CAR_Public/160805.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, August 5, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 156




                            Headlines


ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES: Discovery Ongoing in "Hatamian" Action
AHOLD USA: Falsely Marketed Cheese Products, "Jain" Suit Claims
AHOLD USA: Facase "Hackman" Suit Over Parmesan Cheese Products
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Appeal Pending in "Kaufman" Action
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Plumbers and Steamfitters Suit Still Pending

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Motion to Dismiss "Houssain" Suit Pending
AMERICAN EXPRESS: B&R Supermarket Claims Transferred to New York
ANZ BANKING: Court to Rule on Bank Fees Class Action
ARCELORMTTTAL: Nov. 14 Settlement Hearing in "Maroz" Case
BANK OF AMERICA: November 29 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

BANKWEST: Harbour Litigation Mulls Class Action Funding
BENJAMIN MICHAEL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Hernandez" Suit Says
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Hebert" Suit Over Pradaxa(R)
BOOT BARN: To Defend Against California Wage and Hour Class Suit
BRIXMOR PROPERTY: To Defend Against Class Action

CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Walton" Suit Claims
COMMUNITY PHYSICAL: Therapists Suit Has Conditional Certification
COOPERATIVE HOME: Faces "Crespo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
CROSSTOWN LAW: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
CSX TRANSPORTATION: Judge Tosses Bid to Dismiss Class Action

DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces CWS Cedar Suit in Tex. Over Appraisal Value
DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces State Thomas Suit Over Appraisal Value
DAVIS, CA: Fire Union Pres. Files Class Action Over Unpaid OT
DREW'S LLC: Faces "Haack" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
E. I. DU PONT: 3,500 Drinking Water Lawsuits Pending in MDL

EAGLE MATERIALS: Discovery Ongoing in Wallboard Action
EAGLE MATERIALS: Discovery Ongoing in Homebuilders' Action
EMERGENCY MEDICAL: Order Denying Class Certification Upheld
EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Defending MERS Related Litigation
EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Court Dismissed Vathana Class Action

EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Court Dismissed "West" Collective Action
EVERBANK FINANCIAL: "Bland" Collective Action Dismissed
EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Jabranis Want to Drop Appeal in "Wilson" Case
EXPRESS MESSENGER: "Ege" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to W.D. Wash.
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Faces "Burnett" Class Action Lawsuit

EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Faces Class Action by John Does
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Faces Firefighters Pension Trust Fund's Suit
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Motion to Decertify Class in Brady Case Pending
FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: Discovery Has Not Yet Commenced in Class Suit
FIAT CHRYSLER: Star Trek Actor's Parents File Wrongful Death Suit

FOREVER LINK: Faces "Retana" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
GOODYEAR TIRE: 10th Cir. Affirms Judgment in "Helmer" Suit
GULF OFFSHORE: Faces "Kwaw" Class Suit in California Super. Ct.
INGRAM MICRO: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Tianjin Deal
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Securities, ERISA Suits Pending in N.Y.

KARNAFULLY DISTRIBUTION: Faces "Fernandez" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
KOHLS CORPORATION: Illegally Collects Debt, "Barshay" Suit Says
LONG BEACH, CA: Plaintiffs Slept on Their Right to Amend
LUTHERAN CHURCH: Investors Mull Class Action Over Troubled Funds
MARIA YEE: Faces "Kao" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

MARRONE BIO: September 22 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
MARS INC: Campbell Seeks Certification of Class
MERCK & CO: 405 Women Sales Reps Opt in to Equal Pay Class Action
MINOR LEAGUE: Players Lose Class Certification Bid in Wage Suit
MJB HOLDING: Faces "Chananya" Suit Over Fiduciary Duty Breach

MONTAGE TECHNOLOGY: Sept. 20 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
NATURMED INC: Faces "Wink" Class Suit in W.D. Kentucky
NAVIENT CORPORATION: "Ubaldi" Class Suit Remains Pending
NAVIENT CORPORATION: Motion to Dismiss "Blyden" Class Action
NAVIENT CORPORATION: Lord Abbett Funds Named as Lead Plaintiff

NEW WEALTH ADVISORS: Ruling in Anti-SLAPP Case Affirmed In Part
NIANTIC INC: Faces Class Action in New Jersey Over "Pokemon Go"
NIANTIC INC: Sued Over Deceptive Pokemon Go Terms of Services
NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Must Defend Against Suit Over Severance Pay
NW MANAGEMENT: Farm Workers Celebrate Class Action Victory

PAMLAB LLC: Employees Barred From Attacking Agreement
RELX INC: Court Denied Class Certification Bid in "Mussat" Suit
ROKA BIOSCIENCE: November 9 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
ROTI RESTAURANTS: Class Certification Bid in "Lindner" Continued
SAFEGUARD PROPERTIES: Faces "Michael" Class Suit in N.D. Illinois

SEDGWICK: Female Partner Files Pay Discrimination Class Action
SELIP & STYLIANOU: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims
SEPHORA USA: Faces "Angulo" Suit in California Superior Court
SIRIUS XM: Settling TCPA Class Suit for $35,000,000
SNAPCHAT: Sued in Illinois Over Face-Scanning Technology

SONY CORP: November 8 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
STAFFING SOLUTIONS: Judge Declines to Approve "Wyms" Settlement
STANFORD FINANCIAL: Lawyers Benefit More From Settlement Payouts
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Judge Reversed Decertification Order
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Judge Allows Fraud Suit to Move Forward

TEAM BROWN: Faces "Carson" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
TOYOTA MOTORS: Bid to Seal Settlement Documents Denied
TYSON FOODS: Seeks New Trial in Employees' Wage Class Action
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Cavello" Suit in Dist. New Jersey
UNITED RECOVERY: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection

USG CORP: Homebuilders Attempt to Appeal Wallboard Pricing Suits
USG CORP: Defending Wallboard Class Suits in Canada
VISA INC: 2nd Circuit Vacated Lower Court's Certification Order
VISA INC: Motion to Transfer Home Depot Suit to MDL 1720 Filed
VISA INC: 75 Merchants Commenced Proceedings Against Visa Europe

VISA INC: Amended Suit Filed in EMV Chip Liability Shift Case
VISA INC: Broadway Grill Filed Motion to Remand Class Suit
VOLKSWAGEN AG: $14-Bil. Settlement Gets Initial Court Approval
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Turns Focus to Emission Legal Challenges in Europe
VOLKSWAGEN AG: EU Works with Consumer Groups in Compensation Bid

VOLKSWAGEN AG: Bavaria to Sue Over State Pension Fund Losses
WAL-MART: Averts Shareholder Suit Over Mexico Bribery Scandal
WINDOWS USA: Faces "Hudson" Suit in Southern Dist. Mississippi
XURA INC: Settlement Reached in Securities Class Suits
ZIPCAR INC: Settles New York AG Suit Over Vehicle Damage Fees

* Appellate Panel Okays Florida Red Light Camera Programs
* Big Law Firms Face Gender Discrimination Suits
* More MDL Requests Denied as Panel Raises Level of Scrutiny
* Securities Class Actions Up 17% After Rise in M&A Suits


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 Companies Win Summary Judgment in "Arbogast"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Dismisses "Brown"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 6th Cir. Affirms Dist. Ct. Ruling in "Ely"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fla. Appeals Ct. Reverses Ruling in "Font"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Ct Reverses Summary Ruling in "Charlifue"

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Engineer Sues AT&T Over Mesothelioma
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Continues to Defend Suit at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Badger Continues to Defend Suits at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: DCLLC Had $49MM of Insurance Recovery at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fedex Corporation Still Subject to DOJ Probe

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had $1.5-Bil. in Asbestos Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell No Payment to NARCO Trust at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had 8,017 Bendix Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Continues to Defend Suits at Mar 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Int'l Paid $1.9MM for Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Continues to Defend Suits at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Continues to Defend Suits at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Pacific Had $104MM Liability at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gizo Residents Warned of Asbestos Risk
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Adopts Defense, But Defendant Loses Case

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Addresses Duty to Warn Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Laborer Exposed to Asbestos from Fish Docks
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill Young Mother Exposed to Asbestos in School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: St. Mary's To Make Asbestos Decision
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sheldon Silver's Law Firm Found New Gold Mine

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Fin'l Profit Drops on Asbestos Hit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firm Warns Former Workers of Imported Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Ban Did Not Stop Mesothelioma Spread
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Payment Fast-Tracked for Fatal Diseases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Council to Support Affected Homeowners

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Farmer Used Land for Illegal Asbestos Dumping
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Find in Royal Hobart Relocates Workers
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reversal of Verdict Makes Cases Harder to Prove
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Ruling Doesn't End Payment Battle
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Satisfied with CFA Asbestos Investigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Beach Closed Due to Asbestos Scare
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Billingham ICI Workers Seek Asbestos Answers
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Landmark Asbestos Ruling Good News for Sufferers
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kilgore College Whistleblower Suit Settled
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Slows Gary Deconstruction Project

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Mineral Exposed at Quarry
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shipyard Cited for Repeated Asbestos Exposures
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Three Tonnes of Sheeting Dumped in Noosaville
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Formed Relations with Asbestos Firms
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fears Raised Over Mandurah Forum Asbestos

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man With Terminal Cancer Pleas for Legal Help
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Case May Help York Victims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Asbestos Found at Co Tyrone Bonfire Site


                            *********


ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES: Discovery Ongoing in "Hatamian" Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 25, 2016, that the discovery
process is ongoing in the case, Hatamian v. AMD, et al.

On January 15, 2014, a class action lawsuit captioned Hatamian v.
AMD, et al., C.A. No. 3:14-cv-00226 (the "Hatamian Lawsuit") was
filed against the Company in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California. The complaint purports to
assert claims against the Company and certain individual officers
for alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), and Rule 10b-5 of the
Exchange Act. The plaintiffs seek to represent a proposed class of
all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
common stock during the period April 4, 2011 through October 18,
2012. The complaint seeks damages allegedly caused by alleged
materially misleading statements and/or material omissions by the
Company and the individual officers regarding the Company's 32nm
technology and "Llano" product, which statements and omissions,
the plaintiffs claim, allegedly operated to artificially inflate
the price paid for the Company's common stock during the period.
The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys'
fees and costs.

On July 7, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs'
claims. On March 31, 2015, the Court denied the motion to dismiss.
On May 14, 2015, the Company filed its answer to plaintiffs'
corrected amended complaint.

On September 4, 2015, plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification, and on March 16, 2016, the Court granted
plaintiffs' motion. A court-ordered mediation held in January 2016
did not result in a settlement of the lawsuit. The discovery
process is ongoing.


AHOLD USA: Falsely Marketed Cheese Products, "Jain" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shawn Jain, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated v. Ahold USA, Inc. d/b/a Giant Landover, Giant Carlisle,
Stop & Shop New England, Stop & Shop New York Metro, and Peapod,
Case No. 2016-CA-005100 (D.C. Super. Ct., July 13, 2016), was
brought on behalf of all individuals and entities in the District
of Columbia who purchased Ahold's "100% Grated Parmesan Cheese",
that was falsely marketed by the Defendants as one hundred percent
comprised of parmesan cheese and does not contain substitutes or
fillers, when in fact, it contains 10.20 percent cellulose filler.

