year thereafter. However, the initial $100
million of claims processed through the NARCO Trust (the Initial
Claims Amount) will not count against the annual cap and any
unused portion of the Initial Claims Amount will roll over to
subsequent years until fully utilized. In 2015, Honeywell filed
suit against the NARCO Trust in Bankruptcy Court alleging breach
of certain provisions of the Trust Agreement and Trust
Distribution Procedures. The parties agreed to dismiss the
proceeding without prejudice pursuant to an 18 month Standstill
Agreement. Claims processing will continue during this period
subject to a defined dispute resolution process. As of March 31,
2016, Honeywell has not made any payments to the NARCO Trust for
Annual Contribution Claims.

"Honeywell is also responsible for payments due to claimants
pursuant to settlement agreements reached during the pendency of
the NARCO bankruptcy proceedings that provide for the right to
submit claims to the NARCO Trust subject to qualification under
the terms of the settlement agreements and Trust Distribution
Procedures criteria (Pre-established Unliquidated Claims), which
amounts are estimated at $150 million and are expected to be paid
during the initial years of trust operations ($5 million of which
has been paid since the effective date of the NARCO Trust). Such
payments are not subject to the annual cap.

"Our consolidated financial statements reflect an estimated
liability for pre-established unliquidated claims ($145 million),
unsettled claims pending as of the time NARCO filed for bankruptcy
protection ($32 million) and for the estimated value of future
NARCO asbestos claims expected to be asserted against the NARCO
Trust through 2018 ($743 million). In the absence of actual trust
experience on which to base the estimate, Honeywell projected the
probable value of asbestos related future liabilities, including
trust claim handling costs, based on a commonly accepted
methodology used by numerous bankruptcy courts addressing 524(g)
trusts. Some critical assumptions underlying this methodology
include claims filing rates, disease criteria and payment values
contained in the Trust Distribution Procedures, estimated approval
rates of claims submitted to the NARCO Trust and epidemiological
studies estimating disease instances. This projection resulted in
a range of estimated liability of $743 million to $961 million. We
believe that no amount within this range is a better estimate than
any other amount and accordingly, we have recorded the minimum
amount in the range. In light of the uncertainties inherent in
making long-term projections and in connection with the recent
implementation of the Trust Distribution Procedures by the NARCO
Trust, as well as the stay of all NARCO asbestos claims which
remained in place throughout NARCO's Chapter 11 case, we do not
believe that we have a reasonable basis for estimating NARCO
asbestos claims beyond 2018.

"Our insurance receivable corresponding to the estimated liability
for pending and future NARCO asbestos claims reflects coverage
which reimburses Honeywell for portions of NARCO-related indemnity
and defense costs and is provided by a large number of insurance
policies written by dozens of insurance companies in both the
domestic insurance market and the London excess market. We conduct
analyses to estimate the probable amount of insurance that is
recoverable for asbestos claims. While the substantial majority of
our insurance carriers are solvent, some of our individual
carriers are insolvent, which has been considered in our analysis
of probable recoveries. We made judgments concerning insurance
coverage that we believe are reasonable and consistent with our
historical dealings and our knowledge of any pertinent solvency
issues surrounding insurers.

"Projecting future events is subject to many uncertainties that
could cause the NARCO-related asbestos liabilities or assets to be
higher or lower than those projected and recorded. Given the
uncertainties, we review our estimates periodically, and update
them based on our experience and other relevant factors.
Similarly, we will reevaluate our projections concerning our
probable insurance recoveries in light of any changes to the
projected liability or other developments that may impact
insurance recoveries.

Honeywell International Inc. operates as a diversified technology
and manufacturing company worldwide. The company was founded in
1920 and is based in Morris Plains, New Jersey.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Still Faces Bendix Suits at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. is a defendant in asbestos-related
personal injury actions related to the Bendix Friction Materials
business, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange for the quarterly period ended March
31, 2016.

Bendix, which was sold in 2014, manufactured automotive brake
parts that contained chrysotile asbestos in an encapsulated form.
Claimants consist largely of individuals who allege exposure to
asbestos from brakes from either performing or being in the
vicinity of individuals who performed brake replacements.

The Company states, "Our insurance receivable corresponding to the
liability for settlement of pending and future Bendix asbestos
claims reflects coverage which is provided by a large number of
insurance policies written by dozens of insurance companies in
both the domestic insurance market and the London excess market.
Based on our ongoing analysis of the probable insurance recovery,
insurance receivables are recorded in the financial statements
simultaneous with the recording of the estimated liability for the
underlying asbestos claims. This determination is based on our
analysis of the underlying insurance policies, our historical
experience with our insurers, our ongoing review of the solvency
of our insurers, judicial determinations relevant to our insurance
programs, and our consideration of the impacts of any settlements
reached with our insurers.

"Honeywell believes it has sufficient insurance coverage and
reserves to cover all pending Bendix-related asbestos claims and
Bendix-related asbestos claims estimated to be filed within the
next five years. Although it is impossible to predict the outcome
of either pending or future Bendix-related asbestos claims, we do
not believe that such claims would have a material adverse effect
on our consolidated financial position in light of our insurance
coverage and our prior experience in resolving such claims. If the
rate and types of claims filed, the average resolution value of
such claims and the period of time over which claim settlements
are paid (collectively, the Variable Claims Factors) do not
substantially change, Honeywell would not expect future Bendix-
related asbestos claims to have a material adverse effect on our
results of operations or operating cash flows in any fiscal year.
No assurances can be given, however, that the Variable Claims
Factors will not change."

