CAR_Public/160701.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Friday, July 1, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 131




                            Headlines


ABM INDUSTRIES: PLF Files Amicus Brief in Labor Class Action
AIRBNB: Has Until July 13 to Respond to Discrimination Claims
ALIBABA: New York Court Tosses IPO Class Action
ALIMENTATION COUCHE-TARD: "Hazel" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims

ALLIEDBEAN DEMOLITION: Faces "Wright" Class Suit in S.D. Florida
AMCAP MORTGAGE: "Carranco" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
APPLE INC: Judge Dismisses Error 53 Class Action
ARNET PHARMACEUTICAL: "Cardentey" Lawsuit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA
BANANA BOAT: Faces Class Action Over Mislabeled Sunscreen

BANCO BRADESCO: August 2 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
BANK OF AMERICA: Philadelphia Files Antitrust Class Action
CABO CANTINA: Faces Suit Over 4.9% Service Charge
CANADIAN PACIFIC: Lac-Megantic Won't Pursue Train Derailment Suit
CFL FURNITURE: "Ardino" Lawsuit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA

CONTRA COSTA: Must Pay 80% of Retiree Benefits, Judge Says
CRISAK INC: "Martin" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: CEO Sued Over Alleged Merger Side Deal
E. I. DUPONT: Must Respond to 3rd Amended Class Action
E. I. DUPONT: Judge Hears Input on Smelter Settlement Surplus

ELECTROLUX HOME: Faces "Beck" Suit Over "Defective" Dishwashers
FIAT CHRYSLER: Sued Over Defective Clutches in Dodge Darts
FIAT CHRYSLER: Infotainment System Does Not Work, Suit Says
FLATHEAD ELECTRIC: "Wolfe" Suit Seeks to Recover Patronage Capital
GENERAL MOTORS: Exaggerates Mileage of Vehicles, Class Suit Says

GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: "Jones" Suit Alleges Zofran Side Effects
HONDA: Acura Owners File Class Action Over HandsFreelink Defect
HOUSEHOLD INT'L: Securities Suit Hinged on Financial Expert
HUSTLERS CLUB: Violates Labor Laws, Dancers Claim
ICCI GROUP: "Conn" Suit to Recover Unpaid Back Wages

INT'L ASSOCIATION: Russian Athletes to File Class Action
INOVALON: Faces Investors' Class Action in Manhattan
IRAN: Supports Iraq-Based Terrorists, Class Suit Claims
JOHNSON & JOHNSON'S: Baby Powder Suits Expected to Pile Up
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE: Faces "Curet" Lawsuit in N.J. Under FLSA

LUDLOW MUSIC: Sued Over "This Land Is Your Land" Copyright
MARS INC: Sued Over False Ad for Uncle Ben's Ready Rice
MARTIN BOYLE: Appeals Court Tosses Gulf Stream Class Action Bid
MARYLAND: Detainees File Class Suit Over Commitment Delays
MDL 2493: Placeholder Motions for Class Certification Denied

MICHIGAN: State Police Sued Over Marijuana Reporting Policy
MILLERCOORS LLC: Court Tosses Lawsuit Over Blue Moon Beer
MITRA QSR: "Woolford" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
MODESTO, CA: One of MID Class Actions May Face Jury Trial
MU HEALTH CARE: Faces Class Action Over Hospital Charges

NEW CARLTON: "Rumph" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
NEW YORK: Driver Sues Over Long Island Surcharges on Tickets
NISSAN: Hid Problems with Timing Chain Tension System, Suit Says
PSB SATELLITES: "Villalba" Suit to Recover Minimum, Overtime Pay
SODEXO INC: "Crenshaw" Suit Seeks OT and Minimum Wages

SONY CORP: Settles PlayStation 3 Owners' Class Action
STAR TEX: Faces "Castillo" Lawsuit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA
STATE FARM: Sued in W.D. Mo. Over Life Insurance Policy Charges
SYSCO CORPORATION: "Navarro" Suit Removed to C.D. California
SYSCO CORPORATION: "Frieri" Class Suit Removed to S.D. California

SYSCO CORPORATION: "Navarro" Suit Removed to C.D. California
TATA CONSULTANCY: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action
TELEBRANDS: "Memoli" Class Suit Removed to New Jersey Dist. Ct.
TEXAS: Supreme Court to Hear Case Over Deaf Driver Schools
TICKETMASTER: Reveals Eligible Shows for Class Action Settlement

TOM & ANGIE'S: "Kraemer" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
TRANSENTERIX INC: "Ravey" Sues over Share Price Drop
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Seeks to Decertify Student Class Action
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: July 13 Hearing on Amended Protective Order Bid
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Attorneys Fight Racketeering Claims

TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Workshops Held Over Foreclosure Crisis
TWILIO INC: Sued in W.D. Wash. Over TCPA Violation
UBER & LYFT: Councilman Sues Austin to Nix Background Check Rule
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "Jbara" Suit to Recover Basic Benefits
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Drivers in Los Angeles, Milwaukee File Suit

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: 9th Cir. Heard Arguments on Arbitration Rift
ULTRA SOFT: "Santos" Suit Seeks Proper Wages Under FLSA
UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: "Calderon" Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA
VAN SANT: Faces "Barker" Lawsuit Seeking Overtime Pay Under FLSA
VEREIT INC: Faces Gov't Probe, Class Suit Says

VISA & MASTERCARD: Home Depot Sues Over Fraud Liability Shift
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Reaches $14.7-Bil. Deal to Settle Emissions Case
VOLKSWAGEN AG: BRS Files Lawsuit in Calif. Under Securities Act
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Labaton Sucharon Files Securities Class Action
WAFFLE HOUSE: Hearing Today on Arbitration Bid

WEATHERFORD US: "Jones" Sues Over Underfunded Pension Plan
WENDY'S CO: AOD Federal Files Lawsuit in Penn. Over Data Breach
WENDY'S COMPANY: Veridian Sues in W.D. Penn. Over Data Breach
WENDY'S: No. of Franchises Breached Higher Than Initially Thought
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Self Cleaning Ovens

WINGED FOOT GOLF CLUB: Sued Over Alleged 50-Year Fraud
* 9th Circuit Examines Use of Rule 68 to Moot Class Action
* Companies Subject to TCPA Class Actions Should Weigh MDL Risks


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Insurance Coverage Ruling Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Affirms Order Dismissing "Boudreaux"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CSC Retains DynCorp Indemnities at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Still Defends Suits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lift Stay Issue Remains Pending in D/C Ch. 11

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Continues to Defend Suits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tidewater Continues to Defend Suits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parents Sue Contractors Over Asbestos Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WV Firm Blames Almost 300 Companies in Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Removing Asbestos From Former School

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Upholds $8MM Verdict for Carpenter's Widow
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victim's Family Fight Over GBP80K Payout
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Valve Maker Has Duty to Warn, NY Court Rules
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Secondhand Exposure Risks Puerto Rico Families
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Advocates Push for Asbestos Ban in U.S.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Middlebourne Woman Names 103 Companies in Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Removal Delayed at Pillsbury Mills
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos-Related Cancer Costs Canadians Billions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: School With Asbestos to Get $14MM to Redevelop
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tasmanians Push for Free Asbestos Removal

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Planned Over Husband's Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers to Remove Asbestos from Courthouse
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Court Tosses $245K Verdict for Plasterer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos to be Removed from Council Bldg.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Caused Scunthorpe Laborer's Death

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cayuga Centers Bldg Tests Positive for Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Guelph Brake Pad Co. Joins Fight vs. Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Find Delays GBP16MM School Build
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found at Belfast Bonfire Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Removal at High School to Cost GBP122K

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Burnaby Council Pressing for New Asbestos Rules
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dunedin Hospital's Asbestos Bill Rises to $2.3MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Zealand Enacts National Asbestos Ban
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brighton 1984 Bomb May Have Exposed Rescuers
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Removal Creates Controversy in UW-Madison Campus

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sydney Residents Launch Class Suit Over Dumping
ASBESTOS UPDATE: School Hits GBP1MM Setback After Asbestos Find


                            *********


ABM INDUSTRIES: PLF Files Amicus Brief in Labor Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Anastasia Boden, writing for Pacific Legal Foundation, reports
that Congress responded to a class action lawsuit abuse in 2005 by
enacting the Class Action Fairness Act, or CAFA.  That law allows
parties to remove class action lawsuits to federal courts -- which
Congress thought would better police the class action process.
Since CAFA was enacted, plaintiffs have tried to evade removal to
federal court, because they prefer friendlier state courts.  A
case in which PLF filed an amicus brief on June 22, ABM Industries
v. Castro, involves one such example.

In this case, Marley Castro sued her employer -- ABM Industries --
in state court, purportedly on behalf of hundreds of similarly-
situated employees.  She alleged ABM failed to properly reimburse
its employees for business-related expenses related to personal
cell phone use, in violation of state labor code.  ABM attempted
to remove the case to federal court under CAFA.

However, Ninth Circuit law allows plaintiffs to evade CAFA removal
when the case is brought under California's Private Attorney
General Act (PAGA), which deputizes individuals to bring
"representative" lawsuits on behalf of others to enforce the state
labor code.  While PAGA actions are slightly different than class
actions (some of the penalties are paid directly to the state, and
PAGA actions lack due process rules for class action
certification), there's no material difference that justifies
isolating these large, often coercive, lawsuits from CAFA.
Nevertheless, the Ninth Circuit has held that lawsuits -- even
those lawsuits involving hundreds of plaintiffs and massive fines
-- are not subject to CAFA because they do not go through class
certification procedures akin to the federal class certification
procedure for traditional class actions.

ABM filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the United States
Supreme Court and on June 22, PLF filed an amicus brief in support
of the petition, arguing that the Court should agree to review the
case and overrule the Ninth's Circuit loophole.  We argue that,
given the increasing number of "representative actions" under
PAGA-like statutes across the country, the Ninth Circuit's
loophole may swallow the general rule that allows removal of class
litigation seeking more than $5 million.

Moreover, by allowing large lawsuits that don't have class
certification measures to escape CAFA removal, the Ninth Circuit's
decision gives those states that are hostile to CAFA an incentive
to authorize mass actions that lack important class certification
protections.  This affects constitutional due process protection
not only for defendants, but also for absent employees whose
rights are finally determined without their input or consent.

The Court should take this opportunity to affirm that CAFA applies
to representative PAGA actions.


AIRBNB: Has Until July 13 to Respond to Discrimination Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alec Siegel, writing for Law Street, reports that in the gig
economy, where rides, dates, and living rooms are outsourced,
where services are offered by independent contractors who are not
employed -- but operate under the auspices of a larger
conglomeration -- who is responsible for mistreatment and
discrimination against customers? The person directly
discriminating, or the company whose platform allows room for
discrimination? Airbnb -- an application that connects travelers
to the living spaces of locals, in lieu of traditional lodging --
is grappling with these questions as users report being
discriminated against.

Over the past year or so, as Airbnb has blossomed (the company is
valued at $25 billion, with hosts in 34,000 cities, and 191
countries), travelers have increasingly been turned down by
discriminatory hosts.  A January study by the Harvard Business
School offers data that buffers the anecdotal evidence: in the
five American cities it covered, the study found African-American
travelers received positive reviews 42 percent of the time.  But
50 percent of white travelers received a positive review.  Those
numbers are identical when considering how often a traveler with a
stereotypical African-American sounding name -- Darnell, Rasheed,
Tamika -- was accepted in comparison to a stereotypical white or
neutral name like Brad or Kristen.

Airbnb has terminated hosts who were found to violate the
service's tolerance policy and federal law.  But that does not
mean the company is blameless for any wrongdoing on behalf of its
hosts, and as affected users threaten to take their cases to
court, Airbnb is taking steps to reform its methods and eliminate
any room for discrimination and racism.  A few weeks ago, Airbnb
hired Laura Murphy, the former head of the ACLU's Washington D.C.
legislation office, to conduct a review of its ability to deal
with incidents involving discrimination and racism.  Her report is
expected by September.

This summer, Airbnb's ability to counter lawsuits brought about by
its users will be tested: in May, a class-action discrimination
suit was filed in the U.S. District Court in D.C. by Gregory
Selden, a black man who claims he was denied by a host because of
his race.  Airbnb will respond to the lawsuit by
July 13.  When users sign into the service, they are prompted with
a "class-action waiver," which essentially ensures people waive
their right to sue, or join class-action lawsuits agains the
service.

It will be interesting to see how that protective tool holds up in
court with the Selden case.  According to Joanne Doroshow,
executive director of New York Law School's Center for Justice and
Democracy, change will only follow if cases like Selden's prove
successful.  "Class-action cases have been the only effective way
to prove and remedy systemic discrimination because you can't
prove a pattern of behavior with individually filed cases," she
said.

Meanwhile, new players are entering the home-sharing market in
efforts to address customers who are wary about encountering
racism and discrimination on Airbnb.  Stefan Grant launched
Noirbnb -- a service geared toward people of color, though they
accept profiles from everyone -- after he and his friend were
greeted by a swarm of cops at the Airbnb property they were
staying at in Atlanta.  A neighbor thought they were burglars.


ALIBABA: New York Court Tosses IPO Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Post & Parcel reports that the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York dismissed a class action lawsuit
brought against Alibaba and some of its executives about
disclosures made in connection with the company's initial public
offering (IPO).

The Court ruled that the plaintiffs had failed to plead that
Alibaba made any actionable misstatements or omissions, and also
failed to plead facts sufficient to show that any of the
defendants sought to defraud investors.

The plaintiffs alleged that Alibaba's Registration Statement, IPO
prospectus, and various other public statements, were false and
misleading because they failed to disclose heightened regulatory
scrutiny by the Chinese State Administration for Industry and
Commerce (SAIC) prior to the company's IPO.

Contrary to the plaintiff's complaint, the Court found Alibaba's
disclosures to be "accurate and sufficiently candid" with regard
to their description of the SAIC's crackdown on violations of
Chinese laws on e-commerce sites.  The Court also held that
Alibaba did not downplay the problem of counterfeit sales on its
platforms or the likelihood of an administrative action with
respect to such issue.

In a statement issued June 22, Alibaba said that it was "pleased
that the judge in the Southern District of New York has dismissed
the litigation and concluded that Plaintiffs have failed to state
any claim for violation of the U.S. securities laws".

The lawsuits are docketed under the master caption Christine Asia
Co., Ltd. et al. v. Alibaba Group Holding Limited et al., No.
1:15-md-02631-CM (S.D.N.Y.) in the Southern District of New York.


ALIMENTATION COUCHE-TARD: "Hazel" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Lynn Hazel, Plaintiff, v. Alimentation Couche-Tard,
Circle K Stores, Inc. and The Pantry, Inc. d/b/a Kangaroo Express,
Case No. 2:16-cv-00957 (N.D. Ala., June 9, 2016) seeks damages in
the amount of unpaid compensation and benefits, liquidated
damages, prejudgment interest and post judgment interest, and
reasonable attorney fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Hazel has been employed in the position of store manager at
Defendants' Kangaroo Express store located at 21195 Highway 25,
Columbiana, Alabama 35051. Plaintiff did not receive overtime pay
for hours over forty or fifty hours a week.

Circle K is an international chain of convenience stores,
presently owned and operated by the Canadian-based Alimentation
Couche-Tard.

The Pantry, Inc. operates convenience stores in the Southeastern
United States under the "Kangaroo Express" name with more than
1,500 store locations in 13 states.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel E. Arciniegas, Esq.
      Jon C. Goldfarb, Esq.
      Daniel E. Arciniegas, Esq.
      L. William Smith, Esq.
      WIGGINS, CHILDS, PANTAZIS, FISHER, & GOLDFARB LLC.
      The Kress Building
      301 19th Street North
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone No.: (205) 314-0500
      Facsimile No.: (205) 254-1500


ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eliezer Cohen, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. AllianceOne Receivables Management, Inc., Case No.
1:16-cv-02989 (E.D.N.Y., June 9, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

AllianceOne Receivables Management, Inc. operates a debt
collection agency throughout the United States.

Eliezer Cohen is a pro se plaintiff.


ALLIEDBEAN DEMOLITION: Faces "Wright" Class Suit in S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against AlliedBean
Demolition, Inc. and Kevin Bean.

The case is captioned Brian Wright, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated v. AlliedBean Demolition, Inc., Kevin
Bean, Case No. 0:16-cv-61232-BB (S.D. Fla., June 9, 2016).

The Defendants own and operate a demolition company in Fort
Lauderdale, Florida.
The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMCAP MORTGAGE: "Carranco" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anjanette Carranco, Christine Tovar and Jennifer Kindred,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. AMCAP Mortgage, Ltd. Doing business as Gold
Financial Services, Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-00528 (W.D. Tex.,
June 9, 2016), seeks to recover the unpaid wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Amcap Mortgage, Ltd. is a Texas Limited Partnership that operates
under Gold Financial Services. Amcap Investments, LLC is a Texas
Limited Liability Company with principal place of business at 9999
Bellaire Blvd., Suite 700, Houston, Texas.

Plaintiffs worked as mortgage underwriters engaged in the
production of loans sold by Defendant. They claim to be denied
overtime pay.

The Defendants are represented by:

     Jennifer J. Spencer, Esq.
     SPENCER SCOTT PLLC
     Two Lincoln Centre
     5420 LBJ Freeway, Suite 300
     Dallas, TX 75240-6271
     Tel: (972) 458-5319
     Fax: (972) 770-2156
     Email: jspencer@spencerscottlaw.com


APPLE INC: Judge Dismisses Error 53 Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Jeff Gamet, writing for The Mac Observer, reports that a class
action lawsuit against Apple over bricked iPhones and Error 53 has
been dismissed because the Judge overseeing the case saying the
plaintiffs failed to prove they had been harmed.  This isn't,
however, the end of the line because they can amend their claims,
plus there are at least two similar cases in the court system,
too.

Error 53 was a big buzz phrase earlier this year when the media
latched on to reports of iPhones that stopped working after
upgrading to iOS 9.  The error and subsequent bricking happened on
iPhones where the Touch ID-capable Home button had been replaced
outside of an authorized Apple service center.  Built-in
diagnostics detected the Home button and Touch ID weren't properly
paired with the iPhone and interpreted that as a security breach,
locking down the phone.

Law firms jumped on the problem saying this was Apple's way of
forcing customers to use only its own service centers, and the
class action lawsuit train rolled out of the station.  Apple
apologized to customers and released a software update to restore
iPhones bricked by Error 53, but that wasn't enough to satisfy the
lawyers and plaintiffs.

It was, however, enough to satisfy U.S. District Judge Vince
Chhabria who dismissed the case.  He said claims that iPhones were
defective wasn't valid because Apple offered to fix the issue, and
false advertising claims were invalid because designing a product
doesn't equate to automatically knowing every potential problem it
may have.

Judge Chhabria said,

"The plaintiffs' position seems to be that Apple should have
'disclosed that their devices would be destroyed by imbedded
features if they had repaired devices using an independent service
and then updated to certain iOS versions'. . . the mere fact that
a company has designed a product doesn't mean it automatically
knows about all of that product's potential design flaws."

This isn't the end of the line because the Judge left an
opportunity open so the plaintiffs can amend and resubmit their
case to show they suffered real damages.  Similar cases have been
filed in California and Washington, too.

Assuming any of these cases make it to trial, Apple will likely
note that service centers should be aware of the Touch ID pairing
procedure, and that it released a fix for iPhone owners who had
their Home button replaced incorrectly.  Based on Judge Judge
Chhabria's dismissal, the plaintiffs may switch tactics and try to
show Apple should be held accountable for any data loss they
suffered.  Regardless of the strategy the plaintiffs use, the
Error 53 cases aren't over yet.


ARNET PHARMACEUTICAL: "Cardentey" Lawsuit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE LUIS CARDENTEY, and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiffs, v. ARNET PHARMACEUTICAL CORPORATION, Defendant, Case
0:16-cv-61328-FAM (S.D. Fla., June 20, 2016), seeks to recover
money damages for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendant is engaged in interstate commerce.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Martin Saenz, Esq.
     Ed Rosenberg, Esq.
     SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
     20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
     Aventura, FL 33180
     Phone: (305) 503-5131
     Fax: (888) 270-5549
     E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com
             ed@saenzanderson.com


BANANA BOAT: Faces Class Action Over Mislabeled Sunscreen
---------------------------------------------------------
Danika Fears and Ross Toback, writing for New York Post, report
that jumping on a report that found many sunscreens overstate
their protection factors, a Brooklyn parent has filed a class-
action lawsuit against the makers of Banana Boat Sunscreen, saying
he bought a bottle of kids lotion that was supposed to be SPF 50
but turned out to only have an SPF of 12.

"Defendants have known, or should have known, for years that
Banana Boat Kids SPF 50 products contain less UV protection than
Defendants advertise," reads the lawsuit, which was filed on
June 22 against Playtex Products, Edgewell Personal Care Company
and Sun Pharmaceutical.

Paul Lambrakis purchased the tube of Banana Boat Kids SPF 50 in
May after a Consumer Reports study found that it and many other
sunscreens were overstating their protection factor.  He sent the
tube to a laboratory in Winston Salem, N.C., to have tested,
according to the lawsuit filed in Brooklyn federal court.

The results found that the bottle had an actual SPF that wasn't
even half as strong as advertised, court papers say.

"The investigation concluded that Banana Boat Kids SPF 50
sunscreen, clearly labeled as containing SPF 50, shockingly
contained only an SPF of 12.69 and a measured UVA protection
factor of 4.88," the lawsuit reads.

Now Mr. Lambrakis is alleging that he and others in the class
action suit were forced to "overpay for the sunscreen based upon
false, inflated SPF," according to the documents.

"They were unhappy when the suntan lotion was a complete lie," Mr.
Lambrakis's lawyer, Hunter Shkolnik, said.

"They were putting this stuff on their children.  They made a
point to buy it.  They were getting burnt."

He accused the company, which rakes in $25 million in sales each
year, of "defrauding" unsuspecting customers.

"You don't want to think its wrong but there's no quality
control," he said.  "This is a straight-forward case . People are
spending money for this stuff!"

Playtex, Edgewell and Sun Pharmaceutical did not immediately
respond to requests for comment.

The lawsuit comes after a Consumer Reports investigation found
that 43 percent of the more than 60 sunscreens they tested failed
to measure up to the SPF claims advertised on their bottles.

"In May of 2016, Consumer Reports research revealed that among
'the most problematic products were Banana Boat Kids Tear-Free,
Sting-Free Lotion . . . which [was] labeled as SPF 50 but [was]
found to have only SPF 8,'" the lawsuit reads.

"Defendants have been notified of the false advertisement but have
not remedied the problem."


BANCO BRADESCO: August 2 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
Khang & Khang LLP (the "Firm") on June 22 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Banco Bradesco S.A. ("Banco
Bradesco" or the "Company").  Investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired shares between April 30, 2012 through May 31, 2016,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the Firm
prior to the August 2, 2016, lead plaintiff motion deadline.

If you purchased shares of Banco Bradesco during the Class Period,
please contact Joon M. Khang, Esquire, of Khang & Khang, 18101 Von
Karman Avenue, 3rd Floor, Irvine, CA 92612, by telephone: (949)
419-3834, or by e-mail at joon@khanglaw.com

There has been no class certification in this case.  Until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney.  You
may choose to take no action and remain a passive class member.

According to the complaint, the Company made materially false
and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose that: Banco
Bradesco was involved in bribery with the Brazilian Finance
Ministry's CARF; the Company's executives were planning on
avoiding a $828,000,000.00 tax fine by Brazil's Internal Revenue
Service; several of Banco Bradesco's CEO, executives, directors,
and employees were engaged in bribery, corruption, and money
laundering; Banco Bradesco's internal control of financial
reporting, procedures, and disclosure controls were ineffective;
and as a result of the above, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.  On May 31,
2016 news reports disclosed that the Company's CEO was indicted by
Brazilian police on corruption charges. Upon announcement of this
news on May 31, 2016, shares of Banco Bradesco fell nearly 6% on
that same day.

If you wish to learn more about this lawsuit, or if you have any
questions concerning this notice or your rights, please contact
Joon M. Khang, a prominent litigator for almost two decades, by
telephone: (949) 419-3834, or by e-mail at joon@khanglaw.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Philadelphia Files Antitrust Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Malfitano, writing for PennRecord, reports that recently,
the City of Philadelphia initiated a class action lawsuit in
Illinois federal court against a number of world financial
institutions, claimed they violated federal antitrust law in
colluding to prevent the purchase and sale of interest rate swaps
(IRS).

The lawsuit, filed May 23, claims Bank of America Corp, J.P.
Morgan Chase & Co., Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs and a host of
others cooperated to violate the Sherman Act and Clayton Act by
blocking exchange-based purchase and sale of IRS through boycotts,
threats of boycotts and other unlawful means.

An IRS is a key financial portfolio management device used by
"corporations, hospitals, counties, municipalities, pension funds,
and other types of institutional investors," and the suit says
they make up more than $1 trillion in daily financial trades.

Since an IRS exchange system currently isn't in place,
municipalities like the City of Philadelphia have to work out
those rates with individual banks, who the lawsuit alleges control
the lion's share of IRS-related market activities.

The suit's proposed class is any individual or entity who
purchased an IRS from the defendants since Jan. 1, 2007, and the
suit alleges the defendants collaborated on a number of occasions
to prevent the establishment of platforms which would facilitate
plans for exchange-based IRS purchases and sales.

"The modus operandi is clear. When the Bank Defendants' OTC
profits were threatened by exchange-style platforms -- whether for
CDS or IRS -- the banks used their market power to work together
to systematically crush these more efficient rivals," the suit
states.

According to the lawsuit, the presence of an exchange would
immediately make the IRS market more competitive and pose a direct
threat to the size of the financial institutions' profits.

"Bloomberg reported in 2014 that the risk of the IRS business
'stepping into the light' would cost JP Morgan an estimated '$1
billion to $2 billion in revenue a year," the suit reads.

The suit also explained the lawsuit's filing in U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

"The anti-competitive activities of defendants were directed
towards this district and had substantial effect in this district
and on its residents. Defendants regularly and intentionally
conducted large portions of their business through lines of
interstate commerce terminating in the city of Chicago, Illinois,"
the suit read.

The suit seeks certification of the lawsuit's class action status,
the alleged unlawful conduct be decreed to have violated the
Sherman Act; that the defendants be permanently enjoined from
future alleged unlawful conduct; treble damages plus interest for
the plaintiff; monetary damages for those plaintiffs under
contract with the defendants or their affiliates; attorney's fees
and other relief as deemed appropriate, as well as a demand for a
jury trial.

Recently, a multi-district litigation proceeding was established
in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, with
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer presiding.

Philadelphia is represented by George A. Zelcs --
gzelcs@koreintillery.com -- Chad Emerson Bell --
cbell@koreintillery.com -- John Anton Libra and Randall P. Ewing,
Jr. of Korein Tillery in Chicago and Kate Lv of Scott & Scott, in
San Diego.

U.S. Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation case 2704

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois -
Eastern Division case 1:16-cv-05409


CABO CANTINA: Faces Suit Over 4.9% Service Charge
-------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Cabo Cantina et al., which
run 14 Southern California restaurants, including the Baja Beach
Cafe in Pacific Beach, add an undisclosed 4.9% service charge to
all orders, a class action claims in San Diego County Court.


CANADIAN PACIFIC: Lac-Megantic Won't Pursue Train Derailment Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that the Quebec town that was
devastated in 2013 when a runaway train derailed and exploded,
killing 47 people, will not pursue legal action against Canadian
Pacific Railway.

Lac-Megantic's city council voted on June 21 to drop all possible
charges against the railroad.

Mayor Jean-Guy Cloutier said it would cost considerable sums of
money to pay for experts over several years and that there is no
guarantee the town would win.

"There are many reasons for this decision," Mr. Cloutier said in a
statement.  "We thought long and hard about it and reached the
conclusion the risks of such action were too high in terms of the
costs to the community."

The train that exploded in the town on July 6, 2013, was owned and
operated by Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway -- not CP --as
were the tracks on which the locomotive was travelling.

Canadian Pacific (TSX:CP), however, owned the tracks on which
MMA's train began its journey from North Dakota.  When the train
arrived in Montreal, it switched onto MMA tracks to complete its
scheduled journey to New Brunswick.

Victims and creditors of the disaster blame MMA but also CP, which
they claim acted negligently in a number of areas.

CP is the only company accused of responsibility in the derailment
that has not paid into a settlement fund.

More than $400 million has been collected from roughly 25
companies accused in the crash.  All of them -- except MMA --
received legal immunity from future prosecutions relating to the
derailment.

CP maintains it had nothing to do with the disaster because the
crash occurred on MMA tracks involving MMA trains.

The Quebec government has launched a $409-million lawsuit against
CP and a class action lawsuit against the railroad has been
authorized to proceed.

For Lac-Megantic, however, its legal case against CP is over.

"We would be obliged to spend considerable sums on experts over
several years," Mr. Cloutier explained.  "And there is no
guarantee we would win.  We find the process long, complex and
very costly.  We can't put this burden on the shoulders of
Lac-Megantic residents."


CFL FURNITURE: "Ardino" Lawsuit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
LUSUIN ARDINO, on behalf of himself and other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CFL FURNITURE & ANTIQUES, INC., Defendant,
Case 2:16-cv-11019 (E.D. La., June 20, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant is in the business of purchasing furniture and antiques
in bulk from hotels to sell in its retail store in New Orleans,
Louisiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
     3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
     New Orleans, LA 70119
     Phone: (504) 534-5005
     Fax: (504) 272-2956
     E-mail: costaleslawoffice@gmail.com

        - and -

     Emily A. Westermeier, Esq.
     William H. Beaumont, Esq.
     3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
     New Orleans, LA 70119
     Phone: (504) 483-8008
     E-mail: whbeaumont@gmail.com

       - and -

     Emily A. Westermeier, Esq.
     3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
     New Orleans, LA 70119
     Phone: (504) 534-5005
     E-mail: emily.costaleslawoffice@gmail.com


CONTRA COSTA: Must Pay 80% of Retiree Benefits, Judge Says
----------------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Contra Costa County must honor its promise to pay 80 percent
of the cost of health benefits for which retirees sacrificed wage
and cost-of-living increases, a federal judge in San Francisco
told the county this week.

The Retiree Support Group of Contra County sued in January 2012
after the county reneged on its promise.  The Support Group,
representing some 4,000 retirees, claimed the Board of Supervisors
ratified the agreement through resolutions, Memoranda of
Understanding, official statements. But the county capped its
contribution to retirees' health benefits at a flat dollar amount
on Jan. 1, 2010, resulting in increased costs for retirees.

The Support Group filed a class action alleging breach of
contract, impairment of contract in violation of the state and
federal constitutions, and violations of due process.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White dismissed without prejudice,
citing lack of evidence of an express or implied contract, and
ordered that any amended complaint provide "all of the specific
resolutions or ordinances that contain the 80 percent promise."

The Support Group filed a second amended complaint on Nov. 30,
2012, which the court refused to dismiss. The case was referred to
mediation in early 2015, and the parties reached a settlement in
August.

The Support Group sought preliminary approval of the settlement in
March this year. U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar, with consent of
the county, granted the plaintiffs leave to file a third amended
complaint to add class allegations and assign class
representatives.

"Because the opposing party agrees that leave to amend should be
granted, and because it will facilitate the proposed settlement,
the court grants plaintiffs' motion for leave to file their TAC,"
Tigar wrote in a 14-page order June 14.

He granted preliminary approval to a settlement that gives
retirees almost 72 percent of the promised 80 percent payment.

"The court concludes that the settlement should be preliminarily
approved," Tigar wrote. "An agreement to provide 71.9 percent of
the least expensive offered health plan is indeed of significant
economic value to the class members, especially when the alleged
claim is that the county originally promised to provide the 80
percent. As plaintiff explains, many retirees who are Medicare-
eligible will continue to pay just one cent towards their monthly
premiums, and these benefits will last for the retirees'
lifetimes."

Each party must pay its own attorneys' fees.

"(N)o attorneys' fees or class representative awards will be
apportioned from the economic benefits provided by the
settlement," Tigar wrote. "When compared with the costs, time and
risks involved in litigation, this settlement is within the range
of possible approval."

He set a final fairness hearing for Oct. 27.

The seat of Contra Costa, inland from the Bay Area, is Martinez,
at the foot of Mt. Diablo.

The case captioned, RETIREE SUPPORT GROUP OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY,
Plaintiff, v. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, Defendant., Case No.12-cv-
00944-JST (N.D. Cal.).


CRISAK INC: "Martin" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Robert Martin and Michael Vellake, Plaintiffs, v. Crisak, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-01982 (D. Md., June 9, 2016), seeks to
recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, interest, reasonable
attorney fees and costs under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938, Maryland Wage and Hour Law and the Maryland Wage Payment
and Collection Law.

Defendant is in the business of providing construction site
management as a general contractor. It is located in 625-B Main
Street Gaithersburg, Maryland 20878, where the Plaintiffs worked
as superintendents.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Benjamin L. Davis, III, Esq.
     Joseph E. Spicer, Esq. (27839)
     THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
     36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
     Baltimore, MD 21201
     Phone No.: (410) 244-7005
     Fax No.: (410) 244-8454
     Email: bdavis@nicholllaw.com
            jspicer@nicholllaw.com


DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: CEO Sued Over Alleged Merger Side Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Kelly, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that an
investor claims in court that Comcast offered DreamWorks CEO
Jeffrey Katzenberg a lucrative side deal to secure his vote in its
merger with DreamWorks Animation.

Ann Arbor City Employees Retirement Systems, or AACERS, says in
its class-action complaint that Comcast agreed to pay $41 per
share for the animation company only if Katzenberg approved the
deal by written consent.

Katzenberg is DreamWorks' controlling shareholder, holding 60
percent of voting stock, so no public shareholder approval was
needed for the merger.

To obtain Katzenberg's consent, AACERS alleges that Comcast
offered the DreamWorks CEO a two-year consulting agreement and
profit-sharing arrangement that pays him annual consulting fees of
$1 and 7 percent of the profits in perpetuity in AwesomenessTV
Holdings LLC and DWA Nova LLC, two of DreamWorks' most promising
and valuable assets.

The profit-sharing arrangement and consulting agreement, referred
to in the lawsuit as the "side deal," is incredibly valuable to
Katzenberg and "constitutes disguised disparate merger
consideration for Katzenberg," according to AACERS.

AwesomenessTV Holdings and DWA Nova are so profitable that the
side deal is "akin to an equity rollover into two of DreamWorks'
most promising units without any of the downside risk typically
associated with equity rollovers because Katzenberg also received
$41 per share cash for all of his DreamWorks shares," the
complaint states.