Ahold USA, Inc. operates approximately 800 stores across the
United States under the "brands" Giant Landover, Giant Carlisle,
Stop & Shop New England, and Stop &S hop New York Metro, as well
as Peapod, an online grocery service that works in partnership
with Stop & Shop, Giant Landover and Giant Carlisle.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
      Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
      MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
      412 H St NE, Suite 302
      Washington, DC 20002
      Telephone: (202) 470-3520
      Facsimile: (202) 800-2730
      E-mail: nmigliaccio@ciasslawdc.com
              irathod-@classi.awdc.com

         - and -

      Christopher T. Nidel, Esq.
      NIDELLAW, P.L.L.C.
      1615 New Hampshire Ave, NW
      Washington, DC 20009
      Telephone: (202) 558-2030
      E-mail: ehris@nidellaw.com


AHOLD USA: Facase "Hackman" Suit Over Parmesan Cheese Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gloria Hackman, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated v. Ahold USA, Inc., d/b/a Giant Landover, Giant Carlisle,
Stop & Shop New England, Stop &Shop New York Metro, and Peapod,
Case No. 2016-CA-005129 (DC. Super. Ct., July 14, 2016), is
brought on behalf of all individuals and entities in the District
of Columbia who purchased Ahold's "100% Grated Parmesan Cheese",
that was falsely marketed by the Defendants as one hundred percent
comprised of parmesan cheese and does not contain substitutes or
fillers, when in fact, it contains 10.20 percent cellulose filler.

Ahold USA, Inc. operates approximately 800 stores across the
United States under the "brands" Giant Landover, Giant Carlisle,
Stop & Shop New England, and Stop & Shop New York Metro, as well
as Peapod, an online grocery service that works in partnership
with Stop & Shop, Giant Landover and Giant Carlisle.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
      Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
      MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
      412 H St NE, Suite 302
      Washington, DC 20002
      Telephone: (202) 470-3520
      Facsimile: (202) 800-2730
      E-mail: nmigliaccio@ciasslawdc.com
              irathod-@classi.awdc.com

         - and -

      Christopher T. Nidel, Esq.
      NIDELLAW, P.L.L.C.
      1615 New Hampshire Ave, NW
      Washington, DC 20009
      Telephone: (202) 558-2030
      E-mail: ehris@nidellaw.com


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Appeal Pending in "Kaufman" Action
----------------------------------------------------
American Express Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that notices of appeal have
been filed in the Kaufman class action.

AmEx said, "We are a defendant in a class action captioned Kaufman
v. American Express Travel Related Services, which was filed on
February 14, 2007, and is pending in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Plaintiffs' principal
allegation is that our gift cards violated consumer protection
statutes because consumers allegedly had difficulty spending small
residual amounts on the gift cards prior to the imposition of
monthly service fees.:

The Court preliminarily certified a settlement class consisting of
(with some exceptions) "all purchasers, recipients and holders of
all gift cards issued by American Express from January 1, 2002
through the date of preliminary approval of the settlement." On
March 2, 2016, the court granted final approval of the class-wide
settlement. Notices of appeal have been filed.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Plumbers and Steamfitters Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a motion to dismiss the
case by the Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 137 Pension Fund
remains pending.

AmEx said, "On July 30, 2015, plaintiff Plumbers and Steamfitters
Local 137 Pension Fund, on behalf of themselves and other
purchasers of American Express stock, filed a suit, captioned
Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 137 Pension Fund v. American
Express Co., Kenneth I. Chenault and Jeffrey C. Campbell, for
violation of federal securities law, alleging that the Company
deliberately issued false and misleading statements to, and
omitted important information from, the public relating to the
financial importance of the Costco cobrand relationship to the
Company, including, but not limited to, the decision to accelerate
negotiations to renew the cobrand agreement. The plaintiff seeks
damages and injunctive relief. The Company moved to dismiss the
amended complaint on March 21, 2016."


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Motion to Dismiss "Houssain" Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
American Express Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the defendants have
moved to dismiss the amended complaint in the Houssain class
action lawsuit.

On October 16, 2015, a putative class action, captioned Houssain
v. American Express Company, et al., was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA)
relating to disclosures of the Costco cobrand relationship. On May
10, 2016, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint naming certain
officers of the Company as defendants and alleging that the
defendants violated certain ERISA fiduciary obligations by, among
other things, allowing the investment of American Express
Retirement Savings Plan (Plan) assets in American Express common
stock when American Express common stock was not a prudent
investment and misrepresenting and failing to disclose material
facts to Plan participants in connection with the administration
of the Plan. The amended complaint seeks, among other remedies, an
unspecified amount of damages. The defendants moved to dismiss the
amended complaint on May 31, 2016.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: B&R Supermarket Claims Transferred to New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a California court has
granted AmEx's motion to transfer to New York the claims filed
against it in the lawsuit by B&R Supermarket, Inc.

On March 8, 2016, plaintiffs B&R Supermarket, Inc. d/b/a Milam's
Market and Grove Liquors LLC, on behalf of themselves and others,
filed a suit, captioned B&R Supermarket, Inc. d/b/a Milam's
Market, et al. v. Visa Inc., et al., for violations of the Sherman
Antitrust Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, California's Cartwright
Act and unjust enrichment in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, against American Express
Company, other credit and charge card networks, other issuing
banks and EMVCo, LLC. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants,
through EMVCo, conspired to shift liability for fraudulent, faulty
and otherwise rejected consumer credit card transactions from
themselves to merchants after the implementation of EMV chip
payment terminals. Plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief.

"On June 24, 2016, the court granted our motion to transfer the
claims against us to New York. The court also granted plaintiffs'
leave to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint, which
was filed on July 15, 2016, names additional plaintiff merchants
and continues to name American Express Company as a defendant. We
intend to defend the claims vigorously," the Company said.


ANZ BANKING: Court to Rule on Bank Fees Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
BankingDay reports that the High Court was set to deliver its
judgment on the bank fees class action case on July 27, ruling on
whether late payment fees imposed by ANZ on credit card accounts
constitute "penalties" within the meaning of established precedent
and are, therefore, unconscionable.

Paciocco v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd is the
first of a series of class actions over bank fees.  The original
claim was in relation to five classes of fees charged on customer
accounts.


ARCELORMTTTAL: Nov. 14 Settlement Hearing in "Maroz" Case
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled VIKTORYIA MAROZ & EDWARD TOLLIVER, ON BFHALF
OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v.
ARCELORMTTTAL MONESSEN LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-00770-
AJS (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Arthur L. Schwab entered an order
conditionally certifying a settlement class:

     "All owner/occupants and renters of residential property
      residing within one and one-half (1.5) miles of the
      ArcelorMittal Monessen facility's property boundary."

The Court further:

     1. granted preliminary approval of a settlement in the case;

     2. approved the form and manner of class notice; and

     4. set Nov. 14, 2016, as the date for settlement hearing.

The Court expressly reserves its right to adjourn the Settlement
Hearing from time to time without further notice, other than to
counsel of record, and to approve the proposed settlement and
request for approval of attorneys' fees and costs and request for
approval of payment to the named class representative.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=B7vp57Su


BANK OF AMERICA: November 29 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Barrack, Rodos & Bacine on July 21 issued the following statement
regarding the Pennsylvania Public School Employees' Retirement
System v. Bank of America Corporation.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC SCHOOL EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-CV-00733-WHP, CLASS ACTION

NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION, PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS'
FEES AND EXPENSES, AND SETTLEMENT HEARING

TO:    All persons or entities (a) who purchased Bank of America
Corporation ("BoA") common stock or BoA Common Equivalent
Securities during the period from February 27, 2009 through
October 19, 2010 (the "Class Period") or (b) who purchased or
acquired BoA common stock or BoA Common Equivalent Securities in
or traceable to a public offering during the Class Period (the
"Class")

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

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, that the above-
captioned litigation (the "Action") brought against BoA and
certain officers and directors for allegedly making false and
misleading statements regarding, among other things, BoA's
exposure to demands to repurchase mortgage-backed securities and
other loans, has been certified as a class action on behalf of the
Class, except for certain persons and entities who are excluded
from the Class set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement dated March 11, 2016, as amended (the "Stipulation").

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiff in the Action has
reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $335,000,000.00 in
cash (the "Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all
claims asserted against the Released Defendants (identified in the
"Long Form Notice" referred to below).  The claims that will be
resolved by the Settlement include all claims of any Class Members
that relate to the purchase or sale of BoA common stock or BoA
Common Equivalent Securities during the Class Period.  Based on
the Plan of Allocation being proposed, the estimated average gross
recovery for BoA common stock in the Class is $0.043 per share.
Class Members should note, however, that the foregoing average
recovery is only an estimate.  A Class Member's actual recovery
will depend on several things, including: (1) the number of claims
filed; (2) when, in what quantities and for how much Class Members
purchased and/or acquired BoA common stock or Common Equivalent
Securities during the Class Period; and (3) whether Class Members
sold BoA common stock or Common Equivalent Securities and, if so,
when and for how much.  Thus, if, as some commentators on
securities class actions have estimated, only about one-third of
the Class Members file claims, then the estimated average gross
recovery would be about $0.129 per share.

The Net Settlement Fund (the Settlement Fund less taxes, notice
and administration costs, attorneys' fees and other litigation
expenses awarded to Lead Counsel) will be distributed in
accordance with a plan of allocation (the "Plan of Allocation") as
approved by the Court and which will determine how the Net
Settlement Fund shall be allocated.  As described in the Long Form
Notice, the Plan of Allocation is based, in part, on three events
that occurred from October 14 to October 19, 2010, that allegedly
impacted the value of BoA common stock.  Only Class Members who
purchased BoA securities during the Class Period and who retained
some of the purchased securities past October 13, 2010 will be
eligible to receive a payment under the Plan of Allocation.

A hearing will be held on November 29, 2016 at 2:00 p.m. before
the Honorable William H. Pauley, III at the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, Daniel Patrick
Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, Courtroom
20B, New York, NY 10007-1312, to determine (i) whether the
proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable and
adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with
prejudice against the Released Defendants for the Released Claims
specified and described in the Stipulation; (iii) whether the
proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and
reasonable; and (iv) whether Lead Counsel's motion for an award of
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses should be approved.

If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by
the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to
share in the Settlement Fund.  A Long Form Notice of Class Action,
Proposed Settlement, Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses, and
Settlement Hearing ("Long Form Notice"), which includes the
proposed Plan of Allocation, identifies certain Class eligibility
and payment requirements.  We encourage you to review the Long
Form Notice.  The Long Form Notice, Proof of Claim Form and the
Stipulation, as amended, may be downloaded from the website
maintained by the Claims Administrator,
www.BoASecuritiesSettlement.com, or from Lead Counsel's website,
www.barrack.com

Copies may also be requested by calling (inside the US and Canada)
1-800-644-7835, (outside the US and Canada) 1-215-845-4405, or
emailing a request to BoASecuritiesSettlement@HefflerClaims.com

You may also obtain the Long Form Notice, Proof of Claim Form
and/or the Stipulation, as amended, by contacting the Claims
Administrator at:

          Bank of America Securities Settlement
          c/o Heffler Claims Group, Claims Administrator
          P.O. Box 360
          Philadelphia, PA 19105-0360

If you are a member of the Class, in order to be eligible to
receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a
Proof of Claim Form postmarked no later than November 14, 2016, or
file electronically on the website maintained by the Claims
Administrator, listed above, by November 14, 2016.  If you are a
Class Member and do not submit a proper Proof of Claim Form, you
will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the net
proceeds of the Settlement but you will nevertheless be bound by
any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action.