Honeywell International Inc. operates as a diversified technology
and manufacturing company worldwide. The company was founded in
1920 and is based in Morris Plains, New Jersey.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kemper Reserves $20.3MM for Asbestos Exposures
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kemper Corporation had a reserve of $20.3 million for its
asbestos, environmental matters and construction defect exposures,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2015.

In estimating the Company's Property and Casualty Insurance
Reserves, the Company's actuaries exercise professional judgment
and must consider, and are influenced by, many variables that are
difficult to quantify. Accordingly, the process of estimating and
establishing the Company's Property and Casualty Insurance
Reserves is inherently uncertain, and the actual ultimate net cost
of known and unknown claims may vary materially from the estimated
amounts reserved. The reserving process is particularly imprecise
for claims involving asbestos, environmental matters, construction
defect and other emerging and/or long-tailed exposures which may
not be discovered or reported until years after the insurance
policy period has ended. Property and Casualty Insurance Reserves
related to the Company's discontinued operations are predominantly
long-tailed exposures, $20.3 million of which was related to
asbestos, environmental matters and construction defect exposures
at December 31, 2015.

Kemper is a diversified insurance holding company, with
subsidiaries that provide automobile, homeowners, life, health,
and other insurance products to individuals and businesses.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cricket Comms Issued $100K Violation Penalty
-------------------------------------------------------------
The San Diego County Air Pollution Control District has issued a
penalty demand in excess of $0.100 million for Cricket
Communications, Inc., in relation to an alleged violation of
California regulations governing removal, handling and disposal of
asbestos containing materials, according to AT&T Inc.'s Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015.

The Company states "In February 2014, the San Diego County Air
Pollution Control District initiated investigation into alleged
violations of California regulations governing removal, handling
and disposal of asbestos containing materials arising from an
independent dealer's demolition and construction activity in
preparation to install upgraded point of purchase and fixtures in
accordance with Cricket Dealer Guidelines. While the independent
dealer was in sole control of contractors performing the work at
issue, the County has focused on Cricket Communications dealer
agreement terms and interactions with the independent dealer as a
basis for asserting direct liability against Cricket
Communications, Inc. After exchanges of information and
discussions, in November 2015, the County issued a penalty demand
in excess of one hundred thousand dollars. We continue
communications with the County with a view for resolution of this
matter, and in no event expect monetary settlement amounts
including penalties will be material."

AT&T Inc. provides telecommunications and digital entertainment
services. The company was formerly known as SBC Communications
Inc. and changed its name to AT&T Inc. in November 2005. AT&T Inc.
was founded in 1983 and is based in Dallas, Texas.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alcoa Inc. Continues to Face PI Suits at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alcoa Inc. and its subsidiaries continue to be defendants in
several hundred active lawsuits filed on behalf of persons
alleging injury predominantly as a result of occupational exposure
to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2015.

The Company states, "Along with various asbestos manufacturers and
distributors, Alcoa and its subsidiaries as premises owners are
defendants in several hundred active lawsuits filed on behalf of
persons alleging injury predominantly as a result of occupational
exposure to asbestos at various Company facilities. In addition,
an Alcoa subsidiary company has been named, along with a large
common group of industrial companies, in a pattern complaint where
the Company's involvement is not evident. Since 1999, several
thousand such complaints have been filed. To date, the subsidiary
has been dismissed from almost every case that was actually placed
in line for trial. Alcoa, its subsidiaries and acquired companies,
all have had numerous insurance policies over the years that
provide coverage for asbestos based claims. Many of these policies
provide layers of coverage for varying periods of time and for
varying locations. Alcoa has significant insurance coverage and
believes that its reserves are adequate for its known asbestos
exposure related liabilities. The costs of defense and settlement
have not been and are not expected to be material to the results
of operations, cash flows, and financial position of the Company."

Alcoa Inc. engages in engineering and manufacturing lightweight
metals worldwide. Alcoa Inc. was founded in 1888 and is based in
New York, New York.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Idex Corp. Continues to Face Suits at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Idex Corporation and its subsidiaries continue to be named
defendants in a number of lawsuits claiming various asbestos-
related personal injuries and seeking money damages, allegedly as
a result of exposure to products manufactured with components that
contained asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2015.

The Company and four of its subsidiaries are presently named as
defendants in a number of lawsuits claiming various asbestos-
related personal injuries and seeking money damages, allegedly as
a result of exposure to products manufactured with components that
contained asbestos. These components were acquired from third
party suppliers, and were not manufactured by the Company or any
of the defendant subsidiaries. To date, the majority of the
Company's settlements and legal costs, except for costs of
coordination, administration, insurance investigation and a
portion of defense costs, have been covered in full by insurance
subject to applicable deductibles. However, the Company cannot
predict whether and to what extent insurance will be available to
continue to cover its settlements and legal costs, or how insurers
may respond to claims that are tendered to them. Claims have been
filed in jurisdictions throughout the United States. Most of the
claims resolved to date have been dismissed without payment. The
balance have been settled for various insignificant amounts. Only
one case has been tried, resulting in a verdict for the affected
business unit. No provision has been made in the financial
statements of the Company for these asbestos-related claims, other
than for insurance deductibles in the ordinary course, and the
Company does not currently believe these claims will have a
material adverse effect on it.