Since DreamWorks' 2013 acquisition of AwesomenessTV Holdings, a
teen-centered entertainment company, for an initial price of $33
million, its value has skyrocketed and is now valued at $650
million, says AACERS.

And "DWA Nova, a unit that uses 3-D animation technology to assist
companies with product development and marketing campaigns,
appears similarly poised for success," according to the complaint.
Nike and Burberry have both reportedly partnered with DWA Nova to
use the company's 3-D technology to create and market products.

AACERS says that Katzenberg's profits from the two-year consulting
arrangement could be potentially "worth tens and possibly hundreds
of millions of dollars."

According to AACERS, the "side deal violates the equivalent
consideration provision in DreamWorks' certificate of
incorporation," which says that "in the event of a merger . . .
each share of common stock shall be entitled to receive equivalent
consideration on a per share basis."

"Had Katzenberg not received the extraordinarily valuable side
deal, Comcast would have been required to increase the merger
price to secure Katzenberg's support, and the class would have
shared pro rata in that increased consideration," the complaint
states.

And that consideration would be "in excess of the $41 per share
that [the class] will receive in connection with the Merger," adds
AACERS.

In the merger negotiations, Comcast said it would only increase
its initial $35 per share offer "contingent on Katzenberg
approving the deal by written consent instead of submitting the
proposed merger to a vote by DreamWorks' public stockholders," the
lawsuit states.

That "created an immediate conflict of interest that should have
precluded Katzenberg's involvement in any discussions with Comcast
until the DreamWorks board had agreed to accept a final price,"
AACERS claims.

"By negotiating the terms of his post-closing relationship with
Comcast before executing a written consent authorizing a board-
approved merger, Katzenberg used his leverage to extract disparate
consideration in violation of the charter, and constrained the
board's ability to secure 'equivalent consideration' for the
company's public stockholders," the Delaware Chancery Court
complaint states.

AACERS is represented by Michael J. Barry of Grant & Eisenhoffer
of Wilmington, Del., and Jeremy Friedman of Friedman Oster in New
York City.


E. I. DUPONT: Must Respond to 3rd Amended Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal judge in San Jose
June 14, ordered DuPont to answer a third amended class action
complaint accusing it of conspiring to fix prices of titanium
dioxide, a key pigment in white paint.

The case captioned, JAN HARRISON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. E.I.
DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 13-cv-
01180-BLF (N.D. Cal.).


E. I. DUPONT: Judge Hears Input on Smelter Settlement Surplus
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Harvey, writing for The Exponent Telegram, reports that
multiple ideas were aired on June 22 during a court hearing on how
to disburse a $4 million surplus from a toxic pollution settlement
with DuPont in northwestern Harrison County.

Members of the class action who spoke brought a variety of
thoughts, including: Spending $40,000 to purchase new air tanks
for the local fire department; prorating the amount due per
claimant on the basis of time lived in the class action area; and
awarding double to those who had soil and home remediation done
vs. those who just had home remediation.

Harrison County Chief Judge Thomas A. Bedell said he plans to rule
by written order as soon as possible.  He declined to give a set
date, but did say he anticipated the decision would come in weeks,
not months.

A total of about $35 million was set aside for property and home
cleanup as part of a deal reached to settle the class action
lawsuit that was filed in 2004, with Lenora Perrine as the lead
plaintiff.

Medical monitoring also was provided as part of the settlement,
but the surplus doesn't involve it or those participating in that
process.

The lawsuit had focused on alleged toxic emissions of chemicals
such as cadmium, lead and arsenic from the smelting process at the
plant in Spelter that was owned by DuPont and other companies
during the 20th century.

A total of 992 families participated in the settlement's property
remediation program.  If Judge Bedell simply awards the money to
them in equal shares, it would amount to a payout of about $4,030
each.  But there are myriad options he could take.

Gentle also provided the results of a survey in which 281 members
of the class action responded.

Those who responded voted 199-54 against spending about $250,000
to $300,000 for road repair; 191-85 against awarding a large
amount of the surplus to those closest to the site of the former
Spelter smelter, who had both soil and home cleanup done; and 203-
76 against giving those who own multiple properties multiple
shares.

Another question: Whether the 235 families who declined to
participate in the settlement remediation program should get part
of the money. Those surveyed, which didn't include the 235,
overwhelmingly were against awarding any money to nonparticipants.

Gentle noted two sides to this issue: Those who didn't participate
in the property remediation program were warned in writing that
they were waiving claims.  Yet on the other hand, if they had
participated there probably wouldn't have been any surplus.

About 80 individuals signed up for the court hearing, with half of
those scheduled to speak.  However, about 25 actually showed, with
only a handful taking brief turns offering comments to the court.

Brud Drummond brought up the idea about the fire department
needing new air tanks.  Paying for this would subtract about
$40.32 from each claimant's disbursement, Drummond calculated,
apparently anticipating Judge Bedell might award equal shares.

Judge Bedell said this would be something the court could consider
since it would benefit everyone in the class action area.

Trudy Heil, meanwhile, spoke about a drainage issue in her area.
Gentle said he would add it to a list that the claims office has
of such issues that still need addressed (money set aside for such
projects isn't counted in the $4 million).  Athal Kennedy spoke
about a similar concern, one that Gentle said already is in the
process of being addressed.

Shawn Shingleton said those who had property and home cleanup done
should be paid twice as much as those who only had home repairs
done.  The inconveniences were greater for those in the zone where
homes and properties were remediated, he added. Shingleton also
spoke of problems with most of the new sod on his lawn dying,
which Gentle said would be addressed.

Albert Sheaffer, Jerry Stevens and Frank Tate suggested that those
who had lived longest in the area be awarded more.

Tate added that those who had moved in very recently shouldn't be
awarded any money.  He also suggested road repairs should be left
up to state officials, not settlement funds, and that there are
"older people in Spelter with not a lot of income.  Any little
extra would be a blessing, I think."

The medical monitoring program still has around a quarter of a
century to go, but it's believed the numbers participating in it
have dwindled under 500.  At any rate, it's a silent part of the
settlement due to privacy concerns.

And now not much is left to do with property remediation, other
than Gentle and the claims office working with area attorney
Meredith McCarthy and the class action members she represents to
make some final fixes.

"It's been our great pleasure to work with you all finishing up
the settlement and trying to leave the community at least as good
as we found it," Gentle said, eyeing the class action members in
the courtroom.

Judge Bedell gave no indication as to how he would rule.

Gentle, an attorney from Alabama who is a nationally recognized
specialist in claims administration for class action lawsuits, has
been assisted throughout the process in this case by
Michael Jacks, an attorney from Jacks Legal Group in Morgantown.


ELECTROLUX HOME: Faces "Beck" Suit Over "Defective" Dishwashers
---------------------------------------------------------------
KATHY AND NATHANIEL BECK, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC.,
Defendant, Case 1:16-cv-01511-TWP-TAB (S.D. Ind., June 20, 2016),
seeks damages and appropriate equitable relief, including an order
enjoining Electrolux from selling allegedly defective residential
dishwashers sold under the Frigidaire or Electrolux brand names,
without disclosing their defect to consumers.  Absent such
disclosure, Electrolux violates well-established contract, tort,
and consumer protection laws of Indiana.

Defendant Electrolux designs, manufactures, and markets a wide
range of home appliances.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Kathleen A. Farinas, Esq.
     Linda George, Esq.
     Todd Barnes, Esq.
     Sarah Broderick, Esq.
     GEORGE & FARINAS, LLP
     151 N. Delaware St., Ste. 1700
     Indianapolis, IN 46204
     Phone: 317-637-6071
     Fax: 317-685-6505
     E-mail: lg@lgkflaw.com
             kf@lgkflaw.com
             tb@lgkflaw.com
             sb@lgkflaw.com

        - and -

     Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
     Amy E. Keller, Esq.
     Adam Prom, Esq.
     WEXLER WALLACE LLP
     55 W. Monroe St., Ste. 3300
     Chicago, IL 0603
     Phone: 312-346-2222
     Fax: 312-346-0022
     E-mail: eaw@wexlerwallace.com
             aek@wexlerwallace.com
             ap@wexlerwallace.com

        - and -

     Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
     Lisa A. White, Esq.
     GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
     First Tennessee Plaza
     800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
     Knoxville, TN 37929
     Phone: 865-247-0080
     Fax: 865-522-0049
     E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
          lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com

        - and -

     Shanon Carson, Esq.
     Arthur Stock, Esq.
     BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
     1622 Locust Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Phone: 215-875-5704
     Fax: 215-875-4604
     E-mail: scarson@bm.net
             astock@bm.net


FIAT CHRYSLER: Sued Over Defective Clutches in Dodge Darts
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that FCA (Fiat Chrysler America)
Dodge Darts with a Fiat C635 manual transmissions have had
defective clutches since 2012, a class action claims in San Diego
Federal Court.


FIAT CHRYSLER: Infotainment System Does Not Work, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eva Fedderly, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
the American subsidiary of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles is selling
Jeeps that feature a voice-activated "infotainment" system that
does not work as promised, a class action claims.

In a complaint in the Ashland, Ky. Federal Court, Lead plaintiff
Duane Kiser says he bought a 2015 Jeep Renegade, and paid an extra
$1,245 for an infotainment system called Uconnect.

"Plaintiff specifically purchased this Vehicle, with this Uconnect
version, because it provided a navigation feature, a Weather Map
mobile app, and a Wi-Fi 'hot spot,' through which Plaintiff could
obtain internet access," the June 15 complaint says.

According to Kiser, since he purchased the vehicle in June 2015,
the system has not worked.

"Plaintiff has taken the Vehicle to Grayson Chrysler Jeep Dodge, a
dealership in Grayson, Kentucky, for attempted service and repair
of the Uconnect system on no fewer than eight occasions, resulting
in the loss of use of his vehicle for approximately 75 days," the
complaint states.

The dealership replaced the system but it still did not work,
Kiser says.

"After his last visit to the dealership, the service advisor
informed Plaintiff that, according to a regional service manager
employed by Defendant, there was no problem with Plaintiff's
Vehicle because all Jeep Renegades with the Uconnect system
version 6.5/RA4 would fail in the same way," the class action
says.

Kiser claims the automaker, FCA US LLC, is ripping consumers off
by marketing a system rife with known glitches.

"[Defendant] designed, developed, engineered, and programmed a
proprietary voice-activated, in-dash infotainment system known as
Uconnect . . .  at least one of the Uconnect systems available on
the model-year 2015 Jeep Renegade, version 6.5/RA4, does not work
as intended, marketed, or warranted by Defendant," the complaint
states.

FCA US LLC, formerly known as Chrysler, is the American subsidiary
of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles. The defendant designs, engineers,
manufactures, distributes and sells such brands as Chrysler, Jeep,
Dodge, Ram and Fiat.

Kiser, on behalf of the class, is suing FCA US for violation of
the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act; Violation of Kentucky Consumer
Protection Act; violation of West Virginia Consumer Credit and
Protection Act; Unfair, False, and Deceptive Trade Practices;
Breach of Express Warranty; and Breach of Common Law Warranty.

He seeks punitive and compensatory damages, as well as attorney's
fees.

Matthew Lockaby of Lexington, Ky. represents the plaintiff and did
not respond to an email from Courthouse News seeking comment.

The media relations team at FCA US also did not immediately
respond to an email from Courthouse News.


FLATHEAD ELECTRIC: "Wolfe" Suit Seeks to Recover Patronage Capital
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen L. Wolfe, Sue Wortman, Joseph Zatorowski and William
Zubko, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Flathead Electric Cooperative, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 9:16-cv-00073 (D. Mont., June 9, 2016), seeks to recover
patronage capital lawfully belonging to Plaintiffs representing
excess revenue generated by the capital contributions of members
that exceed the Cooperative's current operating costs.  The
complaint asserts fraud; unjust enrichment; negligent
misrepresentation; violation of the Rural Electric and Telephone
Cooperative Act; breach of fiduciary duty under the common law;
breach of contract; breach of the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing; and violations of the Montana Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Act of 1973.

Plaintiffs purchase power from Defendants as Coop members.

Flathead is an electric distribution cooperative with service area
including portions of Flathead, Lincoln, Lake, and Sanders
Counties in Montana and along the Montana-Wyoming border in Park
County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Havila C. Unrein, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
      407 Main Street S.W., Suite 1
      Ronan, MT 59864
      Telephone: (406) 281-7231
      Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
      Email: hunrein@kellerrohrback.com

             - and -

      Michael Woerner, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
      1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
      Seattle, WA 98101-3052
      Telephone: (206) 623-1900
      Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
      Email: mwoerner@kellerrohrback.com

             - and -

      John P. Freeman, Esq.
      2329 Wilmot Ave.
      Columbia, SC 29205
      Telephone: (803) 254-4667
      Email: jfreemanusc@gmail.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Exaggerates Mileage of Vehicles, Class Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that General Motors exaggerates
the mileage of its 2009-2016 Chevrolet Traverse, GMC Acadia, and
Buick Enclave, a class action claims in San Diego Federal Court.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: "Jones" Suit Alleges Zofran Side Effects
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cara Jones and Kraig Jones, both individually and on behalf of
S.J., their minor child, Plaintiffs, v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, Case
1:16-cv-11085 (D. Mass., June 9, 2016), seeks compensatory and
punitive damages, equitable relief, and such other relief arising
from the injuries to the Plaintiffs' minor child as a result of
her prenatal exposures to the generic bioequivalent form of the
prescription drug Zofran, also known as Ondansetron.

S.J. was born with congenital heart defects allegedly after his
mother took the generic bioequivalent of Zofran from early in her
first trimester of pregnancy through her second trimester to
alleviate and prevent the symptoms of morning sickness.

GlaxoSmithKline LLC is pharmaceutical company organized under the
laws of the State of Delaware.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert K. Jenner, Esq.
      Brian D. Ketterer
      Kimberly A. Dougherty, Esq.
      JANET, JENNER & SUGGS, LLC
      1777 Reisterstown Road, Suite 165
      Baltimore, MD 21208
      Tel: (410) 653-3200
      Fax: (410) 653-9030


HONDA: Acura Owners File Class Action Over HandsFreelink Defect
---------------------------------------------------------------
Owners of Honda Acura vehicles featuring the HandsFreeLink
Bluetooth phone-pairing system are suing the automaker for a
battery-draining defect that has plagued owners since at least
2005 despite Honda knowing about the issue, according to Hagens
Berman.

The class-action lawsuit states that Honda's HandsFreeLink feature
will get stuck on even if not in use and even after the car is
turned off.  Once stuck, the unit creates a constant "parasitic"
drain on the electric system, leading to drained and dead
batteries, recurring battery replacement and premature failure of
other essential electric components such as alternators.

The lawsuit cites complaints to the National Highway
Transportation Safety Administration detailing the defect's safety
hazard to drivers, including accounts of vehicles unexpectedly
stalling during high speeds, and sudden, complete electrical
failure.

If you own or lease a Honda Acura with the HandsFreeLink system,
you may be entitled to compensation.  Find out more about the
lawsuit.

"Honda has chosen to turn its back on consumers and leave them
with two losing options -- either continue to use the
HandsFreeLink system and risk being stranded with a dead battery
or losing power while driving, or replace it and eat the $1000
expense of doing so with no guarantee that the replacement will
function," said Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman.
"Honda would rather ignore the problem that has plagued Acura
owners since 2005 than do the right thing and issue a remedy."

Acura owners are not only out the cost of potential replacement,
the suit states.  According to the lawsuit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, owners find
themselves with cars that are less valuable than comparable cars
with properly functioning hands-free phone-pairing systems.

"Acura owners are faced with the choice of expensive replacement
of the HandsFreeLink(TM) unit (in excess of $1000.00), with no
promise that the replacement also will not get stuck 'on,' or
disabling the HandsFreeLink(TM) system by disconnecting the
HandsFreeLink(TM) unit from the car," the complaint states.
"Despite knowing about the issue with its HandsFreeLink(TM) since
at least 2005, Honda has merely issued internal Service Bulletins
to its dealers over the years, notifying only the dealers about
the problem, but offering no meaningful solution, warranty
coverage or recall."

The complaint states that in its rush to become the first
automaker to offer hands-free calling with its HandsFreeLink
system starting with 2004 model year Acura vehicles, Honda failed
to ensure the unit would reliably switch off, and also failed to
adequately notify owners of the issue or remedy the problem.

"Hand-free phone calls in the car may be commonplace technology
now, but when Honda first introduced this concept, it was novel
and a luxury -- something used to make its Acura model more
appealing to consumers," Mr. Berman said.  "But for more than a
decade, Honda has actively ignored this defect that has the
potential to leave Acura owners shelling out hundreds of dollars
for replacements or new batteries."

The lawsuit seeks reimbursement for vehicle owners related to the
defect and an injunctive order to end Honda's concealment of the
defect and denial of warranty coverage for repairs related to the
HandsFreeLink defect.

                      About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP -- http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is a
consumer-rights class-action law firm with offices in 10 cities.
The firm has been named to the National Law Journal's Plaintiffs'
Hot List eight times.


HOUSEHOLD INT'L: Securities Suit Hinged on Financial Expert
-----------------------------------------------------------
Justin Hibbard, writing for Forward Forensics, reports that on
August 19, 2002, Avril Lavine's "Complicated" was the number-one
song in the U.S., the public accounting firm Arthur Andersen LLP
was about to surrender its CPA licenses, and the plaintiffs in
Lawrence E. Jaffe Pension Plan v. Household International, Inc.,
et al filed their first complaint in U.S. District Court in
Chicago.

Jaffe was one of dozens of securities fraud suits that named
Andersen as a defendant after the firm was implicated in the Enron
scandal, triggering investigations into its other audits. The case
was both timely and ahead of its time since it concerned alleged
accounting fraud by a subprime mortgage lender, foreshadowing the
global financial crisis of 2007-2008.

Today, Arthur Andersen is a distant memory, Avril Lavigne is on
her second husband, and former Enron CFO Andrew Fastow is out of
prison and on the speaking circuit.  And what of Jaffe?

The case recently settled for $1.58 billion.

A Tale of Two Trials

The epic 14-year story of this class action is one in which the
gears of justice didn't just grind slowly -- they slipped into
reverse.  A six-week jury trial in 2009 ended with a verdict in
favor of the plaintiffs.  Judge Ronald Guzman entered a judgment
of $2.46 billion, which set a record for a securities fraud case
that had gone to verdict.  After the defendants appealed to the
Seventh Circuit, a three-judge panel in 2015 upheld most of the
verdict but sent the case back to the lower court for a second
trial on loss causation and another unrelated issue.

Questions about loss causation arose from the circumstances of the
case.  From November 2001 through October 2002, Household
International's stock price fell 54% as bad news about the company
emerged.  In August 2002, Household said it would restate three
and a half years of financial statements and record a $600 million
pre-tax charge.  Two months later, the company revealed it would
settle predatory lending charges with 46 state attorneys general
for $484 million.

By late 2002, the entire stock market was struggling due to
widespread accounting scandals and economic recession.  The S&P
500 index lost 22% of its value during the year, contributing to
the defense's theory that Household's stock suffered more from
market forces than from self-inflicted wounds.

To address causation, the plaintiffs retained expert witness
Daniel Fischel, president of economics consultancy Compass
Lexecon.  Mr. Fischel's CV includes such titles as former dean of
The University of Chicago Law School and published treatises that
have been cited by the U.S. Supreme Court.  His hourly rate for
Jaffe ranged from $1,000 to $1,250, which is about three times the
2015 industry average. (Forward Forensics readers may remember Mr.
Fischel from In re Pfizer.)

Cause and Effect

Mr. Fischel prepared an event study, which is commonly used to
prove causation in securities fraud cases.  The study examined the
extent to which Household's stock price had been inflated by false
and misleading statements made by the defendants.  Through
regression analysis, Mr. Fischel controlled for market factors and
economic trends.  The upshot of his approach was to isolate
changes in stock price that were attributable only to Household's
fraud-related disclosures.

The defense argued, however, that Mr. Fischel's model failed to
account for firm-specific, non-fraud factors that may have
contributed to the drop in price.  Such factors would be
disclosures that were specifically about Household and, although
negative, did not concern fraud.  This was one of the only
arguments in which the appeals court found merit, citing the U.S.
Supreme Court opinion in Dura Pharm., Inc. v. Broudo as authority.
Therefore, the court ordered a second trial focused narrowly on
causation.

After the case was remanded, Mr. Fischel dutifully prepared a
supplement to his report in which he examined firm-specific,
non-fraud factors.  He came to the same conclusions as he had
before.  A testament to his gravitas is the ferocity with which
the defense attacked his work product before and after the appeal.
Household unleashed no fewer than four experts to rip apart Mr.
Fischel's report and put forth alternatives.  The defense filed
separate Daubert motions before and after the appeal to exclude
Mr. Fischel's testimony and followed up each with multiple
supporting memos.  The court denied both motions entirely.

Not in My Household

After the second denial in February 2016, the writing was on the
wall: Mr. Fischel's report would again be presented to a jury,
which would likely lead to a similar outcome as in the first
trial.  Instead of betting against another $2.46 billion judgment,
the defense settled for $1.58 billion just hours before the second
trial was to begin on June 6.

In a press release, lead plaintiffs' counsel Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd LLP said the settlement 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 securities fraud case since the enactment of
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

Though still subject to approval by the court, the proposed amount
is larger than the $970 million that AIG agreed to pay
shareholders to resolve claims related to its subprime mortgage
exposure.  It's also more than the $500 million to which J.P.
Morgan conceded to end a class action over mortgage-backed
securities it sold to Bear Stearns. It's not, however, $2.46
billion.  That's a minor consolation for HSBC Holdings plc, which
acquired Household for $14 billion in November 2002 and
subsequently re-branded it HSBC Finance Corp.

As for Arthur Andersen, the firm reached a settlement agreement
with the plaintiffs in 2005, which calls for the total amount of
its payment to be determined by the settlement reached with the
other defendants.  Andersen still operates with a small staff in
Illinois that is dedicated entirely to winding down the firm.


HUSTLERS CLUB: Violates Labor Laws, Dancers Claim
-------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service, reported that Larry Flynt's Hustlers Club
charges dancers $40 to $60 per shift for work, and as much as $240
per shift, and violates other labor laws, a class action claims in
San Francisco Federal Court.


ICCI GROUP: "Conn" Suit to Recover Unpaid Back Wages
----------------------------------------------------
James Conn, Plaintiff, v. ICCI Group, Inc. d/b/a Ubuildit,
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-1415 (S.D. Ind., June 9, 2016), seeks
to recover unpaid back wages due with liquidated damages equal in
amount to the unpaid compensation, treble damages, reasonable
attorney fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and such
other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Ubuildit is a residential construction consulting company who
employed Plaintiff as a Sales Associate who provided consulting
services to property owners.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael S. Dalrymple, Esq.
      MICHAEL S. DALRYMPLE, ATTORNEY AT LAW
      1847 Broad Ripple Avenue, Suite #1A
      Indianapolis, IN 46220
      Tel: (317) 614-7390
      Email: michaeld@dalrymple-law.com


INT'L ASSOCIATION: Russian Athletes to File Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
The Guardian reports that Russia's track and field athletes are to
file a class action with the court of arbitration for sport
against the decision of the IAAF not to admit them to the 2016
Olympics.

The International Olympic Committee dealt Russia's athletes a
further blow when it endorsed the ban which was imposed after
evidence was found of systematic doping in the country.

The secretary general of the All-Russian Athletics Federation,
Mikhail Butov, told Tass: "A suit or suits will be submitted to
Cas.  It is also necessary to completely determine the legal
direction, but we have generally formed a group of lawyers with
whom we will work.  Class actions will be filed for certain, but
some individual suits are also possible."

He added: "We are going to have consultations with these lawyers
in the coming days.  Then we will make the final decision."

The International Association of Athletics Federations voted to
uphold the ban it had imposed last November over widespread state-
sponsored doping.

The unprecedented step was taken after an expert task force ruled
that Russia had not taken sufficient steps to overhaul its testing
procedures and prove its athletes were clean.  Russia's president,
Vladimir Putin, described the decision as "unjust and unfair".

However, the IAAF said that, on the advice of outside lawyers, it
had left open a "crack in the door" for Russian athletes who could
prove they had been training outside the country to compete under
a neutral banner, though there are understood to be only three or
four athletes who meet that criterion.


INOVALON: Faces Investors' Class Action in Manhattan
----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Inovalon shares have dropped
by more than a third since going public amid revelations about the
company's substantial sales in New York City, where new corporate
tax reforms have triggered a hefty rate hike, investors claim in a
federal class action in Manhattan.


IRAN: Supports Iraq-Based Terrorists, Class Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Iraq-based terrorists known
as "special groups," including the Qazali Network, the Hezbollah
Brigades, the Shebaini Network, the Promised Day Brigades and the
Badr Corps, received from Iran weapons called explosively formed
penetrators that maimed and killed hundreds of U.S. service
members, 14 U.S. citizens claim in Washington federal class
action.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON'S: Baby Powder Suits Expected to Pile Up
----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Burger, writing for Louisiana Record, reports that a local
attorney and legal watchdog organization both expect to see class-
action lawsuits filed in the state over allegations that Johnson &
Johnson's Baby Powder and Shower to Shower products cause ovarian
cancer.

At the request of plaintiff Paula Jackson, the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana New Orleans Division
recently removed Rio Tinto Minerals Inc. from a lawsuit alleging
the talcum powder products caused the New Orleans woman's ovarian
cancer, but Ms. Jackson's case -- and many others like it -- are
far from over.

Ms. Jackson's suit named Johnson & Johnson as the primary
defendant.  She claims that her regular application of talc-based
Shower to Shower and Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder to her
perineum on a daily basis from 1974 until 2015 is to blame for her
ovarian cancer.

Her suit is just one of more than 1,200 federal and state lawsuits
against Johnson & Johnson claiming the New Jersey company ignored
scientific studies linking talcum-powder products to cancer.

Melissa Landry, executive director of the Louisiana Lawsuit Abuse
Watch, believes that the state is ripe for a class-action suit
involving the cases because Lousiana courts here are considered
"plaintiff friendly," and its attorneys "talented and creative"
when it comes to establishing class actions.

"The notion of our plaintiff-friendly courts creates at least the
perception there is an incentive for filing lawsuits, and class-
action lawsuits in particular, in Louisiana courts," Ms. Landry
told the Louisiana Record. "Louisiana is a sought-after
jurisdiction for class-action lawsuits."

In fact, that is why Louisiana routinely ranks poorly in
comparison to other states on surveys pertaining to the state's
legal climate.

The groundwork has already been set for the class-action suit
against Johnson & Johnson.

Earlier this year, a St. Louis court ordered the company to pay
$72 million to the family of Jackie Fox, a woman who died from
ovarian cancer; and in May, it was hit with another $55 million
ruling by another jury in St. Louis in a suit filed by Gloria
Ristesund, of South Dakota.

"It will be very interesting to watch what transpires here in
Louisiana in the wake of the St. Louis jury trials," attorney
Peter Russell, of McBride & Russell Law Firm LLC in Gretna, told
the Louisiana Record.

In addition to the multi-million dollar judgments, a lot in the
way of new information has come out in the cases tried so far,
Russell pointed out.

In the first lawsuit filed against Johnson & Johnson over the
talcum powder issue, a South Dakota court ruled in 2013 that Deane
Berg's use of Shower to Shower and Johnson's Baby Powder was
linked to the onset of her ovarian cancer.  During the trial, an
attorney representing the multinational consumer products
manufacturer admitted company executives had known about the links
between its talcum powder products and ovarian cancer for years,
but decided the risk was not significant enough to require a
product warning.

That admission came back to haunt Johnson & Johnson in both of the
St. Louis cases.

"The basis for the judges' decisions was that Johnson & Johnson
was aware of the links between its talcum powder products and
cancer for more than 20 years, but chose to withhold that
information from the public," Mr. Russell said.

A study conducted by researchers at the University of Virginia in
Charlottesville and published earlier in June in Cancer
Epidemiology reinforced at least part of what Johnson & Johnson
allegedly already knew -- African-American women who regularly use
talcum powder are at a greater risk for ovarian cancer compared to
their peers who don't use powder.

This particularly doesn't bode well for Johnson & Johnson because
previous suits revealed the company slanted its marketing efforts
for the sale of talcum powders specifically toward African-
American women in the 1990s.

Like Landry, Mr. Russell thinks it's just a matter of time before
a class-action suit is filed in Louisiana over the cases.

"You could see a very large class action here," he said.


LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE: Faces "Curet" Lawsuit in N.J. Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
ELVIN CURET, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SERVICES, INC. and
JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case 3:16-cv-03560 (D.N.J., June 20,
2016), seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs of suit under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant LMS is a landscape contractor working throughout the
Northeast United States with headquarters located in Hillsborough,
New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Thomas A. McKinney, Esq.
     CASTRONOVO & McKINNEY, LLC
     71 Maple Avenue
     Morristown, NJ 07960
     Phone: (973) 920-7888


LUDLOW MUSIC: Sued Over "This Land Is Your Land" Copyright
----------------------------------------------------------
Josh Russell, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
the law firm that sought to bring "Happy Birthday" and "We Shall
Overcome" into the public domain is now looking to do the same for
the Woody Guthrie classic "This Land Is Your Land."

The Guthrie composition is the subject of a June 14, 2016, class
action filed in Manhattan Federal Court against music publishers
The Richmond Organization, Inc. and Ludlow Music, Inc.

It was filed on behalf of James Saint-Amour and Alena Ivleva,
members of New York progressive rock-techno fusion act Satorii,
who want to release their own take on the beloved folk anthem.

In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs note that "Guthrie published the
Song in 1945 with a proper copyright notice, which created a
federal copyright in the Song."

"The copyright to the 1945 publication was not renewed. As a
result, the copyright expired after 28 years, and the Song fell
into the public domain in 1973," the complaint says.

The plaintiffs call into question the validity of a purported
copyright secured by defendant Ludlow Music in 1956.

"Based on that 1956 copyright, Defendant Ludlow has wrongfully and
unlawfully insisted it owns the copyright to 'This Land,' together
with the exclusive right to control the Song's reproduction,
distribution, and public performances pursuant to federal
copyright law," the complaint says.

As an example, they point to a letter Ludlow's attorney wrote to
Jib Jab Media, Inc. on July 23, 2004, regarding Jib Jab's use of
the song.

"In that letter, Defendant Ludlow's counsel asserted that "Ludlow
is the exclusive copyright owner of the classic folk song 'This
Land is Your Land' written by the well-known folk artist Woody
Guthrie."

The letter also asserted that Jib Jab's use of the song's melody
and "the well-known lyrics 'This land is your land, this land is
my land' and 'From California to the New York Island'" infringed
Ludlow's copyright, the complaint says.

"Irrefutable documentary evidence shows that Defendants own no
valid copyright related to This Land. The popular verses of the
Song were first published in 1945, and the copyright in those
verses ended no later than 1973 (if not earlier)," the plaintiffs
claim. "Defendants never owned a valid copyright to the Song's
pre-existing melody."

Despite this, the plaintiffs say, the defendants have "demanded
and extracted licensing fees from those unwilling or unable to
challenge their false ownership claims."

As in other recent cases, in which the firm of Wolf Haldenstein
Alder Freeman & Herz sought to have "Happy Birthday" and the
civil-rights anthem "We Shall Overcome" declared to be in the
public domain, the plaintiffs seek a determination that the
defendants do not own the copyright to the song, and that they've
improperly collected usage fees from the plaintiffs and other
class members.

The members of Satorii also seek restitution for the $45.50
mechanical license they paid to produce and distribute 500 copies
of the song as a digital release.

The folk singer Woody Guthrie, whose acoustic guitar was painted
with the words "This Machine Kills Fascists," wrote the "This Land
is Your Land" in 1940 in response to his irritation at Irving
Berlin's composition "God Bless America."

When reached for comment through his verified Facebook page, Woody
Guthrie's son, musician Arlo Guthrie replied "I am a firm believer
that artists should be compensated for their work, and further
that such compensation should be handed down to the family of that
artist, which is the inherent intent of the artist to begin with
-- to provide a living for him or herself and their families."

In regard to the Satorii lawsuit, Guthrie said "For me personally
the latest attempt to make 'This Land' public domain is simply an
effort of some who wish to profit on the works of others by
looking for loop holes in the current copyright laws, thereby
gaining a few extra years (the song will be public domain anyway
eventually) where they can avoid licensing fees that help support
the family of Woody Guthrie."

The melody of "This Land" bares a strong resemblance to an 18th
century Baptist hymn "When the World's on Fire," recorded ten
years before Guthrie's song by the iconic country/bluegrass group
the Carter Family.

In 1951, with Guthrie's permission, Folkways Records released
"This is My Land: A Collection of American Folk Songs," a
compilation that also featured Pete Seeger and Lead Belly.
Folkways Records, a label found by Moses Asch and dedicated to the
documentation of folk, world and children's music, was acquired by
the Smithsonian Institution Center for Folklife and Cultural
Heritage in 1987. The lawsuit claims the Folkways published
Guthrie's lyrics without any copyright notice.

Arlo Guthrie frequently closes his concerts by playing a pair of
his father's songs, "This Land" and "My Peace," joined by other
Guthrie family members including Arlo's daughter Sarah Lee
Guthrie.

According to the website Setlist.FM, "This Land" is frequently
performed live by artists including Bruce Springsteen, Bob Dylan,
Sharon Jones & The Dap Kings and other artists.

The plaintiffs are represented by Randall Newman --
Newman@whafh.com -- at Wolf Haldenstein Alder Freeman & Herz in
New York, NY.

Representatives of the defendants did not immediately respond a
request from Courthouse News for comment.


MARS INC: Sued Over False Ad for Uncle Ben's Ready Rice
-------------------------------------------------------
MELISSA L. VIGIL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MARS INCORPORATED, a
Delaware corporation and MARS FOOD US, LLC, a Delaware
corporation, the Defendants, Case No. RG16819596 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
June 15, 2016), seeks restitution, injunctive, declaratory, and
other equitable relief as may be deemed proper by the Court
relating to the Defendants' misrepresentations regarding the
amount of rice contained in each packet of their Uncle Ben's Ready
Rice products, in violation of the California False Advertising
Law (FAL), the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), and
the California U11fair Competition Law (UCL).

The allegations of this class action can be summarized simply:
Defendants' Uncle Ben's Ready Rice products do not contain the
amount of rice advertised. California consumers are, therefore,
paying for an amount of rice that they do not receive.

Melissa Vigil is a resident of California and a citizen of
California. The Plaintiff purchased Defendants' Uncle Ben's Ready
Rice products on at least three different occasions, including
Defendant's Rice Pilaf and Original flavored Ready Rice products.
Plaintiff last purchased Defendants' Uncle Ben's Ready Rice at
Safeway in Alameda, California in December 20l5.