If you are a member of the Class and wish to exclude yourself from
the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion that is
received no later than September 13, 2016, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Long Form Notice.  If you properly
exclude yourself from the Class, you will not be bound by any
judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you
will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the Settlement.
You should note that pursuant to the decision in Police & Fire
Ret. Sys. v. IndyMac MBS, Inc., 721 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2013), and as
more fully explained in the Long Form Notice, if you exclude
yourself from the Class, you may forfeit any claims you may have
against Defendants relating to your purchases of BoA securities
during the Class Period.  Before you decide to request exclusion
from the Class, you are urged to consult your counsel, at your own
expense, to fully evaluate your rights and the consequences of
excluding yourself from the Class.

If you are a Class Member, you may enter an appearance through
counsel.  See the Long Form Notice for further details.  Any
objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court and
received by Lead Counsel and counsel for BoA no later than
September 13, 2016, in accordance with the instructions set forth
in the Long Form Notice.

Lead Counsel will apply to the Court for an award of attorneys'
fees from the Settlement Fund in an amount not to exceed 15.5% of
the Settlement Fund.  Lead Counsel also will apply for the
reimbursement of litigation expenses paid or incurred in
connection with the prosecution and resolution of the Action, in
an amount not to exceed $2,135,000, which includes reimbursement
to Lead Plaintiff for its reasonable costs and expenses (including
lost wages) directly relating to its representation of the Class,
pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.  If the
Court approves the attorneys' fees and expense application in
full, the estimated average amount of fees and expenses will be
approximately $0.007 per damaged share of BoA common stock or BoA
Common Equivalent Securities.

Inquiries other than requests for the Long Form Notice, Proof of
Claim Form and/or the Stipulation may be made to Lead Counsel:
BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE, Mark R. Rosen -- mrosen@barrack.com --
Jeffrey A. Barrack -- jbarrack@barrack.com -- Jeffrey B. Gittleman
-- jgittleman@barrack.com -- 3300 Two Commerce Square, 2001 Market
Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, (215) 963-0600.

By Order of the Court


BANKWEST: Harbour Litigation Mulls Class Action Funding
-------------------------------------------------------
BankingDay reports that a UK entrepreneur is rallying resources
for what may prove the most effective legal challenge yet
regarding Commonwealth Bank's custody of Bankwest since 2008.

Lawyer Roger Brown advised on July 24 that Harbour Litigation
Funding, from London, is considering investing in a class action.
Mr. Brown, a management consultant with Australian origins, was an
adviser in private practice working with major international
insurance companies for 43 years until setting up
MortgageDeception.com last year.


BENJAMIN MICHAEL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Hernandez" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Noemi Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Benjamin Michael & Associates, Inc., Case
No. 2:16-cv-03914 (E.D.N.Y., July 14, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Benjamin Michael & Associates, Inc. is a debt collection agency.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
      SANDERS LAW, PLLC
      100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 50
      Garden City, NY 11530
      Telephone: (516) 203-7600
      Facsimile: (516) 281-7601
      E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com

BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Hebert" Suit Over Pradaxa(R)
---------------------------------------------------------
Lenora Hebert, individually, as next of kin and as personal
representative of the estate of Hisae Hebert, deceased v.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Boehringer
Ingelheim International GMBH, Case No._____ (Conn. Sup. Ct., July
14, 2016), is an action for damages suffered by Hisae Hebert as a
proximate result of the Defendant's alleged negligent and wrongful
conduct in connection with the design, testing, and labeling, of
Pradaxa(R).

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BOOT BARN: To Defend Against California Wage and Hour Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Boot Barn Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 25, 2016, that the Company intends to
defend a wage and hour class action lawsuit in California.

On April 28, 2016, two employees, on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated employees, filed a wage-and-hour class
action, which includes claims for penalties under California's
Private Attorney General Act, in the Fresno County Superior Court,
Case No. 16 CE CG 01330, alleging violations of California's wage
and hour, overtime, meal break and statement of wages rules and
regulations among other things. The complaint seeks an unspecified
amount of damages and penalties. The Company intends to defend
this claim vigorously.

At present, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the loss that
may arise from this matter, but has recorded as of June 25, 2016
an amount for the estimated probable loss, which is not material
to the financial statements. Depending on the actual outcome of
pending litigation, charges in excess of such recorded amount
could be recorded in the future, which may have a material adverse
effect on the Company's financial position, results of operations
or liquidity.


BRIXMOR PROPERTY: To Defend Against Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Brixmor Property Group Inc. and Brixmor Operating Partnership LP
said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 25, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2016, that Brixmor intends to vigorously defend
itself against a class action lawsuit.

On February 8, 2016, the Company issued a press release and filed
a Form 8-K reporting the completion of a review by the Audit
Committee of the Company's Board of Directors that began after the
Company received information in late December 2015 through its
established compliance processes. The Audit Committee review led
the Board of Directors to conclude that specific Company
accounting and financial reporting personnel, in certain
instances, were smoothing income items, both up and down, between
reporting periods in an effort to achieve consistent quarterly
same property net operating income growth.

As a result of the Audit Committee review and the conclusions
reached by the Board of Directors, the Company's Chief Executive
Officer, its President and Chief Financial Officer, its Treasurer
and Chief Accounting Officer, and an accounting employee all
resigned. Following these resignations the Company appointed a new
Interim Chief Executive Officer and President, Interim Chief
Financial Officer and Interim Chief Accounting Officer. A new
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer were appointed
effective May 20, 2016.

Prior to the Company's February 8, 2016 announcement, the Company
voluntarily reported to the SEC the matters described above. The
SEC has commenced an investigation with respect to these matters,
and the Company is cooperating fully.

On March 31, 2016, the Company and the former officers referenced
above were named as defendants in a putative securities class
action complaint filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York (the "Court"). The complaint,
captioned Westchester Putnam Counties Heavy & Highway Laborers
Local 60 Benefit Funds v. Brixmor Property Group Inc., et al.
(Case No. 16-CV-02400 (AT)), asserts violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on the
facts described in the Company's February 8, 2016 press release
and Form 8-K. Pursuant to a stipulation between the parties,
plaintiffs will file a consolidated amended complaint within sixty
days after the Court appoints a lead plaintiff and lead counsel
pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.
The Company believes it has valid defenses in this action and
intends to vigorously defend itself.


CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Walton" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jazmin Walton, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Capital Management Services, L.P., Case No. 2:16-cv-
03878-ADS-ARL (E.D.N.Y., July 13, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Capital Management Services, L.P. operates a collection agency
located at 698 1/2 S Ogden St, Buffalo, NY 14206.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph Mauro, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH MAURO, LLC
      306 McCall Avenue
      West Islip, NY 11795
      Telephone: (631) 669-0921
      Facsimile: (631) 669-5071
      E-mail: JoeMauroesq@hotmail.com


COMMUNITY PHYSICAL: Therapists Suit Has Conditional Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Mary M. Rowland of the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, granted plaintiff's motion for
conditional certification of a collective action and judicial
notice in the case NANCY GIROLAMO, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. COMMUNITY PHYSICAL
THERAPY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. and ROBERT TRIPICCHIO, Defendants, No.
15 C 2361 (N.D. Ill.)

Community Physical Therapy & Associates, Ltd. (CPT) provides
physical, occupational, speech and respiratory therapies to
clients at Alden and other skilled nursing and rehabilitation
facilities within Illinois.  CPT has employed more than 100
therapists and therapy assistants in the last three years.

Plaintiff Nancy Girolamo was employed by CPT from 2008 through
February 13, 2015.  During that time, she worked as a therapy
assistant at the Alden of Waterford facility in Aurora, Illinois.

Plaintiff alleges that therapists and therapy assistants performed
off-the-clock work as a result of CPT's productivity standards.
CPT's productivity standard requires 90% of an employee's time be
spent on billable tasks, which usually involves a therapist
working directly with a patient.

Plaintiff brought an action against CPT and its president, Robert
Tripicchio. Plaintiff alleges that CPT failed to pay her and other
persons similarly situated all earned overtime wages. Plaintiff
seeks step-one certification of a collective action pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). Plaintiff
also seeks to send notice to therapists and therapy assistants
employed by CPT within the past three years.

Plaintiff proposes a class made up of therapists and therapy
assistants who were paid an hourly wage dating back three years.
Defendants argued that plaintiff's proposed notice is overly broad
and should be limited to therapy assistants and should exclude
therapists because plaintiff has presented no evidence that
therapy assistants have similar duties to therapists and
therapists are exempt employees and not eligible for overtime.

Magistrate Judge Rowland granted plaintiff's motion for
conditional certification as a representative collective action.
The class is on behalf of therapists and therapy assistants who
were paid an hourly wage dating back 3 years from the date of
notice, and will include all Alden locations and all employees who
worked in excess of 40 hours in any given week. Defendants shall
produce a list, in electronic format, of all therapists and
therapy assistants who have worked at one of the Alden locations
for the past 3 years preceding the issuance of notice. The list
shall contain first and last names, last known address, e-mail
address, telephone number, and dates of employment. Plaintiff
shall send notice, at Plaintiff's expense, by U.S. first class
mail.

Plaintiff's proposed notice of pending lawsuit is granted with
modifications.  On or before July 26, 2016, defendants were
directed to produce a list, in electronic format, of all
therapists and therapy assistants who have worked at one of the
Alden locations for the past 3 years preceding the issuance of
notice. The list shall contain first and last names, last known
address, e-mail address, telephone number, and dates of
employment. The notice and a consent form shall be mailed to each
prospective class member within 10 days of receipt of defendants'
production. Plaintiff shall send notice, at plaintiff's expense,
by U.S. first class mail.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Rowland's memorandum opinion and order
dated July 12, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/81UwKKfrom
Leagle.com.

Nancy Girolamo, Plaintiff, represented by:

David J. Fish, Esq.
Kimberly A. Hilton, Esq.
The Fish Law Firm, P.C.
Fifth Avenue Station
200 E. 5th Avenue, Suite 123
Naperville, ILL 60563
Telephone: 630-355-7590
Facsimile: 630-778-0400

Community Physical Therapy & Associates LTD, Defendant,
represented by Frank John Saibert -- fjsaibert@nixonpeabody.com --
Christina Elizabeth Kurow -- ckurow@nixonpeabody.com -- Edward
Clancy -- eclancy@nixonpeabody.com -- Jamie A. Robinson --
jarobinson@nixonpeabody.com -- Laura Beth Bacon --
lbbacon@nixonpeabody.com -- at Nixon Peabody LLP

Robert Tripicchio, Defendant, represented by Frank John Saibert
-- fjsaibert@nixonpeabody.com -- Edward Clancy --
eclancy@nixonpeabody.com -- Jamie A. Robinson --
jarobinson@nixonpeabody.com -- Laura Beth Bacon --
lbbacon@nixonpeabody.com -- at Nixon Peabody LLP


COOPERATIVE HOME: Faces "Crespo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Guillerma Crespo, and Ondina M. Saenz Martinez, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cooperative Home
Care Associates, Inc., Case No. 512061/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., July
14, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the New York Labor Law.