IDEX Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides various
pumps, flow meters, other fluidics systems and components, and
engineered products worldwide. The company was founded in 1987 and
is based in Lake Forest, Illinois.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Future Legislation May Affect AllState Business
----------------------------------------------------------------
Impact of possible future legislative measures regarding asbestos
on The Allstate Corporation's business remains unpredictable,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2015.

The Company states, "Congress has considered legislation to
address asbestos claims and litigation in the past and, recently,
the House of Representatives passed the Furthering Asbestos Claims
Transparency Act. The Act is designed to enable asbestos trust
funds to pay only those who are entitled by law to compensation
from the funds. Favorable action in the Senate and a presidential
approval are uncertain. We cannot predict the impact on our
business of possible future legislative measures regarding
asbestos."

The Allstate Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, engages
in property-liability insurance and life insurance business in the
United States and Canada. The Allstate Corporation was founded in
1931 and is headquartered in Northbrook, Illinois.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AK Steel Faced 383 PI Suits at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Holding Corporation faced 383 lawsuits alleging personal
injury as a result of exposure to asbestos, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015.

The Company states, "Since 1990 we have been named as a defendant
in numerous lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos. The great majority of these lawsuits have
been filed on behalf of people who claim to have been exposed to
asbestos while visiting the premises of one of our current or
former facilities. The majority of asbestos cases pending in which
we are a defendant do not include a specific dollar claim for
damages. In the cases that do include specific dollar claims for
damages, the complaint typically includes a monetary claim for
compensatory damages and a separate monetary claim in an equal
amount for punitive damages, and does not attempt to allocate the
total monetary claim among the various defendants.

"Since the onset of asbestos claims against us in 1990, five
asbestos claims against us have proceeded to trial in four
separate cases. All five concluded with a verdict in our favor. We
continue to vigorously defend the asbestos claims. Based upon
present knowledge, and the factors, we believe it is unlikely that
the resolution in the aggregate of the asbestos claims against us
will have a materially adverse effect on our consolidated results
of operations, cash flows or financial condition. However,
predictions about the outcome of pending litigation, particularly
claims alleging asbestos exposure, are subject to substantial
uncertainties. These uncertainties include (1) the significantly
variable rate at which new claims may be filed, (2) the effect of
bankruptcies of other companies currently or historically
defending asbestos claims, (3) the litigation process from
jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, (4) the type
and severity of the disease each claimant alleged to suffer, and
(5) the potential for enactment of legislation affecting asbestos
litigation."

AK Steel Holding Corporation, through its subsidiary, AK Steel
Corporation, produces flat-rolled carbon, stainless and electrical
steel, and tubular products in the United States and
internationally. AK Steel Holding Corporation was founded in 1993
and is headquartered in West Chester, Ohio.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AK Steel Faced 350 Suits at March 31
-----------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Holding Corporation faced 350 lawsuits alleging personal
injury as a result of exposure to asbestos, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016.

The Company states, "Since 1990 we have been named as a defendant
in numerous lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos. The great majority of these lawsuits have
been filed on behalf of people who claim to have been exposed to
asbestos while visiting the premises of one of our current or
former facilities. The majority of asbestos cases pending in which
we are a defendant do not include a specific dollar claim for
damages. In the cases that do include specific dollar claims for
damages, the complaint typically includes a monetary claim for
compensatory damages and a separate monetary claim in an equal
amount for punitive damages, and does not attempt to allocate the
total monetary claim among the various defendants.

"In each case, the amount described is per plaintiff against all
of the defendants, collectively. Thus, it usually is not possible
at the outset of a case to determine the specific dollar amount of
a claim against us. In fact, it usually is not even possible at
the outset to determine which of the plaintiffs actually will
pursue a claim against us. Typically, that can only be determined
through written interrogatories or other discovery after a case
has been filed. Therefore, in a case involving multiple plaintiffs
and multiple defendants, we initially only account for the lawsuit
as one claim. After we have determined through discovery whether a
particular plaintiff will pursue a claim, we make an appropriate
adjustment to statistically account for that specific claim. It
has been our experience that only a small percentage of asbestos
plaintiffs ultimately identify us as a target defendant from whom
they actually seek damages and most of these claims ultimately are
either dismissed or settled for a small fraction of the damages
initially claimed.

" Since the onset of asbestos claims against us in 1990, five
asbestos claims against us have proceeded to trial in four
separate cases. All five concluded with a verdict in our favor. We
continue to vigorously defend the asbestos claims. Based upon
present knowledge, and the factors, we believe it is unlikely that
the resolution in the aggregate of the asbestos claims against us
will have a materially adverse effect on our consolidated results
of operations, cash flows or financial condition. However,
predictions about the outcome of pending litigation, particularly
claims alleging asbestos exposure, are subject to substantial
uncertainties. These uncertainties include (1) the significantly
variable rate at which new claims may be filed, (2) the effect of
bankruptcies of other companies currently or historically
defending asbestos claims, (3) the litigation process from
jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, (4) the type
and severity of the disease each claimant alleged to suffer, and
(5) the potential for enactment of legislation affecting asbestos
litigation."

AK Steel Holding Corporation, through its subsidiary, AK Steel
Corporation, produces flat-rolled carbon, stainless and electrical
steel, and tubular products in the United States and
internationally. AK Steel Holding Corporation was founded in 1993
and is headquartered in West Chester, Ohio.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: WABTEC Continues to Face PI Claims at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation, dba WABTEC,
continues to face personal injury claims resulting from exposure
to asbestos-containing products, most of which are made against
its subsidiary, Railroad Friction Products Corporation, according
to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015.