The Defendants are one of the largest privately held food
companies in the world. The Defendants market food products under
various brand names, one of which is "Uncle Ben's" rice. A popular
product of Defendants is Uncle Ben's Ready Rice -- a small
microwavable packet of pre-cooked rice that can be prepared within
90 seconds. Uncle Ben's Ready Rice is marketed in multiple flavor;
yet, the packaging, cooking instructions, product and serving size
are substantially identical throughout Defendants' Ready Rice
line.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey R. Krinsk, Esq.
          William R. Restis, Esq.
          Trenton R. Kashima, Esq.
          FINKELSTETN & KRINSK LLP
          550 West C St., Suite 1760
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 238 1333
          Facsimile: (619) 238 5425
          E-mail: jrk@classactionlaw.com
                  wrr@classactionlaw.com
                  trk@classactionlaw.com


MARTIN BOYLE: Appeals Court Tosses Gulf Stream Class Action Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Saunders, writing for Sun Sentinel, reports that a federal
appeals court on June 21 rejected a class-action lawsuit filed by
a Palm Beach County town that alleges it has been inundated with
public-records requests as part of scheme to generate attorneys'
fees and legal settlements.

The town of Gulf Stream and a contractor, Wantman Group, Inc.,
contended that defendants in the case were involved in
racketeering by using Florida's public-records law to "extort"
money from local governments, according to court documents.  The
issue is rooted in part of the law that allows people to collect
attorneys' fees if they successfully sue government agencies for
failing to properly provide public records.

A three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
appeared to express sympathy on June 21 for the small Palm Beach
County town but upheld a lower court judge's decision dismissing
the case, which was brought under the federal Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act, better known as RICO.

"The allegations in the plaintiffs' complaint paint a frustrating
picture," said the 13-page opinion, written by appeals-court Judge
Charles Wilson and joined by judges Robin Rosenbaum and Jill
Pryor.  "Accepting those allegations as true, the defendants have
engaged in a concerted effort to capitalize on the relatively
unfettered access to public records Florida has granted its
citizens by bombarding small towns and municipalities with public
records requests to which they cannot respond adequately.  As
distasteful as this conduct may be, the allegations do not support
a RICO claim under our precedent."

The ruling came after a debate during this year's legislative
session about a proposal to give judges discretion in deciding
whether to award attorneys' fees in public-records case.  The
Florida League of Cities and local communities, including Gulf
Stream, pushed for the change because of what they argued was a
"cottage industry" of people filing public-records lawsuits to try
to collect attorneys' fees.

But the proposed change met with fierce opposition from open-
government advocates, who said it would weaken the state's
Sunshine Law because people would not be willing to take the
financial risk of filing public-records lawsuits if they are not
assured of recouping legal fees when they win.  The proposed
change ultimately failed to pass.

Gulf Stream and the Wantman Group filed the class-action lawsuit
last year and sought to include other government agencies.
Defendants in the case were Martin O'Boyle, William F. Ring,
Christopher O'Hare, Jonathan R. O'Boyle, Denise DeMartini, and
associated companies, according to court documents.  The Wantman
Group was a party because of a dispute about a public-records
request it received as a government contractor.

The town alleged that the defendants had submitted more than 2,000
public-records requests and filed lawsuits over the requests,
according to documents filed in the appeal.  It also alleged that
the requests and lawsuits were used as a way to spur settlements.

But in a brief filed in November, attorneys for several of the
defendants said Gulf Stream and the contractor had filed the
racketeering case "to create a collateral attack on the records
requestors for exercising their lawful rights."

"The records requestors have an absolute right to make public
records requests and lawsuits," the brief said.   "Their motive
for requesting those documents is irrelevant and cannot constitute
extortion. . . . The public records act places no limitation on
how many requests may be made. This lawsuit impermissibly seeks to
limit the records requestors' exercise of the rights granted to
the records requestors by the Florida Legislature and not stop
some other unlawful acts."


MARYLAND: Detainees File Class Suit Over Commitment Delays
----------------------------------------------------------
Brandi Buchman, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
saying they've been left to "languish unlawfully in jail," four
people judged mentally incompetent to stand trial have filed a
class action in Baltimore against Maryland.

Fredia Powell, James Powell, Shane Dorsey and Ivan Burrell all
face criminal charges in Baltimore City Circuit Court. The class
action they filed June 9, in that same court takes aim at
"deliberate unlawful systemic policy" of the Maryland Department
of Health and Mental Hygiene.

They say each has been found incompetent to stand trial, whether
because of mental disorder or because they pose a danger to
themselves or others.

Maryland law says such detainees "are entitled -- indeed required
-- to be committed" to a state facility for care and treatment,
according to the complaint, but the state Department of Health and
Mental Hygiene "has consistently not met its obligation and fails
and refuses to do so."

But DHMH, as the department is abbreviated in the complaint,
instead "requires plaintiffs and class members to languish
unlawfully in jail or detention facilities," the complaint states.

The department "cavalierly and routinely ignores and violates" the
appointments of detainees to mental health facilities, and
arbitrarily ignores the deadlines set for prisoners to exit a
detention facility, according to the complaint.

Each of the named plaintiffs was supposed to have been admitted to
state facilities for treatment either on May 26 or on June 2, but
each is still waiting for such admission, the complaint says.

Emphasizing that their predicaments "are not unique," the class
says "they are only the most recent examples of DHMH's unlawful
conduct in disregarding court commitment orders."

"Sadly, the mistreatment of the named plaintiffs and the blatant
disregard of unambiguous court orders committing persons to DHMH .
. .  is illustrative of DHMH's past, present, and, absent this
court's intervention, expected future conduct," the complaint
continues.

The 16-page filing goes on to quote an April letter DHMH Secretary
Van Mitchell purportedly sent Judge Sheila Adams, with the Prince
George's County 7th Judicial Circuit Court, about the "crisis" his
department faced with regard to "responding expeditiously to court
requirements."

"Secretary Mitchell's letter makes clear that the unlawful
mistreatment of the named plaintiffs (and the class whom they
represent) is not the result of some random or coincidental act,"
the complaint states (parentheses in original). "Rather, this
unlawful mistreatment . . .  is deliberate, intentional, and the
direct inevitable product of the secretary's explicit policy
decision and directive that DHMH has 'discretion' not to comply."

When reached for comment, a spokesman for DHMH also pointed to
Mitchell's letter. The spokesman would not otherwise comment on
the lawsuit.

Mitchell's letter notes that the facility where named plaintiffs
were to be sent for treatment is the highest security institution
in the area, Clifton T. Perkins Hospital.

"All of the DHMH facilities are full and have been consistently
for the past year. . .  [and] that the issue is particularly acute
at CPH," Mitchell's letter continues, abbreviating Clifton Perkins
Hospital.

Mitchell also explained that "the situation has been compounded by
the need for new leadership" at the hospital.

The class meanwhile balked at the temporary remedy Mitchell's
letter offers: creating a "workgroup" that will expedite a
resolution to inmates in need.

The workgroup will purportedly include representatives from Public
Safety and Correctional Services, the Maryland Disability Law
Center, the nonprofit behavioral health care corporation People
Encouraging People, and the General Assembly.

But the class says "creating a 'workgroup' is not a recognized
defense to violating an order of this court or any court."

The detainees contend that "deliberate" noncompliance with court
orders of commitment violates the laws of criminal procedure and
the Maryland Declaration of Rights.

Represented by Ralph Tyler, an attorney with Venable, the class
seeks expedited proceedings and injunctive relief. Tyler would not
comment beyond the allegations of his complaint.


MDL 2493: Placeholder Motions for Class Certification Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
In In Re: Monitronics International, Inc., Telephone Consumer
Protection Act Litigation, MDL NO. 1:13-MD-2493-JPB-MJA (N.D.
W.Va.), the Hon. John Preston Bailey entered an order denying,
without prejudice, placeholder motions filed in 26 cases that seek
class certification or, in the alternative, to stay briefing
pending completion of discovery.

The plaintiffs filed the placeholder motion to avoid being "picked
off" through a Rule 68 or individual settlement offer.  The
plaintiffs request that the Court stay briefing on the Motion and
provide the plaintiffs sufficient discovery to further support and
supplement the Motion.

In denying the Motion without prejudice, Judge Bailey said the
decision is based, in part, on Judge Williams' excellent opinion
in Kensington Physical Therapy v. Jackson Therapy Partners, 974
F.Supp.2d 856 (D. Md. 2013).  In his opinion, Judge Williams found
that the process suggested in Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d
891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011) (and utilized by the plaintiff in this
case) of moving for class certification immediately and requesting
that the Court take no action "encourages plaintiffs to clutter
the docket with motions related to class certification and
discovery at the outset when in many cases defendants will
presumably move to dismiss.  Therefore, although Rule 23
contemplates 'early' class certification determinations, Damasco's
procedure is not 'practicable.' Cf. Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(c)(1)(A)." 974
F.Supp.2d at 863.

According to Judge Bailey, Judge Williams is also correct in
finding that the premature motions are not necessary because "a
complete settlement offer made before the plaintiff files a motion
for class certification does not moot the putative class action
provided that the plaintiff move for class certification within a
reasonable time after discovery." Id. See Campbell-Ewald Co.v.
Gomez, 136 S.Ct. 663 (2016).

The placeholder motions were filed in these cases:

     -- Finklea v. Monitronics International, Inc., et al.,
        Case No. 1:14-cv-00087

     -- Charvat v. Monitronics International, Inc. et al.,
        Case No. 1:14-cv-00162

     -- Cunningham v. Alliance Security et al., Case No.
        1:14-cv-00169

     -- Bank v. Alliance Security Inc. et al., Case No.
        1:14-cv-00215

     -- Newton Vaughan v. Versatile Marketing Solutions, Inc.
        et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00059

     -- ABRAMSON v. ALLIANCE SECURITY, INC., Case No.
        1:15-cv-00100

     -- Lawrence Tarizzo v. Alliance Security Inc., Case No.
        1:15-cv-00137

     -- Newhart v. Monitronics International, Inc. et al.,
        Case No. 1:15-cv-00161

     -- Mey v. Monitronics International, Inc. et al., Case
        No. 5:11-cv-00090

     -- Cunningham v. The Altitude Group, LLC et al.,
        Case No. 1:15-cv-00169

     -- Worsham v. Monitronics International, Inc. et al.,
        Case No. 1:15-cv-00225

     -- Reo v. Alliance Security, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00238

     -- Frazer v. Alliance Security, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-00014

     -- Corralez-Estrada-Diaz v. Alliance Security Inc., Case
        No. 1:16-cv-00035

     -- GERACI v. ALLIANCE SECURITY, INC.  et al., Case No.
        1:16-cv-00036

     -- Primack v. United Technologies Corporation et al., Case
        No. 1:16-cv-00090

     -- Worsham v. Monitronics International, Inc. et al., Case
        No. 5:16-cv-00082

     -- Monitronics International, Inc., Telephone Consumer
        Protection Act Litigation, Case No. 1:13-md-02493

     -- Bowler et al v. Monitronics International, Inc. et al.,
        Case No. 1:13-cv-00263

     -- Giles v. ISI Alarms NC Inc. et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-00020

     -- Bennett v. Monitronics International, Inc. et al., Case
        No. 1:14-cv-00034

     -- Fairley v. Monitronics International, Inc., Case No.
        1:14-cv-00054

     -- Mey et al v. Honeywell International, Inc. et al., Case
        No. 1:14-cv-00059

     -- Beavers et al v. Versatile Marketing Solutions, Inc. et
        al., Case No. 1:14-cv-00064

     -- Dolemba v. Monitronics International, Inc. et al., Case
        No. 1:14-cv-00066

     -- Dolemba v. Alliance Security, Inc. et al., Case No.
        1:14-cv-00082

A copy of one of the Court's Orders is available at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=H0y44Mjy


MICHIGAN: State Police Sued Over Marijuana Reporting Policy
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dana Chicklas, writing for Fox17, reports that attorneys filed a
federal class action lawsuit against the Michigan State Police
crime labs, claiming its current marijuana reporting policy
violates due process and Fourth Amendment rights and demanding it
be thrown out for good.

This suit would have statewide impact, directly affecting the some
180,000 registered medical marijuana patients and anyone caught
with marijuana in Michigan.  Attorneys Michael Komorn and Tim
Daniels filed the suit on June 21 with the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan, Detroit Division.

They write the crime labs, in concert with the Prosecuting
Attorneys Association of Michigan and the Oakland County Sheriff's
Department, intentionally misreport marijuana as synthetic, as we
saw in the Max Lorincz case in Ottawa County.  A judge threw out
his felony drug charge 16 months into the case; meanwhile, Mr.
Lorincz's 6-year-old son spent 18 months in foster care.  Mr.
Lorincz is one of the four plaintiffs in the complaint.

But it goes further, writing that the 2013 marijuana policy in the
labs was "made in an attempt to strip medical marijuana patients
of their rights and immunities, charge or threaten to charge
citizens with greater crimes than they might have committed,
obtain plea deals and increase proceeds from drug forfeiture."

"The fact that it continues to go on," said Mr. Komorn, "it's an
outrage; it's not science.  The Michigan Medical Marijuana
[Program] was supposed to be a shield, not a sword."

Last fall, the MSP Forensic Science Division Director Captain
Gregoire Michaud, who quietly retired this May, made a
presentation for the Wayne County Criminal Defense Bar.

Mr. Michaud had said out of the crime labs' $60 million budget, 40
percent was spent on testing marijuana.  He said this caseload
volume impeded their work on investigating other cases,
specifically testing rape kits statewide.

Mr. Komorn reiterated this suit is working to dismiss this policy
in the labs and rearrange the state police's priorities.

"That's one of the things that I'm hoping comes out of this, is
that we turn the focus away from and onto the more, that we would
all agree, serious crimes that we need full-on police
investigation attention," said Mr. Komorn.

The MSP Public Affairs Manager Shanon Banner told FOX 17 on
June 22 they will not comment on a pending case, defaulting to
their Nov. 2015 statement.  The Prosecuting Attorneys Association
of Michigan has not responded to FOX 17 for comment.

Later this year, the state police labs are up for their renewal of
their international accreditation with the American Society of
Crime Laboratory Directors/Laboratory Accreditation Board. It is
likely the MSP's crime labs' marijuana misreporting allegations
will be challenged during this process.


MILLERCOORS LLC: Court Tosses Lawsuit Over Blue Moon Beer
---------------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal judge dismissed with prejudice a class action claim
that MillerCoors misrepresents its Blue Moon Belgium beer as
"craft beer," finding that a "reasonable" consumer would not be
misled by the advertising or pricing.

Evan Parent, a self-described "beer aficionado," filed a class
action in Superior Court in April 2015. He claimed MillerCoors
intentionally misleads consumers about Blue Moon beer, marketed
under the auspices of Blue Moon Brewing Co., to piggyback on the
popularity of the burgeoning craft beer market.

Parent says Blue Moon cannot be classified as a craft beer because
MillerCoors is not a "small, independent and traditional" craft
brewery as defined by the Brewers Association, a trade
organization for American craft brewers.

Other requirements include a 6 million barrel per year production
cap and a noncraft-brewer ownership interest of less than 25
percent.

Parent said MillerCoors produces 76 million barrels of beer per
year, yet stocks Blue Moon with other craft beers in retail stores
so it can charge "up to 50 percent more for Blue Moon" based on
its bogus craft-beer status. He also challenged the company's use
of the registered trademark "Artfully Crafted" on Blue Moon
labeling and ads.  He sought damages for deceptive trade, consumer
law violations, false advertising law, and unfair competition.

MillerCoors removed the case to Federal Court under the Class
Action Fairness Act and filed a motion to dismiss in June 2015,
for failure to state a claim.  It claims that its use of its
trademarked Blue Moon Brewing Co. trade name falls within
California's "safe harbor" and that "no reasonable consumer" could
have been misled by its "craft beer" and "Artfully Crafted"
representations because there is no standard definition of "craft
beer."

U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel agreed in an Oct. 26, 2015
ruling. Curiel found that no regulation bars MillerCoors from
placing Blue Moon Brewing Co. on its label instead of MillerCoors.
He granted the company's motion to dismiss, without prejudice.

Parent filed an amended complaint in November 2015, citing three
ads on the Blue Moon website and YouTube channel that he called
misleading.

MillerCoors filed another motion to dismiss based on Parent's
failure to "allege an actionable" misrepresentation since "(1) a
reasonable consumer would not be misled by MillerCoors'
advertising; (2) MillerCoors is not liable for third-party
representations; and (3) MillerCoors' alleged pricing of Blue Moon
is not a representation."

In dismissing with prejudice on June 16, Curiel said he "agrees
with defendant that the three advertisements . . .  constitute
non-actionable puffery."

"Plaintiff fails to point to any 'specific and measurable
claim[s], capable of being proved false or of being reasonably
interpreted as a statement of objective fact' made in the
advertisements."

Curiel also found that MillerCoors is not liable for where third-
party distributors stock its products in retail stores and that
its pricing of Blue Moon beer does not constitute a
misrepresentation.

"The court previously found that plaintiff had failed to point to
any case 'supporting the proposition that the price of a product
can constitute a representation or statement about the product,'"
Curiel wrote. "Plaintiff has again failed to do so here."

He added: "Having already given plaintiff a second opportunity to
plead his case, and having found the merits lacking, the court
finds that at this juncture, amendment would be futile.
Accordingly, the court denies plaintiff leave to amend."

The case captioned, EVAN PARENT, an individual on behalf of
himself, a class of persons similarly situated, and the general
public, Plaintiff, v. MILLERCOORS LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability  Company authorized to do business in California, and
DOES 1-50, Inclusive, Defendant, CASE NO. 3:15-cv-1204-GPC-WVG
(S.D. Cal.).


MITRA QSR: "Woolford" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------
EUGENE WOOLFORD, 1147 N. Carey Street Baltimore, Maryland 21217,
Resident of Baltimore City, the Plaintiff, v. MITRA QSR KNE, LLC,
18900 Dallas Parkway, Suite 125, Dallas, Texas 75287; PUSHPAK
PATEL, 2019 Fox Glen Drive, Allen, Texas 75013; and MANISH PATEL,
2906 Montebello Court, Austin, Texas 78746, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:16-cv-02124-RDB (D. Md., June 15, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid wages, liquidated damages, interest, reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA);
unpaid wages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under
Maryland Wage and Hour Law, Maryland Code Annotated, Labor and
Employment Article (MWHL); and unpaid wages, treble damages,
interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Maryland
Wage Payment and Collection Law (MWPCL).

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has not received
compensation from Defendants for all wages owed for work performed
before the termination of his employment. This is specific to
Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff overtime for all hours worked
over 40 in a workweek. The Defendants allegedly withheld from
Plaintiff the wages owed to him and continued to violate the
MWPCL, even after Plaintiff informed Defendants of the violation.
Moreover, there is no bona fide dispute that Plaintiff is owed
wages for work performed while employed by Defendants.

Mitra QSR is engaged in the management consulting services
industry in Dallas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          George E. Swegman, Esq.
          Benjamin L. Davis, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
          36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Telephone: (410) 244 7005
          Facsimile: (410) 244 8454
          E-mail: gswegman@nicholllaw.com
                  bdavis@nicholllaw.com


MODESTO, CA: One of MID Class Actions May Face Jury Trial
---------------------------------------------------------
Garth Stapley, writing for Modesto Bee, reports that one of two
unrelated class-action lawsuits brought on behalf of the Modesto
Irrigation District's electricity customers might be decided by a
jury, but the other likely won't, a judge said in pretrial
rulings.

Both lawsuits ask juries to order that MID stop illegally
inflating power bills to subsidize farm water prices, and both
seek unspecified refunds for tens of thousands of electricity
customers.  Although similar and filed within two weeks of each
other, the lawsuits were prepared by separate law firms and employ
different wording.

The lawsuits respectively were filed by Modesto residents Dave
Thomas and Andrew Hobbs, both noting that MID has not asked for
voter approval to overcharge power customers.  The Hobbs complaint
also accuses MID of overcharging homes to subsidize businesses
that pay lower rates.

If granted class status, the Thomas complaint could draw in
118,000 residential, commercial and industrial power customers,
while Hobbs' might cover 97,000 residential customers.

A technical difference in Thomas' approach "might entitle him to a
jury trial," Stanislaus Superior Court Judge William Mayhew said
on June 22 in a tentative decision, but a judge should decide
Hobbs' case, Judge Mayhew indicated in a separate ruling.

MID on June 23 could try to change Judge Mayhew's mind in the
Thomas case in oral arguments.

The district has balked at pinpointing its electricity profit,
which is used to repay debt, build reserves of about $200 million
and cover the farm water subsidy, amounting to $17 million this
year.  Bonding documents last year put the district's yearly
electricity profit at more than $90 million.

MID argued against letting a jury weigh both cases, saying the
legal dispute should focus on whether the MID board followed the
law when setting prices.

"It would be impractical to expect a lay jury to review the many
hundreds of pages of staff reports, (board) minutes and dense,
technical spreadsheets calculating MID's cost of service to
determine if evidence supports those rates," MID attorneys wrote
in a court brief.  "This is a matter for a professional trier of
fact, not a lay panel."

Judge Mayhew agreed in the Hobbs case, saying, "Where review is so
limited, it requires a judge, not a jury."

"It's still a righteous, meritorious case," said Prescott
Littlefield, Hobbs' attorney.  "The judge is an impartial jurist
and we're sure he'll be thorough and diligent."


MU HEALTH CARE: Faces Class Action Over Hospital Charges
--------------------------------------------------------
Emissourian reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against the curators of the University of Missouri, d/b/a as MU
Health Care, University Hospital and University Physicians alleges
overcharging of patients with no health insurance.  The complaint
was filed by Daniel L. Taylor through his counsel AW Smith of the
AW Smith Law Firm in Columbia.

The complaint states, that the suit is a civil rights class action
lawsuit arising under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th
Amendment and 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981.  The plaintiff, individually
and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, seeks damages and
other relief against defendant, the curators of the University of
Missouri d/b/a MU Health Care, University Hospital, and University
Physicians, arising from its routine practice of applying its
hospital charge transparency policy's "Automatic No Health
Insurance Reduction" unequally, to patients without health
insurance but who have a liability insurance claim recovery.

The MU hospital's "automatic no health insurance reduction"
states, that patients without health insurance, will receive an
automatic deduction of 60 percent, off of their university
hospital bills and 25 percent off, their university physician
bills.

The class action lawsuit alleges that the defendants, University
Hospital and University Physicians, have not been honoring the
discounts listed in their policies, consistently, to all patients
without health insurance.

Many hospitals have been caught charging uninsured patients twice
as much as patients with health insurance, for emergency room
services.  This has prompted several class action lawsuits
regarding that policy.  This premium pricing relates to charging
an uninsured patient, who is often a low-income individual, what
hospitals often refer to "retail prices."  This cost structure can
be twice as much or more of what the hospital charges an insurance
company for the same service, according to the AW Smith Law Firm.


NEW CARLTON: "Rumph" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------
Roy Rumph, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. New Carlton Rehab & Nursing Center
LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-03128 (E.D.N.Y., June 15,
2016), seeks to recover damages and other remedies for violations
of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA),
and the New York Labor Law (NYLL), for breaches of the overtime
provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement Between the
League of Voluntary Hospitals and Homes of New York and 1199 SEIU
United Healthcare Workers East (CBA), and for unlawful retaliation
in violation of FLSA and NYLL.

The Defendant allegedly failed and refused to pay Plaintiff one-
half times his regular hourly wage rate for hours he worked in
excess of 36.25 per week during the period from June 15, 2010 to
the present.

New Carlton provides 24-hour nursing care.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John J.P. Howley, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOHN HOWLEY
          350 Fifth Avenue, 59th Floor
          New York, NY 10118
          Telephone: (212) 601 2728
          Facsimile: (212) 601 2610
          E-mail: jhowley@johnhowleyesq.com


NEW YORK: Driver Sues Over Long Island Surcharges on Tickets
------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Russell, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
in a class action complaint in Mineola, N.Y., a driver claims Long
Island's Nassau County reaps millions of dollars from an illegal
"driver responsibility fee" it tacks onto camera-issued red light
fines.

Mark Guthart claims the $15 to $45 "driver responsibility fee" on
top of the $50 liability cap for a red light camera violation is
"an unauthorized, unconstitutional attempt to expand red-light
liability beyond the limits delineated by the state legislature."
He seeks disgorgement, restitution and damages for fraud,
negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment.

Lawsuits across the country have challenged -- nearly always
unsuccessfully -- red-light camera fines. Guthart's June 8
complaint in Nassau County Supreme Court is different in that it
does not challenge the red light fine, but the tacked-on fee.

He claims that New York Vehicle and Traffic Law, section 1111-b
set a $50 cap on the violation, and that although Nassau County
calls the surcharge a fee, it serves as "an automatic flat
monetary penalty."

He seeks class certification, an injunction, damages -- and the
$30 he was charged in December 2015.

Nassau County's "driver responsibility fee" increased from $30 to
$45 on Jan. 1 this year.

Nassau County's red light camera program, which began in March
2009, brought the county $36.8 million in revenue in 2013. The
program is overseen by Arizona-based American Traffic Solutions.

As of 2012, Nassau County receives 62 percent of the money
collected by the red light program, and American Traffic Solutions
gets 38 percent, according to the complaint.

The co-defendant Nassau County Traffic and Parking Violation
Agency says on its website that red light violations "cannot be
pled to a lesser offense" and "red light camera violation fine
cannot be reduced." Payments made by phone through the third-party
Violation Info charges a $6 per ticket transaction fee.

The Nassau County's Attorney's Office declined to comment on
pending litigation. Guthart is represented by David Raimando of
Lake Grove, and Kevin Landau with Taus, Cebulash and Landau, in
New York City.


NISSAN: Hid Problems with Timing Chain Tension System, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a RICO class action accuses
Nissan of concealing problems with its timing chain tension system
in 2004-09 Quests, 2004-06 Altimas, and 2005-07 Pathfinders,
Xterras and Frontiers, in Federal Court in Los Angeles.


PSB SATELLITES: "Villalba" Suit to Recover Minimum, Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Emigdio Villalba, Javier Jose Fuentes, Gustavo Angel Cardenas
Campos, Jose Flores and Magdaleno Villalba, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PSB Satellites
Ltd. (d/b/a Park Slope Ale House and Henry Street Ale House, and
Eugene Kaleniak, Case No. 1:16-cv-04329 (S.D. N.Y., June 9, 2016),
seeks unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 as well as spread-of-hours pay under New
York Labor Laws.

Defendants own, operate, two bars located at 356 6th Avenue,
Brooklyn, New York 11215, (Park Slope Ale House) and 62 Henry
Street, Brooklyn, New York 11201 (Henry Street Ale House), where
Plaintiffs were employed as cooks, food preparers and dishwashers.
They claim to be denied overtime pay.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
     MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES PC.
     60 East 42nd Street Suite 2540
     New York, NY 10165
     Telephone: (212) 317-1200
     Facsimile: (212) 317-1620


SODEXO INC: "Crenshaw" Suit Seeks OT and Minimum Wages
------------------------------------------------------
JAMES CRENSHAW, individually, on behalf of all others similarly
situated, and as representatives of other aggrieved employees, the
Plaintiff, v. SODEXO, INC, a Delaware Corporation; SDH SERVICES
WEST, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1-250,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC623887 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
June 15, 2016), seeks to recover overtime and minimum wage under
California Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant had Plaintiff and Class
members repeatedly work through their shifts without scheduling,
permitting, authorizing or allowing Plaintiff and Class Members to
take their required breaks. Due to its failure to pay employees
for the work performed during its meal periods, Defendant has also
failed to properly pay overtime and minimum wage for these hours
in violation of California Labor Code. The Plaintiff and Class
members were not authorized or permitted lawful meal periods, and
were not provided with one hour's wages. Sodexo failed to schedule
or provide meal periods; and, required Plaintiff and Class members
to work through their meal periods to meet Defendants' demanding
schedules. In fact, Sodexo would also modify time records to
include a meal period when no meal period had been taken in order
to fraudulently reflect that Defendants were in compliance with
California's meal period laws.

Sodexo is a company that provides food and facility management
services in the State of California

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary R. Carlin, Esq.
          Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq.
          Laurel N. Haag, Esq.
          Ian M. Silvers, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CARLIN & BUCHSBAUM LLP
          555 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 818
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 432 8933
          Facsimile: (562) 435 1656
          E-mail: gary@carlinbuchsbaum.com
                  brent@carlinbuchsbaum.com
                  laurel@carlinbuchsbaum.com
                  ian@carlinbuchsbaum.com


SONY CORP: Settles PlayStation 3 Owners' Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Kevin Parrish, writing for Yahoo Tech, reports that a settlement
appears to be on the horizon thanks to a deal that was reached on
June 17 between Sony and lawyers representing millions of
PlayStation 3 owners.  The agreement was made before Judge Yvonne
Gonzalez in California's Oakland courthouse, but still needs to be
approved by a federal judge before Sony can hand out money to each
PlayStation 3 owner.  The proposed settlement was viewed in June.

So what is Sony's settlement all about? Glad you asked.

A long, long time ago in what now seems like an alternate
universe, the Sony PlayStation 3 allowed the installation of a
secondary operating system based on Linux or Unix. This function
was listed as "Install Other OS" on the console's XMB interface,
and was ripped out with the introduction of the newer PS3 Slim
model and firmware version 3.21.  Many PlayStation 3 owners, both
old and new customers alike, were not happy with the change, given
that one of Sony's major PlayStation 3 selling points became a
defunct option.

The reason Sony provided for removing secondary OS support was due
to "security reasons."  When the v3.21 firmware update went live,
Patrick Seybold, senior director of corporate communications and
social media, merely indicated that the feature was removed to
make the PlayStation 3 platform more secure.  Customers of the
older system had a choice of not updating to the v3.21 firmware,
but they would not have access to the PlayStation Network.  They
also wouldn't be able to run software or play videos that required
the latest firmware.

Sony saw a number of class-action lawsuits filed against the
company over the "Other OS" issue starting in April 2010.  These
lawsuits were dismissed one after another by the beginning of
December, 2011, because they failed to show how Sony would be
liable.  However, the last dismissal was reversed in January 2014
in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and that
particular lawsuit was returned to the district court.

And now here we are, years later, with a settlement finally on the
way.

"Approximately 10 million units were sold in the United States and
ranged in price from approximately $400 to $600," the legal
agreement states.  'Throughout the pendency of the case, Defendant
has vigorously denied liability.  Among other things, Defendant
has argued that it had the right to remove the Other OS pursuant
to its terms of service and other purported agreements, and that
the Other OS was not a functionality that was material to the vast
majority of purchasers."

However, according to the agreement, millions of North American
customers will soon be eligible to submit a Claim Form to receive
a $55 settlement, or a smaller $9 settlement.  In order to get the
larger sum, customers must show proof that they actually ran
another operating system on the PlayStation 3.  Otherwise,
consumers will get $9 if they show in a valid claim that the
console lost its value when Sony removed the Other OS function.

"There is no limit on the number of valid claims that Defendant is
required to pay," the document adds.  "The Parties believe the
terms of the Agreement are fair, reasonable and adequate, and that
the Court should grant preliminary approval.  Accordingly,
Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant this motion."

A "notice program" will be launched to send out two rounds of
emails to customers who are potential recipients of a settlement.
Banner ads and search-related advertising related to the
settlement will also be flashed on the likes of CNET, IGN,
GameSpot, and other related sites. There will even be a
"settlement website" that will play host to the settlement notice
and "key documents."

Finally, the agreement shows that Sony will shell out $3,500 for
each plaintiff as recognition for their continued efforts to reach
a settlement.  These individuals paid to retain council, provided
their PlayStation 3 consoles as evidence, and so on. Attorney's
fees and expense reimbursement will be an additional $2,250,000,
which Sony will be required to pay.

The final approval hearing is scheduled to take place on
November 8, 2016, the document shows.


STAR TEX: Faces "Castillo" Lawsuit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
ISSAC CASTILLO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. STAR TEX GASOLINE & OIL DISTRIBUTORS,
INC., and RONNIE D. KING, Defendants, Case 2:16-cv-00227 (S.D.
Tex., June 20, 2016), seeks to recover, on behalf of himself and
the purported Class Members, all unpaid wages and other damages
owed under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Star Tex Gasoline & Oil Distributors, is a wholesale supplier of
diesel, fuels, gasoline, lubricants and oils.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


STATE FARM: Sued in W.D. Mo. Over Life Insurance Policy Charges
---------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL G. VOGT, Individually and On Behalf Of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. STATE FARM LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-04170-NKL (W.D. Mo., June
15, 2016), seeks all damages and consequential damages proximately
caused by Defendant's breach of contract and conversion to recover
amounts that Defendant has charged and collected from Plaintiff
and members of a class of life insurance policy owners in excess
of amounts authorized by the express terms of their policies.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has caused material harm
to Plaintiff and the proposed class by improperly draining monies
they have accumulated in the Account Values under their policies.
Every unauthorized dollar taken from policy owners is one less
dollar that can be used to: invest through the policy; pay future
premiums; increase the death benefit; use as collateral for policy
loans; or withdraw as cash.

State Farm provides life insurance products and annuities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


SYSCO CORPORATION: "Navarro" Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Frank Navarro, on behalf of
himself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the
general public v. Sysco Corporation, Sysco Los Angeles, Inc.,
Sysco Riverside, Inc., and Does 1-100, Case No. BC616001, was
removed from the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-04183-ODW-MRW
to the proceeding.

The Defendants are engaged in marketing and distributing food
products to restaurants, healthcare and educational facilities,
hotels and inns, and other foodservice and hospitality businesses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

      Jeffrey Charles Bils, Esq.
      Margaret Rosenthal, Esq.
      Vartan Serge Madoyan, Esq.
      Sabrina L. Shadi, Esq.
      BAKER AND HOSTETLER LLP
      11601 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1400
      Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509
      Telephone: (310) 820-8800
      Facsimile: (310) 820-8859
      E-mail: jbils@bakerlaw.com
              mrosenthal@bakerlaw.com
              vmadoyan@bakerlaw.com
              sshadi@bakerlaw.com

SYSCO CORPORATION: "Frieri" Class Suit Removed to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Rick Frieri, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the
general public v. Sysco Corporation, Sysco San Diego, Inc., and
Does 1-100, Case No. 37-02016-00011683-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from
the Superior Court, San Diego County, Central Division to the U.S.
District Court Southern District of California (San Diego). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-01432-JLS-NLS to
the proceeding.