Cooperative Home Care Associates, Inc. operates a home care agency
located at 400 E Fordham Rd, Bronx, NY 10458.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles Gershbaum, Esq.
      Marc S. Hepworth, Esq.
      David A. Roth, Esq.
      Rebecca S. Predovan, Esq.
      HEPWORTH, GERSHBAUM & ROTH, PLLC
      192 Lexington A venue, Suite 802
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 545-1199
      Facsimile: (212) 532-3801
      E-mail: mhepworth@hgrlawyers.com
              cgershbaum@hgrlawyers.com
              droth@hgrlawyers.com
              rpredovan@hgrlawyers.com


CROSSTOWN LAW: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kayla Harris, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Crosstown Law, LLC and John Does 1-25, Case No. 0:16-
cv-02408-SRN-BRT (D. Minn., July 14, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Crosstown Law, LLC operates a debt collection firm in Minnesota.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas J. Lyons Jr., Esq.
      CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER P.A.
      367 Commerce Court
      Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
      Telephone: (651) 770-9707
      Facsimile: (651) 704-0907
      E-mail: tommycjc@aol.com

CSX TRANSPORTATION: Judge Tosses Bid to Dismiss Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Satterfield, writing for Knoxville News Sentinel, reports
that police, firefighters and other first responders sign up for
inherently dangerous work, but that doesn't give citizens or
businesses a blank check to harm them without financial
consequences, a federal judge has ruled in the case of a Maryville
train derailment.

Chief U.S. District Judge Tom Varlan has turned aside a bid by CSX
Transportation Inc. and Union Tank Car Co. to dismiss a class-
action lawsuit filed by emergency responders in a July 2015
freight train derailment in Maryville that sent poisonous smoke
into the air and more than 100 people to the hospital.

A broken axle on a single rail car hauling 24,000 gallons of a
toxic chemical derailed the 57-car train, causing a fire that
burned for 19 hours, authorities said.

About 5,000 people in a 2-mile radius in Blount County were forced
to evacuate their homes.  At least 87 people had to be treated,
with 36 admitted to the hospital, and 10 first-responders also
required treatment for the effects of exposure to the noxious
smoke.  A fish kill was later reported, and area wells tested.

The rail car was carrying a chemical, acrylonitrile, used in the
manufacture of plastics.  The substance is considered
carcinogenic, and exposure can burn the skin, inflame the lining
of the lungs, throat and nose, and cause headaches, nausea and
dizziness.  Cyanide is a byproduct of burning acrylonitrile.

Union Tank Car Co. manufactured the rail car at issue.  CSX is
accused, among other things, of dragging the rail car nearly 10
miles after the axle broke, which, in turn, caused it to rupture
and the derailment to occur.  Both companies face class-action
lawsuits in U.S. District Court from emergency responders in one
action, and property owners in another.

The firms wanted the emergency responders' lawsuit tossed out in
its entirety, arguing Tennessee has what's known as the Policemen
and Firemen's Rule.  Under the rule, police and emergency workers
are barred from suing citizens and business owners for injuries
those responders suffer on the job.

The principle behind the rule is this: Police and emergency
workers know their jobs carry danger of injury and even death.
They willingly sign up for that risk.  If they could sue the
citizens and business owners for whom they are tasked with
protecting and serving, people would be loathe to call them for
help.

But Judge Varlan ruled in July that the rule is not a complete bar
to lawsuits by emergency responders.  The Tennessee Supreme Court
has opined emergency responders can sue if their injuries are the
result of "a citizen's intentional, malicious or reckless
misconduct."

In the train derailment, the injured emergency responders contend
they toiled hours at the derailment site without being told the
smoke was toxic.  They did not sign up voluntarily for that kind
of risk, Judge Varlan ruled.

"Accordingly, the court finds that the . . . plaintiffs have
sufficiently alleged that being exposed to toxic chemicals is not
a reasonably expected danger, given the nature of the police
officers' position of employment," Judge Varlan wrote.  "As a
result, the policemen and firemen's rule will not operate to
preclude their claims against CSX and UTC."

Judge Varlan has dismissed some claims alleged in both lawsuits
but is refusing to toss out either in its entirety.  He concluded
both emergency responders and property owners have, so far, made a
case both firms were negligent and that negligence resulted in
actual damages.

CSX has complained in prior court filings that it paid more than
$3.5 million in damages to evacuated citizens and business owners
whose firms were shut down for economic losses and medical bills
and to the governments of Maryville and Blount County for its
expenses.  But its argument that the class-action lawsuits are
mere money grabs has failed to convince either U.S. Magistrate
Judge Clifford Shirley or Judge Varlan to dismiss the cases.


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces CWS Cedar Suit in Tex. Over Appraisal Value
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CWS Cedar Springs PV WB, L.P.; CWS Cedar Springs NB WB.
L.P.; CWS Cedar Springs Pooles WB, L.P.; CWS Cedar Springs Bartons
SC.L.P.; CWS Cedar Springs TLG SC, L.P.; CWS Cedar Springs Sunset
SC, L.P.; CWS Cedar Springs CMHC, LLC; CWS Cedar Springs Oakbrook,
L.P.; and Cedar Springs WG, LLC. v. Dallas Central Appraisal
District, Case No. DC-16-08338 (Tex. Dist. Ct., July 13, 2016),
alleges that the Defendants placed an appraisal value of the
Property located at 3604 Cedar Springs Road in Dallas, Dallas
County, Texas, in excess of fair market value.

Dallas Central Appraisal District is a political subdivision of
the State of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel P. Donovan, Esq.
      Jennifer C. Tobin, Esq.
      Kathleen F. Donovan, Esq.
      GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN. P.C.
      One Bent Tree Tower
      16475 Dallas Pkwy., Suite 400
      Addison, TX 75001-6837
      Telephone: (972)931-9901
      Facsimile: (972)931-9208
      E-mail: ddonovan@gpd.com
              jtobin@gpd.com
              kdonovan@gpd.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces State Thomas Suit Over Appraisal Value
------------------------------------------------------------
State Thomas Apartments, L.P. and Franciscan Partners LLC v.
Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No. DC-16-08363 (D. Tex.,
July 13, 2016), alleges that the Defendants placed an appraisal
value of the Property known as Marquis at State Thomas
Apartment/Townhomes located in Dallas, Dallas County, Texas, in
excess of fair market value.

Dallas Central Appraisal District is a political subdivision of
the State of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel P. Donovan, Esq.
      Jennifer C. Tobin, Esq.
      Kathleen F. Donovan, Esq.
      GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN. P.C.
      One Bent Tree Tower
      16475 Dallas Pkwy., Suite 400
      Addison, TX 75001-6837
      Telephone: (972)931-9901
      Facsimile: (972)931-9208
      E-mail: ddonovan@gpd.com
              jtobin@gpd.com
              kdonovan@gpd.com


DAVIS, CA: Fire Union Pres. Files Class Action Over Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Greenwald, writing for Davis Vanguard, reports that Davis
Professional Firefighters Association President Bobby Weist is at
it again, as he filed a class action lawsuit against the City of
Davis, alleging he was not properly paid for all hours worked.

The complaint, filed on July 20 in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California on behalf of similarly situated
individuals against the City of Davis, alleges a violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The complaint claims that Mr. Weist worked for more than 40 hours
without being paid overtime premiums by the city of Davis.  The
plaintiff holds the city of Davis responsible because the
defendant allegedly failed to pay any overtime compensation at a
rate of one-and-one-half to plaintiff for all hours worked in
excess of 40 per workweek.

Mr. Weist is seeking an order of a complete and accurate
accounting of all compensation he is entitled to, monetary damages
in the form of back pay compensation, liquidated damages,
interest, all legal fees and any other relief as the court deems
just.

He is represented by Gary M. Messing and Jason H. Jasmine of
Messing Adam & Jasmine LLP in Sacramento.

Meanwhile, the council had a closed session hearing on the status
of Bobby Weist's PERB (Public Employment Relations Board) appeal
after a December 2014 ruling denied claims by the Davis
Professional Firefighters Association and Union President Bobby
Weist that a decision to deny Mr. Weist vacation time and to put
him on PIP (performance improvement plan) status was motivated by
his union activities and retaliation for his protesting of city
policies and failure to agree to bargaining agreements.

The complaint alleged that the City discriminated and retaliated
against Fire Captain, Local 3494 President and Chief Negotiator
Robert "Bobby" Weist by denying his same-day request for vacation
leave on March 13, 2013, and issuing him a PIP on April 9, 2013.

Moreover, it alleged that the city unilaterally "changed terms and
conditions of employment by issuing the PIP.  These acts allegedly
violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act . . ."

An administrative law judge, following a two-day hearing,
dismissed both complaints.  Mr. Weist appealed the ruling to the
PERB Board, which reviewed the entire record.  They "affirm the
ALJ's dismissal of the retaliation allegation concerning the same-
day vacation request and the City's issuance of a PIP to Weist, as
well as the unilateral change allegation concerning the same-day
vacation request, although for somewhat different reasons than the
ALJ."

However, they also said that "we reverse the ALJ's dismissal of
the unilateral change allegation concerning the City's issuance of
a PIP to Weist."

In August of 2013, the Vanguard reported that the Davis
Professional Firefighters Association had filed an Unfair Labor
Practices Complaint against the City of Davis alleging that, in
March and April 2013, the City discriminated/retaliated against
Union President and Chief Negotiator Bobby Weist by denying his
request for vacation leave and issuing him a PIP, and unilaterally
changed policy by issuing the PIP, in violation of the Meyers-
Milias-Brown Act (MMBA).

The PERB ruling noted that, on the day in question, Mr. Weist and
his crew were scheduled for training.  "Weist reported for his 24-
hour shift at 8:00 a.m. on March 13, 2013.  He was having trouble
breathing and was out of his inhaler medication, so he completed a
same-day vacation leave request to go to the doctor that
afternoon."  They note, "Weist testified that when he submitted
the vacation request, he was not aware that he and his crew were
scheduled for the multi-agency training that night."

When Division Chief Shawn Kinney received Mr. Weist's same-day
vacation request after 3 pm, he said he had heard Mr. Weist loudly
complaining about the training as "BS" earlier that day.

Mr. Kinney conferred with interim Fire Chief Steve Pierce, and
"Pierce agreed with Kinney's recommendation to deny Weist's
vacation request."

"When Kinney informed Weist that his vacation request was denied,
Weist told him that he was sick and had to go to the doctor.
Kinney told Weist he should go home if he was sick.  After
arranging for coverage, Weist left the station, went to the
doctor, and obtained an inhaler and medical note.  Weist's leave
was covered by his sick leave, so he lost no pay or benefits for
his March 13 absence."

The main dispute here was "whether the City's denial of Weist's
same-day vacation request was an unlawful unilateral change, or
whether the MOU permitted the City to exercise its discretion to
deny the leave.  The parties' dispute is whether the denial of the
same-day request was an action that had a generalized effect or
continuing impact on terms and conditions of employment, or was
instead simply an isolated breach of an agreement or policy."

PERB wrote that "the ALJ justified dismissing Local 3494's
complaint over the City's denial of Weist's same-day vacation
request on the ground that it was a one-time occurrence.  While we
agree this allegation should be dismissed, simply describing this
as a one-time occurrence without further analysis is not an
adequate reason for dismissal."

In this case, the plain meaning of the MOU "grants the City
considerable discretion regarding vacation requests, and that
discretion is not limited to situations involving a public
emergency."

The PERB concluded, "The City did not violate the MMBA by denying
Weist's same-day vacation request under the circumstances of this
case."

However, PERB sided with Local 3494 in the issuance of the PIP to
Bobby Weist.  Basically, they ruled, "Since it is not controverted
that the Fire Department had never utilized PIPs before, Local
3494 has established that issuing the PIP to Weist represented a
newly-created or enforced policy in this bargaining unit."