The Company states, "Claims have been filed against the Company
and certain of its affiliates in various jurisdictions across the
United States by persons alleging bodily injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos-containing products. Most of these claims
have been made against our wholly owned subsidiary, Railroad
Friction Products Corporation ("RFPC"), and are based on a product
sold by RFPC prior to the time that the Company acquired any
interest in RFPC.

"Most of these claims, including all of the RFPC claims, are
submitted to insurance carriers for defense and indemnity or to
non-affiliated companies that retain the liabilities for the
asbestos-containing products at issue. We cannot, however, assure
that all these claims will be fully covered by insurance or that
the indemnitors or insurers will remain financially viable. Our
ultimate legal and financial liability with respect to these
claims, as is the case with other pending litigation, cannot be
estimated."

Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation, doing business as
Wabtec Corporation, is a Delaware corporation with headquarters at
1001 Air Brake Avenue in Wilmerding, Pennsylvania. Wabtec is one
of the world's largest providers of value-added, technology-based
equipment and services for the global rail industry.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: WABTEC Continues to Face PI Claims at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation, dba WABTEC,
continues to defend itself against asbestos-related personal
injury claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2016.

The Company states, "Claims have been filed against the Company
and certain of its affiliates in various jurisdictions across the
United States by persons alleging bodily injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos-containing products.  Further information and
detail on these claims is described in the Company's Annual Report
on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015, filed on
February 19, 2016. During the first three months of 2016, there
were no material changes to the information described in the Form
10-K."

Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation, doing business as
Wabtec Corporation, is a Delaware corporation with headquarters at
1001 Air Brake Avenue in Wilmerding, Pennsylvania. Wabtec is one
of the world's largest providers of value-added, technology-based
equipment and services for the global rail industry.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Continues to Face Suits at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Corporation and its subsidiary Goulds Pumps, Inc., continue to
face product liability lawsuits alleging personal injury due to
asbestos exposure, according to ITT's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2015.

The Company states, "ITT, including its subsidiary Goulds Pumps,
Inc., has been sued, along with many other companies in product
liability lawsuits alleging personal injury due to asbestos
exposure. These claims allege that certain of our products sold
prior to 1985 contained a part manufactured by a third party
(e.g., a gasket) that 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. Frequently,
the plaintiffs are unable to identify any ITT or Goulds Pumps,
Inc. product as a source of asbestos exposure. In addition, a
large percentage of claims pending against the Company have been
placed on inactive dockets because the plaintiffs cannot
demonstrate a significant compensable loss. Our experience to date
is that a majority of resolved claims are dismissed without
payment by the Company.

"We record a liability for pending asbestos claims and asbestos
claims estimated to be filed over the next 10 years. While it is
probable that we will incur additional costs for future claims to
be filed against the Company, the amount of liability for
potential future claims beyond the next 10 years is not reasonably
estimable due to a number of factors. As of December 31, 2015, we
have recorded an undiscounted asbestos-related liability for
pending claims and unasserted claims estimated to be filed over
the next 10 years of $1,042.8, including expected legal fees, and
an associated asset of $412.0 which represents estimated
recoveries from insurers, resulting in a net exposure of $630.8."

ITT Inc. manufactures and sells engineered critical components and
customized technology solutions for the energy, transportation,
and industrial markets worldwide. ITT Inc. was founded in 1920 and
is headquartered in White Plains, New York.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brimbank Park Remains Closed After Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Cameron, writing for Star Weekly News, reported that it's
still unclear when asbestos will be removed from a closed-off
section of Brimbank Park -- more than six months after it was
discovered.

Up to five hectares of the park have been fenced off since
February as Parks Victoria continues to investigate an undisclosed
amount of asbestos found dumped last December.

Parks Victoria Melbourne region executive director Chris Hardman
said the dangerous substance was found at the park's western
entrance, on both sides of the Taylors Creek access trail.

Between three and five hectares of land between Green Gully Road
and Kulin Wetlands was fenced off after the scattered fragments
were identified as "lower risk", broken asbestos cement sheeting.

Several residents have taken to Star Weekly's website to voice
their frustration.

"Still no works have commenced as far as I can see. This has also
closed the only pram-friendly access to Brimbank park from
Kealba," NC wrote in May.

"How long does remediation work take? It has already been three
months," Chris posted in April.

However, a site assessment "to determine the extent of the
material to be removed" has been held up due to the indigenous
significance of the area. Parks Victoria has consulted Wurundjeri
people about the presence of "artefacts or culturally sensitive
material".

"No site works will commence until Parks Victoria has received the
appropriate permit," Mr Hardman said.

Weekly air monitoring has found no airborne fibre readings, Parks
Victoria says.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Witness Appeal for Devon Woman Asbestos Victim
---------------------------------------------------------------
Blackmore Vale Magazine reported that the husband and family of
Sylvia Woodcock (also known as Winsor) from Paignton, Devon, who
died from a devastating asbestos-related disease, aged just 62
years, are appealing for help from her former colleagues.

The devoted mother and grandmother to five grandchildren died from
mesothelioma, an aggressive, incurable cancer linked to past
exposure to deadly asbestos dust particles.

Sadly, Sylvia passed away last Christmas on the 26th of December
2015. Her illness came on very suddenly after her GP felt some
lumps in her abdomen following a routine examination in August
2015.