The Defendants are engaged in marketing and distributing food
products to restaurants, healthcare and educational facilities,
hotels and inns, and other foodservice and hospitality businesses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William D. Turley, Esq.
      THE TURLEY LAW FIRM, APLC
      7428 Trade Street
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 234-2833
      Facsimile: (619) 234-4048
      E-mail: bturley@turleylawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Julie Kwun, Esq.
      BAKER & HOSTELER, LLP
      11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
      Los Angeles, CA 90025
      Telephone: (310) 820-8800
      Facsimile: (310) 820-8859
      E-mail: jkwun@bakerlaw.com


SYSCO CORPORATION: "Navarro" Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Navarro, on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public v. Sysco
Corporation, Sysco Los Angeles, Inc., Sysco Riverside, Inc., and
Does 1-100, Case No. BC616001, was removed from the Superior Court
for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California (Eastern Division - Riverside). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:16-cv-01221 to the
proceeding.

The Defendants are engaged in marketing and distributing food
products to restaurants, healthcare and educational facilities,
hotels and inns, and other foodservice and hospitality businesses.

Frank Navarro is a pro se plaintiff.

The Defendant is represented by:

      Sabrina L. Shadi, Esq.
      BAKER AND HOSTETLER LLP
      11601 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1400
      Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509
      Telephone: (310) 820-8800
      Facsimile: (310) 820-8859
      E-mail: sshadi@bakerlaw.com


TATA CONSULTANCY: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
The San Diego employment law lawyers at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug and
Bhowmik on June 22 disclosed that they lodged a putative class
action lawsuit against Tata Consultancy Services Limited for
allegedly failing to provide their hourly workers in California
with the legally required thirty minute uninterrupted meal
periods.  The lawsuit also claims that Tata failed to pay all
overtime worked by their California employees.  The Tata lawsuit,
Case No. 37-2016-00016447 is currently pending in San Diego County
Superior Court.

The lawsuit filed against Tata claims that the IT giant failed to
accurately "record and pay Plaintiff and other California Class
Members for the actual amount of time these employees worked,
including overtime worked."  Under the California Labor Code, an
employee who is classified as non-exempt and is paid on an hourly
basis must be paid overtime wages for time worked in excess of
eight hours in a workday and time worked over forty hours in a
workweek.

The Complaint also alleges that the golden state employees working
for TATA were not provided their thirty minute uninterrupted meal
breaks before their fifth hour of work. California law requires
employers to provide their non-exempt employees paid on an hourly
basis with thirty minute meal periods before the employee works
five hours.

For more information about the class action lawsuit filed against
Tata Consultancy Services Limited, please call Attorney Nicholas
De Blouw at the firm Blumenthal Nordrehuag and Bhomwik at (866)
771-7099.

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug and Bhowmik is a San Francisco employment
law firm that dedicates its practice to helping employees, fight
back against unfair business practices, including violations of
the California Labor Code and Fair Labor Standards Act.


TELEBRANDS: "Memoli" Class Suit Removed to New Jersey Dist. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Penelope Memoli and Heather
Anderson, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Telebrands, Case No. ESX-L-02938-16, was removed from
the Superior Court of New Jersey Essex County to the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-03347-JMV-MF to the proceeding.

Telebrands operates an online shopping company in New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bruce Daniel Greenberg, Esq.
      LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
      570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
      Newark, NJ 07102
      Telephone: (973) 623-3000
      E-mail: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Christine A. Amalfe
      GIBBONS, PC
      One Gateway Center
      Newark, NJ 07102-5310
      Telephone: (973) 596-4500
      E-mail: camalfe@gibbonslaw.com


TEXAS: Supreme Court to Hear Case Over Deaf Driver Schools
----------------------------------------------------------
Dan McCue, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that the
U.S. Supreme Court on June 28, agreed to take up a dispute
involving deaf people in Texas who say driver instruction schools
in the state won't let them take classes needed to get a driver's
license.

As is their custom, the justices did not explain their rationale
for adding the case, Ivy v. Morath, to their calendar for the
fall.  The question they will consider is whether a state agency
that outsources driver education to private contractors can be
sued for refusing to make sure the schools accommodate people with
disabilities.

In Texas, individuals under the age of 25 cannot obtain driver's
licenses unless they submit a driver education certificate to the
state Department of Public Safety.

The plaintiffs in the case are all deaf individuals who contacted
a variety of state-licensed private driver education schools only
to be told their needs could not be accommodated.

A deafness resource specialist with the Texas Department of
Assistive and Rehabilitative Services contacted the Texas
Education Agency on the plaintiff's behalf, but the agency
declined to intervene, stating that it was not required to enforce
the Americans with Disabilities Act and that it would not act
against the schools unless the U.S. Justice Department declared
them non-compliant with the ADA.

Ivy Donnika sued and the case later became a putative class action
with multiple named plaintiffs seeking injunctive and declaratory
relief.

The trial court denied the state's motion to dismiss the case, but
certified an interlocutory appeal to the Fifth Circuit, staying
all further proceedings to await the outcome of the appellate
review.

In March 2015, a divided Fifth Circuit held the Texas Education
Agency could not be sued for violating the Americans with
Disabilities Act because it merely licensed the driver education
schools and did not itself provide driving instruction.

The case is, Donnika IVY, et al., petitioners, v. Mike MORATH,
Texas Commissioner of Education, 136 S.Ct. 1242 (2016)(U.S.)


TICKETMASTER: Reveals Eligible Shows for Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Preston Jones, writing for Star Telegraph, reports that you might
have heard about Ticketmaster settling a $400 million class action
lawsuit by providing discount codes and vouchers for free shows to
customers.

While some were able to find out what discount codes and vouchers
were available, the list of eligible shows that the codes and
vouchers could be used for was not immediately available.

Earlier on June 21, Ticketmaster and Live Nation finally published
the full list of eligible shows -- which can be viewed here, but
be warned: the site is getting slammed, so loading it may take
some time -- but we've included the full list of discount
code/voucher-eligible shows in Dallas/Fort Worth below.

Less than 24 hours after announcing the first round of
voucher/discount code-eligible concerts, the DFW list has been
refreshed.  Gone are all of the Gexa Energy Pavilion shows, and in
their place, a slate of shows at House of Blues, which you can
find below.

It is also worth noting that the ticket vouchers are only good for
general admission tickets -- anyone expecting to snag a ticketed
seat to a show will be disappointed -- and Ticketmaster/Live
Nation says the list will be occasionally updated (although there
really aren't too many other large, general admission venues in
DFW left to offer tickets to).

June 25: The Dan Band at House of Blues

July 8: INTXS (INXS cover band) at House of Blues

July 9: The Molly Ringwalds (cover band) at House of Blues

July 29: Crowe Showe (cover band) at House of Blues

July 30: Pearl Gem (cover band) at House of Blues

Aug. 5: K. Michelle at House of Blues

Aug. 6: Local Brews Local Grooves at House of Blues

Aug. 14: Boys Like Girls at House of Blues

Aug. 19: ZOSO (cover band) at House of Blues

Aug. 28: Willie Colon at House of Blues

Sept. 2: Metal Shop (cover band) at House of Blues

Sept. 3: Richard Cheese and Lounge Against the Machine at House of
Blues.


TOM & ANGIE'S: "Kraemer" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
COLLEEN KRAEMER, individually, MARGARATE GOROON, individually, and
on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. TOM &
ANGIE'S DREAM, INC. d/b/a A CHILD'S CHOICE, a Florida Profit
Corporation, TOM E. LINCICOME, individually, and ANGELA C.
LINCICOME, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 8:16-cv-01547-
CEH-AAS (Fla. Cir. Ct., June 15, 2016), seeks to recover damages
which exceed $15,000 exclusive of costs and interest, caused by
the Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiffs the required overtime
pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs regularly and routinely
worked over 40 hours in a work week. The Plaintiffs were not paid
time and a one-half their regular hourly rate for each and every
hour that they worked in excess of 40 hours in a work week for all
weeks that they worked.

Tom & Angie's is in the Child Day Care Services business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq.
          Christopher D. Gray, Esquire
          Lindsey C. Kofoed, Esq.
          Robin M. Orosz, Esq.
          FLORIN ROEBIG, P.A.
          111 Alderman Road
          Palm Harbor, FL 34683
          Telephone: (727) 786 5000
          Facsimile: (727) 772 9833
          E-mail: WMF@florinroebig.com
                  CDG@florinroebig.com
                  lck@florinroebig.com
                  rorosz@.florinroebig.com
                  eFiling@.florinroebig.com
                  daniela@florinroebig.com


TRANSENTERIX INC: "Ravey" Sues over Share Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------
THOMAS RAVEY, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Transenterix, Inc., Todd M. Pope and
Joseph P. Slattery, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-599 (M.D.N.C.,
June 9, 2016) seeks to recover compensable damages for violation
of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

TransEnterix is a medical device company that seeks to use
flexible instruments and robotics to improve the outcomes of
minimally invasive surgery. It developed and commercialized the
SurgiBot System, a single-port, robotically enhanced laparoscopic
surgical platform.

The FDA notified TransEnterix on April 19, 2016 that the SurgiBot
did not meet the criteria for substantial equivalence based upon
the data and information submitted by TransEnterix in its 510(k)
submission. As a result, TransEnterix reduced head count
investment in SurgiBot production and development which resulted
in an annualized reduction in salaries of approximately $4
million.

Negative news resulted in share price reduction of 10%. Plaintiff
bought TransEnterix shares and lost substantially.

Todd M. Pope and Joseph P. Slattery were President/CEO and
Executive Vice President/CFO of TransEnterix, respectively.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David G. Schiller, Esq.
     SCHILLER & SCHILLER, PLLC
     304 East Jones Street
     Raleigh, NC 27601
     Telephone: (919) 789-4677
     Facsimile: (919) 789-4469
     Email: david@schillerfirm.com

             - and -

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

             - and -

     Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Telephone: (312) 377-1181
     Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
     Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Seeks to Decertify Student Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Bianca Bruno, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
citing "changed circumstances," Republican presidential candidate
Donald Trump moved late last week to decertify a San Diego class
action over seminars aimed at teaching attendees how to get rich
off the collapse of the U.S. real estate market.

In his 11-page reply filed June 24, in support of a motion to
decertify the class in Low v. Trump University, Trump attacked the
"ensuing developments and changed circumstances" in the case
brought by seminar attendees, including changing the lead
plaintiff, motions to amend and recertify aspects of the class,
and other changes.

Trump claims the recent switch-ups and motions have positioned the
case in "these unchartered waters" because the plaintiffs have
"stretched the law." He argued the class should be decertified
because the plaintiffs' procedural arguments in the case are
without merit and the court has a duty to monitor class decisions
as evidence is developed in the case.

In the older of two San Diego class actions against Trump
University, Sonny Low and former students claim they were
defrauded by marketing tactics used to position the school as a
way to get rich off the foreclosure crisis that resulted from the
Great Recession. Among the most egregious claims, are that Trump
University claimed it was accredited and that instructors were
"handpicked" by Trump himself.

In their reply against the motion to decertify, Low and other
plaintiffs in the case asserted defendants "were not diligent"
because they could have filed the motion to decertify before the
cut-off date, but Trump argues a cut-off date does not apply and
asserts new facts in the case are what sparked the motion filing
in the first place.

The new developments cited by Trump include the court order to
allow former lead plaintiff Tarla Makaeff to withdraw, Low's
admission during his deposition he had never heard or saw a
misrepresentation involving Trump University's accreditation
status, and other changes to the plaintiffs' trial plan.

The class response that evidence Trump claims he recently became
aware of was available "years ago" and asking the court to
disregard it does not hold up, Trump argues. Instead, the latest
actions by the plaintiffs to abandon certain claims coupled with
new evidence, court orders and previous evidence "together
establish that plaintiffs cannot meet their burden," Trump argues.

"Plaintiffs' attempt to manufacture a dispute between 'new' and
'old' evidence is inappropriate and inconsistent," Trump's reply
states.

Addressing aspects of the plaintiffs' trial plan, Trump points out
the class has failed to cite any case law in support of their
"unprecedented" full-refund model which would shift the burden to
prove damages over to Trump.

"Plaintiffs fail to identify any state case sanctioning their
windfall 'baseline' damages model, which indisputably expanded
plaintiffs' rights to damages in an ordinary consumer case," Trump
claims. "Decertification is necessary because plaintiffs cannot
prove zero value on a class-wide basis and have no alternative
damages model."

Trump claims the class members cannot prove Trump University
utilized the same marketing tactics across the board, such as the
fact Trump University instructors were "handpicked" by Trump or
that the real estate school was referred to as "accredited."

Trump also says recent changes and motions by plaintiffs are an
attempt to "reconcile" issues or discrepancies with their claims
while meeting the court requirements to maintain status as a class
action.

Plaintiffs' request to preclude former Trump University students'
testimony from being entered into evidence if they opt out of the
class or do not reside in California, New York or Florida is not
"conceivable" because all "relevant and admissible evidence must
be considered -- not just plaintiffs,'" Trump argues.

Based on Low's admission during his deposition that he "was never
misled" about Trump University's accreditation status, the
plaintiffs are "seeking to manufacture a new theory of liability,"
by requesting to replace their "common misrepresentation" claim
with a "fraudulent omission" claim, which Trump said "serves to
expose more individualized issues warranting decertification,"
according to his reply.

The plaintiffs' motion "seeks to avoid addressing their deficient
damages theory" and comes as "no surprise," Trump said.

"They cannot reconcile the disparate issues in their claims with
the requirements for maintaining the case as a class action. Their
failure to formulate a viable trial plan exemplifies some of the
many issues which now compel decertification," the filing states.

A hearing on the motion to decertify the class is scheduled for
July 22.


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: July 13 Hearing on Amended Protective Order Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing has been scheduled for July 13 on Donald Trump's motion
to amend a protective order.  The hearing was first set for June
30.

                    Trump's June 15 Memorandum

Bianca Bruno, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
in a court filing over the release of Donald Trump's deposition
videos taken for a class action against the now-defunct Trump
University, the Republican presidential candidate compares himself
to former U.S. presidents and musician Prince, saying releasing
the videos would taint the jury pool and cause a "media frenzy."

The past few weeks, headlines about Trump University have been
dominated by a legal battle over whether or not deposition videos
taken of Trump on two separate occasions should also be released
alongside the partially released transcripts of those videos,
which were made available earlier this month.

Art Cohen is the lead plaintiff in the case, and claims Trump used
the color of an educational institution to bilk thousands of
dollars from students. Rather than getting any real educational
value from enrollment, the students say Trump University seminars
at hotels across the country merely encouraged them to spend even
more money on upgrade packages.

The video transcripts, along with the videos, were filed by Cohen
in opposition documents filed in response to Trump's motion to
dismiss the case, Cohen v. Trump.

But because Cohen's attorney Jason Forge did not follow court
rules for properly submitting electronic documents by seeking
leave of the court, U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel ordered the
tapes not be made publicly available.

A host of media outlets who intervened in the case -- led by the
Washington Post and most recently joined by Fox News Network --
made similar arguments for the release of the Trump deposition
tapes as the Post did for the public release of hundreds of other
documents that it argued Trump had no "good cause" to file under a
"blanket" protective order.

In a response filed late June 15, Trump ticks off an eight-page
list of reasons why he does in fact have good cause to request the
deposition videos remain under wraps. But he takes it a step
further, and requests the court modify the protective order for
both San Diego class actions to prohibit the filing of any
videotaped deposition, unless it remains under seal, and to bar
the dissemination of any videotaped deposition.

Trump claims the videos contain "irrelevant, inadmissible and
prejudicial" evidence that is duplicative of the transcripts,
which portions of are already available.

"Owing to the danger that a video may create in eliciting bias on
the part of its viewer, the court has a duty to prevent their
disclosure because they can taint the jury pool," according to the
memorandum.

Trump pointed out other courts have recognized videotapes are
subject to a "higher degree of potential abuse than transcripts"
by being taken out of context and "cut and spliced and used as
soundbites," which would continue in the "media frenzy certain to
continue through the election."  He even compared himself to
President Bill Clinton and President Ronald Regan, whose
deposition testimony was protected during lawsuits while they were
both sitting presidents.

"The need to prevent such 'sensationalism' is particularly acute
here because of Mr. Trump's unique circumstances in running for
President of the United States," Trump's memo states. "These same
cautions and concerns apply with full force here to a presidential
candidate whose every move is being covered by the media. Mr.
Trump may be a sitting president by the time the Low case goes to
trial, in which case these principles apply with even greater
force."

Trump argued the deposition tapes may not even be used at trial
and, if the tapes are released, they will be used to harass him as
well as other deponents. He also argued that good cause exists to
keep the tapes from the public spotlight because "video from a
private legal dispute should not be used solely for the media or
entertainment."

Not only did Trump compare himself to Clinton and Regan, but he
compared the Trump University case to other high profile cases,
most acutely zeroing in on a copyright and trademark infringement
case brought by late musician Prince.

In that case, Paisley Park Enterprises v. Uptown Productions, the
court ordered videotaped deposition of Prince be used solely for
the litigation and also stipulated no one was allowed to view,
audit or copy the tapes.  The same right to privacy afforded to
Prince, should also be afforded to Trump, according to his most
recent filing.

"The public also has an interest in ensuring that each person in
society -- including well-known individuals such as Prince and Mr.
Trump -- has access to a fair and impartial judicial system
'without having to pay too high a price of admission in the form
of surrender of personal privacy' through unnecessary disclosure,"
Trump says in his June 15 memo supporting a motion to amend the
protective order.

                         His June 27 Brief

Bianca Bruno, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Donald Trump on June 27, called for the same treatment Hillary
Clinton gets when it comes to privacy and litigation, comparing
multiple class actions against Trump University to the litigation
Clinton faces over her email scandal.

In a brief filed late June 27, in support of amending the
protective order covering two Southern California class actions
brought by former students of now-defunct Trump University, the
presumptive Republican presidential nominee claimed there is no
"legitimate reasons" his deposition videos should be made
available outside the courtroom.

Trump also pointed out that courts "regularly protect"
dissemination of video depositions, including for "public figures
in cases of public interest."

Case-in-point, Trump argues, is the current case against
presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, where
the videotaped deposition of her political aide was protected.

"A district court recently considered a similar issue relating to
the video deposition of a Hillary Clinton aide on a politically
charged subject and refused to release the video of the deposition
because a transcript was available," Trump pointed out.

"There is no reason for a different result in this case."

Clinton's aide feared release of her deposition video would allow
others to "manipulate her testimony, and invade her personal
privacy, to advance a partisan agenda," Trump argues in requesting
"the same reasoning and result."

Trump has not only dug in his heels to prevent the public release
of his deposition videos taken in late 2015 and earlier this year,
but he has also requested that U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel
make the protective order even more restrictive: The candidate
wants to prohibit the filing of any videotaped deposition unless
it remains under seal, and bar the dissemination of any videotaped
deposition.

Trump's request comes amidst mounting pressure from a host of
media outlets who have intervened in the case in order to get
Trump's deposition videos released. The videos were filed along
with hundreds of other documents and exhibits by plaintiff Art
Cohen in his opposition papers to Trump's motion to dismiss that
case.

Former students of Trump University sued the presumptive nominee,
claiming they were defrauded by marketing tactics used to position
the school as a "get rich quick" scheme to make money off the
foreclosure crisis. Two class actions out of San Diego, Low v.
Trump University and Cohen v. Trump, fall under the same
protective order currently in dispute.

Among Trump's arguments for keeping the tapes out of the public's
hands include whether the case meets the "good cause standard,"
because the court has already rejected the plaintiffs' improper
filing of the videos. Trump argues the videos are irrelevant to
the motions at hand, are already available in transcript form and
that the plaintiffs merely want to "inject the videos into the
public record" to "prejudice" Trump.

"Their minimal relevance to issues before the court renders any
presumption of access inapplicable unless and until the court
reviews and relies on the videos in making a decision in this
case," Trump argued.

Because the videos have not yet been admitted into evidence,
Trump's deposition is not a judicial record with right of public
access, Trump said.

But Trump acknowledges that his brief really comes down to his
concerns over what the media will do with his deposition tapes if
they are publicly released.

Avoiding "unnecessary pretrial publicity" to ensure a fair trial
is a "quintessential reason to preclude public access," Trump said
in the brief, adding that releasing his deposition would be
"unprecedented" and would be "extensively" disseminated by the
media in connection with the presidential campaign.

Trump said that disclosing the videos "would not further promote
public understanding of this case," and claims there are no
"secrets" hiding in the tapes, as the deposition transcripts are
already available.

But, the media outlets argue -- with the plaintiffs' support --
that releasing the videos will show Trump's nuances including
facial expressions and gesticulating, which adds the context
needed to fully understand his deposition answers.

Striking back at the media interveners' argument that Trump has
made the lawsuits a campaign issue -- giving the public a right to
view his deposition videos -- Trump placed blame on his opponents
vying for the White House.

"This litigation was raised initially and repeatedly by Mr.
Trump's political opponents," Trump said in the brief. "Video
depositions were not intended for broadcast media or to be used to
further a political agenda. The court cannot allow judicial tools
to be hijacked for these purposes."

Attorneys for the Trump Defendants:

          DANIEL M. PETROCELLI, Esq.
          DAVID L. KIRMAN, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6035
          Telephone: (310) 553-6700
          Facsimile: (310) 246-6779
          E-mail: dpetrocelli@omm.com
                  dkirman@omm.com

               - and -

          JILL A. MARTIN, Esq.
          TRUMP NATIONAL GOLF CLUB
          One Trump National Drive
          Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
          Telephone: (310) 202-3225
          Facsimile: (310) 265-5522
          E-mail: jmartin@trumpmational.com

The case is captioned, SONNY LOW et al., on Behalf of Themselves
and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. TRUMP
UNIVERSITY, LLC et al., Defendants., ART COHEN, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. DONALD
J. TRUMP, Defendant., Case Nos.  10-CV-0940-GPC(WVG), 13-CV-2519-
GPC(WVG)(S.D. Cal.).


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Attorneys Fight Racketeering Claims
-----------------------------------------------------
Josh Gerstein and Maggie Severns, writing for Politico.com, report
that lawyers for Donald Trump are fighting claims that his Trump
University real estate seminar program amounted to a racketeering
operation under federal law.

In a court filing on June 17, Mr. Trump's attorneys reject
allegations in a federal class-action lawsuit that Trump
University violated the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act and that Trump was directly involved in those
violations.

"This case was an overreach from inception.  It stretches civil
RICO beyond the breaking point and would effectively federalize
consumer advertising fraud claims, and subject officers,
directors, and employees of every Fortune 500 company to
unwarranted personal liability," Trump lawyers Daniel Petrocelli
and David Kirman wrote.  "Not a single case plaintiff cites comes
close to approving of civil RICO claims on the garden-variety
consumer claims here."

Mr. Trump is asking U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel to toss out
the lawsuit, which is one of two pending class actions.  The
request comes as the presumptive Republican presidential nominee
has begun to emerge from a media firestorm he caused by publicly
accusing Judge Curiel of bias and attributing that bias to the
judge's Latino heritage.  Numerous Democratic leaders and several
prominent GOP figures blasted Trump's remarks as racist.

Judge Curiel has not publicly responded to Mr. Trump's racial
remarks, but tersely noted in a ruling in May that the
presidential nominee "has placed the integrity of these
proceedings at issue."

Mr. Trump's legal team appears to face an uphill battle in trying
to get the suit thrown out, since the judge issued a ruling in
2014 that the RICO claim could proceed as a class action and has
rejected a similar summary judgment motion in the parallel
lawsuit.

Attorneys pressing the suits against Mr. Trump on behalf of former
Trump University students say the program fraudulently advertised
that instructors were hand-picked by Mr. Trump and that students
would learn the real estate mogul's "secrets."  Even calling the
program a "university" was a fraud, the lawsuits contend.

Mr. Trump's lawyers say claims that students would be told Trump's
"secrets" or that he was personally involved in selecting teachers
were, at worst, marketing "puffery" not intended to be taken
literally.

"Plaintiff cannot dispute that students had vastly different
interpretations of the terms 'secrets,' 'hand-picked,' and
'university,'" Petrocelli and Kirman wrote, calling the marketing
language "vague and highly subjective claims, and not the type of
detailed factual assertion necessary to prove fraud."

Mr. Trump's lawyers also say there's no evidence that Mr. Trump
himself was involved in crafting the statements now said to be
fraudulent.

Invoking the federal RICO statute creates the possibility that
former Trump University students, many of whom paid about $1,500
for a three-day seminar and some of whom paid nearly $35,000 for a
mentorship program, could receive triple damages and the class-
action lawyers pursuing the case could recover their attorneys'
fees.

While the law passed in 1970 was initially focused on businesses
run by the Mafia, it has since been used to go after a wide
variety of enterprises, including ordinary corporations allegedly
engaged in fraud, as well as activists like anti-abortion
campaigners accused of illegally obstructing clinics.

Judge Curiel is scheduled to hear arguments on the summary
judgment motion in San Diego on July 22, one day after the end of
the Republican National Convention in Cleveland where Mr. Trump is
expected to receive the Republican presidential nomination.
The judge has set a trial for Nov. 28 in the parallel class-action
suit pressing claims that Trump University violated state anti-
fraud laws in California, Florida and New York.
In the meantime, Curiel is fielding requests from media
organizations to clear the way for the public release of videos of
Trump's depositions in the pair of lawsuits.  Mr. Trump's lawyers
are fighting to keep the videos under wraps.  A hearing on that
issue is set for June 30.


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Workshops Held Over Foreclosure Crisis
--------------------------------------------------------
Seema Mehta, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that as
millions of people were losing their homes in the depth of the
recession, instructors at Trump University were urging students to
seek out anxious or desperate sellers to reap a financial
windfall, according to recently released documents in the federal
class-action lawsuit against presumptive GOP presidential nominee
Donald Trump.

The now-defunct for-profit real-estate school, founded by Trump
and two associates in 2004, offered workshops on how to take
advantage of the foreclosure crisis in some of the hardest hit
states, including California.

In a 2008 slide aimed at persuading potential students to sign up
for a three-day, $1,495 workshop, Mr. Trump is pictured alongside
a quote: "I've always made a FORTUNE in FORECLOSURES, and YOU WILL
TOO. The timing will never be better than NOW! My recommendation
is that you attend our retreat. ENROLL TODAY!"

That year, more than 2.3 million foreclosures were filed across
the nation, including more than a half-million in California, said
Daren Blomquist, a senior vice president at RealtyTrac, a housing
data firm.  "It was the height of the foreclosure market."

Mr. Trump was certainly not alone among investors who sought to
make a profit by purchasing foreclosed or distressed properties at
a deep discount.  These investments helped the housing market
eventually rebound, Mr. Blomquist said.

But what is routine in business can be controversial in politics,
as seen in Democrats' successful 2012 effort to brand that year's
GOP nominee, Mitt Romney, as a heartless corporate vulture.

In a similar move, Democrats seized upon Trump University's focus
on foreclosures as an example of Mr. Trump's willingness to profit
on Americans' suffering.

"It's really offensive," said state Controller Betty Yee, who has
endorsed presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.  "He's
looking at really taking advantage of vulnerable communities to
line the pockets of the wealthy."

The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

In May, when Clinton castigated him for comments he made in 2006
and 2007 about the opportunities to make money if the housing
market collapsed, Mr. Trump countered by saying that he was a
businessman.

"I have made a lot of money in down markets.  In some cases, as
much as I've made when markets are good.  Frankly, this is the
kind of thinking our country needs, understanding how to get a
good result out of a very bad and sad situation," he said.
"Politicians have no idea how to do this -- they don't have a
clue."

The revelations about Trump University's focus on foreclosures are
found in documents that were unsealed in late May by U.S. District
Judge Gonzalo Curiel in San Diego.  They are part of the exhibits
in a fraud trial that is scheduled to begin after the November
election.

The fraud allegations have already been raised by Mr. Trump's GOP
rivals in the Republican primary and by Clinton, as recently as
June 21.  The San Diego lawsuit -- one of three pending against
Trump involving the university -- was most recently in campaign
news because Trump repeatedly said that Judge Curiel could not
oversee a fair trial because of his "Mexican heritage."  The
remarks drew widespread condemnation from both sides of the aisle.

The hundreds of pages of documents include advertisements, speaker
scripts and slide shows for a free introductory workshop designed
to enroll students in longer classes and memberships that started
at $1,495 and topped out at $35,000.

A 2009 newspaper ad for introductory Trump University classes in
Monterey, San Jose and Fremont urged prospective California
students to "Cash in on the Greatest Property Liquidation in
History!"

This was during the peak of the housing crisis, with 2.8 million
foreclosures filed across the nation.  Some of the ads targeted
the hardest-hit states.  In addition to California, Trump
University ran similar ads in Florida and Nevada, both of which
are battleground states where Democrats will likely raise the
matter in the general election.

"It's certainly not out of the question that we would want to make
sure people knew this guy was taking advantage of people losing
their homes, or taking advantage of people who thought they could
get rich quick because of the housing market crash," said Justin
Barasky, spokesman for Priorities USA Action, a
pro-Clinton super PAC that has $47 million in the bank and
commitments for another $45 million to take on Trump.

When pitching the "Fast Track to Foreclose Investing" system and a
proprietary "Trump's Foreclosure DealSource" software to
prospective students, speakers described the mortgage meltdown as
a historic opportunity to make money.

One compared it to "The Perfect Storm," a 2000 movie about a
commercial fishing boat that sank after being confronted by two
storm fronts and a hurricane off Massachusetts.

"Well the same thing has happened in the housing industry and
that's an incredible opportunity for us," according to a speaker
script.  "Everything is coming together in a perfect storm that
may swamp some folks, but if you are properly trained and
supported you can prosper."

Investors were advised to target distressed home sellers by
looking for keywords in newspaper ads, such as "anxious owner" and
"seller desperate."

Students were told they could save underwater homeowners' credit,
possibly through a short sale.  A slide featuring Trump's picture
included a quote: "There is no reason why an investor can't make
money and help people at the same time."


TWILIO INC: Sued in W.D. Wash. Over TCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------
NOAH WICK on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. TWILIO, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-
00914 (W.D. Wash., June 15, 2016), seeks to recover monetary
damages, injunctive relief, and other remedies for violations of
federal and state law, specifically the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, the Washington State Commercial Electronic Mail
Act, and the Washington Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's practice of
transmitting and/or assisting in the transmission of electronic
commercial text messages to Plaintiff's cellular phone is conduct
that affects the public interest and is an unfair or deceptive act
in trade or commerce and an unfair method of competition.

Twilio is a cloud-based communications company. The primary
service offered by Twilio is a cloud-based application program
interface (commonly known as an "API") that permits its customers
to programmatically make automated phone calls and send text
messages.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark A. Griffin, Esq.
          Karin B. Swope, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
          E-mail: mgriffin@kellerrohrback.com
                  kswope@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          June P. Hoidal., Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
          1100 IDS Center
          80 South 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 341 0400
          Facsimile: (612) 341 0844
          E-mail: June.Hoidal@zimmreed


UBER & LYFT: Councilman Sues Austin to Nix Background Check Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Kocian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that an
Austin city councilman has sued his mayor, to try to invalidate
the May 7 election in which voters roundly refused to repeal
mandatory fingerprint-based background checks for Uber and Lyft,
driving the businesses out of the city.

Donald S. Zimmerman sued Mayor Steve Adler on June 16 in Travis
County Court.  Zimmerman has battled the city over tax issues, and
founded the Travis County Taxpayers Union Special Political Action
Committee.  Proposition 1 failed despite the millions of dollars
spent by Uber's and Lyft's PAC, Ridesharing Works for Austin.

The PAC submitted more than 23,000 signatures to get Prop. 1 on
the ballot. It would have repealed the city's 2015 ordinance and
replaced it with a "citizen-initiated" ordinance (referred to as
the 2016 ordinance in Zimmerman's complaint). Both companies shut
down operations in Austin after Prop. 1 failed.

Zimmerman says in his lawsuit that the ballot language "misled the
voters and omitted chief features of the amendment, distorting the
true essence of the amendment."  He also challenges the efficacy
of the city's system of fingerprint-based background checks,
passed in 2015 for Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) like
Uber and Lyft. The system will be phased in, with 50 percent
compliance required by Aug. 1, and full compliance by Feb. 1,
2017.

Zimmerman complains: "First, the city's regime does not require
immediate (or near-immediate) implementation of a background check
regime on TNC drivers in order to service passengers in the City
of Austin. . . .

"Second, 'compliance' is not determined driver-by-driver. While
subsection A states that 'a person must pass a . . .  fingerprint-
based criminal background check . . .  to be eligible to drive for
a TNC,' this requirement is applied 'in accordance with the
schedule' set forth in (B), which sets out the 'benchmarks.' These
benchmarks are 'calculated as the percentage of hours or miles
driven by compliant drivers of the total hours or miles driven by
other drivers for the TNC during the benchmark time period.'"

"Third, the 2015 Ordinance does not specify what criminal history
would be relevant to driver eligibility. Instead, it merely states
that 'if the criminal background check indicates that a person has
been convicted of certain offenses, to be specified by separate
ordinance, that person is prohibited from driving for a TNC.' . .
.

"Fourth, the 2015 Ordinance does not actually state that any
driver would be prohibited from driving for a TNC in the event he
or she fails the criminal background check; instead, it states
that TNCs failing to meet the benchmarks 'shall be subject to
penalties established by separate ordinance.'"

Under the 2015 ordinance, there will be a 50 percent chance in
August this year that a rider will have a driver "whose background
was not required to be checked at all," Zimmerman said.  He said
Mayor Adler has acknowledged that the fingerprint requirement will
not be enforceable until the council enacts the penalty provision
alluded to in the ordinance.

Zimmerman also claims the 2015 ordinance will cost too much city
money and staff time to enforce.

The city or a hired third party will collect fingerprint
information and submit it to the state for criminal background
checks. The Austin Transportation Department will have to set up a
Safety Assurance Program to help eligible TNCs obtain the
background checks for its drivers.

The 2015 ordinance also imposed two fees on TNCs: an annual fee
based on either a TNC's number of drivers, 1 percent of its gross
local revenue, or total miles driven; and a fee for any TNC not
participating in the city's Safety Assurance Program, with the
money to go into a Compliant Driver Education Fund.

Zimmerman says the 2016 ordinance would provide benefits not in
the city ordinance. He says it would require a national criminal
background check on drivers immediately, unlike the city's phased-
in requirement. The 2016 ordinance also specified the offenses
that would make a person ineligible to drive for a TNC, it is
enforceable, and the TNC would pay the costs of background checks
instead of the city.

Zimmerman "vehemently objected" to the ballot language of Prop. 1,
which was written by Councilwoman Ann Kitchen, whom he calls a
"vocal opponent" of the proposition.  He claims that Kitchen's
language, which stood, "falsely conveyed that the amendments
repealed safety provisions without putting anything in their
place, and was designed to persuade voters to reject the
amendments."

Zimmerman's 21-page lawsuit challenges virtually every step of the
May 7 election.