They wrote, "The PIP issued to Weist in this case was a new
disciplinary instrument or procedure because it threatened him
with discipline if he did not conform to the requirements of the
PIP.  It also represented a change in the evaluation procedure.
Weist's supervisors had concluded during the preparation of his
evaluation that several aspects of his work performance needed
improvement, including record-keeping and complying with training
requirements, and they determined that it would be appropriate in
this case to communicate management's expectations in writing
concerning Weist's perceived underperformance in the form of the
PIP.  The PIP is essentially an augmentation of the evaluation
process in that it continues the evaluation process in a
formalized way for the duration of the PIP.  Weist was directed to
meet with Fry on a monthly basis for the purpose of reporting or
otherwise demonstrating that he was complying with the benchmarks
outlined in the PIP, something he would not have been required to
do, absent the PIP."

PERB argued, "In contrast with the same-day vacation policy, there
is no provision in the MOU that gives the City discretion to
impose a new evaluation tool without bargaining with Local 3494.
The MOU makes no provision for PIPs or even evaluations."

The union alleged that the use of the PIP and other disciplinary
measures was aimed at retaliation for Mr. Weist's opposition to
the city's reforms of the fire department, which is constituted as
"protected activity" as union president for 27 years.

However, PERB ruled, "We find that the City has proven its
affirmative defense that it would have issued the PIP for a
legitimate, non-discriminatory reason even absent Weist's
protected activity.  PERB has held that an employer proves its
affirmative defense when it demonstrates that it has 'both an
alternative non-discriminatory reason for its challenged action,
and that the challenged action would have occurred regardless of
the employee's protected activity.'"

They wrote, "The City has met its burden because of its legitimate
and substantial concern that one of its fire chiefs who supervised
a crew of six firefighters was significantly deficient in training
hours as established by an objectively reasonable and generally
applicable policy; was not timely completing logs and reports on
station maintenance, incidents, and apparatus checkouts; and was
not timely performing quarterly fire prevention inspections.  The
City has therefore met or exceeded Local 3494's prima facie case
with equally or more persuasive affirmative evidence demonstrating
that it would have taken the same action despite Weist's protected
activity."

The city council met in closed session on this matter but had no
reportable action that it took.


DREW'S LLC: Faces "Haack" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Drew's LLC. The case
is captioned Jeffrey Haack, individually on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, and John Does (1-100), on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Drew's LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 7:16-cv-06022-NSR (S.D.N.Y.,
July 28, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Nelson Stephen Roman.

Drew's offers salad dressing and salsa which is available
nationally through specialty and natural distribution network.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


E. I. DU PONT: 3,500 Drinking Water Lawsuits Pending in MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that about
3,500 drinking water lawsuits are still pending in the MDL.

In August 2001, a class action, captioned Leach v. DuPont, was
filed in West Virginia state court alleging that residents living
near the Washington Works facility had suffered, or may suffer,
deleterious health effects from exposure to perfluorooctanoic
acids (PFOA) in drinking water.

DuPont and attorneys for the class reached a settlement in 2004
that binds about 80,000 residents. In 2005, DuPont paid the
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses of $23 million and made a
payment of $70 million, which class counsel designated to fund a
community health project.  The company funded a series of health
studies which were completed in October 2012 by an independent
science panel of experts (the C8 Science Panel). The studies were
conducted in communities exposed to PFOA to evaluate available
scientific evidence on whether any probable link exists, as
defined in the settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA and
human disease.

The C8 Science Panel found probable links, as defined in the
settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA and pregnancy-
induced hypertension, including preeclampsia; kidney cancer;
testicular cancer; thyroid disease; ulcerative colitis; and
diagnosed high cholesterol.

In May 2013, a panel of three independent medical doctors released
its initial recommendations for screening and diagnostic testing
of eligible class members. In September 2014, the medical panel
recommended follow-up screening and diagnostic testing three years
after initial testing, based on individual results. The medical
panel has not communicated its anticipated schedule for completion
of its protocol. The company is obligated to fund up to $235
million for a medical monitoring program for eligible class
members and, in addition, administrative costs associated with the
program, including class counsel fees.

In January 2012, the company established and put $1 million into
an escrow account to fund medical monitoring as required by the
settlement agreement. Under the settlement agreement, the balance
in the escrow amount must be at least $0.5 million; as a result,
transfers of additional funds may be required periodically.

The court appointed Director of Medical Monitoring has established
the program to implement the medical panel's recommendations and
the registration process, as well as eligibility screening, is
ongoing. Diagnostic screening and testing has begun and associated
payments to service providers are being disbursed from the escrow
account; at June 30, 2016, less than $1 million has been
disbursed. While it is probable that the company will incur
liabilities related to funding the medical monitoring program,
such liabilities cannot be reasonably estimated due to
uncertainties surrounding the level of participation by eligible
class members and the scope of testing.

In addition, under the settlement agreement, the company must
continue to provide water treatment designed to reduce the level
of PFOA in water to six area water districts, including the Little
Hocking Water Association (LHWA), and private well users.

Class members may pursue personal injury claims against DuPont
only for those human diseases for which the C8 Science Panel
determined a probable link exists. At June 30, 2016 and December
31, 2015, there were approximately 3,500 lawsuits pending in
various federal and state courts in Ohio and West Virginia. These
lawsuits are consolidated in multi-district litigation in Ohio
federal court (MDL). DuPont, through Chemours, denies the
allegations in these lawsuits and is defending itself vigorously.
As a result of plaintiffs' corrected pleadings and further
discovery, in the first quarter 2016, the company revised downward
to 30 the estimated number of the pending lawsuits that allege
wrongful death.

In 2014, six plaintiffs from the MDL were selected for individual
trial. One of these six cases was voluntarily withdrawn by
plaintiffs. In the first case tried to verdict, captioned Bartlett
v. DuPont, in October 2015, the jury awarded $1.6 million in
compensatory damages and no punitive damages. The plaintiff
alleged that exposure to PFOA in drinking water had caused kidney
cancer. DuPont is appealing the decision. The second matter
selected for trial, Wolf v. DuPont, involved allegations that
exposure to PFOA in drinking water caused ulcerative colitis;
prior to trial, a confidential settlement for an immaterial amount
was reached in the first quarter 2016 and has been substantially
completed. Two cases alleging that exposure to PFOA in drinking
water caused kidney cancer were settled in the second quarter
2016, for amounts immaterial individually and in the aggregate.

In the second case to be tried to a verdict, Freeman v. DuPont,
the plaintiff alleged that exposure to PFOA in drinking water
caused testicular cancer. In July 2016, the jury awarded $5.1
million in compensatory damages plus $0.5 million in punitive
damages and attorneys' fees. The company will appeal the decision.

As a result, four of the six cases have been resolved and the two
that were tried to a verdict have been or will be appealed. In
January 2016, the court determined that 40 cases in which
plaintiffs assert cancer claims, would be scheduled for trial
through 2017. Plaintiffs' attorneys are responsible for
identifying the 40 individual cases to be tried. In July 2016, the
court scheduled the first case for trial in November 2016 and the
second for trial in January 2017.

In both of these cases, plaintiffs allege that exposure to PFOA in
drinking water caused testicular cancer and high cholesterol. The
court scheduled a third trial for May 2017 for which plaintiffs'
attorneys have not yet identified the individual case.

An approximate breakdown of the about 3,500 lawsuits still pending
in the MDL:

   Alleged Injury                     Number of Claims

   Kidney cancer                            200
   Testicular cancer                         70
   Ulcerative colitis                       300
   Preeclampsia                             200
   Thyroid disease                        1,430
   High cholesterol                       1,340

This type of litigation could take place over many years and
interim results do not predict the final outcome of cases. While
DuPont believes it is probable that it could incur liabilities
related to the lawsuits still pending in the MDL beyond the
settlements discussed, a range of such liabilities cannot be
reasonably estimated at this time. Given the wide range of
outcomes associated with the six initial cases in the MDL as
discussed above, including two cases that have been or will be
appealed, the company does not believe activity to date provides a
reasonable basis to derive a range of loss for the remaining
lawsuits still pending in the MDL in total or by category of
claim. The possible range of loss is unpredictable and involves
significant uncertainty due to the uniqueness of the remaining,
individual plaintiff's claims and the company's defenses to those
claims both as to potential liability and damages on an individual
claims basis, among other factors.

The court has ordered the parties to participate in nonbinding
mediation regarding global resolution of the MDL. On July 13,
2016, the court entered an order scheduling initial meetings for
the mediation on July 27 and 28, 2016.


EAGLE MATERIALS: Discovery Ongoing in Wallboard Action
------------------------------------------------------
Eagle Materials Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that discovery related to
class certification in the Domestic Wallboard Antitrust Litigation
is ongoing.

Since late December 2012, several purported class action lawsuits
were filed in various United States District Courts, including the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Western District of North
Carolina and the Northern District of Illinois, against the
Company's subsidiary, American Gypsum Company LLC ("American
Gypsum"), alleging that American Gypsum conspired with other
wallboard manufacturers to fix the price for drywall sold in the
United States in violation of federal antitrust laws and, in some
cases related provisions of state law. The complaints allege that
the defendant wallboard manufacturers conspired to increase prices
through the announcement and implementation of coordinated price
increases, output restrictions, and other restraints of trade,
including the elimination of individual "job quote" pricing. In
addition to American Gypsum, the defendants in these lawsuits
include CertainTeed Corp., USG Corporation and United States
Gypsum (together "USG"), New NGC, Inc., Lafarge North America
("Lafarge"), Temple Inland Inc. ("TIN") and PABCO Building
Products LLC. On April 8, 2013, the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") transferred and consolidated all
related cases to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for
coordinated pretrial proceedings.

On June 24, 2013, the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs
filed consolidated amended class action complaints. The direct
purchasers' complaint added the Company as a defendant. The
plaintiffs in the consolidated class action lawsuits bring claims
on behalf of purported classes of direct or indirect purchasers of
wallboard from January 1, 2012 to the present for unspecified
monetary damages (including treble damages) and in some cases
injunctive relief. On July 29, 2013, the Company and American
Gypsum answered the complaints, denying all allegations that they
conspired to increase the price of drywall and asserting
affirmative defenses to the plaintiffs' claims.

In 2014, USG and TIN entered into agreements with counsel
representing the direct and indirect purchaser classes pursuant to
which they agreed to settle all claims against them.  On August
20, 2015, the court entered orders finally approving USG and TIN's
settlements with the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs.
Initial discovery in this litigation is complete.  Following
completion of the initial discovery, the Company and remaining co-
defendants moved for summary judgement.

On February 18, 2016, the court denied the Company's motion for
summary judgement.  On June 16, 2016, Lafarge entered into an
agreement with counsel for the direct purchaser class under which
it agreed to settle all claims against it.  The court entered an
order preliminarily approving this settlement on July 18, 2016.
On July 14, 2016, the Company's motion for permission to appeal
the summary judgement decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit was denied.  Discovery related to this class
certification is ongoing.  At this stage we are unable to estimate
the amount of any reasonably possible loss or range of reasonably
possible losses. We deny the allegations in these lawsuits and
will vigorously defend ourselves against these claims.


EAGLE MATERIALS: Discovery Ongoing in Homebuilders' Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Eagle Materials Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that discovery is ongoing in
a class action lawsuit.

On March 17, 2015, a group of homebuilders filed a complaint
against the defendants, including American Gypsum, based upon the
same conduct alleged in the consolidated class action complaints.
On March 24, 2015, the JPML transferred this action to the
multidistrict litigation already pending in the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania.  Following the transfer, the homebuilder
plaintiffs filed two amended complaints, on December 14, 2015 and
March 25, 2016.  Discovery in this lawsuit is ongoing.