By the September, she felt very unwell and consultants suspected
she was suffering from ovarian cancer. On the 23rd of December,
she had an exploratory operation and biopsies were taken.

Following the operation, she was told the devastating news that
she had just days left to live. Sylvia returned home and died
surrounded by her family three days' later. Following her death,
the results of the biopsies confirmed that she was suffering from
peritoneal mesothelioma.

Sylvia worked at Weyrad Electronics as a production operative from
1977 to 1980 at the firm's Crewkerne and Weymouth sites.

Her widower Bernard is investigating her past work at Weyrad
Electronics and with help from specialist asbestos disease
solicitors, Novum Law is appealing for anyone who worked at the
firm during the 1970s and early 1980s to come forward with any
information they have about her working conditions and how she was
exposed to asbestos.

Weyrad Electronics manufactured electronics for power supplies,
alarm sensors and door entry systems. The firm started life back
in November 1945 and by 1996 had changed its name to Racal
Weymouth Limited. The company was eventually dissolved in July
2003.

Bernard said: "The family have been left absolutely devastated by
Sylvia's sudden illness and loss. Before her diagnosis, she was
really enjoying her retirement and she loved spending time
outdoors on fishing trips and weekends away and spending time with
our children and grandchildren.

"It was only after her passing that we learned she was suffering
from peritoneal mesothelioma, a terminal cancer affecting the thin
cell walls surrounding her abdominal cavity.

"We hope that anyone who remembers working with Sylvia at Weyrad
Electronics gets in touch with any information, no matter how
small."

Andrew Walker, a specialist asbestos disease solicitor from Novum
Law who is assisting Bernard and his family with their search for
justice, said: "Sylvia's family are understandably very shocked
and upset that they have lost her to an asbestos-related disease.

"Mesothelioma is a dreadful illness which causes significant
suffering for its victims and their families. Thousands of people
die each year as a result of just going about their everyday lives
and working to make a living.

"We are appealing to anyone who worked for Weyrad at the Crewkerne
or Weymouth sites in the 1970s or 1980s that can provide
information about the presence of asbestos either at the premises
or on the production lines and how Sylvia would have come into
contact with asbestos."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Sentenced in Asbestos Case
-----------------------------------------------
Leo Roth, writing for Democrat & Chronicle, reported that a
Rochester man convicted of violating the Clean Air Act and
exposing employees to harmful asbestos materials was sentenced to
two years of probation, 150 hours of community service and fined
$15,000.

Anastasios "Taso" Kolokouris, 32, of Avon was handed the sentence
by Chief U.S. District Judge Frank P. Geraci. He was also ordered
to pay restitution to the victims in the case.

Kolokouris was an owner of a warehouse at 920 Exchange St., in the
city where an inspector with the New York State Department of
Labor, Asbestos Control Bureau visited in December 2011 after
receiving a complaint.

The inspector observed large quantities of fibrous material, later
confirmed to be asbestos, in and around a large dumpster. People
working in the dumpster did not have proper personal protective
equipment, authorities said. The area was secured and later,
federal and state agents acting with a search warrant entered the
property and discovered numerous violations regarding asbestos
abatement and safety regulations.

Workers, one as young as 16, were not provided proper protective
suits and masks and had no training or certification to work with
asbestos. The workers told investigators they were being paid by
Kolokouris to remove asbestos from the dumpster because the
container company would not do so while it was full of the
hazardous material.

In 1971, The United States Environmental Protection Agency
designated asbestos as a hazardous air pollutant.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NSW Gov't Offering Homeowners Free Testing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Forbes Advocate reported that free sample testing for loose-fill
asbestos is now available to a limited number of homeowners in
Forbes.

Loose-fill asbestos is raw, crushed asbestos that was used as
insulation during the 1960s and 70s and Forbes people in homes
built before 1980 can register for testing for the product.

A media release issued by the NSW Department of Fair Trading said
the NSW Government has determined that demolition, comprehensive
site remediation and disposal are the best ways to ensure the
health and safety of the community.

The NSW Government has a voluntary purchase and demolition program
for affected homes, already covering 28 local government areas.

They have now extended limited free sample testing to another 35
local government areas including Forbes, Cabonne, Weddin, Lachlan
and Parkes.

Free sample testing will be provided to up to 100 properties in
each area and homeowners whose properties were built before 1980
have until August 1 to register.

Home-owners affected by loose-fill asbestos will have access to
financial assistance and support.

The Government is also proposing laws that will protect people
from purchasing a home that contains loose-fill asbestos in the
future.

Under these proposed laws, when selling a property, homeowners
would be obligated to confirm in the contract of sale if the
property contains or is free of loose-fill asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Market Closed Following Asbestos Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Sandhu, writing for Crewe Chronicle, reported that
fishmonger Alan Smith was out selling fish round the back of the
Market Hall

The indoor market in Sandbach has been closed until further notice
following concerns that a collapsed roof may have exposed
asbestos.

Sandbach Town Council has taken the decision under advice from its
health and safety consultants Wirehouse after heavy rainfall led
to part of the market's internal roof caving in.

Traders were reportedly informed that the indoor market would be
closed and The Chronicle understands an asbestos contractor
attended the site to obtain a sample for investigation.

A spokesman for the town council said: "Due to the heavy rain,
part of the internal indoor Market Hall roof has collapsed.

"Sandbach Town Council have concerns that potential asbestos
material may be present and has been exposed as a result.