"The City publicized its current regime as necessary to ensure
rider safety. Yet as of the date Austinites were called upon to
cast their votes, existing law was materially incomplete, rife
with gaps waiting to be filled by further Council action, and the
background-check requirement is wholly unenforceable as recognized
by Mayor Adler himself," Zimmerman says. He claims that common law
prohibits the city "from cherry-picking three repealed provisions
to paint a one-sided picture distorting the real choice put to the
voters."

"The citizen-initiated ordinance repeals the 2015 Ordinance
entirely. In stark contrast, the citizen-initiated ordinance
establishes a framework whereby the financial burdens are borne by
the TNCs, not the taxpayers. . . .  Just as the proposition must
mention a fiscal burden sought to be imposed by a measure, it
follows that where a citizen-initiated measure would abolish
government programs and lessen the burden on taxpayer resources,
this too constitutes a chief feature of the amendment that must
appear in the proposition. . . .

"Not only did the city's Proposition 1 omit chief characteristics,
but materially and affirmatively misled the voters, and the
outcome of the election is not the true outcome."
He claims the election should be declared void because, among
other things, the ballot added the words "the Ordinance" after
"For" and "Against," which he says caused confusion by referring
to two ordinances.

The city said in a statement: "The City Council respected the
citizen-initiated petition process and voted to call a May
election. The Council made every effort to ensure that the ballot
language fairly represents the petition's intent. The City
prevailed in the pre-election lawsuit filed on this same topic,
and is prepared to defend the actions it took as part of this
election process."

Former Austin drivers sued Uber and Lyft in federal class actions
in Austin, Texas this month, claiming the companies' abrupt
pullout violated the Worker Adjustment or Retraining Notification
Act, which requires employers with more than 100 employees to give
60 days notice before mass layoffs.

Zimmerman wants the election declared void, and a new election.
He is represented by Jerad Najvar of Houston.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "Jbara" Suit to Recover Basic Benefits
---------------------------------------------------------
Abdel Karim Jbara, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiffs, v. Uber Technologies, Inc. and
Raiser, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-11073 (D. Mass., June 9,
2016) seeks to recover benefits, liquidated damages and attorneys'
fees and costs owed for breach of contract and under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and Massachusetts General Law.

Plaintiff alleges that Uber drivers, like him, are employees, and
as employees, are entitled to basic wage protections such as
expense reimbursement, overtime pay, rest and meal-breaks. Uber
misclassifies its drivers as contractors, not employees.

Uber Technologies, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered at
1455 Market Street, San Francisco, California, 94103. Uber owns
and operates the Uber transportation service.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David H. Rich, Esq.
      Christopher Weld, Jr., Esq.
      TODD & WELD LLP
      1 Federal Street, 27th Floor
      Boston, MA 02109
      Tel: (617) 720-2626
      Email: cweld@toddweld.com
             drich@toddweld.com

          - and -

      Hunter Shkolnik, Esq.
      Paul B. Maslo, Esq.
      NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC
      1301 Avenue of the Americas, 10th Floor
      New York, NY 10019
      Tel: (212) 397-1000
      Email: PNapoli@NapoliLaw.com
             PMaslo@NapoliLaw.com

          - and -

      Brittany Weiner, Esq.
      IMBESI LAW P.C.
      450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1408
      New York, NY 10123
      Tel: (212) 736-0007
      Email: brittany@lawicm.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Drivers in Los Angeles, Milwaukee File Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Uber drivers in Los Angeles
and Milwaukee are the latest to file class actions accusing the
company of misclassifying them as independent contractors -- two
in Los Angeles Superior Court and one in Milwaukee Federal Court.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: 9th Cir. Heard Arguments on Arbitration Rift
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Judge Richard Clifton invoked Victorian England contracts while
the Ninth Circuit focused on the clash between ride-share giant
Uber and its drivers over arbitration provisions.

"I sort of feel like I'm in a Dickens novel here," Clifton said,
as the parties argued over the enforceability of 2013 and 2014
contracts requiring drivers to arbitrate their claims with Uber,
rather than take them to court.

The arbitration dispute arose from two class actions: one brought
by Douglas O'Connor over for withheld tips and misclassification
of drivers as independent contractors, the other by former Uber
drivers Abdul Kadir Mohamed and Ronald Gillette, claiming Uber
kicked them off the app after running background checks without
their knowledge.

Settlements of the suits await approval from U.S. District Judge
Edward Chen, who ruled in both cases that Uber could not force its
drivers to arbitrate under "unconscionable" agreements.

Labor attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan said Uber's appeal was one of
the main reasons why she negotiated an $84 million settlement for
the O'Connor class.

But Uber still wants the Ninth Circuit to decide whether Chen was
correct. The panel heard arguments only on the Mohamed case June
16, having taken the O'Connor arguments under submission.

As the three-judge panel pored over the contracts, one provision
in particular stood out.

Chen had ruled the contracts unenforceable in part as a matter of
public policy because they contained nonseverable provisions
barring employees from acting as state representatives in labor
lawsuits under California's Private Attorney General Act.

The Private Attorney General's Act (PAGA) allows private citizens,
such as Uber drivers, to pursue civil penalties against an
employer that violates labor laws. Proceeds from the penalties are
split, with 75 percent going to the state and 25 percent to
plaintiffs.

Chen had cited precedent from Sakkab v. Luxottica Retail NA, in
which the Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiff did not have to
waive his rights under PAGA because PAGA waivers are unenforceable
under the California Supreme Court's rule from Iskanian v. CLS
Transportation Los Angeles LLC.

"Uber cannot run away from the arbitration agreements it drafted
itself," Mohamed class attorney Laura Ho told the Ninth Circuit
panel June 16. "It has a very clear PAGA waiver which we know is
illegal. What it says in both 2013 and 2014 agreements is if the
PAGA waiver is found to be unlawful, it is not severable."

Uber's attorney, Theodore Boutrous with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher,
argued differently.

"The provision that bars representative claims altogether is
severable," Boutrous said.

Clifton seemed to agree with Boutrous' reading.

"I've got to say, I have a really hard time following it --
particularly the 2013 agreement," he said. "But at the end of the
day, I wind up reading them to say those claims can't go to
arbitration they have to go to court even if everything else goes
to arbitration."

"You've put your finger on it," Boutrous said.

"This provision was not a blanket waiver that violates Sakkab and
Iskanian," he added. "It only says PAGA representative claims
should not be arbitrated."

Clifton grilled Ho over a sentence in the 2013 agreement that
says: "in such instances where the claim is brought as the private
attorney general, such private attorney general claim must be
litigated in a civil court of competent jurisdiction."

"I freely concede that this is like an exercise in linguistics
. . .  but that last sentence seems to say in so many words, that
claim goes to court," Clifton said.

Ho, an attorney with Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho, wanted to
focus on the preceding sentence. "The sentence that controls is
that PAGA shall not be severable from this arbitration provision,"
she argued.

"Why do you say that controls?" Clifton asked. "We just erase the
last sentence? Because that sentence seems to explain what that's
supposed to mean."

Judge Richard Tallman interjected. "Particularly when it begins
with, 'not notwithstanding any other clause contained in this
agreement,'" he said. "Isn't that a never mind what the rest of
the contract says?"

Judge Sandra Ikuta also seemed to conclude that the PAGA waiver,
having been found unenforceable, doesn't nullify the entire
arbitration provision.

"The question is here whether the whole arbitration provision
falls," Ikuta said. "The second sentence says only as to the
Private Attorney General claim is it litigated in a court of
competent jurisdiction. So why wouldn't we say, although the first
sentence says its not severable from the arbitration provision,
all that means is it must be litigated in a court of competent
jurisdiction?"

Ho emphasized that "it's not severable from the arbitration
agreement."

"Meaning the arbitration agreement will fail as the Private
Attorney General waiver fails," she said.

Clifton was not moved.

"If the last sentence didn't exist, I might be able to ride that
train," he said. "But the last sentence is there and you keep
trying to erase it. Because it seems to say what this means is,
that claim goes to civil court. It doesn't say everything goes to
civil court."

With Clifton doubting that Uber would want to "obliterate" its own
arbitration clause, Ho took another stab. "Well it is a document
drafted by Uber," she said. "Which is unclear."

Ikuta meanwhile took issue with Ho's argument that the agreements
were unconscionable because drivers had to read and sign them on
their phones.

"My law clerks don't read anything on paper," she said.
"Everything has to be on the screen. So I'm having trouble with an
argument that says things you only read on your iPad or cellphone
are illusory and not binding. That sounds like the old judge view
as opposed to what everyone of your generation is doing."

Ho said the issue was troubling not because of the format, but
because there was no way a driver could save the document to read
later, and that drivers were forced to sign if they wanted to
start accepting rides.

"Welcome to the modern world," Clifton said. "You rent a car in
the old days, you'd sign something, and there was fine print on
the back. I once asked someone at the counter if anyone ever read
the back, and he'd never seen anybody read the back. Now it's
apps. Every time I get an update for the iPad, I have to agree to
Apple's terms. Nobody reads them. I hear what you're saying, but
the reality is people agree, we sign things, we agree to things,
the law tries to protect to some level, but hasn't led the courts
to say be gone with all those electronic agreements."

Tallman said the panel will try to issue a ruling "as soon as we
can" but did not indicate which way it might go. The judges could
decide to reverse Chen's ruling on the 2014 agreement but affirm
on the 2013 agreement.


ULTRA SOFT: "Santos" Suit Seeks Proper Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------
Jose Puente Santos, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated, the Plaintiff v. Ultra Soft Hand Car Wash,
Inc. and Michael Arnzen, individually, the Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-06240 (N.D. Ill., June 15, 2016), seeks redress for
Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and
the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL) in relation to Defendants'
failure to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees
proper wages.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendants
from 2002 to May 24, 2016. The Plaintiff's job functions included
washing and detailing cars. The Plaintiff did not receive a bona
fide lunch break and was paid on a weekly basis in cash.
Throughout the course of Plaintiff's employment with Defendants,
and in the three years prior to Plaintiff filing this Complaint,
Defendants scheduled Plaintiff to work in excess of 40 hours per
week in one or more individual work weeks. Although Defendants
scheduled Plaintiff to work in excess of 40 hours per week,
Defendants did not pay Plaintiff overtime wages at a rate of at
least one and one-half the Illinois minimum wage for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Susan J. Best, Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
          6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
          Chicago, IL 60646
          Telephone: (312) 445 9662
          E-mail: sbest@yourclg.com


UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: "Calderon" Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
TULA CALDERON, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs.
UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICE, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability
Company, Defendant, Case 1:16-cv-22286-MGC (S.D. Fla., June 20,
2016), seeks to recover monetary damages, liquidated damages,
interests, costs and attorney's fees for alleged willful
violations of overtime and minimum wage pay under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the laws of the United States.

The Corporate Defendant is a security guard company that regularly
transacted business within Miami-Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel T. Feld, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL T. FELD, P.A.
     2847 Hollywood Blvd.
     Hollywood, FL 33020
     Phone: (305) 308 - 5619
     E-mail: DanielFeld.Esq@gmail.com

        - and -

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


VAN SANT: Faces "Barker" Lawsuit Seeking Overtime Pay Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Barker, Individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated, v. Plaintiff, Van Sant Landscape Management
and Jon Van Sant, Defendant, Case 4:16-cv-01773 (S.D. Tex., June
20, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage and overtime wages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

VAN SANT LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT conducts business in the State of
Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Trang Q. Tran, Esq.
     Alecia D. Best, Esq.
     TRAN LAW FIRM, L.L.P.
     9801 Westheimer Road, Suite 302
     Houston, TX 77042
     Phone: (713) 223-8855
     Fax: (713) 623-6399
     E-mail: ttran@tranlawllp.com
             ab@tranlawllp.com

        - and -

     Nichole Nech, Esq.
     9801 Westheimer Road, Suite 302
     Houston, TX 77042
     Phone: (713) 223-8855
     Fax: (713) 623-6399
     E-mail: nn@tranlawllp.com


VEREIT INC: Faces Gov't Probe, Class Suit Says
----------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reporte that American Realty faces a
government investigation after its senior officers manipulated
corporate financial statements, a class says, joining a chorus of
similar actions.   The case is, Fran Kosky Roth IRA v. Grant
Thornton LLP; Vereit fka American Realty Capital Properties,
pending in New York County Supreme Court.


VISA & MASTERCARD: Home Depot Sues Over Fraud Liability Shift
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Rummell, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that,
fed up with bearing the costs of credit card fraud and fixed
interchange fees, Home Depot fired off an enormous federal
complaint that accuses Visa and MasterCard of reaping "outsized
profits" on a broken system.

"For years, Visa and MasterCard have been more concerned with
protecting their own inflated profits and their dominant market
positions than with the security of the payment cards used by
American consumers and the health of the United States economy,"
the June 13 lawsuit begins.

The complaint, which is the Top Download in June 15, for
Courthouse News, says Visa and MasterCard deserve blame for why
"United States consumers experience the highest rates of payment
card fraud in the world, and United States businesses are subject
to the highest payment card related fees in the world."

"For decades, the technology has existed to make credit and debit
card transactions safer and less prone to fraud," the complaint
states.

Home Depot says Visa and MasterCard spent years repelling this
technology -- a combination of personal identification numbers and
EMV chips -- even as credit card fraud and debit card fraud "drain
billions of dollars" from the U.S. economy every year.

In addition to blowing off security measures that have been
standard in Europe since the 1990s, the credit card companies
"actually do not require that signatures are verified and even
discourage merchants from verifying signatures for fear that
consumers will be less likely to use their payment cards," the
complaint states.

Home Depot notes that Visa and MasterCard finally embraced the
technological upgrade four or five years ago as part of an effort
to shift fraud liability to the party least compliant with EMV
technology -- whether the merchant, issuing bank or credit card
company.

October 2015 was the deadline for the liability shift, but
adoption of the technology has been slower than expected.

Only 50 percent of U.S. retailers were expected to be able to
handle EMV chip technology as of June, according to data from
consulting firm The Strawhecker Group.

Alleging 20 counts of state and federal antitrust violations in a
138-page complaint, Home Depot is not the first merchant to take
on the credit card companies in court.

Wal-Mart filed a similar lawsuit in May, saying Visa has been
blocking customers from using PINs.

Another federal class action, filed in March in San Francisco,
accuses Visa, MasterCard, American Express and others of having
saddled merchants that implement the new EMV chip technology with
impossible-to-meet liability-shifting conditions.

Before that, Champs Sports Bar & Grill and others brought a
federal complaint in Georgia that accused credit card vendors of
inflating fees without notice.

Seth Eisen, senior business leader at MasterCard, said MasterCard
lets merchants decide whether to rely on PIN or signature for
verification. "Regardless of how the cardholder's identity is
confirmed, the chip makes data much more secure, rendering it
almost useless to create fraudulent cards or transactions," Eisen
said in a statement.

Visa had little to say about the case. "We are aware of the
lawsuit and have filed a notice to transfer the action to the
pending multidistrict litigation," Visa spokesperson Connie Kim
said in a statement.

Price-Fixing Allegations

The lawsuit doesn't stop at making anti-fraud allegations. It also
lays price-fixing allegations at the feet of Visa and MasterCard,
which Home Depot claims have colluded to impose a system of high
interchange fees on merchants for every transaction beyond a
certain limit.

The allegations are similar to those made in a 2005 class action
lawsuit merchants brought against Visa and MasterCard, which
alleged that interchange fees were set at artificially high
levels. Several merchants settled that lawsuit in 2012, though
Home Depot was not among them.


"Visa and MasterCard enforce their price-fixing agreements by
mandating that all banks adhere to their network rules," the
lawsuit states.

Home Depot says banks that don't charge high interchange fees are
subject to fines and expulsion from the credit card networks.
Those networks allegedly limit each credit card from participating
in a single network in order to further pressure banks.

"These banks profit from Visa and MasterCard's market power by
charging supracompetitive interchange fees on signature
transactions," the complaint states.

Home Depot says the interchange fees are some of its highest costs
-- in 2015 the company estimated bank-card acceptance fees reached
nearly $750 million -- and yet the fees are totally out of the
company's control and totally up to Visa and MasterCard. Further,
the fees are the same for Visa or MasterCard because, the company
claims, they have colluded with issuing banks to set the price.

"There is no competition," the lawsuit alleges. "These banks
typically compete for cardholders, but they do not compete for
merchant acceptance or over the interchange fees that merchants
must pay to accept their Visa and MasterCard cards."

Contending that interchange fees are unlawful under price-fixing
laws, Home Depot says they discriminate against online merchants
that rely almost completely on credit and debit cards for
transactions.

Merchants also typically have to honor all branded credit cards
-- accept one Visa credit card, and you must accept them all,
according to the complaint.

The high interchange fees may have been the unintended result of
the sweeping Dodd-Frank financial reform bill in 2010. The final
bill included an amendment by Sen. Richard Durbin that attempted
to curb credit card processing fees. At the time, many retailers
and banks opposed the rule, claiming it would impose greater costs
on consumers.

The rule passed and was upheld in federal court. In response,
however, Visa imposed a new fee of five basis points that would
punish banks for changing their network affiliation. MasterCard
also responded with a new "volume assessment fee" that would
penalize card issuers when large amounts of transactions were
processed over PIN debit networks, the lawsuit claims.

"These fees are nothing other than blatant efforts to prevent
competition," Home Depot alleges, "and Visa and MasterCard
announced them in lockstep to make sure issuing banks know they
face retribution for supporting PIN debit options."

Eisen said Home Depot's allegation of price-fixing is "not a
surprise," noting that the merchant was one of the many that opted
out of the 2012 settlement. "We expected this procedural step."


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Reaches $14.7-Bil. Deal to Settle Emissions Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., and
Volkswagen Group of America Chattanooga Operations, LLC have
reached a settlement with the United States of America, on behalf
of the United States Environmental Protection Agency; and the
State of California to resolve litigation over the emissions tests
scandal.  Under the deal, Volkswagen would be required to pay
about $14.7 billion:

   $10,033,000,000 to compensate owners of Volkswagen vehicles;

    $2,000,000,000 in the form of investments over a 10-year
                   period to support increased use of technology
                   for Zero Emission Vehicles ("ZEV") in
                   California and the United States; and

    $2,700,000,000 to fund Eligible Mitigation Actions that will
                   reduce emissions of NOx where Volkswagen's
                   vehicles were, are, or will be operated.

A copy of the Partial Consent Decree is available at:

   http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=yocKilAU

The United States of America, on behalf of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency, filed a complaint on January 4,
2016, against Volkswagen AG, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.,
Volkswagen Group of America Chattanooga Operations, LLC, Audi AG,
Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG, and Porsche Cars North America, Inc.
alleging that Defendants violated Sections 203(a)(1), (2), (3)(A),
and (3)(B) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. Sections 7522(a)(1),
(2), (3)(A), and (3)(B), with regard to approximately 500,000
model year 2009 to 2015 motor vehicles containing 2.0 liter diesel
engines and approximately 80,000 model year 2009 to 2016 motor
vehicles containing 3.0 liter diesel engines, for a total of
approximately 580,000 motor vehicles.

The U.S. Complaint alleges that each Subject Vehicle contains, as
part of the engine control module ("ECM"), certain computer
algorithms that cause the emissions control system of those
vehicles to perform differently during normal vehicle operation
and use than during emissions testing.  The U.S. Complaint alleges
that these computer algorithms are prohibited defeat devices under
the Act, and that during normal vehicle operation and use, the
Subject Vehicles emit levels of oxides of nitrogen ("NOx")
significantly in excess of the EPA compliant levels.  The U.S.
Complaint alleges and asserts four claims for relief related to
the presence of the defeat devices in the Subject Vehicles.

The People of the State of California, by and through the
California Air Resources Board and Kamala D. Harris, Attorney
General of the State of California, filed a complaint on June 28,
2016, against the Defendants alleging that Defendants violated
Cal. Health & Safety Code Sections 43106, 43107, 43151, 43152,
43153, 43205, 43211, and 43212; Cal. Code Regs. tit. 13, Sections
1903, 1961, 1961.2, 1965, 1968.2, and 2037, and 40 C.F.R. Sections
incorporated by reference in those California regulations; Cal.
Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200 et seq., 17500 et seq., and
17580.5; Cal. Civ. Code Sec. 3494; and 12 U.S.C. Sec. 5531 et
seq., with regard to approximately 71,000 model year 2009 to 2015
motor vehicles containing 2.0 liter diesel engines and
approximately 16,000 model year 2009 to 2016 motor vehicles
containing 3.0 liter diesel engines, for a total of approximately
87,000 motor vehicles.

The California Complaint alleges, in relevant part, that the motor
vehicles contain prohibited defeat devices and have resulted in,
and continue to result in, increased NOx emissions from each such
vehicle significantly in excess of CARB requirements, that these
vehicles have resulted in the creation of a public nuisance,  and
that Defendants engaged in related conduct that violated unfair
competition, false advertising, and consumer protection laws.

On June 28, 2016, the United States and California entered into a
Partial Consent Decree with Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Volkswagen
Group of America, Inc., and Volkswagen Group of America
Chattanooga Operations, LLC -- Settling Defendants -- to address
the 2.0 Liter Subject Vehicles on the road and the associated
environmental consequences resulting from the past and future
excess emissions from the 2.0 Liter Subject Vehicles.

The Settling Defendants admit that software in the 2.0 Liter
Subject Vehicles enables the vehicles' ECMs to detect when the
vehicles are being driven on the road, rather than undergoing
Federal Test Procedures, and that this software renders certain
emission control systems in the vehicles inoperative when the ECM
detects the vehicles are not undergoing Federal Test Procedures,
resulting in emissions that exceed EPA-compliant and CARBcompliant
levels when the vehicles are driven on the road.

The Settling Defendants admit that this software was not disclosed
in the Certificate of Conformity and Executive Order applications
for the 2.0 Liter Subject Vehicles, and, as a result, the design
specifications of the 2.0 Liter Subject Vehicles, as manufactured,
differ materially from the design specifications described in the
Certificate of Conformity and Executive Order applications.

Nothing in the Partial Consent Decree shall constitute an
admission of any fact or law by any Party except for the purpose
of enforcing the terms or conditions set forth.

Pursuant to the Partial Consent Decree, the Parties agree that the
2.0 Liter Subject Vehicles on the road emit NOx at levels above
the standards to which they were certified to EPA and CARB
pursuant to the Clean Air Act and the California Health and Safety
Code, and a prompt remedy to address the noncompliance is needed.
At the present time, there are no practical engineering solutions
that would, without negative impact to vehicle functions and
unacceptable delay, bring the 2.0 Liter Subject Vehicles into
compliance with the exhaust emission standards and the on-board
diagnostics requirements to which VW certified the vehicles to EPA
and CARB.

As one element of the remedy to address the Clean Air Act and
California Health and Safety Code violations, the Settling
Defendants agree to remove from commerce in the United States
and/or perform an Approved Emissions Modification on at least 85%
of the 2.0 Liter Subject Vehicles ("Recall Rate"). To this end,
the Settling Defendants must offer each and every Eligible Owner
and Eligible Lessee of an Eligible Vehicle the option of the
Buyback of the Eligible Vehicle or the Lease Termination.

In addition, the Settling Defendants shall offer Eligible Owners
and Eligible Lessees the option of an emissions modification in
accordance with certain technical specifications, if the Settling
Defendants propose such a modification and EPA/CARB approve it.

The Settling Defendants estimate that the total cost of injunctive
relief and the related Class Action Settlement and FTC Order may
be up to $10,033,000,000.

In the event Settling Defendants do not achieve an 85% Recall
Rate, the Settling Defendants must pay additional funds into the
Mitigation Trust.

Practical engineering solutions provided by Appendix B of the
Partial Consent Decree -- Vehicle Recall and Emissions
Modification Program -- should the Settling Defendants propose the
emissions modifications consistent with the provisions of Appendix
B, would substantially reduce NOx emissions from the 2.0 Liter
Subject Vehicles and improve their on-board diagnostics, would
avoid undue waste and potential environmental harm that would be
associated with removing the 2.0 Liter Subject Vehicles from
service, and would allow Eligible Owners and Eligible Lessees to
retain their Eligible Vehicles if they want to do so.

Members of the public who are Eligible Owners or Eligible Lessees
of Eligible Vehicles will benefit from the relief provided by this
Consent Decree.  The Settling Defendants will direct
$2,000,000,000 of investments over a 10-year period to support
increased use of technology for Zero Emission Vehicles ("ZEV") in
California and the United States and may include investments
related to ZEV infrastructure, access to ZEVs, and ZEV education.
The ZEV investments required by this Consent Decree are intended
to address the adverse environmental impacts arising from
consumers' purchases of the 2.0 Liter Subject Vehicles, which the
United States and California contend were purchased with the
mistaken belief that they were lower-emitting vehicles;

According to Appendix D of the Partial Consent Decree -- Form of
Environmental Mitigation Trust Agreement -- the Settling
Defendants will pay a total of $2,700,000,000 to fund Eligible
Mitigation Actions that will reduce emissions of NOx where the 2.0
Liter Subject Vehicles were, are, or will be operated. The funding
for the Eligible Mitigation Actions required by this Consent
Decree is intended to fully mitigate the total, lifetime excess
NOx emissions from the 2.0 Liter Subject Vehicles.

The Parties state that the Consent Decree has been negotiated by
the Parties in good faith and will avoid litigation among the
Parties regarding certain relief with respect to the 2.0 Liter
Subject Vehicles for the claims alleged in the Complaints, and
that the Consent Decree is fair, reasonable, and in the public
interest.

The case is captioned, In re: Volkswagen "Clean Diesel" Marketing,
Sales Practices, And Products Liability Litigation, Case No: MDL
No. 2672 CRB (JSC)(N.D. Cal.).


VOLKSWAGEN AG: BRS Files Lawsuit in Calif. Under Securities Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Boston Retirement System (BRS), Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. VOLKSWAGEN AG, VOLKSWAGEN
GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA FINANCE, LLC.,
MARTIN WINTERKORN, and MICHAEL HORN, Defendants, Case 3:16-cv-
03435 (N.D. Cal., June 20, 2016), was brought on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired private debt exempt
from registration with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
under Rule 144A of Volkswagen AG between May 23, 2014 and
September 22, 2015, inclusive.

Volkswagen is one of the world's leading automobile manufacturers
and the largest carmaker in Europe.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel J. Veroff
     James M. Wagstaffe
     Daniel J. Veroff
     KERR & WAGSTAFFE LLP
     101 Mission Street
     18th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105
     Phone: (415) 371-8500
     Fax: (415) 371-0500
     E-mail: wagstaffe@kerrwagstaffe.com
             veroff@kerrwagstaffe.com

        - and -

     Thomas A. Dubbs, Esq.
     Michael H. Rogers, Esq.
     Jeffrey A. Dubbin, Esq.
     LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
     140 Broadway
     New York, NY 10005
     Phone: (212) 907-0700
     Fax: (212) 818-0477


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Labaton Sucharon Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP ("Labaton Sucharow") filed a securities class
action lawsuit on June 20, 2016 on behalf of its client Boston
Retirement System ("BRS") against Volkswagen AG, its wholly owned
subsidiary Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., its further
subsidiary Volkswagen Group of America Finance, Inc. (together,
"Volkswagen"), and certain senior executives (collectively
"Defendants").  The action, which is captioned BRS v. Volkswagen,
No. 16-cv-3435 (N.D. Cal.), asserts claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act"), and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, on behalf of all persons or entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired U.S.-issued debt securities of
Volkswagen between May 23, 2014 and September 22, 2015, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). The securities at issue (the "Offerings")
are listed in the chart is available at https://is.gd/Vqi31P

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants
made false and misleading statements and concealed a scheme to
defraud investors in the Offerings regarding the Company's
operations, its business and finances, and its outlook.
Specifically, Defendants caused its Offerings to trade at
artificially inflated prices by failing to disclose that
Volkswagen utilized a "defeat device" in certain of its diesel
cars that allowed such cars to temporarily reduce emissions during
testing, while achieving higher performance and fuel economy, as
well as discharging dramatically higher emissions, when testing
was not being conducted.  The Complaint alleges that Defendants
made misrepresentations and omissions in its public statements as
well as in its offering memoranda in connection with the issuance
of over $8 billion of Offerings on May 23, 2014, November 20,
2014, and May 22, 2015.  Through this series of revelations and
Volkswagen's admissions, the Offerings have declined from an
average of 99.854% par value on September 18, 2015 to an average
of 95.624% par value on September 22, 2015, representing a decline
of over $300 million.

If you purchased or acquired Volkswagen Offerings during the Class
Period, you are a member of the Class and may be able to seek
appointment as Lead Plaintiff.  Lead Plaintiff motion papers must
be filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California no later than August 22, 2016.  A lead plaintiff is a
court-appointed representative for the Class.  You do not need to
seek appointment as lead plaintiff to share in any Class recovery
in this action.  If you are a Class member and there is a recovery
for the Class, you can share in that recovery as an absent Class
member.  You may retain counsel of your choice to represent you in
this action.

If you have any questions about participation in this lawsuit, or
concerns about potential recovery for individual bond issuances
you may have purchased, you may contact Michael H. Rogers, Esq. of
Labaton Sucharow, at (212) 907-0814, or via email at
mrogers@labaton.com

You can view a copy of the complaint online at
https://is.gd/PoirRR

BRS is represented by Labaton Sucharow, which represents many of
the largest pension funds in the United States and
internationally, with collective assets under management of more
than $2 trillion.  Labaton Sucharow's litigation reputation is
built on its half century of securities litigation experience, 60
full-time attorneys, and in-house team of investigators, financial
analysts, and forensic accountants.

Labaton Sucharow's offices are located in New York, NY and
Wilmington, DE.


WAFFLE HOUSE: Hearing Today on Arbitration Bid
----------------------------------------------
Eva Fedderly, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
class action in Orlando, Fla. claiming Waffle House didn't hire
prospective employees based on false information garnered from
background checks, will proceed, despite Waffle House trying to
shut the case down.

Lead plaintiff William Jones attempted to get a job at a Waffle
House in Ormond Beach, Fla. in December 2014, and claims the
defendant restaurant chain, an icon in the Southeastern U.S.,
violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act because it procured a
background report from defendant The Source for Public Data, L.P,
without taking adequate steps to make sure the information
reported was accurate.

Jones claims that Waffle House refused to hire him based on the
information about supposed criminal convictions, despite it being
false. He sued the restaurant chain on Oct. 1, 2015.

Under the FCRA, "when preparing a consumer report, a consumer
reporting agency is required to "follow reasonable procedures to
assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the
individual about whom the report relates," the federal judge order
states, citing the background of the class action.

The reporting agency must also notify the consumer before they
provide information that could have an adverse effect on the
consumer's employment opportunities, which Jones said Public Data
did not do.

Waffle House and Public Data moved to dismiss the lawsuit for lack
of standing, stating that there is no proof that Waffle House ran
a search on the plaintiff using Public Data, and therefore Jones
cannot prove "injury-in-fact, causation, or redressability."

Additionally, defendants claim that Jones was since hired at a
Waffle House in Kansas City, Mo., where he signed an arbitration
agreement with Waffle House. Waffle House moved to compel
arbitration.

On June 16, U.S. District Judge Roy Dalton, Jr. tossed Waffle
House's motion on the purported lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, holding that "as a general rule, 'federal claims
should not be dismissed on a motion for lack of subject matter.'"

The judge went on to rule that "arbitration under the FAA is
ultimately 'a matter of consent, not coercion.'"

There will be a hearing on July 1 to decide if the case will go to
arbitration.

Joshua Eggnatz of Eggnatz, Lopatin, & Pascucci represents the
plaintiff and did not immediately response to a telephone call
from Courthouse News seeking comment.

Waffle House's communications department did not respond to either
an email or a phone call from Courthouse News seeking comment.

The case captioned, WILLIAM JONES, Plaintiff, v. WAFFLE HOUSE,
INC.; WH CAPITAL,LLC; THE SOURCE FOR PUBLIC DATA, L.P.; HADOWSOFT,
INC; HARLINGTON-STRAKER-STUDIO, INC.; and DALE BRUCE
STRINGFELLOW, Defendants, Case No. 6:15-cv-1637-Orl-37DAB (M.D.
Fla.).


WEATHERFORD US: "Jones" Sues Over Underfunded Pension Plan
------------------------------------------------------------
Casey Jones, Brandon Vigil and Bojess Villegas, on their own
behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. Weatherford Laboratories, Inc. and Weatherford US, LP.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01385 (D. Colo., June 9, 2016), seeks
unpaid wages, minimum wage, and overtime, liquidated damages and
penalties, attorney fees and costs, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest and such other relief under the Colorado Wage Claim Act,
Colorado Minimum Wages of Workers Act and the Colorado Minimum
Wage Order.

Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as Wellsite
Specialists, preparing and processing core samples onsite at
oilfields around the country and the world and transporting them
to laboratories in Colorado and Texas for testing. Defendants
misclassified Plaintiffs and failed to pay them overtime wages.

Weatherford Laboratories, Inc. and Weatherford US, LP are
oilfield-serving laboratories with principal office at 2000 St.
James Place, Houston, Texas 77056, and extensive operations in
Golden, Colorado and Arvada, Colorado.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gregory A. Hall, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF GREGORY A. HALL
     3570 E. 12th Avenue, Suite 200
     Denver, CO 80206
     Phone: 303-320-0584
     Email: gregory@federallaw.com

          - and -

     Rajasimha Raghunath, Esq.
     UNIVERSITY OF DENVER STURM COLLEGE OF LAW
     2255 E. Evans Ave., Rm. 463A
     Denver, CO 80208
     Phone: 720-808-1231
     E-mail: raghunathlawfirm@gmail.com


WENDY'S CO: AOD Federal Files Lawsuit in Penn. Over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
AOD FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THE WENDY'S COMPANY, WENDY'S
RESTAURANTS, LLC, and WENDY'S INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Defendants, Case
2:16-cv-00900-MPK (W.D. Penn., June 20, 2016), was brought on
behalf of financial institutions throughout the United States to
recover damages that they and others similarly situated have
suffered as a direct result of the Wendy's data breach. Plaintiff
asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, and declaratory
and injunctive relief.