EMERGENCY MEDICAL: Order Denying Class Certification Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case MARIA LEON, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v.
EMERGENCY MEDICAL GROUP OF WATSONVILLE, et al., Defendants and
Respondents No. H040521 (Cal. Ct. App.), the Court of Appeals of
California, Sixth District, affirmed a lower court order denying
class certification.

Emergency Medical Group of Watsonville contracted with Watsonville
Hospital Corporation, Inc. to provide physicians for the emergency
department at the Watsonville Community Hospital. Marina Medical
Billing Service provides medical billing services to hospital-
based emergency medical groups. It provided those services to
Medical Group between April 1, 1998 and December 31, 2008.

The contract between Billing Service and Medical Group provided
that Billing Service would review Medical Group's medical fee
schedule and propose changes to that fee schedule as appropriate.
However, the contract further provided that Medical Group shall,
in its sole and absolute discretion, determine its medical fee
schedule and shall advise Billing Service of such fee schedules.

Maria and Rafael Leon visited the emergency room of Watsonville
Community Hospital on multiple occasions in 2006 and 2007. During
the visits, they received treatment from physicians employed by
Emergency Medical Group of Watsonville.  Watsonville Community
Hospital was a participating provider in the Leons' health plan.
However, as the Leons later learned, Medical Group was not a
participating provider in their health plan. The Leons were
charged Medical Group's chargemaster rate for the treatments they
received. Their health plan covered only a portion of their
medical bills. Respondent Marina Medical Billing Service billed
the Leons for the balance of the medical bills.

The Leons argue that by doing so, Billing Service and Medical
Group engaged a practice of balance billing, which is both illegal
and violative of Medical Group's contract with Watsonville
Community Hospital. The Leons further contend that Billing
Service's billing practices violated the Rosenthal Fair Debt
Collection Practices.

Medical Group and Billing Service maintained that balance billing
was legal until late 2008, that balance billing remains legal in
connection with health plans that are not governed by the Knox-
Keene Act and the Leons misconstrue Medical Group's contract with
Watsonville Community Hospital. Billing Service contends that its
actions were not subject to the Rosenthal Act.

The Leons filed a putative class action against respondents on
behalf of two classes of patients.  Those who received
communications from Billing Service that did not comply with the
Rosenthal Act and those who were balance billed or charged the
charge master rate for medical treatment by Medical Group.

The trial court denied the Leons' motion for class certification.
After summarily adjudicating all of the Leons' claims against
Billing Service in Billing Service's favor, the court granted
summary judgment in favor of Billing Service. The Leons appeal
both rulings.

A three-judge panel of the Appeals Court affirmed the order of
denial of class certification, reversed the order of summary
judgment, and remanded the case to the trial court.

A copy of Acting Presiding Justice Franklin D. Elia's opinion
dated July 11, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/og1f1Kfrom
Leagle.com.

The Court of Appeals of California, Sixth District panel consists
of Acting Presiding Justice Franklin D. Elia and Justices Nathan
D. Mihara and Patricia Bamattre-Manoukian.


EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Defending MERS Related Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------
EverBank Financial Corp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that Mortgage Electronic
Registration Services (MERS), EverHome Mortgage Company, EverBank
and other lenders and servicers that have held mortgages through
MERS are parties to the following material and class action
lawsuits where the plaintiffs allege improper mortgage assignment
and, in some instances, the failure to pay recording fees in
violation of state recording statutes: (1) State of Ohio, ex. rel.
David P. Joyce, Prosecuting Attorney General of Geauga County,
Ohio v. MERSCORP, Inc., et al., filed in October 2011 in the Court
of Common Pleas for Geauga County, Ohio; and (2) Delaware County,
PA, Recorder of Deeds v. MERSCORP, Inc., et al., filed in November
2013 in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County,
Pennsylvania.

"In these material and class action lawsuits, the plaintiffs in
each case generally seek judgment from the courts compelling the
defendants to record all assignments, restitution, compensatory
and punitive damages, and appropriate attorneys' fees and costs.
We believe that the plaintiffs' claims are without merit and
contest all such claims vigorously," the Company said.


EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Court Dismissed Vathana Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
EverBank Financial Corp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the court has entered a
final judgment and order of dismissal with prejudice in the
Vathana Class Action.

In April 2009, a putative class action entitled Vathana v.
EverBank was filed in the Superior Court of Santa Clara County,
California, against EverBank on behalf of all persons who invested
in certain EverBank foreign currency certificates of deposit
between April 24, 2005 and April 24, 2009, whose certificates of
deposit were closed by EverBank and who were allegedly improperly
paid the value of the account. In May 2009, EverBank removed the
case to the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California. The complaint alleges, among other things, that
EverBank breached its contract with its customers by invoking the
force majeure provision when closing certain foreign currency
certificates of deposit, and that at the time of account closing,
utilizing an improper conversion rate.

On October 9, 2015, the parties agreed to a settlement in
principle and the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement on March 18, 2016. On March 29, 2016, EverBank paid
$750,000 to the settlement fund pursuant to the settlement.

On July 7, 2016, the court granted final approval of the
settlement. On July 20, 2016, the court entered the final judgment
and order of dismissal with prejudice.


EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Court Dismissed "West" Collective Action
------------------------------------------------------------
EverBank Financial Corp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the court has entered
an order granting the joint motion to dismiss the West Collective
Action and vacating the order granting conditional certification
on June 8, 2016, thereby dismissing the case with prejudice.

The Company is a party to a collective action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) entitled Anthony West and all others
similarly situated under 29 USC 216(B) v. EverBank Financial Corp
filed on May 19, 2015 in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The plaintiff in this
collective action suit alleges that plaintiff and the class were
(1) improperly classified as exempt under the FLSA (2) entitled to
and not paid overtime and (3) not paid federally mandated minimum
wage. The suit seeks (1) unpaid back wages, (2) liquidated damages
equal to the back pay and (3) costs of the suit incurred by
plaintiff. EverBank filed an answer to the complaint denying the
claims.

On March 22, 2016 the parties entered into a tentative settlement
agreement to resolve the claims of the 19 individual opt-in
plaintiffs and finalized the settlement agreements in May of 2016.
The court entered an order granting the joint motion to dismiss
and vacating the order granting conditional certification on June
8, 2016, thereby dismissing the case with prejudice.


EVERBANK FINANCIAL: "Bland" Collective Action Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------
EverBank Financial Corp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a joint stipulation for
dismissal with prejudice was filed on May 18, 2016, in the Bland
Collective Action.

The Company said, "We are party to a collective action arbitration
demand under the FLSA entitled Edward Moise, James Tyrrell, John
Jahangani, Louis Andrew Doherty III, Calvin Cooper, Lemuel Bland
and all others similarly situated v. EverBank and EverBank
Financial Corp filed with the American Arbitration Association on
September 3, 2015. The plaintiffs in this collective action
arbitration allege that plaintiffs and the class were (1)
improperly classified as exempt under the FLSA (2) entitled to and
not paid overtime and (3) not paid federally mandated minimum
wage. The demand seeks (1) unpaid back wages, (2) liquidated
damages equal to the back pay and (3) costs of the suit incurred
by plaintiff."

"On March 23, 2016 the parties entered into a tentative settlement
agreement at mediation to resolve the claims of the 9 individual
opt-in plaintiffs and finalized the settlement agreements in May
of 2016. A joint stipulation for dismissal with prejudice was
filed on May 18, 2016."


EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Jabranis Want to Drop Appeal in "Wilson" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EverBank Financial Corp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Jabranis have filed
an unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal with prejudice, in the
Wilson Class Action.

On June 18, 2014, a punitive class action entitled Dwight Wilson,
Jesus A. Avelar-Lemus, Jessie Cross, and Mattie Cross on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated v. EverBank, N.A.,
Everhome Mortgage, Assurant, Inc., Standard Guaranty Insurance
Company, and American Security Insurance Company was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
In this class action case, the plaintiffs seek damages for
overpayment of lender placed insurance premiums, injunctive
relief, declaratory relief and attorneys' fees and costs.

On July 17, 2015, the parties entered into a settlement agreement
that was approved by the court on January 20, 2016. On February 8,
2016, the Court entered final judgment in the matter.

On March 1, 2016, an objector, filed a civil appeal statement. On
March 2, 2016, EverBank paid $2.0 million for its portion of the
attorney fee award into an interest bearing account pursuant to
the settlement agreement.

On July 18, 2016, the Jabranis filed an unopposed motion to
dismiss appeal with prejudice. The parties await the final order
from the court dismissing the appeal.


EXPRESS MESSENGER: "Ege" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to W.D. Wash.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Abdirizaq Ege, Abdirahim Farah, and Abdulkadir Hassan,
individually and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Express Messenger Systems
Inc., doing business as OnTrac, a Delaware corporation, and DOES
1- 100, inclusive, Case No. 15-00002-18232-3-SEA, was removed from
the King County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington (Seattle). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. to the proceeding 2:16-cv-01167.

Express Messenger is a shipping and delivery service company
located in Chandler, Arizona.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Lee Burdette, Esq.
          Kelly Danielle Burdette, Esq.
          BURKETT & BURDETTE
          2101 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1830
          Seattle, WA 98121
          Telephone: (206) 441 5597
          E-mail: dlburdette@burkettburdette.com
                  kdburdette@burkettburdette.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Joanna Marie Silverstein, Esq.
          Kellie Anne Tabor, Esq.
          Ryan Paul Hammond, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON (WA)
          One Union Square
          600 University Street Ste 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101-3122
          Telephone: (206) 623 3300
          E-mail: jsilverstein@littler.com
                  ktabor@littler.com
                  rhammond@littler.com


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Faces "Burnett" Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts Holding Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 25, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company is
defending the case, Karen Burnett, Brendan Farrell, and Robert
Shullich v. Express Scripts, Inc. and Anthem, Inc.

On June 24, 2016, plaintiffs filed this putative class action
complaint on behalf of health plan beneficiaries who are enrolled
in health care plans that are insured or administered by Anthem.
Plaintiff alleges that ESI and Anthem breached fiduciary duties,
engaged in prohibited transactions, and otherwise violated their
legal obligations under ERISA by failing to provide Anthem plan
participants the benefit of competitive benchmark pricing and by
charging plaintiffs for prescription drugs at rates in excess of
market rates. Plaintiffs request compensatory damages, equitable
relief, and their attorneys' fees and costs.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Faces Class Action by John Does
------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts Holding Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 25, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company is
defending the case, John Doe One and John Doe Two v. Express
Scripts, Inc.

On May 6, 2016, plaintiffs filed this putative class action
complaint on behalf of health plan beneficiaries who are enrolled
in health care plans that are insured or administered by Anthem.
Plaintiff adopts many of Anthem's allegations in support of its
claims that ESI breached fiduciary duties and otherwise violated
its legal obligations under ERISA by failing to provide Anthem
plan participants the benefit of competitive benchmark pricing,
that ESI engaged in mail fraud, wire fraud and other racketeering
activity through its invoicing system with Anthem, that ESI
breached its contract with Anthem, that plaintiffs are entitled to
equitable relief under theories including unjust enrichment, that
ESI violated the Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and
declaratory judgment. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages,
punitive damages, equitable relief and attorneys' fees and costs.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Faces Firefighters Pension Trust Fund's Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts Holding Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 25, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company is
defending the case, Melbourne Municipal Firefighters' Pension
Trust Fund v. Express Scripts Holding Company, George Paz, Timothy
Wentworth, Eric Slusser, David Queller, and James Havel.