"In the interests of health and safety, Sandbach Market Hall will
be closed...

"The front four shops units and the Outdoor Market will continue
to trade as normal. Apologies for any inconvenience caused."

Fishmonger and National Market Traders Federation chairman Alan
Smith, was still selling fish round the back of the Market Hall
having been provided with a gazebo by the council.

He said: "There was a leak, it was torrential rain and they saw
something on the floor that may have resembled asbestos.

"I'm very upset for the traders who can't go in the building to
get their gear."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cattaraugus-Little Valley Awaits Asbestos Report
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Miller, writing for Olean Times Herald, reported that
Cattaraugus-Little Valley Central School District officials are
awaiting tests for asbestos in the Franklin Street house the
district purchased to improve its main entrance.

District Superintendent Dr. Sharon Huff and other district
officials met with a representative from Jamestown-based Clark
Patterson Lee architects at 59 Franklin St., adjacent to the
current entrance.

Huff told the Board of Education that results from asbestos
testing done that day should be available by the June 28 board
meeting.

"We're still looking at a couple of options," Huff told the board.
"We will talk to the neighbors before the demolition" of the house
and garage.

The school board set aside $100,000 for the initial phase of an
entrance project in the 2015-16 budget, which includes demolition,
clearing the land, and the first layer of asphalt. Completion of
the project, including a top coat of blacktop, would happen during
the 2017 construction season.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kiwi Dies After Getting Australian Payout
----------------------------------------------------------
Deidre Mussen, writing for stuff.co.nz, reported that Auckland
pensioner Des Sayegh has lost his fight against mesothelioma,
after receiving his confidential payout from Australia for
asbestos exposure.

His grieving widow, Ann, said her husband of nearly 59 years was
relieved he received the money a month before he died on May 28 so
he could share it with his family, hospice and church.

"He knew what he wanted to do with it -- first up, he wanted to
buy a car, but he realised he didn't have much time left so there
wasn't much point to do that. He wanted to give it away."

Des, 81, won the payout for asbestos exposure while working as a
cabinet maker and carpenter in 1978 around Nyabing, a tiny
township about 300km south-east of Perth in Western Australia.

In April last year, his nagging cough was diagnosed as
mesothelioma, a fatal cancer of mesothelial cells that line a
person's lungs and abdominal cavity, caused by inhaling asbestos
fibres.

Nobody knew whether he breathed the killer fibres in Australia or
during his many decades working in New Zealand's building
industry, but that exposure made him eligible for compensation on
both sides of the Tasman, including a lump sum of about $100,000
from ACC in New Zealand.

The Australian out-of-court settlement was with the asbestos
product's manufacturer, which could not be named because of a
confidentiality clause.

It was luck Des heard about Australian compensation after his
daughter ordered a free copy of the book Surviving Mesothelioma
off the internet, not realising an Australian law firm was the
sponsor.

A few days later, top Australian asbestos lawyer Theodora Ahilas,
of Maurice Blackburn Lawyers, contacted him and offered to help
him fight his case.

Ann said she hoped to visit Theodora in Australia in a few months
time to thank her for all her help with her husband's case.

Des's health deteriorated soon after he spoke publicly in mid-
April about the issue to encourage other Kiwis who had worked in
Australia and had been exposed to asbestos to seek compensation
from Australia.

In late April, he had fluid drained off his lungs for the fifth
time and suffered a serious heart attack three days later.

He also suffered two strokes over three weeks.

"He went through hell," Ann said.

"He was such a good guy -- why did it have to happen to him? Why
did it have to happen to anyone who was a builder, or worked on
ships or lagging pipes?"

However, Des died peacefully surrounded by his family in hospital
at their retirement village in Auckland.

"It's left a big hole in my heart. We were married nearly 59 years
and had been together three years before that. It breaks my heart
not to have him here -- he was a very special person."

ASBESTOS FACTS:

   * A long latency period of 20 to 50 years between exposure and
disease occurring.

   * Diseases include mesothelioma, asbestosis, lung cancer and
other lung conditions.

   * Those most at risk include those who mined asbestos, or those
who processed or used asbestos products, such as building products
and pipe lagging. It includes construction workers, builders,
carpenters, electricians, pipe fitters, insulation installers and
shipbuilders.

   * In the past 10 years, ACC has paid out 1644 lump sum payments
to sick New Zealanders for asbestos-related diseases, costing
$74.5 million.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Uncovered in New Mexico's PERA Bldg
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Terrell, writing for The New Mexican, reported that workers
installing new carpet in an office suite in the PERA Building
recently discovered some of the carpet tiles being removed and
replaced contained asbestos. The room, in the part of the building
housing the state Office of the Superintendent of Insurance, was
sealed off, and an asbestos abatement project will begin.

Estevan Lujan, spokesman for the state General Services
Department, said that authorities have determined the old carpet
tiles contained "a very small amount" of asbestos.
The PERA Building houses the insurance office as well as the
Public Regulation Commission and the Children Youth and Families
Department. Hundreds of state employees work there.

According to a fact sheet on the website of the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, asbestos is a known carcinogen
that can cause chronic lung disease as well as lung and other
cancers. Symptoms can take many years to develop following
exposure. Asbestos can be inhaled without knowing it and trapped
in the lungs. If swallowed, it can become embedded in the
digestive tract.

The five-story, 161,786-square-foot building across Old Santa Fe
Trail from the Roundhouse opened in 1967. It was originally owned
by the Public Employees Retirement Association, but the state
purchased the building about 10 years ago.