Wendy's is engaged in the business of operating, developing and
franchising a system of quick-service restaurants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
     Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq.
     CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
     1133 Penn Ave., 5th Floor
     Pittsburgh, PA 15222
     Phone: (412) 322-9243
     Fax: (412) 231-0246
     E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
             jetzel@carlsonlynch.com

        - and -

     Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
     Jason R. Lee, Esq.
     ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
     1100 IDS Center
     80 South 8th Street
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Phone: (612) 341-0400
     Fax: (612) 341-0844
     E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com
             jason.lee@zimmreed.com

        - and -

     Jonathan L. Kudulis, Esq.
     TRIMMIER, KUDULIS, REISINGER, LLC
     2737 Highland Avenue South
     Birmingham, AL 35205
     Phone: (205) 251-3151
     Fax: (205) 322-6444
     E-mail: jkudulis@trimmier.com

        - and -

     Chris T. Hellums, Esq.
     Jonathan S. Mann, Esq.
     PITTMAN, DUTTON & HELLUMS, P.C.
     2001 Park Place North, Suite 1100
     Birmingham, AL 35203
     Phone: (205) 322-8880
     Fax: (205) 328-2711
     E-mail: chrish@pittmandutton.com
             jonm@pittmandutton.com


WENDY'S COMPANY: Veridian Sues in W.D. Penn. Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
VERIDIAN CREDIT UNION, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE WENDY'S COMPANY, WENDY'S
RESTAURANTS, LLC, and WENDY'S INTERNATIONAL, LLC, the Defendants,
Case No. 2:16-cv-00831-NBF (W.D. Penn., June 15, 2016), seeks to
recover costs that they and others similarly situated have been
forced to bear as a direct result of the Wendy's data breach and
to obtain other equitable relief. The Plaintiff asserts claims for
negligence, negligence per se, and declaratory relief.

According to the complaint, the financial costs caused by Wendy's
deficient data security approach have been borne primarily by the
financial institutions, like Plaintiff, that issued the payment
cards compromised in the data breach. These costs include, but are
not limited to, canceling and reissuing compromised cards and
reimbursing their customers for fraudulent charges. Industry
sources estimate that the fraudulent charges have been more
concentrated than in other recent data breaches (e.g., Target and
Home Depot), causing Plaintiff and other members of the Class to
suffer much greater losses.

Wendy's is the world's third largest quick-service hamburger
company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA
          & CARPENTER, LLP
          1133 Penn Ave., 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322 9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231 0246
          E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
                  jetzel@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -

          Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
          Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401-2159
          Telephone: (612) 339 6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339 0981
          E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com
                  kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com


WENDY'S: No. of Franchises Breached Higher Than Initially Thought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Goldman, writing for eSecurity Planet, reports that Veridian
Credit Union recently filed a class action lawsuit against Wendy's
in response to a credit card breach that hit the fast food
vendor's point of sale (POS) systems starting in the fall of 2015,
Law360 reports.

The class action, filed on behalf of all U.S. financial
institutions whose customers were affected by the breach, claims
that Wendy's failed to prevent the breach by updating its POS
systems.

"Despite the growing threat of computer system intrusion, Wendy's
systematically failed to comply with industry standards and
protect payment card and customer data," the complaint alleges.

Veridian claims that Wendy's security systems were outdated,
credit card information wasn't deleted when it was supposed to be,
antivirus software wasn't regularly updated, firewalls weren't
maintained, and access to network and credit card data wasn't
monitored.

"It is well known that customer data is valuable and often
targeted by hackers," the complaint states.  "Yet, despite the
increasing occurrences of data breaches of systems of other
restaurants and retailers, Wendy's refused to take steps to
adequately protect its computer systems from intrusion."

Earlier in June, Wendy's stated that the breach in question had
affected many more locations than first thought when the breach
was initially disclosed on May 11, 2016.

"Based on the preliminary findings of the previously-disclosed
investigation, the company reported on May 11 that malware had
been discovered on the point of sale (POS) system at fewer than
300 franchised North America Wendy's restaurants," the company
announced.  "An additional 50 franchise restaurants were also
suspected of experiencing, or had been found to have, other
cybersecurity issues.  As a result of these issues, the company
directed its investigator to continue to investigate."

"In this continued investigation, the company has recently
discovered a variant of the malware, similar in nature to the
original, but different in its execution," Wendy's added.  "The
attackers used a remote access tool to target a POS system that,
as of the May 11th announcement, the company believed had not been
affected."

As a result, Wendy's says the number of franchise locations
affected by the breach is expected to be "considerably higher"
than first thought.

Wendy's spokesman Bob Bertini told KrebsOnSecurity that it's too
early to pin down a specific number of stores affected, or to be
sure that the breach is fully contained.  "Wherever we are finding
it we've taken action," he said.  "But we can't rule out that
there aren't others."

BalaBit product manager Peter Gyongyosi told eSecurity Planet by
email that there are several key steps merchants should take to
avoid being hit by these types of attacks.  "The first step is to
realize that POS terminals are extremely attractive targets for
attackers, and treat them accordingly," he said.  "Ensure that the
network connection is protected and firewalled from the rest of
the infrastructure.  Apply all firmware updates as soon as they
become available."

"And just as they would keep a close eye on any access to critical
infrastructure, it's important to monitor and analyze all
administrative traffic that goes to these terminals," Gyongyosi
added.  "There should be no updates that the merchant doesn't know
about, and any amounts of large or unusual traffic should raise an
alarm."

A recent eSecurity Planet article offered advice on securing
sensitive data in a post-perimeter world.


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Self Cleaning Ovens
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that when its AquaLift self-
cleaning oven technology proved useless, Whirlpool advised
consumers to clean their ovens manually, a man claims in a federal
class action in Detroit.


WINGED FOOT GOLF CLUB: Sued Over Alleged 50-Year Fraud
------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
The Winged Foot Golf Club, a five-time host of the U.S. Open, has
misrepresented itself as a non-profit for more than half a century
to encourage shareholders to sell their valuable stock for pennies
on the dollar, a federal lawsuit claims.

With its West Course ranked 9th in Golf Digest's listing of
"America's 100 Greatest Golf Courses," the Mamaroneck, N.Y.-based
golf club has attracted the sport's top contests since shortly
after it opened in 1923.

Six years after it launched, Winged Foot presented its first U.S.
Open, and the U.S. Golf Association announced that the tournament
will mark its 120th anniversary on its Westchester green in 2020.

Before it attained those distinctions, Winged Foot began with 600
investors pooling $1,000 each into a $600,000 consortium, a hefty
sum for the Roaring '20s.

With that amount, noted golf architect A.W. Tillinghast designed
two 18-hole courses on the club's 280 acres. Winged Foot's
stockholders were its original members, but the club started
allowing others to pay annual dues during the Great Depression to
make ends meet.

Kevin Clune, whose late mother Barbara Clune inherited one share
from her father, claims that Winged Foot's directors, lawyers, and
corporate entities have been goading stockholders like him to sell
their shares at fire-sale prices for decades.

The defendants include Winged Foot's director and president
Desmond Barry, Jr., its longtime member and ex-governor George
Gillespie, III, and the club itself.

"Starting no later than the early 1960s, over the past decades and
continuing up to the present day, plaintiff, and other class
members, were solicited to sell their shares based upon materially
false and misleading representations, for amounts ranging from
approximately $1,000 to the recent $3,000 purchase by the club of
plaintiff's share, when defendants knew this share could be worth
between $500,000 to $1,000,000 or more," his 36-page complaint
states.

Dancing around their disclosure obligations, Winged Foot directors
claimed the holding company was not a for-profit entity and its
shares were not valuable, according to the lawsuit.

In 1960, top law firm Kelley Drye Newhall & Maginnes advised
Winged Foot Holding Corporation that the club made its Depression-
era lease amendments without legal authority because of the
"extreme informality" of the corporate proceedings, according to
the lawsuit.

The firm advised the club to acquire the shares legally by getting
an independent appraisal of their market value, but shareholders
claim that the directors knowingly ignored that counsel.

In 1975, then-president Gillespie wrote in a letter: "Someone, who
[can afford to hire a lawyer] may come along one day [and litigate
a rejected transfer], but so far we have been lucky," according to
the complaint.

"If such litigation were brought, my view is that Winged Foot
would not only lose the case, but would also lose many future
opportunities to pick up shares," he allegedly wrote.

Clunes demands class-action punitive damages for three counts of
violating the Exchange Act, common law fraud, and breach of
fiduciary duty.

He is represented by John Halebian, a partner with the Manhattan-
based firm Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson, who filed the
complaint in White Plains on June 13.

The Winged Foot Golf Club did not immediately respond to an
emailed request for comment.


* 9th Circuit Examines Use of Rule 68 to Moot Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Justin T. Winquist, Esq. -- jwinquist@bakerlaw.com -- of Baker &
Hostetler LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that as
reported earlier this year in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S.
Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the Supreme Court held that a putative class
action does not become moot when a defendant merely offers a named
plaintiff full relief on his or her individual claims under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 68.  Left unanswered was the question whether the
outcome would be different if a defendant deposited "the full
amount of the plaintiff's individual claims into an account
payable to the plaintiff, and the court then entered judgment for
the plaintiff in that amount." Id.  The Ninth Circuit is the first
circuit court to examine the use of Rule 68 to moot a putative
class action post-Campbell-Ewald.

In Chen v. Allstate Insurance Co., 819 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2016),
two plaintiffs brought a class action complaint against Allstate
Insurance Company (Allstate), alleging violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).  Allstate tendered an offer of
judgment of $25,000 plus attorney fees and injunctive relief to
the plaintiffs before the plaintiffs moved for class
certification.  When the plaintiffs did not accept the offer,
Allstate moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaints for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that the claims were rendered
moot by the offer. Id.  While the motion to dismiss was pending,
one of the plaintiffs accepted Allstate's Rule 68 offer; the other
did not. Id.  The district court denied Allstate's motion to
dismiss, holding that even if the Rule 68 offer fully satisfied a
plaintiff's individual claims, a plaintiff still had the
opportunity to move for class certification when the action as a
whole remained a justiciable controversy. Id.  The district court
relied on the Ninth Circuit's decision in Pitts v. Terrible
Herbst, Inc., 653 F. 3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2011), which held that an
unaccepted Rule 68 offer that was made before class certification
and fully satisfied a named plaintiff's individual claims did not
moot a class action claim when the defendant used tactics to "pick
off" named plaintiffs to avoid a class action.

The Ninth Circuit granted Allstate interlocutory appeal to review
whether Pitts was still good law in light of the Supreme Court's
decision in Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 133 S. Ct. 1523
(2013), which held that a collective action claim under the Fair
Labor Standards Act was no longer justiciable when the defendant's
Rule 68 offer satisfied the only named plaintiff's individual
claims.  While the appeal was pending, the Supreme Court issued
its decision in Campbell-Ewald. Id. at 1141.  At that point,
Allstate deposited funds into an escrow account pending a district
court order or judgment directing the escrow agent to pay the
funds to the plaintiff, providing the plaintiff injunctive relief,
and dismissing the case as moot. Id. at 1144, 1146.

The Ninth Circuit rejected this approach.  The court reasoned that
as it understood Campbell-Ewald, a claim becomes "moot when a
plaintiff actually receives all the relief he or she could receive
on the claim through further litigation," and the plaintiff here
had not and would not actually receive the relief until the
district court ordered the funds to be released and dismissed the
entire action as moot. Id. at 1144-46.  The court also noted that
under the common law doctrine of tender, the funds might have been
treated as an actual receipt of payment if Allstate had deposited
the funds in the court rather than an escrow account with
conditions on payment. Id.

Next, the Ninth Circuit held that Pitts was still good law in
light of Genesis Healthcare based on its prior decision in Gomez
v. Campbell-Ewald Co., 768 F.3d 871 (9th Cir. 2014), which held
that Pitts was irreconcilable with Genesis Healthcare due to the
fundamental differences in class action and collective action
claims. Id. at 1143.  The court went on to explain that because
the Gomez decision was not clearly irreconcilable with the
intervening Supreme Court authority in Genesis Healthcare, the
court was bound by the controlling circuit precedent in Gomez. Id.
at 1143-44.  Thus, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the class
claims would be unaffected even if Allstate's deposit into escrow
had mooted the named plaintiff's individual claims.

The Ninth Circuit also held that even if Pitts were not binding, a
district court should "decline to enter judgment affording
complete relief on a named plaintiff's individual claim, over the
plaintiff's objection, before the plaintiff has had a fair
opportunity to move for class certification." Id. at 1148.  The
court reasoned that such judgments would be inconsistent with
Campbell-Ewald's holding that a would-be class representative with
a live claim must be afforded a fair opportunity to show that
class certification is warranted. Id. at 1447.

Thus, while the Ninth Circuit partially closed the door that
Campbell-Ewald left open by finding that a deposit into escrow was
insufficient to moot a named plaintiff's claims, it left open the
possibility that these claims could be mooted by the plaintiff's
actual receipt or an "unconditional relinquishment" of funds
satisfying the claim.  Even if actual receipt can moot the named
plaintiff's claims before certification, however, it may still
have no effect on the plaintiff's ability to seek class
certification in circuits with precedent like Pitts, which allow
class claims to go forward even if the named plaintiff's claims
are completely satisfied. It remains to be seen whether the Ninth
Circuit's analysis will be adopted by other courts, and we will
continue to follow developments in this area.


* Companies Subject to TCPA Class Actions Should Weigh MDL Risks
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel R. Stoller, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that
companies subject to multiple consumer Telephone Consumer
Protection Act class actions should weigh the costs and benefits
of a multi-district litigation (MDL) approach, privacy attorneys
told Bloomberg BNA June 13.

These companies, such as ride-sharing giants Uber Technologies
Inc. and Lyft Inc., may want to seek the lower cost and higher
efficiency multi-district litigation approach, however, they
should be wary of the risks involved combining multiple actions
together, the attorneys said.

According to Bloomberg Law research, there are 13 active federal
trial court TCPA cases against Uber and Lyft.  All of these cases
are being heard separately, even though some share claims for
sending unsolicited marketing text messages without consumer
consent.

"It is increasingly common" to combine TCPA actions into MDLs,
David Almeida -- dalmeida@sheppardmullin.com -- class action
partner at Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP in Chicago,
said.  "Once a big name company is sued in a TCPA action it is
very common to see tag-along suits" in which many "plaintiff's
lawyers try to get a piece of the pie," he said.

With the rise of TCPA class actions for these companies, MDLs can
be a haven for lower costs and avoidance for inconsistent rulings,
he said.

But the bottom line is that corporate defendants in TCPA cases
need to do a case-by-case analysis of whether consolidating cases
to save costs might backfire.  Possible negative rulings from a
single court may have an outsize impact that companies should
consider.

Ride-sharing services, such as Uber and Lyft, should consider that
the CAN-SPAM Act for e-mails is easier to comply with than the
TCPA is for texts, attorneys said.

Is MDL the Best Approach?

MDLs can help lower costs and save time for both plaintiffs and
defendants, but is it the best approach for a TCPA class action?

Troy Lieberman, litigation attorney at Nixon Peabody International
LLP in Boston and co-chair of the firm's TCPA practice, thinks
that MDLs "may not be the most effective mechanism" for robotext
cases because they tend to reach "settlement quickly."

Even though the Uber cases may have "similar questions of fact,"
the MDL "committee would be caught up with whether or not it would
be the most effective use of time" to pursue a consolidated case,
he said.

Due to the unique nature of TCPA cases, MDLs may not actually
reduce discovery costs, Mr. Lieberman said.  TCPA cases are much
different from other MDL cases because "they aren't time
sensitive" and obtaining the facts of the case "aren't as
expansive and time consuming" as complex litigations like toxic
torts, he said.

Also by consolidating cases under an MDL, a company may actually
increase risks for an adverse ruling.  "When you have nine
separate cases you can have a wide variety of decisions," which
allows companies to mitigate risks from one negative ruling,
Mr. Lieberman said.  If there is a negative ruling from a MDL
judge, the company "will have no argument to get out of things,"
he said.

At the end of the day, a company will have "look at the court and
the jurisprudence of the judge" to decide if a MDL or tackling
individual class actions is the right approach.

Almeida takes a different approach and believes MDLs for TCPA
actions "make a lot of sense."  Because of the confusion
surrounding the Federal Communication Commissions' "lack of
clarity in recent TCPA regulations -- including on the issues of
capacity and consent -- it is better to have one judge evaluating
these issues as opposed to a dozen or so judges across the country
that may reach wildly varying outcomes," he said.

With a centralized process at the MDL level "discovery and class
certification can be extremely beneficial, not solely because of
cost, but also so as to avoid inconsistent rulings -- which are
becoming very common in TCPA cases," Mr. Almeida said.

Push Notifications and E-Mail

Ride-sharing services that rely on mobile applications may better
avoid civil liability by avoiding text messaging and sending e-
mails or push notifications, the privacy attorneys told Bloomberg
BNA.

Almeida said that "e-mail and push notifications are great ways to
avoid TCPA liability."  Even with CAN-SPAM regulating e-mails,
"there is -- with very minor exceptions -- no private right of
action" nor is there a "class action risk," he said.

Many companies, including Uber, have "turned to push notifications
to avoid TCPA liability," Mr. Almeida said.  And even though "the
FCC hasn't spoken to this specifically, it's generally thought
that push notifications will fall outside the TCPA," he said.

Mr. Lieberman agreed that e-mails and push notifications are an
interesting way around TCPA liability and that "CAN-SPAM is much
easier to comply with."

But he cautioned that companies must look to state laws and
regulations to avoid litigation at the lower courts.  "Recently,
Connecticut passed a state TCPA law that is more robust than the
federal statute," he said. The Connecticut law includes "mobile
push notifications," Lieberman said.

Any company that has a mobile application and uses text messages,
e-mails or push notifications would be best off being aware of
both "federal and state" obligations to avoid liability, he said.



                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Insurance Coverage Ruling Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the appeals case captioned GOULDS PUMPS, INC., Plaintiff and
Respondent, v. TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, Defendant
and Appellant, No. B255439 (Cal. App.), Defendant Travelers
Casualty and Surety Company, appeals from a judgment entered in an
insurance coverage case after a court trial.  The trial court
found that defendant's excess policies provided occurrence based
coverage for certain asbestos-related losses incurred by
plaintiff, Goulds Pumps, Inc.  The Court of Appeals of California,
Second District, Division Five, affirmed the judgment.

Dentons US, Ronald D. Kent, Esq. -- ronald.kent@dentons.com -- and
Susan M. Walker, Esq. -- susan.walker@dentons.com -- McCloskey,
Waring & Waisman and Sonia S. Waisman -- swaisman@mwwllp.com --
represented Defendant and Appellant.

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Paul A. Zevnik, Esq. --
paul.zevnik@morganlewis.com -- Michel Y. Horton, Esq. --
michel.horton@morganlewis.com -- and David S. Cox, Esq. --
david.cox@morganlewis.com -- represented Plaintiff and Respondent.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Affirms Order Dismissing "Boudreaux"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gerald Boudreaux died of lung cancer.  His survivors sued several
entities and their insurers claiming that Mr. Boudreaux's exposure
to asbestos at worksites caused or significantly contributed to
his disease.  Dr. Gerald E. Liuzza, a pathologist, was proposed by
the plaintiffs as an expert witness to establish the causative
link between the asbestos exposure and the disease.

Trinity Industries, Inc., one of the defendants, provoked a
Daubert-Foret hearing to challenge, specifically, the methodology
employed by Dr. Liuzza in arriving at his opinion.  Its insurers,
Continental Insurance Company, Hartford Accident and Indemnity
Company, and Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London, joined in and
adopted Trinity's two motions.  The trial judge excluded Dr.
Liuzza's proposed testimony.  Then, because the exclusion of Dr.
Liuzza's testimony meant that the plaintiffs were unable to
establish at trial an essential element of their claim, the trial
judge granted summary judgment to Trinity and its insurers and
dismissed the Boudreaux family members' lawsuit against them with
prejudice.

The parties all agree that the correctness of the ruling on the
defendants' motion for summary judgment is dependent upon the
disposition by the Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit,
of the trial judge's action in excluding Dr. Liuzza's testimony.
The Court reviewed that ruling under an abuse-of-discretion
standard which, in the absence of the trial judge's misapplication
of the law or a clearly erroneous view of the facts, is highly
deferential to the trial judge's evidentiary ruling.

The Court of Appeals held that, "The Boudreaux family members, as
the proponents of Dr. Liuzza's expert testimony, bear the burden
of proving that the methodology employed by the proposed expert is
generally accepted in the appropriate or relevant scientific
community.  With the proponents' burden of proof in mind, and in
the absence of any legal error or gross factual error, we conclude
that the trial judge did not abuse her discretion in excluding Dr.
Liuzza's proposed expert testimony on causation. And, on that
account, we affirm the grant of summary judgment and the dismissal
with prejudice of the plaintiffs' lawsuit against Trinity,
Continental, Hartford, and Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's
London."

The Court of Appeals, hence, affirmed the trial court's judgment
of August 17, 2015, which dismissed with prejudice all claims of
Dwayne Boudreaux, Gerilyn Cook, and Bryan Boudreaux, individually
and as proper parties in interest for Gerald Boudreaux, against
Trinity Industries, Inc., Continental Insurance Company, Hartford
Accident and Indemnity Company, and Certain Underwriters at
Lloyd's London.

The case is DWAYNE BOUDREAUX, GERILYN COOK, AND BRYAN BOUDREAUX,
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PROPER PARTIES IN INTEREST FOR GERALD
BOUDREAUX, v. BOLLINGER SHIPYARD, AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO
HALTER MARINE GROUP, TRINITY INDUSTRIES, INC., AS SUCCESSOR IN
INTEREST TO GRETNA MACHINE AND IRON WORKS, EALGE, INC., McCARTY
CORPORATION, TAYLOR-SEIDENBACH, INC., REILLY BENTON COMPANY.
GERILYN COOK, DWAYNE BOUDREAUX, BRYAN BOUDREAUX, v. BOLLINGER
SHIPYARD, ET AL., No. 2015-CA-1345, Consolidated With No. 2015-CA-
0958 (La. App.).

A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
https://is.gd/sjTwTx from Leagle.com.

Roshawn H. Donahue, Esq., and Scott R. Bickford, Esq. --
info@mbfirm.com -- MARTZELL & BICKFORD, A.P.C., 338 Lafayette
Street, New Orleans, LA 70130, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS.

Barbara Arras, Esq. -- barbara.arras@phelps.com -- and Patrick A.
Talley, Jr., Esq. -- patrick.talley@phelps.com -- PHELPS DUNBAR,
L.L.P., 365 Canal Street, Suite 2000, New Orleans, LA 70130,
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE TRINITY INDUSTRIES, INC.

John K. Nieset, Esq. -- jknieset@christovich.com -- CHRISTOVICH &
KEARNEY, L.L.P., Pan American Life Center, 601 Poydras Street,
Suite 2300, New Orleans, LA 70130-6078, COUNSEL FOR
DEFENDANT/APPELLEE HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY.

Paula M. Wellons, Esq. -- pwellons@twpdlaw.com -- D. Ashbrooke
Tullis, Esq. -- atullis@twpdlaw.com -- and Desiree W. Adams, Esq.
-- dadams@twpdlaw.com -- TAYLOR, WELLONS, POLITZ & DUHE, APLC,
1515 Poydras Street, Suite 1900, New Orleans, LA 70112, COUNSEL
FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON.

Glenn G. Goodier, Esq. -- ggoodier@joneswalker.com -- JONES
WALKER, LLC, 201 St. Charles Avenue, Floor 48, New Orleans, LA
70170, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE CONTINENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CSC Retains DynCorp Indemnities at March 31
------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Sciences Corporation assumed indemnities for insured
litigation associated with dormant suits by former employees of
DynCorp subsidiaries alleging exposure to asbestos and other
substances, according to CSRA Inc.'s Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended April
1, 2016.

The Company states, "In connection with the Company's acquisition
of DynCorp in 2003 and its divestiture of substantially all of
that business in two separate transactions (in 2005 to The Veritas
Capital Fund II L.P, and DI Acquisition Corp. and in 2013 to
Pacific Architects and Engineers, Incorporated (collectively, the
"DynCorp Divestitures")), CSC assumed and Computer Sciences GS
Business will retain various environmental indemnities of DynCorp
and its former subsidiaries arising from environmental
representations and warranties under which DynCorp agreed to
indemnify the purchasers of its subsidiaries DynAir Tech and
DynAir Services by Sabreliner Corporation and ALPHA Airports Group
PLC, respectively.  As part of the DynCorp Divestitures, CSC also
assumed and Computer Sciences GS Business will also retain
indemnities for insured litigation associated with dormant suits
by former employees of DynCorp subsidiaries alleging exposure to
asbestos and other substances; other indemnities related to a 2001
case arising from counter-narcotics spraying in Colombia under a
U.S. Department of State contract and the associated coverage
litigation involving the aviation insurance underwriters; and an
environmental remediation case involving HRI, a former wholly-
owned subsidiary of DynCorp, in Lawrenceville, New Jersey. CSRA
does not anticipate any material adverse effect on its financial
position, results of operations and cash flows from these
indemnities."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Still Defends Suits at March 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Corporation continues to defend itself against lawsuits
alleging personal injury from 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 March 31, 2016.

The Company states, "The Company has been named as a defendant in
lawsuits alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos
allegedly contained in, or accompanying, products made by the
Company. The Company is a co-defendant with numerous other
defendants in these lawsuits and intends to vigorously defend
itself against these claims. The claims in the Company's current
lawsuits are similar to those made in previous asbestos suits that
named the Company as a defendant, which either were dismissed when
it was shown that the Company had not supplied products to the
plaintiffs' places of work or were settled for immaterial amounts.

"As of March 31, 2016, the Company was subject to the claims, as
well as other legal proceedings and potential claims that have
arisen in the ordinary course of business.

"Although the outcome of the lawsuits, legal proceedings or
potential claims to which the Company is, or may become, a party
to cannot be determined and an estimate of the reasonably possible
loss or range of loss cannot be made, management does not believe
that the outcomes, either individually or in the aggregate, will
have a material effect on the Company's results of operations,
financial position or cash flows."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lift Stay Issue Remains Pending in D/C Ch. 11
--------------------------------------------------------------
Motions to lift the automatic stay imposed in the Chapter 11 case
of Kaanapali Land, LLC's subsidiary D/C Distribution Corporation,
remains pending, according to Kaanapali's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014.

The Company states, "Kaanapali Land, as successor by merger to
other entities, and D/C Distribution Corporation, a subsidiary of
Kaanapali Land, have been named as defendants in personal injury
actions allegedly based on exposure to asbestos. While there are
relatively few cases that name Kaanapali Land, there were a
substantial number of cases that were pending against D/C on the
U.S. mainland (primarily in California). Cases against Kaanapali
Land are allegedly based on its prior business operations in
Hawaii and cases against D/C are allegedly based on the sale of
asbestos-containing products by D/C's prior distribution business
operations primarily in California. Each entity defending these
cases believes that it has meritorious defenses against these
actions, but can give no assurances as to the ultimate outcome of
these cases. The defense of these cases has had a material adverse
effect on the financial condition of D/C as it has been forced to
file a voluntary petition for liquidation as discussed below.
Kaanapali Land does not believe that it has liability, directly or
indirectly, for D/C's obligations in those cases. Kaanapali Land
does not presently believe that the cases in which it is named
will result in any material liability to Kaanapali Land; however,
there can be no assurance in this regard.

"On February 12, 2014, counsel for Fireman's Fund, the carrier
that has been paying defense costs and settlements for the
Kaanapali Land asbestos cases, stated that it would no longer
advance fund settlements or judgments in the Kaanapali Land
asbestos cases due to the pendency of the D/C and Oahu Sugar
bankruptcies. In its communications with Kaanapali Land, Fireman's
Fund expressed its view that the automatic stay in effect in the
D/C bankruptcy case bars Fireman's Fund from making any payments
to resolve the Kaanapali Land asbestos claims because D/C
Distribution is also alleging a right to coverage under those
policies for asbestos claims against it. However, in the interim,
Fireman's Fund advised that it presently intends to continue to
pay defense costs for those cases, subject to whatever
reservations of rights may be in effect and subject further to the
policy terms. Fireman's Fund has also indicated that to the extent
that Kaanapali Land cooperates with Fireman's Fund in addressing
settlement of the Kaanapali Land asbestos cases through
coordination with its adjusters, it is Fireman's Fund's present
intention to reimburse any such payments by Kaanapali Land,
subject, among other things, to the terms of any lift-stay order,
the limits and other terms and conditions of the policies, and
prior approval of the settlements. Kaanapali Land continues to
pursue discussions with Fireman's Fund in an attempt to resolve
the issues, however, Kaanapali Land is unable to determine what
portion, if any, of settlements or judgments in the Kaanapali Land
asbestos cases will be covered by insurance.

"On February 15, 2005, D/C was served with a lawsuit entitled
American & Foreign Insurance Company v. D/C Distribution and Amfac
Corporation, Case No. 04433669 filed in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of San Francisco, Central
Justice Center. No other purported party was served. In the eight-
count complaint for declaratory relief, reimbursement and
recoupment of unspecified amounts, costs and for such other relief
as the court might grant, plaintiff alleged that it is an
insurance company to whom D/C tendered for defense and indemnity
various personal injury lawsuits allegedly based on exposure to
asbestos containing products. Plaintiff alleged that because none
of the parties have been able to produce a copy of the policy or
policies in question, a judicial determination of the material
terms of the missing policy or policies is needed. Plaintiff
sought, among other things, a declaration: of the material terms,
rights, and obligations of the parties under the terms of the
policy or policies; that the policies were exhausted; that
plaintiff is not obligated to reimburse D/C for its attorneys'
fees in that the amounts of attorneys' fees incurred by D/C have
been incurred unreasonably; that plaintiff was entitled to
recoupment and reimbursement of some or all of the amounts it has
paid for defense and/or indemnity; and that D/C breached its
obligation of cooperation with plaintiff. D/C filed an answer and
an amended cross-claim. D/C believed that it had meritorious
defenses and positions, and intended to vigorously defend. In
addition, D/C believed that it was entitled to amounts from
plaintiffs for reimbursement and recoupment of amounts expended by
D/C on the lawsuits previously tendered. In order to fund such
action and its other ongoing obligations while such lawsuit
continued, D/C entered into a Loan Agreement and Security
Agreement with Kaanapali Land, in August 2006, whereby Kaanapali
Land provided certain advances against a promissory note delivered
by D/C in return for a security interest in any D/C insurance
policy at issue in this lawsuit. In June 2007, the parties settled
this lawsuit with payment by plaintiffs in the amount of $1.6
million. Such settlement amount was paid to Kaanapali Land in
partial satisfaction of the secured indebtedness.

"Because D/C was substantially without assets and was unable to
obtain additional sources of capital to satisfy its liabilities,
D/C filed with the United States Bankruptcy Court, Northern
District of Illinois, its voluntary petition for liquidation under
Chapter 7 of Title 11, United States Bankruptcy Code during July
2007, Case No. 07-12776. Such filing is not expected to have a
material adverse effect on the Company as D/C was substantially
without assets at the time of the filing. Kaanapali Land filed
claims in the D/C bankruptcy that aggregated approximately $26.8
million, relating to both secured and unsecured intercompany debts
owed by D/C to Kaanapali Land. In addition, a personal injury law
firm based in San Francisco that represents clients with asbestos-
related claims, filed proofs of claim on behalf of approximately
two thousand claimants. While it is not likely that a significant
number of these claimants have a claim against D/C that could
withstand a vigorous defense, it is unknown how the trustee will
deal with these claims. It is not expected, however, that the
Company will receive any material additional amounts in the
liquidation of D/C.

"On or about April 28, 2015, eight litigants who filed asbestos
claims in California state court filed a motion for relief from
the automatic stay in the D/C bankruptcy. Under relevant
provisions of the bankruptcy rules and on the filing of the D/C
bankruptcy action, all pending litigation claims against D/C were
stayed pending resolution of the bankruptcy action. In their
motion, Petitioners asked the bankruptcy court to lift the stay in
the bankruptcy court to name D/C and/or its alternate entities as
defendants in their respective California state court asbestos
actions and to satisfy their claims against insurance policies
that defend and indemnify D/C and/or their alternate entities. The
Petitioner's motion to lift stay thus in part has as an objective
ultimate recovery, if any, from, among other things, insurance
policy proceeds that were allegedly assets of both the D/C and
Oahu Sugar bankruptcy estates. As noted above, Kaanapali, the EPA,
and the Navy are claimants in the Oahu Sugar bankruptcy and the
Fireman's Fund policies are allegedly among the assets of the Oahu
Sugar bankruptcy estate as well. For this and other reasons,
Kaanapali, the EPA and the Navy opposed the motion to lift stay.
After briefing and argument, on May 14, 2015, the United States
Bankruptcy Court, for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, in In Re D/C Distribution, LLC, Bankruptcy Case No. 07-
12776, issued an order lifting the stay. In the order, the court
permitted the Petitioners to "proceed in the applicable
nonbankruptcy forum to final judgment (including any appeals) in
accordance with applicable nonbankruptcy law. Claimants are
entitled to settle or enforce their claims only by collecting upon
any available insurance Debtor's liability to them in accordance
with applicable nonbankruptcy law. No recovery may be made
directly against the property of Debtor, or property of the
bankruptcy estate." Kaanapali, Firemen's Fund and the United
States appealed the bankruptcy court order lifting the stay. In
March 2016, the district court reversed the bankruptcy court order
finding that the bankruptcy court did not apply relevant law to
the facts in the case to arrive at a reasoned decision. On appeal
the district court noted that the law requires consideration of a
number of factors when lifting a stay to permit certain claims to
proceed, including consideration of the adequacy of remaining
insurance to meet claims still subject to the stay. Among other
things, the court noted that the bankruptcy court failed to
explain why it was appropriate for the petitioners to liquidate
their claims before the other claimants whose claims remained
subject to the stay. The district court remanded the case for
further proceedings. It is uncertain whether such further
proceedings on the lift stay will take place."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Continues to Defend Suits at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rexnord Corporation continues to defend itself against asbestos
lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
March 31, 2016.

The Company states, "The Company's subsidiaries are involved in
various unresolved legal actions, administrative proceedings and
claims in the ordinary course of business involving, among other
things, product liability, commercial, employment, workers'
compensation, intellectual property claims and environmental
matters. The Company establishes accruals in a manner that is
consistent with accounting principles generally accepted in the
United States for costs associated with such matters when
liability is probable and those costs are capable of being
reasonably estimated. Although it is not possible to predict with
certainty the outcome of these unresolved legal actions or the
range of possible loss or recovery, based upon current
information, management believes the eventual outcome of these
unresolved legal actions, either individually or in the aggregate,
will not have a material adverse effect on the financial position,
results of operations or cash flows of the Company.