On May 4, 2016, plaintiff filed this putative class action
complaint on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded common stock
between February 24, 2015 and March 21, 2016 and alleges the
Company and named individuals violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 by carrying out a scheme to
defraud the investing public, including but not limited to the
engaging in the following alleged activities: deceiving the
investing public, causing plaintiff and class members to purchase
the Company's stock at artificially inflated prices, making untrue
statements of material fact and/or omitting to state material
facts, and engaging in acts, practices, and a course of business
that operated as a scheme to defraud the investing public into
paying inflated prices for the Company's stock. Plaintiff seeks
compensatory damages in favor of Plaintiff and other class
members, attorneys' fees and costs, and equitable relief.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Motion to Decertify Class in Brady Case Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts Holding Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 25, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that (i) Brady
Enterprises, Inc., et al. v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., and
(ii) North Jackson Pharmacy, Inc., et al. v. Express Scripts,
Inc., et al. Plaintiffs assert claims for violation of the Sherman
Antitrust Act. Currently, ESI's motion to decertify the class in
the Brady Enterprises case is pending. Oral arguments were held in
January 2012.


FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: Discovery Has Not Yet Commenced in Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Flotek Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that discovery has not yet
commenced in a class action litigation.

In November 2015, four putative securities class action lawsuits
were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas against the Company and certain of its officers.
The lawsuits have been consolidated into a single case, and an
amended complaint has been filed. The amended complaint asserts
that the Company made false and/or misleading statements, as well
as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. The complaint seeks an award
of damages in an unspecified amount on behalf of a putative class
consisting of persons who purchased the Company's common stock
between October 23, 2014 and November 9, 2015, inclusive.

In January 2016, three derivative lawsuits were filed, two in the
District Court of Harris County, Texas (which have since been
consolidated into one case) and one in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas, on behalf of the Company
against certain of its officers and its current directors. The
lawsuits allege violations of law, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
unjust enrichment against the defendants.

The Company believes the class action lawsuit and the derivative
lawsuits are without merit, and it intends to vigorously defend
against all claims asserted. Discovery has not yet commenced. At
this time, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the
outcome of this litigation.


FIAT CHRYSLER: Star Trek Actor's Parents File Wrongful Death Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony McCartney, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
the parents of "Star Trek" actor Anton Yelchin filed a wrongful
death lawsuit on Aug. 2 against the makers of Jeep Grand
Cherokees, claiming the company manufactured unsafe gear selectors
that led to their 27-year-old son being crushed in his own
driveway.

The actor's 2015 Cherokee rolled backward down a driveway of his
home on June 19, pinning him between a mailbox and a security
fence.

The suit contends the defective gear selector was poorly designed
and manufactured.

"Anton Yelchin was crushed and lingered alive for some time,
trapped and suffocating until his death," the lawsuit states.

Victor and Irina Yelchin filed the wrongful death and product
liability lawsuit in Los Angeles.

Fiat Chrysler extended its sympathies to Mr. Yelchin's parents but
said it could not comment on the lawsuit because it had not yet
been served with the legal action.

The Cherokee model was among 1.1 million vehicles recalled in
April after regulators said its gear shifters have confused
drivers, causing the SUVs to roll away unexpectedly and leading to
dozens of injuries.

A government investigation into the gear shifters found 266
crashes that had injured 68 people as of late June.

Fiat Chrysler has said it is speeding its recall of the vehicle.
Both the company and the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration have urged drivers of vehicles subject to the
recall to set their parking brakes before getting out of their
SUV.

The suit does not say how much Mr. Yelchin's parents are seeking
in damages, but their attorney Gary A. Dordick said they want the
company to be punished and hope the lawsuit changes its business
practices.

Irina Yelchin cried as Mr. Dordick said at a news conference that
the automaker put profits before safety.

"In spite of our unbelievable grief, we decided to come here to
prevent other families from the same tragedy," Victor Yelchin
said.

Anton Yelchin was sent an initial safety recall notice in May, and
another notice was sent to the actor seven days after he died,
notifying him that the company had a fix for the gear shifter, Mr.
Dordick said.

"The safety recall was way too little and way too late," the
attorney said.

The lawsuit says Mr. Yelchin's SUV did not engage or maintain its
"park" setting, and that led to the vehicle moving and crushing
the actor.

Mr. Yelchin is perhaps best known for his role as Pavel Chekov in
the rebooted "Star Trek" franchise.  The third film in the series,
"Star Trek Beyond," opened two weeks ago.

His parents attended a tribute to their son at the Comic-Con
convention in San Diego and said they have been moved by the
outpouring of support and grief from his friends and fans.

"He never cared (about) being a star," Irina Yelchin said.  "He
loved life very, very much."

He was the only child of the Yelchins, and they have filed to
oversee his estate, valued at nearly $1.4 million.  The actor left
behind several unreleased projects, including the Netflix animated
series "Trollhunters" and four films.


FOREVER LINK: Faces "Retana" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Retana, an individual, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Forever Link International, Inc., Charles Hailong Cui,
and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. BC627110 (Cal. Super.
Ct., July 14, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

The Defendants own and operate a shoe store located at 455 South
Brea Canyon Rd, City of Industry, CA 91789.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kaveh S. Elihu, Esq.
      Karina Godoy, Esq.
      EMPLOYEE JUSTICE LEGALGROUP, LLP
      3055 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1120
      Los Angeles, CA 90010
      Telephone: (213) 382-2222
      Facsimile: (213) 382-2230


GOODYEAR TIRE: 10th Cir. Affirms Judgment in "Helmer" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Carols F. Lucero of the United States Court of
Appeals, Tenth Circuit, affirmed the judgment of the district
court in the case DAVID HELMER; FELICIA MUFTIC; FELICIA MUFTIC as
personal representative of the Estate of Michael Muftic, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-
Appellants, v. GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO., an Ohio corporation,
Defendant-Appellee, No. 15-1214 (10th Cir.)

In the late 1980's, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. designed and
manufactured the Entran 3 hose for Chiles Power Supply Company
d/b/a Heatway Radiant Floors and Snowmelting. The hose is used to
convey hot fluid to provide radiant heating in structures,
including homes. It is installed permanently under flooring, in
walls and ceilings, and in concrete.

Entran 3 hoses were installed in the Colorado homes of plaintiffs
David Helmer and Felicia Muftic. Helmer's hose was installed when
his home was built in 1992-93, and was first observed leaking in
April 2010. He suffered severe leaks in the fall of 2013. The
Muftics' hose was installed in 1994-95, and developed serious
leaks in June 2010 and December 2014.

In 2012, plaintiffs filed a class action alleging defective
design. They presented evidence that the ethylene-propylene diene
monomer  rubber used in the inner layer of Entran 3 was not
suitable to carry hot liquid for the lifetime of a home, and that
a design defect caused inconsistent thickness and bonding between
the layers of the hose, allowing oxygen to permeate into the
system. Plaintiffs claim that these design choices destined the
product to crack, leak, and burst from foreseeable use.

Goodyear argued that the hose was not defectively designed, and
that any leaking hoses resulted from improper installation. It
also argued that Heatway negligently failed to provide custom
designs, failed to install Entran 3 heating systems, and failed to
provide necessary instructions for installation and maintenance of
the systems, as promised to Goodyear. Goodyear designated Heatway
as a nonparty at fault under Colo. Rev. Stat. Section 13-21-
111.5(3)(b). The jury returned a verdict in favor of Goodyear,
concluding the Entran 3 was not defectively designed.

Plaintiffs appealed and argued that insufficient evidence
supported the district court's instruction on nonparty fault. They
further argue that the district court failed to require proof of a
necessary fact before instructing the jury regarding Colorado's
presumption that a product is not defective if ten years have
passed since it was first sold.

Judge Lucero affirmed the judgment of the district court.

A copy of Judge Lucero's order dated July 12, 2016, is available
at http://goo.gl/8nKWEJfrom Leagle.com.

For Plaintiffs-Appellants:

Rick D. Bailey, Esq.
Diane Vaksdal Smith, Esq.
David K. TeSelle, Esq.
Seth A. Katz, Esq.
BURG SIMPSON ELDREDGE HERSH & JARDINE PC
40 Inverness Dr E
Englewood, CO 80112
Telephone: 303-792-5595
Facsimile: 303-708-0527

     - and -

Gary E. Mason, Esq.
Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP
5101 Wisconsin Ave. NW, Suite 305
Washington, DC 20016
Telephone: 202-429-2290
Facsimile: 202-429-2294
Email: gmason@wbmllp.com

     - and -

Michael Flannery, Esq.
Katherine Van Dyck, Esq.
Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca LLP
507 C Street NE
Washington, DC 20002
Telephone: 202-789-3960
Facsimile: 202-789-1813
Email: mflannery@cuneolaw.com
       kvandyck@cuneolaw.com

David L. Lenyo -- dlenyo@garfieldhecht.com -- Chad J. Schmit --
cschmit@garfieldhecht.com -- at Garfield & Hecht, P.C.; L. Michael
Brooks, Jr. -- at Wells, Anderson & Race, LLC; Roger P. Thomasch
-- thomasch@ballardspahr.com -- David M. Strauss --
staussd@ballardspahr.com -- at Ballard Spahr LLP, for Defendant-
Appellee

The United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit panel consists
of Circuit Judges Carols F. Lucero, Paul J. Kelly, Jr., and Monroe
G. McKay.


GULF OFFSHORE: Faces "Kwaw" Class Suit in California Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Gulf Offshore
Logistics LLC and JNB Operating LLC.

The case is captioned Douglas Kwaw, James Musgrove, Claude Norris,
on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated v. Gulf
Offshore Logistics LLC and JNB Operating LLC, Case No. 56-2016-
00484144-CU-OE-VTA (Cal. Super. Ct., July 14, 2016).

The Defendants own and operate deep-water service vessels to serve
the shelf operations and market in the Gulf of Mexico and inland
waters.


INGRAM MICRO: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Tianjin Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Wright, writing for ChannelLife, reports that question
marks have been thrown over Tianjin Tianhai's US$6 billion
acquisition of Ingram Micro, with the Shanghai Stock Exchange
reportedly requesting more details about the deal.

The Wall Street Journal says the Shanghai Exchange has sent
Tianjin Tianhai a letter asking for more details, including terms
of the deal and how the acquisition will be funded and an
explanation as to why Ingram Micro's profit margins have been
lower than those for its key competitors in recent years and how
the deal will impact on its credit rating.

Tianjin Tianhai Investment has postponed a shareholder meeting to
approve the acquisition until July 29.

In an announcement to investors the day after the WSJ story,
Ingram Micro said after consultation with the Committee on Foreign
Investment in the United States (CIFUS), it and Tianjin Tianhai
had decided to submit a joint voluntary notice to the committee,
which will be filed 'in due course'.

CIFUS reviews the national security implications of foreign
investments in United States' companies.

"The companies continue to expect the transaction to close in the
second half of 2015 as previously announced, whereby Ingram Micro
will become a part of HNA Group, a Hainan-based Fortune Global 500
enterprise group and a leader in aviation, tourism and logistics,
which is the largest stockholder of Tianjin Tianhai," Ingram Micro
says.

The distributor says it is making 'steady' progress in receiving
the required competition authority approvals.

In June the deal received early termination of the 30-day waiting
period under the United States Federal Trade Commission and
Antitrust Division's antitrust act.