The recent work project involved replacing the carpet and painting
the walls in Suite 331.

"In order for [the state Facilities Management Division] to
continue with the project, the tile must be tested and all safety
parameters must be in place to begin abatement," Lujan said. "This
includes segregating the entire area with negative pressure
filtration that meets [Occupational Safety and Health
Administration] standards" and isolates airborne particles.

Lujan said painting and carpeting in the area won't resume until
the area is tested by environment officials "to ensure there is no
risk to anyone entering the area after abatement."

The abatement project was scheduled to take place "to ensure no
employees will be in the building during the time," Lujan said.
"All precautions are being taken to ensure the utmost safety for
all employees and individuals working on the construction."

The Facilities Management Division conducted a meeting with the
leadership of the agencies that occupy the building. There also
was a meeting open to all employees of the building in which state
officials and Occupational Safety and Health Administration
representatives talked about the abatement plan.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Council Faces Public Fears Over Housing Asbestos
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Rossiter, writing for Plymouth Herald, reported that a
council has called a public meeting to deal with fears about
asbestos contamination on a housing development.

Soil taken from the former Fremington Army Camp in North Devon
sparked an asbestos scare in Barnstaple in May.

Workers on the Anchorwood Bank development in the town downed
tools after asbestos was discovered in soil being used to level
their site.

The soil had been trucked in from Fremington Army Camp, where
Barratt Homes and Bovis Homes are building Water's Edge, a new
estate overlooking the River Taw.

The Water's Edge development

Mrs Bell is also fighting against plans to build on the old
Yelland Power Station site on the banks of the Taw/Torridge
estuary, where some 700 tonnes of asbestos are known to be buried.

She said she feared the meeting would be "a whitewash, because I
don't think the council will accept responsibility".

North Devon council executive member for environment, Cllr Rodney
Cann, said: "There has been concern from some local people with
regard to potential asbestos risks, both on the site itself and
through lorries coming and going.

"As a result, and following a request for a public meeting, the
council has arranged to hold this community event, so that these
concerns can be addressed and so the public can find out what
action or measures have been put in place."

Local ward member, Cllr Frank Biederman, said: "I am pleased the
council has been able to arrange this meeting and urge those that
have raised concerns to attend the meeting, so we can hear from
the officers dealing with the site what has and has not happened.

"There have been so many rumours going around, we really need to
be assured the public are not being put at risk in any way and all
procedures are in place to ensure this."

Mrs Bell said: "I'm said it has taken so much to bring this out
when so many people knew about it."

But she said she was optimistic that asbestos would now be at the
forefront of the planning debate over the former East Yelland
Power Station on the Taw-Torridge estuary, next to the Tarka
Trail.

Bideford-based developer, Yelland Quay Ltd, plans to build 280
dwellings plus commercial and community space on the land, and
insists it will deal with the known asbestos contamination.

The public meeting on June 22 at Fremington Church Hall will start
at 6.30pm and will finish no later than 8pm.

Asbestos can cause serious diseases, including Mesothelioma, a
cancer of the lining of the lungs; asbestos-related lung cancer;
and asbestosis, which is scarring of the lungs.

The material was once widely used as an insulator, and still kills
about 5,000 workers a year -- more than the number killed on the
roads.

When materials that contain asbestos are disturbed or damaged,
fibres are released into the air. When these fibres are inhaled
they can cause serious diseases, which may take many years to
develop.

Workers "downed tools" at a major housing development after five
lorryloads of soil possibly contaminated with asbestos were dumped
on the site.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Landfill Fined for Failing to Cover Waste
----------------------------------------------------------
Katu.com reported that the Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality has fined a local landfill $6,400 after it said the
company did not properly cover waste containing asbestos.

Hillsboro Landfill Inc., owned by Waste Management, is allowed to
dispose of asbestos, according to the DEQ. But the state agency
said its inspectors on Jan. 14 found that the company failed to
cover asbestos-laden waste with the required minimum of 12 inches
of dirt.

The DEQ said there is no safe level of exposure to asbestos, which
can cause lung cancer, mesothelioma and asbestosis.

According to DEQ, the facility located at 3205 S.E. Minter Bridge
Road has appealed the fine.

In an email to KATU, Waste Management spokesperson Jackie Lang
said the company has changed its training so it "more clearly"
meets DEQ standards.

"We are committed to full compliance with environmental
regulations to protect the environment as well as the health and
safety of our employees," Lang wrote. "Our environmental track
record has been strong over the years at this site, and we are
continuously training staff to ensure compliance."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fitch Publishes Asbestos Liability Dashboard
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings on June 16 has published a new Dashboard Report on
U.S. property/casualty (re)Insurers' asbestos liability exposures.
Fitch estimates industry asbestos carried loss reserves totaling
approximately $22 billion at year-end 2015, may be deficient by a
range of $5.3 billion -- $12.7 billion.

This estimate is based on projected ultimate all-time industry
incurred losses of $90 billion, and several potential future loss
payment scenarios. The industry's 2015 survival ratio was
relatively unchanged at 8.9x versus the prior year, and remains
considerably below Fitch's target of 11x -- 14x.

Fitch calculates the survival ratio by dividing total reserves by
a three-year average of total paid losses. This survival ratio has
been adjusted by Fitch to normalize paid losses for large
individual settlements and reinsurance transactions.