"In connection with its sale of the Company, Invensys plc
("Invensys") has provided the Company with indemnification against
certain contingent liabilities, including certain pre-closing
environmental liabilities. The Company believes that, pursuant to
such indemnity obligations, Invensys is obligated to defend and
indemnify the Company with respect to the matters described below
relating to the Ellsworth Industrial Park Site and to various
asbestos claims. The indemnity obligations relating to the matters
described below are subject, together with indemnity obligations
relating to other matters, to an overall dollar cap equal to the
purchase price, which is an amount in excess of $900 million. The
paragraphs summarize the most significant actions and proceedings:

   * In 2002, Rexnord Industries, LLC ("Rexnord Industries") was
named as a potentially responsible party ("PRP"), together with at
least ten other companies, at the Ellsworth Industrial Park Site,
Downers Grove, DuPage County, Illinois (the "Site"), by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency ("USEPA"), and the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency ("IEPA"). Rexnord Industries'
Downers Grove property is situated within the Ellsworth Industrial
Complex. The USEPA and IEPA allege there have been one or more
releases or threatened releases of chlorinated solvents and other
hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants, allegedly
including but not limited to a release or threatened release on or
from the Company's property, at the Site. The relief sought by the
USEPA and IEPA includes further investigation and potential
remediation of the Site and reimbursement of USEPA's past costs.
Rexnord Industries' allocated share of past and future costs
related to the Site, including for investigation and/or
remediation, could be significant. All previously pending property
damage and personal injury lawsuits against the Company related to
the Site have been settled or dismissed. Pursuant to its indemnity
obligation, Invensys continues to defend the Company in known
matters related to the Site and has paid 100% of the costs to
date.

   * Multiple lawsuits (with approximately 300 claimants) are
pending in state or federal court in numerous jurisdictions
relating to alleged personal injuries due to the alleged presence
of asbestos in certain brakes and clutches previously manufactured
by the Company's Stearns division and/or its predecessor owners.
Invensys and FMC, prior owners of the Stearns business, have paid
100% of the costs to date related to the Stearns lawsuits.
Similarly, the Company's Prager subsidiary is a defendant in two
pending multi-defendant lawsuits relating to alleged personal
injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos in a product
allegedly manufactured by Prager. Additionally, there are numerous
individuals who have filed asbestos related claims against Prager;
however, these claims are currently on the Texas Multi-district
Litigation inactive docket. The ultimate outcome of these asbestos
matters cannot presently be determined. To date, the Company's
insurance providers have paid 100% of the costs related to the
Prager asbestos matters. The Company believes that the combination
of its insurance coverage and the Invensys indemnity obligations
will cover any future costs of these matters.

"In connection with the Company's acquisition of The Falk
Corporation ("Falk"), Hamilton Sundstrand has provided the Company
with indemnification against certain products-related asbestos
exposure liabilities. The Company believes that, pursuant to such
indemnity obligations, Hamilton Sundstrand is obligated to defend
and indemnify the Company with respect to the asbestos claims
described below, and that, with respect to these claims, such
indemnity obligations are not subject to any time or dollar
limitations.

"The following summarizes the most significant actions and
proceedings for which Hamilton Sundstrand has accepted
responsibility:

   * Falk, through its successor entity, is a defendant in
multiple lawsuits pending in state or federal court in numerous
jurisdictions relating to alleged personal injuries due to the
alleged presence of asbestos in certain clutches and drives
previously manufactured by Falk. There are approximately 100
claimants in these suits. The ultimate outcome of these lawsuits
cannot presently be determined. Hamilton Sundstrand is defending
the Company in these lawsuits pursuant to its indemnity
obligations and has paid 100% of the costs to date.
Certain Water Management subsidiaries are also subject to asbestos
litigation. As of March 31, 2016, Zurn and numerous other
unrelated companies were defendants in approximately 6,000
asbestos related lawsuits representing approximately 19,000
claims. Plaintiffs' claims allege personal injuries caused by
exposure to asbestos used primarily in industrial boilers formerly
manufactured by a segment of Zurn. Zurn did not manufacture
asbestos or asbestos components. Instead, Zurn purchased them from
suppliers. These claims are being handled pursuant to a defense
strategy funded by insurers.

"As of March 31, 2016, the Company estimates the potential
liability for the asbestos-related claims described above as well
as the claims expected to be filed to be approximately $32.0
million of which Zurn expects its insurance carriers to pay
approximately $23.0 million in the next ten years on such claims,
with the balance of the estimated liability being paid in
subsequent years. The $32.0 million was developed based on
actuarial studies and represents the projected indemnity payout
for current and future claims. The balance decreased by $3.0
million in fiscal 2016. There are inherent uncertainties involved
in estimating the number of future asbestos claims, future
settlement costs, and the effectiveness of defense strategies and
settlement initiatives. As a result, actual liability could differ
from the estimate described herein and could be substantial.

"Management estimates that its available insurance to cover this
potential asbestos liability as of March 31, 2016, is
approximately $244.9 million, and believes that all current claims
are covered by insurance. However, principally as a result of the
past insolvency of certain of the Company's insurance carriers,
certain coverage gaps will exist if and after the Company's other
carriers have paid the first $168.9 million of aggregate
liabilities.

"As of March 31, 2016, the Company had a recorded receivable from
its insurance carriers of $32.0 million, which corresponds to the
amount of this potential asbestos liability that is covered by
available insurance and is currently determined to be probable of
recovery. However, there is no assurance that $244.9 million of
insurance coverage will ultimately be available or that this
asbestos liability will not ultimately exceed $244.9 million.
Factors that could cause a decrease in the amount of available
coverage include: changes in law governing the policies, potential
disputes with the carriers regarding the scope of coverage, and
insolvencies of one or more of the Company's carriers."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tidewater Continues to Defend Suits at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tidewater Inc. continues to defend itself against various legal
proceedings that relate to asbestos and other environmental
matters, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March
31, 2016.

The Company states, " The company is also involved in various
legal proceedings that relate to asbestos and other environmental
matters. The amount of ultimate liability, if any, with respect to
these proceedings is not expected to have a material adverse
effect on the company's financial position, results of operations,
or cash flows. The company is proactive in establishing policies
and operating procedures for safeguarding the environment against
any hazardous materials aboard its vessels and at shore-based
locations.

"Whenever possible, hazardous materials are maintained or
transferred in confined areas in an attempt to ensure containment,
if accidents were to occur. In addition, the company has
established operating policies that are intended to increase
awareness of actions that may harm the environment."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parents Sue Contractors Over Asbestos Claim
------------------------------------------------------------
The West Virginia Record reported that the parents of two minor
children are suing Harris Brothers Roofing Co., and Structure
Environmental LLC, contractors, citing alleged breach of contract,
breach of duty, and unjust enrichment.

Charles Carl and Jessica Carl, as the next friend of Joseph Carl
and Chase Carl, filed a complaint on June 12 in Kanawha Circuit
Court against the defendants alleging that they failed to comply
with the state and federal regulations regarding asbestos
remediation and removal.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that Charles
Carl, Jessica Carl Joseph Carl and Chase Carl were exposed to
asbestos in their home and have suffered severe emotional
distress, annoyance and inconvenience from their fear of
developing cancer and other asbestos-related diseases,. The
plaintiffs holds Harris Brothers Roofing Co. and Structure
Environmental LLC responsible because the defendants allegedly
failed to completely remove asbestos-containing material from
their residence and attempted to unilaterally impose additional
fees and charges to perform the original scope of work.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek judgment against
the defendants for compensatory damages, for an amount sufficient
to fund a medical monitoring program, for restitution of any and
all moneys paid for the remediation and removal of asbestos, pre-
and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs and for such
other and further relief as the court deems just and proper. They
are represented by Kathy A. Brown of Kathy Brown Law PLLC in
Charleston and Timothy D. Houston of Houston Law Office in
Charleston.

Kanawha Circuit Court Case number 16-C-719


ASBESTOS UPDATE: WV Firm Blames Almost 300 Companies in Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Karmasek, writing for Forbes.com, reported that the
average number of companies targeted by some of the biggest
asbestos firms in their lawsuits is in the triple-figures,
according to recent statistics, leading some, especially those in
claims management, to question the strategy of plaintiffs'
lawyers.

According to data compiled by KCIC and Bates White and presented
at a recent asbestos litigation conference, the average number of
defendants in lawsuits filed by a single West Virginia firm topped
280.

KCIC is a consulting firm providing corporate risk management
services to policyholders and their legal counsel. Bates White is
an economic consulting firm offering analysis and expert testimony
services to law firms, Fortune 500 companies and government
agencies. Both are based in Washington, D.C.

According to the consulting firms' data, The Segal Law Firm,
located in Charleston, WV, averaged the most defendants in its
asbestos filings. Scott Segal is the husband of state Supreme
Court Justice Robin Davis.

The law firm averaged 283 defendants, with a maximum of 361 and a
minimum of 220.

The plaintiffs firm with the next highest named defendants is
Deaton Law Firm in North Charleston, SC. Deaton averaged about 100
less named defendants than Segal, with 185. Its maximum was 339
and minimum was 115.
Segal, whose practice, according to his firm's website, focuses on
representing "catastrophically injured people or the estates of
those killed due to the negligence of others," did not return
multiple calls seeking comment.

Another West Virginia firm, James F. Humphreys & Associates, names
an average of 149 defendants, with a max of 180.

Simmons Hanly Conroy, one of the major players in the nation's
busiest asbestos jurisdiction (Madison County, IL), names an
average of 58 per lawsuit with a maximum of 204.

Other firms featured in the data include:

-California's Brayton Purcell, which names 81 defendants per
lawsuit with a max of 207;

-Gori, Julian & Associates, an Edwardsville, IL, firm that names
118 defendants on average with a max of 252;

-Houston's Bailey Perrin Bailey, which names 57 defendants on
average with a max of 170;

-Goldberg, Persky & White, a Johnstown, PA, firm that names 137
defendants on average and once sued 337 in a single lawsuit;

-Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer -- a Mid-Atlantic firm that practices
in New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania -- names 101 defendants
with a max of 192;

-Waters, Kraus & Paul, a Dallas firm that names 59 on average with
a max of 187;

-DuBose Law Firm of Dallas names 152 with a max of 248;

-The Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos, which files the majority of
asbestos cases in Maryland, names 66 defendants on average with a
max of 179;

-SWMK Law of St. Louis names 112 defendants on average with a max
of 263; and

-Chicago's Cooney & Conway names 68 defendants on average with a
max of 172.

About the data

Elizabeth Hanke, vice president of KCIC, said the figures were
gathered through KCIC's claims administration services.

"We have a proprietary online claims management system (Ligado) we
use to serve our clients claim management needs," she recently
told Legal Newsline.

"The first step in the process is KCIC accepts service of those
complaints on behalf of our clients. Each day we enter the
complaints served into a database. Fields we enter include filing
date, all defendants named (as they are named on the complaint),
disease, claim alleged, plaintiff firms, jurisdiction and whatever
claimant personal information is included in the complaint --
typically name, address, birthday, etc.

"This information remains in the complaint database, then the data
is pushed out to a client specific database, which notifies each
client's counsel of the new complaint. From that point on, the
client and their counsel continue to use the client-specific
database to manage the claim."

Hanke said the data in KCIC's complaint database is all publicly
available data.

"Because of the number of clients we have, our complaint database
has a very large percent of all asbestos complaints filed in the
U.S.," she noted.

"While we know we do not have all complaints, based on a few
comparisons to known datasets, we estimate we have between 90 and
95 percent of all asbestos filings in the U.S."

Hanke said KCIC's dataset grows each day as it continues to
process complaints and as it gets new clients.

"It's a live dataset, so to speak," she said, adding that it
compiled the statistics at its clients' request.

"As asbestos defendants, they were interested in looking at the
filings data sliced a variety of ways," she explained. "As a
practical matter, they typically focus on just the complaints
where they are named, but reviewing a bigger data set of where the
filings are, who is making them, how many defendants are named,
etc., gives them additional insight into the problem they are
facing."

Plaintiffs' strategy

Nina Caroselli, executive vice president and chief operating
officer of New Hampshire-based RiverStone Resource, said the
system of naming so many defendants is downright puzzling.

"That's really a question for the plaintiffs firms," she recently
told Legal Newsline, of the approach. "But I don't understand the
strategy myself."

Especially given that some defendants have a dismissal rate as
high as 90 percent, she noted.

Caroselli's RiverStone group manages claims and liabilities for
insurance companies. She presented the KCIC and Bates White
figures at a Perrin conference on asbestos litigation in May.

"From my perspective, asbestos litigation is extremely
inefficient," said Caroselli, an attorney with more than 30 years
of experience in the insurance industry and private litigation
practice.

Not to mention costly.

"There are costs associated with litigation for both sides," she
said. "From a defense perspective, there's a cost to retain
counsel, respond to discovery, sometimes participate in
depositions, file motions to dismiss, etc. All of it has a cost."

Then factor in nearly 300 defendants named in a single lawsuit.

"You're not just talking about the attorneys' time, but the filing
fees in various courts, the money paid to experts, court
reporters," Caroselli explained. "All of these costs are incurred
in order to get a defendant dismissed from these cases."

And in the end, naming so many defendants may not be worth it for
plaintiffs, she said.

"I think it can extend the time it takes the matter to get
resolved," Caroselli said.

It also, depending on the jurisdiction, can expose plaintiffs to a
lengthier deposition.

"When you have that many (defendants) named in litigation and all
of them want to be at the plaintiff's deposition to hear what the
plaintiff remembers regarding the product, etc., it can take a lot
of time," she explained.

Caroselli said her group has a number of policyholders that are
defendants in asbestos litigation. But many experience dismissal
rates of 50 to 90 percent, often being dismissed from cases in
which they never should have been named in the first place.

"It really shows how inefficient asbestos litigation is," she
said.

"I'm very interested, and so is my company, in engaging in a
conversation with all those involved to see if there's a different
way to manage these claims."

Caroselli said she has reached out to all sides and is "hopeful"
they will find some common ground.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Removing Asbestos From Former School
---------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Probert, writing for iFiberOne News, reported that the
Environmental Protection Agency began to remove asbestos from the
former Delancey-Houghton school in Soap Lake.

EPA investigators found pipe insulation and a pile of other
insulation containing asbestos. The pipe insulation was found in
the school's former boiler room and the pile of insulation was
found outside of the building.

Asbestos was a former building material used to help prevent fires
until it was discovered that when the material is breathed in it
increases the risk to develop lung disease.

Dale Becker, the on-scene coordinator, said the material was
contained and the crews are working on removing it.

The agency set up air quality monitoring stations between the
school and the street. The stations monitor airborne debris and
signals workers to put water on the site if there is too much
dust. A second device measures the amount of asbestos in the air.

The asbestos hasn't affected the nearby homes or city hall, Becker
said.

Living and working near the school poses a low risk, according to
the agency. Disturbing or having direct contact with the materials
containing asbestos increases the risk of lung disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Upholds $8MM Verdict for Carpenter's Widow
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Brazil Bautista, writing for Real Estate Weekly,
reported that the widow of a carpenter who worked on the Olympic
Tower in Midtown will get $8 million in damages due to asbestos-
related ailments that her husband sustained.

The New York State Court of Appeals upheld the $8 million verdict
for Ruby Konstantin. Konstantin's late husband, David, worked on
two Manhattan construction projects from 1973 to 1977 that had the
now-defunct Tishman Realty as general contractor. According to
court documents, Konstantin was exposed to asbestos because he
often worked near drywall crews that sanded joint compound
containing the mineral.

Konstantin was diagnosed with testicular mesothelioma, a rare form
of cancer which is only caused by asbestos exposure. The disease
was discovered in 2010 and it eventually spread to his lungs. In
2012, he sued Tishman Liquidating Corporation for negligence and
workplace liability, claiming that the company's predecessor did
not protect workers from asbestos dust. A jury found that Tishman
was 76 percent liable for Konstantin's death and awarded $19
million in damages. The court later reduced that amount to $8
million.

Tishman questioned how reasonable the $8 million verdict was. It
also challenged the Supreme Court's move the to combine the
lawsuit with six other mesothelomia cases, saying that
"consolidation prejudiced TLC's (Tishman Liquidating Corporation)
substantial right to fair trial"

The justices struck down Tishman's arguments, saying: "Finally, we
reject TLC's contention that the Appellate Division applied the
wrong legal standard in assessing whether Supreme Court's damages
award deviated materially from reasonable compensation," a court
memorandum read.

Konstantin died in 2012. According to court documents, Tishman
knew that asbestos was dangerous as early as 1969.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victim's Family Fight Over GBP80K Payout
---------------------------------------------------------
Plymouth Herald reported that loved ones of an asbestos victim who
died after working at Devonport dockyard are fighting a test case
battle to hold onto an GBP80,000 damages pay out.

Government lawyers do not dispute that Cyril Hollow was exposed to
the killer substance whilst employed at the Plymouth dockyard from
1966 to 1986.

But they say his heavy tobacco habit -- he smoked from the age of
14 until his death, aged 74, in October 2010 -- was the main cause
of his death.

Mr Hollow worked as a general decorator at Devonport and his step-
daughter, Shirley Blackmore, sued for damages on behalf of his
estate.

But the Department for Communities & Local Government insisted
that his decades of smoking made him in part responsible for the
lung cancer that killed him.

Ms Blackmore, from Plymouth, won her case in 2014 when Judge Barry
Cotter QC awarded just over GBP80,000 in compensation for her
step-father's death.

He cut the payout by 30% to take account of Mr Hollow's smoking
habit -- but government lawyers are now arguing that that was
nowhere near a big enough reduction.

Mr Hollow, the court heard, smoked 20 cigarettes-a-day and tried
and failed to give up twice. By 2005, however, he had managed to
cut down to 12-a-day.

Judge Cotter said that he was a smoker before he worked at the
dockyard and "long before it was known to be a hazard to health."

He agreed that the danger of smoking to Mr Hollow's health was
"probably between double and treble the risk from asbestos".

But he ruled that 30% was a big enough cut to the payout, which
would otherwise have been around GBP120,000.

Government barrister, Russell Fortt, said the appeal against Judge
Cotter's ruling raised an 'important point of law' with
implications for many other cases.

Experts on both sides agreed that Mr Hollow's death was caused by
the combined effects of smoking and exposure to asbestos.

But they disagreed over the relative contribution of the two
factors.

A government expert found that smoking was 88 per cent, and
asbestos just 12 per cent, to blame for Mr Hollow's death.

Lord Justice Tomlinson granted the Department of Communites &
Local Government permission to appeal against the damages award.

The full hearing of the appeal will take place in the next few
months.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Valve Maker Has Duty to Warn, NY Court Rules
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that New York's highest court has
upheld court judgments against a steam valve manufacturer, citing
its failure to warn of the dangers of using its valves with
gaskets and packing that contain asbestos.

The Court of Appeals has rejected Crane Co.'s argument that it
isn't responsible for warning about the dangers of other
companies' asbestos products.

Widows of a former Navy boiler technician and an ex-pipefitter at
a General Motors plant who died from asbestos-related cancer after
years of exposure changing gaskets and packing won jury awards of
$8 million and $3 million.

The court says the duty to warn applies to the "known and
foreseeable joint use of its product and another product that is
necessary to allow the manufacturer's product to work as
intended."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Secondhand Exposure Risks Puerto Rico Families
---------------------------------------------------------------
Due to the unique properties found in asbestos, it was used for
decades in thousands of commercial products and building
materials. While asbestos-containing materials may have many
beneficial attributes, they can also release fibers into the air
when they are disturbed and as they age and become friable.

Asbestos fibers cannot be seen with the naked eye so they can be
inhaled and get trapped deep in people's lungs. If swallowed,
these fibers can become embedded into the digestive tract. The
Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry (ATSDR) states that
significant exposure to any type of asbestos will increase the
risk of lung cancer, mesothelioma and asbestosis. The ATSDR also
reports that asbestos-related disease has been diagnosed in not
just workers that dealt with asbestos and asbestos-containing
materials, but also with family members. The National Cancer
Institute states that this risk is thought to result from exposure
to asbestos fibers brought into the home on the shoes, clothing,
skin and hair of workers. This exposure to family members is often
referred to as secondhand, secondary or take-home asbestos
exposure.

"Workers in a number of industries in Puerto Rico and across the
Caribbean deal with asbestos-containing materials on a regular
basis," said Harry Pena, President of Zimmetry Environmental.
"There are regulations in place to protect workers, but there can
be circumstances if these regulations are not followed or when
workers do not realize they are being exposed to asbestos fibers
that could create health concerns for them and their families."

To protect workers and help companies comply with asbestos
regulations, Zimmetry Environmental has teams of professionals
that provide testing and consulting services in Puerto Rico and
throughout the Caribbean.  They also recently sponsored an
educational video about asbestos and secondhand exposure that can
be seen at: https://youtu.be/l6pVwqoAMUk


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Advocates Push for Asbestos Ban in U.S.
--------------------------------------------------------
Andy Szal, writing for Chem.info, reported that for years, critics
of decades-old U.S. chemical regulations argued that they were too
weak to properly ban asbestos despite its widely known dangers.

Now, advocacy groups want to make sure the carcinogen is among the
first substances addressed under a chemical reform law signed by
President Obama.

"The success of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act hinges
on the EPA's ability to prioritize asbestos in the first 10
hazardous chemicals and to expeditiously ban asbestos," Linda
Reinstein, president of the Asbestos Disease Awareness
Organization, told Bloomberg.

The bill, in part, establishes new procedures and deadlines for
the Environmental Protection Agency to begin evaluating the
thousands of chemicals currently used in commerce.

The EPA will begin by addressing a handful of chemicals considered
to be at the highest risk of causing health problems, a list that
could include formaldehyde, styrene, phthalates, BPA and asbestos.

The EPA implemented its first ban on asbestos-containing material
in 1973 and banned most products outright in 1989. Two years
later, however, a federal appeals court tossed out the ban and
ruled that it violated the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act.

Critics, including President Obama, commonly cited that decision
when pushing for the TCSA reform bill that ultimately drew support
from both industry and public health groups.

Some expect the first rules under the new bill to be implemented
by 2022, but others question whether the EPA will be given the
resources to properly enforce the law. One estimate predicted that
regulating the first 90 "high-priority" chemicals alone would take
90 years.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Middlebourne Woman Names 103 Companies in Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for West Virginia Record, reported that a
Middlebourne woman filed a lawsuit against 103 companies after she
claims they are responsible for her husband's death.

Robert Wayne Wells worked with, and was exposed to, asbestos-
containing products while employed at Weirton Steel in Weirton and
Miles/Mobay in New Martinsville, according to a complaint filed in
Marshall Circuit Court.

Lois June Wells claims the defendants' manufacture, sale,
distribution, use and/or installation of asbestos-containing
products exposed the decedent to asbestos, resulting in his
development of an asbestos-related malignancy.

Robert Wells was diagnosed with asbestos-related lung cancer on
May 6, 2015, and died two months later.

The defendants were negligent in that they knew or should have
known that the use of their products would cause serious lung
diseases and cancer, and failed to take reasonable precautions to
warn the decedent of what would be safe and sufficient wearing
apparel and safety equipment for persons who were exposed to their
products, according to the suit.

Lois Wells claims the defendants failed to properly and adequately
label the products; sold them when they were not in a reasonably
safe condition; failed to supply accurate and complete warnings of
the known dangers involved in the use of and exposure to the
products; and negligently installed the products without taking
precautions to warn and protect the decedent.

The defendants also breached their warranty and had a duty to warn
the decedent and failed to do so, according to the suit.

Lois Wells is seeking compensatory and punitive damages. She is
being represented by Leslie Ann James of Hartley & O'Brien PLLC.

Marshall Circuit Court case number: 16-C-95


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Removal Delayed at Pillsbury Mills
------------------------------------------------------------
Tamara Damante, writing for Wand17.com, reported that asbestos
removal at the former Pillsbury Mills plant is delayed.

The Illinois EPA says the asbestos may not be removed until
sometime next year, because a lawsuit against the plant's owners
and operators has been delayed until August.

The EPA started a preliminary investigation to remove the
asbestos, but the plan to remove it is not prepared.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos-Related Cancer Costs Canadians Billions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tavia Grant, writing for The Globe and Mail, reported that a
first-ever estimate of the toll of asbestos-related cancers on
society pegs the cost of new cases at $1.7-billion per year in
Canada, and notes that is likely an under-estimate.

The economic burden of lung cancer and mesothelioma from work-
related asbestos exposure in Canada amounts to an average of
$818,000 per case, according to a team led by health economist and
senior scientist Dr. Emile Tompa at the Institute for Work &
Health, a research organization, whose calculation includes costs
related to health care and lost productivity and quality of life.

This is the first time a tally of these costs has been made
public. Asbestos remains the top cause of occupational deaths in
Canada: Workers' compensation boards have accepted more than 5,700
claims since 1996. About 150,000 Canadian workers are exposed to
asbestos in their workplaces, the research project Carex Canada
estimates, among them construction workers and contractors,
mechanics, shipbuilders and engineers. This country continues to
allow exports and imports of asbestos, which rose to a six-year
high last year. Dozens of other countries, including Australia and
Britain, have banned it.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said in May the federal government
is "moving forward on a ban." It is the first time since taking
office that he has publicly talked about a potential ban, although
he gave no timeline and it was not an official announcement.

"We are moving to ban asbestos," he told a conference of building
trades unions on May 10. "Its impact on workers far outweighs any
benefits that it might provide."

The economic burden numbers are based on newly diagnosed cases in
2011 that were attributable to occupational exposure. The
calculation is based on the number of new cases of mesothelioma, a
cancer associated almost exclusively with asbestos exposure, for
that year, along with estimates on the numbers of new lung cancer
cases caused by workplace asbestos. These totalled 2,099 in 2011.

The study noted that new cases are likely to grow in the near
future due to long latency periods of these diseases and continued
exposure. The key question the analysis sought to answer is what
the savings to society would be if no cases of cancer attributable
to occupational asbestos exposures occurred in a particular year.

The study looked at direct and indirect costs. Direct health-care
costs are a just a fraction of the estimate. Health-care costs for
mesothelioma are pegged at $46,000 per case, and for lung cancer
at $28,000. "Often times, the health-care costs are very low
because the fatality rates are extremely high following diagnosis.
Most of these people don't survive a year," Dr. Tompa said.

Health-related quality of life, which includes morbidity (loss of
function due to poor health), lost years of life and human
suffering, is the biggest component, comprising 80 per cent of the
costs. This is calculated by using a measure called quality
adjusted life years. It compares morbidities and life expectancies
of people with asbestos-related cancer to Canadian age- and
gender-specific averages.

The $1.7-billion total is a conservative estimate. "It's quite an
underestimate and might not give people the full sense, even
though the number's quite big," he said, because it focuses only
on newly diagnosed cases, not previously existing cases, in one
single year. Nor does it include other types of diseases linked to
asbestos exposure, such as cancer of the larynx or asbestosis. The
numbers also do not encompass para-occupational exposure, such as
when a family member breathes in dust from a worker's clothing or
gear.

The costs are also to society at large, Dr. Tompa noted. "We all
play different roles in society. Even if you're retired, you might
have community roles, domestic roles, you might take care of your
grandchildren."

The study, conducted with the Occupational Cancer Research Centre,
was funded by the Canadian Cancer Society. The sponsor was not
involved in designing the study, collecting and analyzing the data
or writing the report. The funding application, which detailed the
planned analysis, was peer reviewed, although the economic burden
tally has not yet been reviewed. It is due to be submitted to the
American Journal of Public Health for peer review.

Dr. Tompa is working on another estimate that will also include
the cost of para-occupational exposures in Canada. "I think we're
cutting new ground in terms of putting that economic measure to
it, and just some methods development too, because there's not a
lot of precedents about how to frame these issues in the economic
lens."

For now, given that asbestos has not been banned, and that, "in
the construction sector, they're still using products that are
made with asbestos, we're adding to the problem in the future."

In an e-mail, the Prime Minister's Office said the federal
government is "reviewing its strategy on asbestos, including a
potential ban."

The cancer society, many health groups, and unions including the
Canadian Labour Congress, are urging the federal government to
announce a comprehensive ban on asbestos, something the Liberal
Party had pledged to do last year if elected.

Urgent action is needed, said Fred Clare, Eastern Canadian vice-
president at the International Association of Heat and Frost
Insulators and Allied Workers. He was a journeyman insulator for
three decades, and has watched more than a dozen co-workers and
family members die of asbestos-related diseases. "People are
getting mesothelioma -- and they're gone before you even know
about it."

Pressure is growing on the local level too. Mike Bradley, mayor of
Sarnia, Ont., a city hard hit with the legacy of asbestos
exposure, wrote to the Prime Minister in March, calling on the
federal government to end asbestos use in Canada. The PM's recent
comments were "most welcome, and we now can start to see the
victory finish line to ban asbestos in Canada," the mayor said,
adding that "sadly there are many Canadians who will not see the
victory line having died too soon."

Health Canada referred questions on asbestos policy to Innovation,
Science and Economic Development Canada. ISED said in an e-mail
that it is "not in a position to provide further commentary on
this issue at the moment, adding that it hopes to have more to say
"in a matter of time," but did not elaborate.

CLC president Hassan Yussuff said a comprehensive strategy is
needed, and he hopes to see a plan proposed in the coming months.
This should include a full ban on asbestos imports and exports,
and an online inventory of federal buildings and workplaces that
contain asbestos. He would also like to see a registry of workers
who have asbestos-related diseases, licences required for
abatement and remediation companies, and stronger rules and
enforcement on disposal of the materials.

"Nobody goes to work to die," he said in an interview. "The
unfortunate part about this substance is that's what ends up
happening to people without them having some ability to protect
themselves."

David Boyd, adjunct professor at Simon Fraser University, said it
is "fantastic" news that Mr. Trudeau said Canada is moving to ban
asbestos. "This will be a life-saving, health improving move, not
just for Canadians, but for people in other nations. I hope that a
comprehensive ban on imports, exports, and all products containing
asbestos is put in place as rapidly as possible."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: School With Asbestos to Get $14MM to Redevelop
---------------------------------------------------------------
RNZ.com reported that the New Zealand government is putting $14
million into the redevelopment of an Auckland primary school that
has had years of chronic problems with mould and asbestos.

Buildings at Clayton Park School in Manurewa were in such a bad
state they were making staff and pupils sick.

A year ago, the school's principal Paul Wright said thousands of
dollars were being spent on testing air to make the case for new
classrooms to be funded by the Education Ministry.

He said the school had endured at least 10 years of unhealthy
conditions.

At that time, the ministry provided six temporary classrooms as an
interim solution.

But Associate Education Minister Nikki Kaye said $14.5 million had
been approved for what she described as one of the most complex
school redevelopments.

Construction is due to start later this year.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tasmanians Push for Free Asbestos Removal
----------------------------------------------------------
Chris Pippos, writing for The Mercury, reported that people are
putting themselves and others at risk by dumping deadly asbestos
in remote locations around Tasmania to avoid expensive disposal
costs, a lobby group says.

Asbestos Free Tasmania Foundation is compiling evidence of what it
says is a growing problem, releasing photographs of the large-
scale dumping of asbestos sheeting about 5km from Great Lake.

Foundation committee member Laurie Appleby said more asbestos was
being dumped in the bush and roadsides because correct disposal
was too costly.

He said builders and home renovators were putting their own and
the lives of others at risk and called for disposal of the
hazardous material to be free.

Mr Appleby said illegal dumping had become such a major public
health issue disposal should be free, especially because wrapped
asbestos, as it was required for dumping, was too often mixed in
with general waste at the tip -- a health issue in itself.

"It's getting worse -- people just dump it [roadside] because of
the cost," he said.

"It's such a major health issue, why not have it free?

"They should have a site somewhere to deliver it free of charge to
make it safe for everybody.

"All the tips should make it free."

Mr Appleby has been diagnosed with asbestosis after working at the
then Goliath Cement factory -- now Cement Australia -- at Railton
and is a founding member of Disease Tasmania.

He said the illegal dumping was particularly bad in the Central
Highlands where home and shack renovators dumped the deadly
material in the bush to avoid detection.

Home renovators are regarded as the projected "third wave" of
asbestos disease sufferers. It is anticipated they will follow the
first two waves of people afflicted by the disease, which were
mainly miners, asbestos product manufacturers and trades people.

Foundation president Simon Cocker said asbestos disease such as
mesothelioma and asbestosis generally took decades after the
contact with deadly fibres before symptoms became evident.

Mr Cocker said some home renovators still did not respect the
danger posed by asbestos and illegal dumping, and risked suffering
the consequences in the future.

Regulations allow individuals to remove up to 10sq m of bonded
asbestos but they must first contact the council to check about
any permits or planning approvals required.

Asbestos must be double-wrapped and sprayed with water to prevent
airborne fibres.

The cheapest asbestos removal company rates advertised online are
"from" $45 an hour. Mr Appleby said some companies charged about
$500 a miniskip load.

It costs a $30 fee plus $13.50 to dispose of up to 100kg of
domestic asbestos at the South Hobart tip. At the Glenorchy
landfill, which accepts commercial quantities of asbestos, it
costs $50 to dump a boot load of asbestos, $100 for up to two
cubic metres and $140 a tonne.

It is projected another 15 Tasmanians exposed to asbestos in the
workplace, who have fatal or non-fatal asbestos diseases, will get
about $7,756,000 in compensation from the asbestos compensation
fund in the 2015-16 financial year.

So far the fund has paid out more than $21.5 million for 58
accepted claims.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Planned Over Husband's Death
----------------------------------------------------
Shannon Gillies, writing for Otago Daily Times, reported that an
Oamaru woman who lost her husband to an asbestos-linked cancer is
taking legal action against ACC.

Lois Gilchrist is fighting to have husband Rodney Gilchrist's
oesophageal cancer linked to the asbestos he was exposed to during
21 years working at the old Oamaru Hospital as an orderly and
general handyman, and later as a caretaker of the building from
2000 to 2007, during which time the couple and their son lived on
site.

An independent medical report Mrs Gilchrist commissioned on her
husband's case said he was aware some asbestos removal was done
early in his time at the hospital.

The Department of Labour (now Worksafe) issued a prohibition
notice to then owner Goodland Group in late 2005 after it found
employees were probably being exposed to asbestos fibres in the
air during demolition work on the site.

Mr Gilchrist was diagnosed with oesophageal cancer in June 2014
and died, aged 56, in February last year.

At Mrs Gilchrist's request, ACC has twice -- the last time in
April -- reviewed its original decision to decline a claim to
cover Mr Gilchrist's oesophageal cancer.

In both reviews it upheld its decision to decline the claim.

Mrs Gilchrist said while upset with the process, she believed the
ACC was close to accepting her argument.

She said she had engaged lawyers and was preparing to appeal ACC's
decision.

ACC could not connect the asbestos exposure to the cancer that
killed Mr Gilchrist, she said.

"They were pretty close, but there wasn't enough medical evidence
at this stage, but there will never be if people like me don't
pursue it."

It bothered her that organisations accepted smoking caused cancer,
yet she had to battle to get her husband's exposure to asbestos
connected with cancer.

"No-one bothers to look at what you've been working with for 20
years."