Over the last two years, asbestos-related paid losses have
significantly exceeded annual incurred losses, reducing total
reserves and generating a lower reported survival ratio.
Continuation of this trend in combination with lower incidence of
new claims and increased settlement actions could lead to a future
reduction of Fitch's target survival ratios.

Asbestos losses continue to create an earnings drag for the
industry and insurers with meaningful asbestos exposures.

For a group of 25 insurers with the largest U.S. asbestos
exposures, continued asbestos incurred losses have added nearly
one percentage point to the group's aggregate combined ratio over
the past five years.

Fitch does not expect near term rating actions that are driven by
asbestos related claims as losses from this peril are not likely
to severely affect capital, but are likely to remain a continued
impediment to better earnings and return on capital.

The 'Asbestos Liability Dashboard' is available on Fitch's website
at 'www.fitchratings.com'

Contact:

Douglas M. Pawlowski
CFA Senior Director
+1-312-368-2054
Fitch Ratings, Inc.
70 West Madison St.
Chicago, IL 60602

Jeremy Graczyk
Associate Director
+1-312-368-3208

Media Relations:

Hannah James
New York
Tel: + 1 646 582 4947
Email: hannah.james@fitchratings.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: John Crane Files RICO Suits vs. Law Firms
----------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that John Crane Inc. has filed
RICO complaints against a number of asbestos plaintiff firms,
maintaining that the firms had falsely denied that their clients
were exposed to a number of other asbestos-containing products in
litigation against the defendant.

In separate complaints filed against the Shein Law Center and
Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois on June 6, asbestos defendant
John Crane maintained that the plaintiff firms have "devised and
implemented a scheme to defraud [John Crane] and others . . .."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Daughter Petitions to Rid School of Asbestos
-------------------------------------------------------------
Debby Thompson-Buck, writing for Get Bucks, reported that the
daughter of a former Marlow teacher dying of a cancer caused by
exposure to asbestos has launched a petition calling on the
government to act.

Lucie Stephens' mother Sue Stephens is fighting for her life after
being diagnosed with mesothelomia.

Now Lucie has launched an online petition calling for the
government to protect children and teachers from exposure to
asbestos in schools.

Mrs Stephens taught at schools in Buckinghamshire for more than 30
years and believes her cancer was caused by being exposed to
asbestos in the workplace.

Lucie Stephens said: "Mesothelomia can lie dormant for a long
time, meaning victims are diagnosed 15 to 60 years after their
exposure.

"Although mum is in the last weeks of her life, she is horrified
that teachers and pupils continue to be exposed to asbestos in
schools.

"I've promised her that I will do my best to make sure no-one else
has to suffer like she has."

Lucie has launched a petition asking the Government to ensure all
schools in the UK produce an annual report about the type and
condition of any asbestos they have on the premises, and to be
required to share this with all parents and staff, with every
child's potential exposure to asbestos recorded and shared with
parents.

Read more: Daily Mirror -- seven million children at risk of
asbestos exposure just by going to school
In just three days she has garnered more than 1,500 signatures,
and wants Secretary of State for Education Nicky Morgan to take
action to protect those children and teaching staff at risk.

Lucie said: "Mum bravely got on with chemotherapy and radiotherapy
but neither treatment helped. She also tried to get on to new drug
trials but wasn't well enough to take part.

"She has been in hospital recently but is now back at home with
Dad caring for her full-time. My brother and I are spending as
much time with her as possible in her last few weeks of life."

She added: "It's been touching and incredibly sad that many
signing the petition have also lost a relative from asbestos in
schools.

"It has gone on for far too long and I hate the thought that other
people will suffer like Mum, when this disease is completely
preventable."

In addition to the annual reports, Lucie wants the Government to
introduce a policy for the phased removal of asbestos from all
schools to be completed by 2028.

Helen Grady, partner at Simpson Millar representing the Stephens
family, said: "I am deeply touched by the supportive comments and
signatures provided for this Asbestos in Schools campaign.

"True justice will hopefully come for Susan and her family if the
Schools Minister agrees to address these very real, current and
painful issues surrounding asbestos exposure in schools."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Charges vs. Parliament Square Developed Junked
---------------------------------------------------------------
Edith Bevin, writing for ABC News, reported that a charge of
exposing workers to asbestos and failing to comply with health and
safety standards against the company involved in Hobart's
Parliament Square development has been dismissed.

Macquarie Builders had been fighting the charge in the Magistrates
Court in Hobart since July last year.

It was alleged three workers were exposed to asbestos fibres at
the Salamanca Place site in January and February 2013.

Macquarie Builders were accused of failing to ensure that no or
minimal dust was generated from the removal of ceiling material
using jackhammers.

It was also accused of not providing a negative air pressure unit
or decontamination unit and not providing appropriate safety
clothing, breathing equipment, training and supervision.

This morning the Department of Public Prosecutions (DPP) tendered
no evidence and the charge was dismissed.

Macquarie Builders director Frank Sikkema said it was a welcome
result.

"We knew from the pre-demolition reports from the archaeologist
that asbestos material would be found because of the age of
buildings onsite," he said.

"As part of Macquarie Builders' demolition works, when asbestos
cement sheeting was found it was dealt with according to agreed
procedures.

"We have cooperated fully with Workplace Safety Tasmania
throughout its investigations and the preliminary legal
procedures.

"Macquarie Builders was and is always committed to the safety of
our workers, at Parliament Square and on every project we
undertake."


                            *********

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  * * *