In a statement, an ACC spokeswoman said the corporation fully
considered the circumstances of the Gilchrist claim and determined
cover could not be provided under the legislative criteria for
work-related gradual process, disease or infection.

"Our decision was based on clinical advice."

The matter was pending an appeal hearing and it was inappropriate
to discuss any other details of the case until the judicial
process finished, she said.

The Goodland Group, owner of the old Oamaru Hospital site,
employed Mr Gilchrist as caretaker and maintenance man.

David Liu, Former Goodland Group employee and site manager at that
time, said Mr Gilchrist was employed by the company from April
2004 to December 2007.

"His main task was the outdoor upkeep of the property, but he came
to us with the knowledge of the buildings and property, as he had
worked there previously in its time as a hospital for 21 years,
and apparently assisted at the end in the removing and clearing of
all property from the hospital."

He understood Mr Gilchrist did not work on clearing asbestos from
the building during the period he was employed by the Goodland
Group.

"He knew about it -- and did not want to touch it."

Any clearance of asbestos at that time was completed under the
strictest of conditions, Mr Liu said.

Staff were trained to work with hazardous materials and workers
provided with appropriate clothing and tools, although Goodland
Group contracted out the majority of the asbestos clearing work to
a secondary company.

The Southern District Health Board was unable to answer any
questions before the publication of this article.

Mrs Gilchrist said she was not ready to let go of what happened to
her husband.

She felt she needed to raise awareness about the potential risk of
working in buildings containing asbestos, especially given the
present demolition work under way at the old Oamaru Hospital site.

She wanted everyone who worked on potential asbestos sites, or
anyone who might be exposed to asbestos, to register themselves on
the Asbestos Exposure Database.

"If you've been exposed, get it out."Get it out on the register.

"If you don't, 20 years down the track you're on your own."

The cancer that killed her husband was a slow but progressive
development that would have taken years to show itself, she said.

Before Mr Gilchrist was diagnosed they both knew something was
wrong; "even his smell had changed".

The way her husband died was cruel, Mrs Gilchrist said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers to Remove Asbestos from Courthouse
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that workers will turn off the water
and remove asbestos from the Warren County Courthouse, as the
Warren County District Court moves out of the courthouse declared
uninhabitable by the court's chief judge.

District Court Chief Judge Arthur Gamble issued an order for the
court to close at 4:30 p.m. Monday, the Des Moines Register
reported. The court will reopen at the Madison and Marion county
courthouses and the Warren County Juvenile Services offices,
according to the order.

Earlier in June, Gamble notified the county board that the
courthouse was not fit for employees and told them that operations
would be moved out of the county this summer. Gamble has said
serious mechanical, electrical and plumbing issues at the
courthouse pose health and safety concerns for court workers.

"The court services will continue outside of Warren County until
an alternative location is identified or the courthouse is
habitable for occupancy and suitable for use by the district
court," Steve Davis, Iowa Judicial Branch spokesman, wrote in an
email.

County Supervisor Crystal McIntyre said she didn't fault the court
for moving out after learning of the asbestos removal and plumbing
work.

"Who's to say when they shut off the water and then re-pressurize
it that it won't cause something else in those 78-year-old pipes?"
she said Friday. "I think it's best to have everyone out."

A $35 million bond referendum, which would have allowed the
supervisors to borrow money to build a new justice center, failed
in early May. There is $500,000 in the county's current budget to
make repairs, but estimates provided by a consulting firm show the
building needs about $2.3 million worth of repairs.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Court Tosses $245K Verdict for Plasterer
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Churney, writing for Cook County Record, reported that a state
appellate panel in Springfield has scrapped a jury verdict that
awarded $245,000 to a man whose lungs were scarred by asbestos,
saying, despite the scarring, they did not believe the man
suffered any impairment.

The June 20 ruling was authored by Justice Thomas Appleton, of the
Fourth District Illinois Appellate Court, with concurrence from
Justice Lisa White and partial concurrence from Justice Thomas
Harris Jr. The ruling overturned a jury verdict in downstate
McLean County Circuit Court in Bloomington awarding $245,000 to
Joseph Sondag and his wife, Phyllis.

The Sondags filed suit in 2008 against the Milwaukee-headquartered
Sprinkman Sons Corporation and the Ohio-based company Tremco Inc.
Joseph Sondag said he worked as a plasterer from 1957 to 1983,
frequently using a drywall tape made by Tremco that allegedly
contained asbestos.

Sondag visited his physician in 2007, complaining of dizziness,
sweating and a disturbance of the inner ear. A computerized
tomography scan and an X-ray were taken of his chest, revealing
pleural plaques and interstitial fibrosis -- essentially, scarring
of the air sacs in his lungs. The physician said he believed the
scarring was caused by exposure to asbestos. Sondag filed suit the
next year.

The case went to trial in February 2014 before Circuit Judge
Rebecca Foley. Sondag's physician testified Sondag never
complained of, nor exhibited, any symptoms of lung disease; he
suffered no distress and was able to breathe well for a man of his
age, who had been a smoker. The physician pointed out Sondag could
run up two flights of stairs without shortness of breath and the
lung scarring had not worsened since it was detected. On the other
hand, Sondag's wife and daughter both testified Sondag often had
trouble catching his wind.

Before the jury started deliberating, Tremco asked Foley to order
a directed verdict against Sondag, contending Sondag did not
present any evidence he suffered physical harm from the scarring.
The judge refused and the jury came back with verdicts for Sondag,
awarding him and his wife $245,000.

Defendants appealed, again arguing there was no evidence Sondag
suffered any adverse effect from the lung damage. Appellate
Justice Appleton agreed.

"They (the scars) have caused no physically impairing loss or
detriment to Joseph Sondag. Although no one wants pleural plaques
and interstitial fibrosis, we do not see how these conditions have
affected him in any practical, functional way. It appears that,
but for the X-ray and CT scan, he would have remained blissfully
unaware of any condition in his lungs," Appleton observed.

Appleton added that Sondag's suit involved a claim of product
liability, and for such a claim "physical harm is an essential
element." However, that element was lacking in Sondag's suit.
Justice Harris agreed with Appleton and White that there is no
indication Sondag has or will suffer, because of the scarring.
However, Harris broke with his fellow justices by saying the
Sondag couple should be permitted to keep $67,000 of the jury's
award for medical costs incurred in monitoring Joseph's lung
condition.

The Sondags are represented by the Bloomington firm of Wylder
Corwin Kelly LLP, which advertises itself as a firm with
experience pursuing asbestos cases. Defendants are defended by the
Peoria firm of Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos to be Removed from Council Bldg.
----------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Phillips, writing for Ledbury Reporter, reported that work
is being carried out to remove asbestos from a building which is
to become a new office for Herefordshire Council's adult's and
wellbeing services.

The asbestos remediation works at Elgar House, on Holmer Road,
were approved at a cost of GBP59,000.

A refurbishment plan -- agreed when the building was acquired on a
10-year lease in February -- is due to begin in August with the
accommodation being ready by December 2016.

Ahead of that, a refurbishment asbestos survey is to be carried
out to locate asbestos containing material in the area where the
work will take place.

That survey involves destructive inspection to gain access to all
areas.

Herefordshire Council said the majority of the cost -- GBP50,000 -
- is unavoidable as the refurbishment planned for Elgar House
requires the removal of most of this material.

There will be a two week mobilisation/Health and Safety Executive
notice period followed by four weeks on site to complete the work.

It is hoped the work will be completed by July 25, allowing the
main refurbishment to start in August.

The cost of the works will be funded from the corporate
accommodation capital budget as approved at full council on
December 18 2015.

The work will be undertaken as part of an existing contract with
Integral UK Ltd.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Caused Scunthorpe Laborer's Death
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Scunthorpe Telegraph reported that a Scunthorpe labourer died
after being exposed to asbestos at the steelworks in the 1970s.

Kenneth Hutson, 80, of Willoughby Road, mixed the substance while
working at the town's Lysaght factory at Normanby Park, an inquest
heard.

The inquest, held at the Civic Centre, was told the father-of-two
was admitted to Scunthorpe General Hospital on Christmas Eve with
a chest infection which developed into pneumonia and sepsis.

His condition continued to deteriorate and he died on December 30.

He was diagnosed with asbestos-related breathing problems in 1993.

In a statement read to the inquest, Mr Hutson's wife Hazel, who
married him in 1957, described her husband as an "active person
who enjoyed a quiet way of life and loved his gardening, walking
the dog and bowling".

She said due to health problems he had to take on work that was
"not too physical" and ended up at the Lysaght factory, where he
helped mix asbestos.

She said in 2005, his health started to deteriorate.

"He was a good man who will be terribly missed," she added.

Senior coroner Paul Kelly ruled the underlying cause of his death
was asbestos and that he died as a result of industrial disease.

He concluded: "He is likely to have breathed it in during the time
he worked for Lysaght's during the 1970s."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cayuga Centers Bldg Tests Positive for Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gwendolyn Craig, writing for auburnpub.com, reported that test
results for asbestos in the administrative building of Cayuga
Centers have come back positive, said Edward Hayes, the chief
executive officer of the organization.

Floor tile that had been exposed during a construction project at
the building on 101 Hamilton Ave., Auburn, was found to have
asbestos, though the glue and tar paper in between the tile and
wood floor did not.

The building was shut down after test results for the asbestos
were taking longer to process than anticipated. In the meantime,
staff working there have been relocated to other temporary
locations, Hayes said, and operations are continuing as usual.

Cayuga Centers is working with an environmental consulting firm,
Qualcor, LLC, out of Tully. They are working with the state
Department of Labor's Asbestos Control Bureau to get an expedited
permit for abatement.

"What we have been told so far, at the top of the stairs on the
third floor, there's a 5-by-5 area where carpet has been removed,
and asbestos tiles are showing," Hayes said. "I believe those will
be removed, from what people have told me."

While there may be more tile throughout the building underneath
the carpet, Hayes said since it has not been disturbed, they will
likely leave it alone. More details on the abatement process and
plans for the construction will be decided, he said, once the
state permit processes and an abatement contractor is hired.

Chris Adams, Syracuse area director for the Occupational Safety
and Health Administration, said the asbestos, as long as it has
not been pulverized and therefore airborne, could potentially be
left alone. Cayuga Centers would need to label the asbestos and
maintain it, as long as it's in good condition and not be in a
situation where it could be released.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Guelph Brake Pad Co. Joins Fight vs. Asbestos
--------------------------------------------------------------
ABS Friction has added their voice calling for a ban on asbestos
and the importation of products containing asbestos into Canada.
To create awareness, ABS has launched the "ABS Asbestos Offensive"
an information campaign aimed at the automotive industry where
asbestos is still common in imported brake pads and consequently a
lethal hazard for mechanics.

Here is the link: http://www.absfriction.com/asbestosoffensive.

"In 2016 there are still too many brake pads that contain asbestos
being imported and sold in Canada," said Rick Jamieson, President,
CEO and Co-founder of ABS Friction. "In fact, imports of asbestos-
related items rose to $6-million in 2014 from $4.9-million in 2013
and the bulk of these goods consisted of asbestos brake linings
and pads, which hit $3.6-million in imports in 2014, a seven-year
high.*

Though I am encouraged by the Prime Minister's recent statement
that the government will ban asbestos, we want to keep the ban on
asbestos top of mind. Here, in Guelph we are working with our MP,
the Honourable Lloyd Longfield and our MPP, the Honourable Liz
Sandals as well as automotive industry organizations across Canada
and North America. We invite people to review the information on
our site and welcome their comments."

Asbestos is by far the top on-the-job killer in Canada, accounting
for almost 5,000 death claims since 1996. But that does not
reflect the true depth of its effects. Many victims die of
mesothelioma, asbestosis and lung cancer, but it may take 20 to 50
years after exposure to materialize. *

"We have seen the effect of asbestos exposure first hand on
mechanics and auto trades people," said Joe Schmidt, Director of
Research and Development and Co-Founder, ABS Friction. "As a
Canadian manufacturer who has made asbestos-free brake pads since
we began 20 years ago, we want our voice to be heard -- it's time
to put this issue to bed."

* Source: Statistics Canada

                      About ABS Friction

ABS Friction is a Canadian family owned and operated industry
leader in the manufacture and testing of premium disc brake pads
for the automotive aftermarket industry.

Every ABS brake pad is manufactured at our Guelph, Ontario, Canada
facility to ensure premium, reliable products each and every time.
All ABS brake pads are 100% asbestos free and environmentally
friendly. ABS supplies to over 20 markets globally through both
private label and branded programs.

Safety really does matter at ABS Friction. Manufacturing quality,
safe and reliable products is our #1 focus. We manufacture our
products to the most stringent of quality standards. ABS is an ISO
14001, OHSAS 18001 compliant, ISO 9001:2008 registered, Leafmark
compliant and BEEP(R) registered manufacturing facility. For
further information, visit our site: http://www.absfriction.com.

CONTACT INFORMATION
Media Contact:
Peter Donato
Special Assignment Inc.
+416.271.4316
donato@specialassignment.com
@pvdonato

ABS Friction Inc.:
Michele Keeler
Marketing Manager
+226.217.2233
mkeeler@absfriction.com
@ABSFriction


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Find Delays GBP16MM School Build
----------------------------------------------------------
Scottish Construction Now reported that work on a new GBP16
million education campus in West Dunbartonshire has been delayed
until winter next year due to the discovery of asbestos.

Originally scheduled to open in August 2017, the Balloch education
campus is being built on the site of the former St Kessog's
Primary and will accommodate a new St Kessog's co-located with an
amalgamated Jamestown and Haldane primary school, additional
support needs unit and early learning and childcare centre.

A report due to go before councillors revealed that contractors
discovered asbestos material under concrete foundations and hard
standing following the demolition of the previous school.

West Dunbartonshire Council said it was not possible to test under
the foundation until the demolition phase and earlier
investigations at the site found no asbestos.

Specialist contractors have now prepared a remediation programme
to remove the materials, which will add another three months to
the construction programme and cost GBP900,000.

Councillors will be asked to approve the allocation of additional
funding on Wednesday, 29 June.

The local authority's strategic director for regeneration,
environment & growth, Richard Cairns, said: "These are essential
works which could not have been foreseen. We're now seeking
council approval to allow the remediation to be carried out as
quickly as possible and this would allow us to get to work on
building this fantastic new facility for generations of young
people."

Holmes Miller and Morgan Sindall are behind the campus
development.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found at Belfast Bonfire Site
-------------------------------------------------------
John Monaghan, writing for The Irish News, reported that asbestos
has been found at a loyalist bonfire in west Belfast.

Household waste, including out of date meat and soiled nappies,
has been left on the land at Lanark Way off the Shankill Road,
over the course of May.

A Belfast City Council spokeswoman said: "The land in question is
owned privately. We are aware of illegal dumping at this site and
are working co-operatively with partners to alleviate the
situation."

The Housing Executive described the mess as "disgraceful".

A spokesman said: "We own a small piece of land on this wider
waste ground area, which is in private ownership -- asbestos has
not been dumped on our land.

The spokesman added: "We took immediate steps to remove household
debris from our portion of the land and we are working closely
with the council, the landowner and the PSNI to resolve this
issue. Bollards are already in place to discourage access to our
portion of this land."

DUP councillor Frank McCoubrey said the situation had improved
since early June and claimed the material was "left there using a
yellow tipper lorry with a cage on it."

He said: "Earlier in June there were incidents of fly tipping on
Lanark Way where asbestos, fridges, kitchen rubbish and items
which identified a particular house were all dumped.

"I worked with statutory agencies to secure a clean-up of the area
but it is simply not acceptable that such dangerous materials
should be dumped anywhere."

Mr McCoubrey added: "The collection of material for bonfires is
not an excuse to dump general rubbish, and particularly not items
which could be potentially dangerous to those who would come in
contact with it."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Removal at High School to Cost GBP122K
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lindsey Hamilton, writing for thetele.co.uk, reported that Dundee
City Council is set to spend GBP122,500 on asbestos removal at
Rockwell High School.

It's understood the substance was discovered in the attic space
and in "other locations" during maintenance work on the school's
heating system in the winter of 2015.

City councillors are to be asked to agree to spending the cash on
its removal.

Members of the city development committee will be asked to approve
the work, which would be carried out during August and September.

Labour's education spokesman Laurie Bidwell said he was very
concerned the work could be carried out while staff and pupils are
likely to be in school.

Pupils and staff from Harris Academy have been in the old building
since work on the new Harris commenced.

They will move out at the end of summer term, but a recent report
before councillors said staff and pupils from Castlepark and
Balerno off-site centres will move to Rockwell in August 2016.

Councillor Bidwell said: "I don't think we should have any staff
or pupils on site while the asbestos is removed.

"Parents and carers of pupils of Harris Academy decanted to
Rockwell for three years will want to know whether their children
have been exposed to health risks from this asbestos."

Mr Bidwell said he would be asking for reassurance on these points
at the meeting on Monday, before the work is approved.

Jimmy Black, SNP councillor for the area, said the asbestos would
only pose a health risk if it was disturbed.

He said: "We have developed a fair bit of experience in this field
having dealt with asbestos at other older buildings in Dundee --
we would not put anyone at risk by disturbing asbestos while staff
and pupils are in the school."

A council spokesman said: "The city development committee will be
asked to agree to appoint specialist contractors to remove
asbestos from a roof space in a part of the school that will be
unoccupied.

"Pupils currently using the school will return to Harris before
the work is carried out later in the year. Part of the former
Rockwell site will be used as a base for specialists education
provision, while no decisions have been taken yet about future
uses of the rest of the site."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Burnaby Council Pressing for New Asbestos Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Deutsch, writing for Burnaby Now, reported that it's a
problem that both the construction industry and work safety
organizations have been trying to get a handle on for years.

Exposure to asbestos is not only dangerous for workers in the
construction industry, but also the general public.

In light of the dangers, Burnaby city council is hoping to put
pressure on the provincial government by passing a resolution
calling for mandatory certification and licensing of asbestos and
hazardous material removal contractors.

Along with the resolution, the city is sending a letter to the
provincial government and the Premier with the request.

Asbestos was a popular building material for decades, but exposure
to the fibre is linked to several diseases, including lung cancer.

Coun. Sav Dhaliwal, who made the motion at Monday's council
meeting, said certification for asbestos removal is a longstanding
issue, adding there isn't adequate protection for workers in the
industry.

"I think the situation has become so serious, when we look at the
stats, the number of deaths and other illnesses, we need to have
some action on it," he said, noting asbestos exposure is the
leading cause of work-related deaths in B.C.

The city councillor also pointed out there is currently no
provincial certification or licensing in B.C. to ensure standards
or allow for the suspension of non-compliant contractors.

Dhaliwal did suggest there should be time and reasonable notice
for the industry to adjust to any regulations.

An association that represents the construction industry said it
welcomes certification for asbestos removal contractors, but
argued it may not be enough to address the issue.

Dave Baspaly, the president of the Council of Construction
Associations (COCA), a group that represents several construction
associations in B.C., suggested the problem isn't with the "gold
standard" of asbestos abatement companies, but rather the fly-by-
night businesses that undercut the industry and dump waste where
they're not supposed to, in places like city parks.

He said the companies operating in the underground economy are
making deals with homeowners that regulated companies can't match.

Baspaly said regulations like the ones proposed by Burnaby could
have unintended consequences by driving up the costs for certified
companies and pushing people to seek operators in the underground
economy.

He said enforcement and incentives need to be part of the answer,
adding his organization is urging all the parties with a stake in
the issue to come together to work out a solution.

"It's a complicated issue, it's a pervasive issue and people are
still very much at risk," Baspaly said.

The head of COCA said he's not exactly sure how much asbestos is
in the current building and housing stock in the region, but
anecdotally he's heard from members that it's a "big issue."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dunedin Hospital's Asbestos Bill Rises to $2.3MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eileen Goodwin, writing for Otago Daily Times, reported that the
cost of dealing with asbestos at Dunedin Hospital has shot up to
$2.3million. The figure was disclosed at a Southern District
Health Board committee meeting in Dunedin on Tuesday.

In May, the board said it did not expect the cost of managing the
hazard to be much more than about $1.3million. Asked about the
figure later, facilities and site development manager Warren
Taylor said he had not known about the cost increase, but it was
not particularly surprising. "We're discovering things all the
time. That's the nature of old buildings."

Work undertaken included decontaminating lifts in the clinical
services building which reopened recently after being closed last
October. Many organisations were in a similar position at present.
"Asbestos awareness has changed dramatically in the last 12
months, with the new [health and safety] Act coming in".

The board recently contracted Precise Consulting and Laboratory
Ltd for a three-year contract to help manage its asbestos problem.

The company conducted the board's asbestos surveys and other
asbestos work, but the three-year contract was the first time the
board had had an ongoing agreement for asbestos management. It
meant Precise could be called in at short notice as issues arose.
Precise does not carry out asbestos removal. Asked if the high
demand for asbestos management in Dunedin was pushing up
contractors' prices, Mr Taylor said that was likely.

Although it is not the only affected building, much of the focus
has been the clinical services building, which will be replaced
within the next decade. "That's why we closely monitor every
single dollar we spend in that building on maintenance, asbestos
removal, anything like that."

"We don't want to waste money on a building that's not fit for
purpose," Mr Taylor said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Zealand Enacts National Asbestos Ban
---------------------------------------------------------
Tim Povtak, writing for Asbestos.com, reported that New Zealand
will prohibit importation of all asbestos products and materials
beginning Oct. 1, joining 57 other countries that already ban
asbestos.

Nick Smith, New Zealand environment minister, announced the latest
prohibition. His statement marked progress toward a long-sought,
worldwide ban on the toxic mineral.

"It's about bloody time," Laurie Kazan-Allen, coordinator of the
International Ban Asbestos Secretariat, told Asbestos.com. Kazan-
Allen, who is based in the United Kingdom, is one of the world's
foremost authorities on the global asbestos watch.

"We're in an interesting time right now," she said. "There is a
great deal of mobilization by ban-asbestos campaigners in several
countries. There are some encouraging signs."

Progress on Banning Asbestos Is Slow

A growing number of nations are slowly working to ban or restrict
asbestos, raising hopes for a future free from asbestos-related
disease.

Exposure to asbestos can cause a variety of serious health issues,
including asbestosis, mesothelioma and lung cancer. The World
Health Organization estimates 100,000 people die annually from
asbestos-related conditions.

Canada, once one of the world's largest asbestos producers, has
committed to banning the toxic fiber according to an announcement
from Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in May.

Congress this year passed a bill to amend the Toxic Substances
Control Act, which will give the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency more power to restrict asbestos and push the country closer
to a potential ban. President Barack Obama signed the bill into
law on June 22, 2016.

Kazan-Allen said that Colombia, Malaysia and the Philippines are
moving toward more asbestos restrictions. Thailand, Vietnam and
Indonesia -- three nations notorious for asbestos consumption --
have become more open to discussing the health issues and problems
asbestos causes.

Nepal instituted a ban on the import, sale, distribution and use
of all asbestos in 2015. South Korea achieved a total ban in 2015.

"It would be great if every country banned asbestos," Kazan-Allen
said. "But the full extent of the success in outlawing asbestos
can be seen not only by the number of ban countries, but by the
countries which choose not to use asbestos."

The number of countries using large amounts of asbestos has
declined in recent years. There are now only 23 countries using
more than 500 tons of asbestos annually according to the latest
data on the global asbestos trade. The number of heavy users has
dropped from 37 countries in 2012 and 33 countries in 2013.

The government of Zimbabwe recently admitted efforts to revive its
struggling asbestos mining industry had failed. Even Russia, the
world's most prolific asbestos producer today, has begun touting a
"green housing development" outside Moscow that is free from any
asbestos products.

Lack of Leadership in the US

Although the Toxic Substances Control Act amendment encouraged
Kazan-Allen, she believes a lack of leadership in the United
States has hurt international efforts to ban asbestos.

The U.S. has reduced its use of asbestos significantly in recent
decades, but the toxic fiber remains legal to use in various
products. The last asbestos mine in the U.S. closed in 2002. The
country still imported 423 tons of asbestos products in 2014,
according to the United States Geological Survey.

"The fact that the United States has not banned asbestos in the
face of so much knowledge, so many lawsuits and so much death is a
scandal which shames political parties of every color, hue and
inclination," Kazan-Allen said.

The New Zealand announcement comes only months after the country
introduced new safety and health requirements to toughen laws
designed to manage asbestos-related risks.

An estimated 170 people die annually in New Zealand from asbestos-
related disease. It is the single biggest cause of work-related
fatalities according to government reports.

Asbestos Deaths in New Zealand Will Continue

New Zealand first began regulating asbestos in 1978. It banned raw
asbestos in 1984 but continued producing asbestos building
materials until 1987.

Most of the current asbestos use in New Zealand involves specialty
products such as brake linings, gaskets and seals.

Smith says the ban in New Zealand will include some exceptions.

"A permit will only be issued if there is genuinely no alternative
product available or if the alternative would be
disproportionately expensive," Smith said in a news conference
announcing the ban. "In addition, an importer would have to be
able to show that any risk of asbestos exposure can be safely
managed."

The New Zealand government has faced considerable scrutiny from
its citizens over its inaction on banning asbestos.

The number of fatalities related to asbestos is expected to
continue for decades in New Zealand because of the long latency
period (10-50 years) between asbestos exposure and the first signs
of asbestos-related disease.

"I think New Zealand was unusually slack in dealing with this
issue," University of Otago epidemiologist David Skegg told the
New Zealand Herald. "Until the recent past, you have to say that
the challenge of asbestos was largely ignored in New Zealand."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brighton 1984 Bomb May Have Exposed Rescuers
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Guardian reported that rescuers who worked at the scene of the
deadly IRA bombing in Brighton 32 years ago are being sought after
a police officer died from an asbestos-related disease.

Police, fire and ambulance personnel who were involved in the
aftermath of the attack are being told there is a very small
chance they could have been exposed to asbestos fibres within the
debris.

Letters are also being sent to Conservative party members,
Brighton and Hove city council, and Sussex University hospital NHS
trust, warning that staff and others could be affected, police
said.

Five people were killed and 34 others were seriously injured when
the bomb detonated at the Grand Hotel on Brighton's seafront in
October 1984.

The intended target of the blast was the prime minister at the
time, Margaret Thatcher, and her Tory cabinet, who were staying at
the hotel during a Conservative party conference.

Steve Barry, Sussex police assistant chief constable, who is co-
ordinating an emergency services group, stressed that the
likelihood of people having been affected was "very small".
However, he said he felt he had an ethical duty to tell people
that a Metropolitan police officer who had worked at the scene had
died from an asbestos-related disease last December.

Barry said: "We are trying to identify and inform emergency
service colleagues and others who may have been exposed to
asbestos fibres to offer medical advice and support. I understand
that on hearing this news people may be anxious as to whether they
have been exposed to asbestos and concerned about the possible
effects on their health.

"I would like to emphasise that the possibility that they have
been affected is very small, but I feel it is the right thing to
pass this information on. People could have potentially been
exposed to asbestos fibres within the hotel debris and while we
know that police officers working at the scene were issued with
personal protective equipment, this was some days after the
explosion."

Sussex police said it was offering its officers health information
and support. Barry added: "By publicising this issue I don't wish
to cause distress but inform people so they can seek health advice
from their GP, and to reassure them that the possibility that they
have been affected is very small."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Removal Creates Controversy in UW-Madison Campus
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Keely Arthur, writing for Channel3000.com, reported that a
University of Wisconsin-Madison graduate student living in
university housing said she was caught off guard when contractors
began removing asbestos from the property.

Amy Jancewicz is a Ph.D. student living with her husband and two
children at University Houses, an apartment complex for faculty
and students. Jancewicz tells News 3 that contractors began
construction on the outside of the building two weeks ago.

"It's terrible, the whole place resonates with sound," she said.

She said she realized loud noise was the least of her family's
problems when she saw signs for asbestos removal around the
property.

"They never told us they were going to be removing it," Jancewicz
said of the asbestos.

UW Housing sent Jancewicz and other residents a letter saying
there was an abatement scheduled, but did not disclose that it
would be asbestos abatement, Jancewicz said. UW Housing officials
said they did not need to disclose if asbestos removal was
happening.

"I'm concerned about what everybody else is concerned about when
they hear asbestos: cancer risks, mesothelioma," Jancewicz said.
"I'm worried about my kids having an exposure to it."

University Housing tells News 3 that the removal is part of a much
bigger construction project involving brick work at University
Houses, Eagle Heights and the Harvey Streets apartments.

"It is safe and the procedures we are using are safe," Jeff Novak,
director of UW Housing, said.

Contractors are removing caulk with asbestos in it. The caulk has
about 10 percent of asbestos-carrying material in it.

"The state who oversees the projects for us assures that they're
using the practices and procedures that they should be," Novak
said.

Novak and Jancewicz met Monday. Jancewicz said she is still
concerned that she is not being told everything.

"I don't know what I should believe given that I had no notice
about this," she said.

Novak said he is very sorry for the miscommunication, and that UW
Housing has learned from the situation and will try to be more
transparent.

All of the construction should be complete by this fall.

Earlier this year, Jancewicz and other residents learned that a
child living in university apartments tested positive for elevated
levels of lead. While UW officials said the apartment was not
determined as the cause, a state organization gave UW two months
to make some changes to the apartments in light of the incident.
UW completed that requirement.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sydney Residents Launch Class Suit Over Dumping
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Dalzell, writing for ABC News, reported that a group of
south-western Sydney residents have launched a class action
against their local council, alleging it is responsible for
asbestos being dumped near their homes.

Chipping Norton local Bernie King is spearheading the lawsuit
against Liverpool City Council which was lodged in the NSW Supreme
Court earlier in June.

Asbestos was discovered just metres away from his property on
Rickard Road last July, one of at least 22 sites potentially
contaminated by landfill.

The Environment Protection Authority (EPA) is investigating claims
Liverpool council illegally dumped the waste, which could have
come from the council's own storage facility.

Mr King said: "I rung a couple of people in the council and I got
no answers there and so I rung someone else I knew in the council
... he came back and he told me it was small amounts of asbestos
found in the soil that they put here."

"Two weeks after they moved the soil, they sent us a letter about
it."

That letter, from July 2015, stated the council was remediating a
number of sites nominated by the EPA within the area.

"One of these sites is Rickard Road, Chipping Norton," the letter
said.

"These sites were either backfilled or mounded some time ago to
minimise vehicle access to the area.

"The soil used was from a source that is now known to contain
small fragments of asbestos contaminating material."

Mr King bought his property in 1982, believing it was a solid
investment.

It had been valued at $800,000, however he said that figure had
now been slashed in half.

"Not worth a penny, no-one would want to buy it anyway with all
the asbestos scares here," he said.

"It's fully stressful, I don't know which way to turn."

Almost 20 residents have now signed up to the class action.

In documents lodged in the Supreme Court, obtained by the ABC, Mr
King -- on behalf of the group members -- alleged the council:

   -- "Was the body responsible for, and in control of all
contaminated soil dumped in June 2014 on the nature strips located
at Rickard and Newbridge Roads, Chipping Norton.

   -- "Employed and or controlled the work activities of the
person driving the vehicles and/or working in the vehicles that
had carried the contaminated soil; and

   -- "Directed the persons controlling and/or working from the
said vehicles to dump the contaminated soil on the nature strips
located at Rickard and Newbridge Roads."

   -- Claim could be 'in the millions'

David Marocchi from Paramount Lawyers, the firm representing the
residents, would not reveal how much money they were seeking,
however said it could be "in the millions of dollars".

"We'd like the residents to be compensated financially, but also
there's other matters to be considered, there's the livelihood of
children and their parents," he said.

Liverpool council would not comment on the legal proceedings,
except to say it would be "manning a vigorous defence".

The council had already spent almost $5 million trying to clean up
the contaminated landfill, and had set aside a further $2.5
million.

It had previously said it was working closely with the EPA to
address the sites under investigation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: School Hits GBP1MM Setback After Asbestos Find
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jenny Foulds, writing for Daily Record and Sunday Mail, reported
that West Dunbartonshire Council says it could not have foreseen
the find which will add GBP936,000 to the bill and delay the
build.

Plans for Balloch's new superschool have hit a GBP1million
stumbling block after asbestos was discovered on the site.

The Lennox Herald can reveal that the deadly material was recently
found below the former St Kessog's school building -- adding an
eye-watering GBP936,000 to the bill.

West Dunbartonshire Council says it could not have foreseen the
extra cost as the asbestos was only found at previously
unaccessible parts of the site.

The setback will also put the whole project back by 12 weeks, with
the campus now due to open in winter 2017.

Councillors will be asked to plug the shortfall at a full council
meeting.

Opposition leader Jonathan McColl sided with the local authority
and said officers couldn't have known what lay beneath,
commenting: "To say it's just one of those things seems too blas‚
for such a large sum of money, but there really was no way the
council could have known it was there.

"As is standard practice, records for the site were thoroughly
checked prior to work starting, but in the early 60s when St
Kessog's was built, asbestos wasn't considered a dangerous
substance, so its presence in the under foundation filler material
wasn't noted.

"There is no asbestos on the rest of the site, just directly under
the school, so it wasn't found until the school was demolished and
the foundations dug out.

"The council will have to decide, as part of the budget setting in
February next year, how to accommodate the increased cost of the
project in the 10 year capital plan."

Richard Cairns, the council's strategic director for regeneration,
environment and growth, said: "These are essential works which
could not have been foreseen.

"We're now seeking council approval to allow the remediation to be
carried out as quickly as possible and this would allow us to get
to work on building this fantastic new facility for generations of
young people."

Parents and carers are due to receive a letter home informing them
of the delay.

The new GBP16.4m campus will be able to accommodate 747 pupils and
be located on the site of the former St Kessog's Primary School,
which has already been demolished.

It will house St Kessog's, as well as a new nondenominational
school created through the amalgamation of Jamestown and Haldane
primaries, as well as an Additional Support Needs Unit and Early
Learning and Education Centre.

A report which goes to the full council states that a ground
investigation was carried out in all accessible areas prior to the
start of the demolition works in September last year.

It reads: "A further ground investigation was carried out during
and post-demolition of the St Kessog's building, once all areas
could be accessed. Asbestos was found below the concrete floor
slab of the former school building as well as in the previously
inaccessible areas of the made ground soils surrounding the former
school building."

The paper adds that the extent of the asbestos does not call the
proposed use of the site into question but says it is found at
various points over the site, meaning that the remediation poses
"a significant financial challenge".

The council will need to hire a contractor to carry out the work
and officers say it is important the contract is let as quickly as
possible.

The funds being used are those which were re-allocated when the
Scottish Government decided to fully fund the capital for the new
Our Lady and St Patrick's High School.

Officers are asking the council plug the shortfall with GBP888,000
from the capital plan.

The remaining cash will be bridged with savings realised from
funds already allocated to the project.



                            *********

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  * * *