Ingram Micro says it has also received antitrust authority
approval from the Ministry of Commerce People's Republic of China
and approvals from antitrust authorities in Brazil, Canada, India,
Mexico, South Africa and Turkey.

In June Ingram Micro shareholders overwhelmingly voted in favour
of the deal, first announced back in February.  However, the deal
hasn't been completely supported, with a class action suit filed
by a shareholder -- something the WSJ says Tianjin Tianhai has
also been questioned about by the Shanghai Exchange.

The deal offers Ingram Micro a strong presence in China and
provides it with complementary logistics capabilities.


INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Securities, ERISA Suits Pending in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
International Business Machines Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
26, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the
Company continues to defend two class action lawsuits in New York.

In March 2015, putative class action litigation was commenced in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York related to the company's October 2014 announcement that it
was divesting its global commercial semiconductor technology
business. The company and three of its officers are named as
defendants. Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated Sections
20(a) and 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 thereunder. In May 2015, a related putative class action was
also commenced in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York based on the same underlying facts,
alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act. The company, management's Retirement Plans Committee, and
three current or former IBM executives are named as defendants.

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


KARNAFULLY DISTRIBUTION: Faces "Fernandez" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Karnafully Distribution Inc. The
case is captioned Liana Hercules Fernandez, On behalf of herself
and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Karnafully
Distribution Inc., and Mohammed Akbar, in his individual capacity,
the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-04180-LDW-ARL (E.D.N.Y., July 28,
2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Leonard D. Wexler.

Karnafully Distribution is doing business in the nondurable goods
companies industry located in Bayport, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Delvis Melendez, Esq.
          90 Bradley Street
          Brentwood, NY 11717
          Telephone: (631) 434 1443
          Facsimile: (631) 434 1443
          E-mail: delvisprlaw@aol.com


KOHLS CORPORATION: Illegally Collects Debt, "Barshay" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sydney R. Barshay, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Kohls Corporation and Kohls Department
Stores, Inc., Case No. 8:16-cv-01316(C.D. Cal., July 14, 2016,
seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to
collect a debt.

The Defendants own and operate a department store retail chain
throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
      SANDERS LAW PLLC
      100 Garden City Plaza Suite 500
      Garden City, NY 11530
      Telephone: (516) 203-7600
      Facsimile: (516) 281-7601
      E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


LONG BEACH, CA: Plaintiffs Slept on Their Right to Amend
--------------------------------------------------------
Justice Elizabeth A. Grimes of the Court of California, Second
District, Division Eight, affirmed the judgment of dismissal of
the trial court in the case THE KIND AND COMPASSIONATE et al.,
Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF LONG BEACH et al.,
Defendants and Respondents, No. B258806 (Cal. Ct. App.)

The Kind and Compassionate, and Final Cut and 3 medical cannabis
patients, who are members of The Kind and Compassionate, alleged
11 causes of action against the City of Long Beach and/or 3 of its
employees or officers Eric Sund, Robert Shannon and Robert Foster,
all arising from the city's enforcement of municipal ordinances
that first regulated and then entirely prohibited the operation of
medical marijuana dispensaries within the city's borders.
Plaintiffs alleged causes of action for violation of the
Civil Code section 54 (the Disabled Persons Act or DPA); Civil
Code section 51 (the Unruh Civil Rights Act or Unruh Act); the
ADA; section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. Sec.
794); Civil Code section 52.1 (the Bane Act); and the Federal
Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983) (section 1983).

Plaintiffs further alleged tortious interference with business
relations against defendants Sund and Shannon, intentional
infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy against the
individual defendants. Finally, plaintiffs sought declaratory and
injunctive relief declaring that chapter 5.89 banning medical
marijuana dispensaries as a public nuisance is illegal void and
unenforceable and prohibiting enforcement of chapter 5.89.

On January 14, 2014, the court sustained the city's demurrer, with
leave to amend and gave plaintiffs 30 days to file a second
amended complaint. Plaintiffs did not file an amended complaint,
and the city filed a motion to dismiss for failure to amend. The
motion was not heard until July 21, 2014. Counsel for plaintiffs
did not appear, and the court dismissed the case. On October 22,
2014, the court entered a judgment of dismissal. Plaintiffs filed
a notice of appeal on September 8, 2014.

Justice Grimes affirmed the trial court's judgment.

A copy of Justice Grimes's opinion dated July 12, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/CmnC0Ufrom Leagle.com.

Matthew Pappas; Amy L. Bingham -- abingham@rallolawfirmpc.com --
Arthur J. Travieso  -- ATRAVIESO@RALLOLAWFIRMPC.COM -- at Rallo
Law Firm, for Plaintiffs and Appellants

Charles Parkin, City Attorney, and Theodore B. Zinger, Deputy City
Attorney, for Defendants and Respondents

The Court of California, Second District, Division Eight panel
consists of Acting Presiding Judge Laurence D. Rubin and Justices
Elizabeth A. Grimes and Madeleine Flier.


LUTHERAN CHURCH: Investors Mull Class Action Over Troubled Funds
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Rusnell and Jennie Russell, writing for CBC News, report
that several investors in two faltering Lutheran Church investment
funds are accusing a church financial committee and the court-
appointed insolvency monitor of engaging "in a pattern of deceit,
non-disclosure, and bad faith" in order to gain approval for a
restructuring plan.

The allegations are contained in documents filed in a Calgary
court earlier in July in relation to a controversial plan to
restructure two investment funds that contained more than $130
million when they became insolvent in January 2015.

Under the restructuring plan, larger investors have been
encouraged to accept shares in a newly formed company in lieu of
their investments in the funds, while investors with $5,000 or
less in the funds will be paid out in full.

Legal briefs filed on behalf of several investors who oppose the
restructuring plan, and wish instead to launch a class-action
lawsuit against the church, allege the church's financial
committee and Deloitte, the insolvency monitor, sought to gain
support for the restructuring plan "at any cost," including:

   -- Buying the vote of small investors by promising to pay in
full claims under $5,000.  Forty-two per cent of those who voted
in favour of the plan were small investors but they represent less
than one per cent of the dollar amount of the vote in favor of the
plan;

   -- Targeting large investors in a communications campaign and
providing inaccurate information to them for the purpose of
obtaining their vote;

   -- Using religious leaders to exert undue influence in order to
obtain the support of their congregations and to silence dissent;

   -- Failing to disclose in a full and timely way the existence
of the significant problems associated with a church-owned
development east of Calgary.

"The result is a plan which is grossly unfair to those who have
lost the most and are in need of their funds to live," one legal
brief states.

None of the investors' allegations has been proven in court.

A judge has reserved judgment on the plan.  It was expected a
decision would be issued July 29.

The finances of the Alberta-B.C district of Lutheran Church-Canada
are now being overseen by a court-appointed monitor, Deloitte
Restructuring Inc.

Church funds insolvent

For decades, members of the Lutheran Church in Alberta and British
Columbia were encouraged to invest in the Church Extension Fund
(CEF) and District Investments Ltd. (DIL).

The extension fund made loans to congregations to build or
renovate churches and to build schools.  The district invested in
a real-estate development called Prince of Peace, east of Calgary,
which includes a church, school, retirement home and a dementia
care facility.

Documents filed with the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta show
the extension fund lent $91 million to the Prince of Peace
development.  The development doesn't have enough assets to
satisfy its outstanding liabilities in a liquidations scenario,
one of the options currently being considered by investors.

Investors, some of whom invested their life savings, only learned
of the financial crisis in early January 2015.  They were told
their accounts were frozen and that the CEF was not able to fully
repay the $95 million owed to investors, most of whom are more
than 70 years old.

Both funds are now protected from investors withdrawing their
money under the federal Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act or
CCAA.

Deloitte has posted numerous court documents online, including
several affidavits from investors who allege they were deceived
and manipulated both before and after the funds fell under
creditor protection.

Allegations of deception

Georg Beinert of Fairview said he has been a lifelong member of
the Lutheran Church, and has served as an elder and on church
councils.

Mr. Beinert, in his affidavit, says he invested more than $118,000
in the District Investments Ltd. and more than $381,000 in the
Church Extension Fund.

He said he knew the funds were not protected by investment
insurance.  But he said he was told they were safe because they
were guaranteed by the church's assets in Canada.  He now says he
was deceived about the security of the funds, and what his money
was being used for.

Mr. Beinert, and other large investors, say the restructuring plan
is fundamentally unfair because those who invested $5,000 or less
will be paid out in full while he is being asked to accept shares
in a high-risk company that may pay him nothing in return.

"I am prevented from choosing how I wish to seek recovery of my
cash deposits and investments," Mr. Beinert's July 7, 2016
affidavit states.

"My money has been withheld from me and used against me to protect
the (Lutheran Church-Canada -- Alberta British Columbia district)
and those associated with them -- the ones who brought on this
crisis -- leaving me, and other investors like me, with the bulk
of the burden created by this crisis."

Information withheld

Mr. Beinert and others who filed affidavits say that even as they
invested more money they were not told the funds were in serious
trouble.

Lorraine Giese, 77, and her husband Larry, 74, are members of the
St. Matthew Lutheran Church in Stony Plain.  In their affidavits,
they say they invested more than $950,000 in the funds, including
$30,000 invested by Larry, a semi-retired farmer, in January 2015.

Lorraine said she received yearly Registered Retirement Investment
Funds from the DIL, which she rolled into her extension fund.

But Lorraine said that in November 2014, she received a letter
that said the CEF fund was "accumulating excess funds with very
few ministry projects to fund" and therefore was returning her
deposit.

Lorraine said because she was told there were excess funds, she
thought her investment was "absolutely safe."

She said she and her husband were "stunned" when they received a
letter in early January 2015 telling them the CEF was in trouble.

"My husband and I believe we were lied to by the District,"
Lorraine said in her affidavit.  "The District made us feel our
money was safe.  Had we known the truth in December of 2014, we
would have withdrawn all of our savings from the DIL and CEF."

Misleading information

The Gieses and Beinert said they received calls from the chief
restructuring officer for the district urging them to vote in
favor of the restructuring plan.  They all said they received
misleading information.

Larry Giese said he was told he would be able to sell their shares
to other investors, but later discovered this was false.

"I may not be able to sell my shares in (the new company) for a
long time, if at all," he said in his affidavit.  "At my age, time
is against me."

Several investors who oppose the restructuring plan are accusing
Deloitte of not being neutral, and of not providing timely
information about development plans for the Prince of Peace
project.

Some investors say they were not told by Deloitte about planning
documents which reveal significant impediments to development,
such as the requirement to spend millions of dollars to supply
municipal water and sanitary services, which is money the district
doesn't have.


MARIA YEE: Faces "Kao" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lynn Kao and Yvonne Tang v. Maria Yee, Inc., Maria Yee, Peter Yee,
and Does 1-25, Case No. 16-cv-29-7583 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 14,
2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

The Defendants operate as a design-house, material source,
manufacturer, and wholesaler of furniture products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason M. Erlich, Esq.,
      Paul K. Pfeilschiefter, Esq.
      McCORMACK & ERLICH, LLP
      150 Post Street, Suite 742
      San Francisco, CA 94108
      Telephone: (415) 296-8420
      Facsimile: (415) 296-8552
      E-mail: jason@mcelawfirm.com
              paul@mcelawfirm.com


MARRONE BIO: September 22 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP
regarding the MBI Securities Litigation.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SPECIAL SITUATIONS FUND III QP, L.P., SPECIAL SITUATIONS CAYMAN
FUND, L.P., and DAVID M. FINEMAN, Individually and On Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

MARRONE BIO INNOVATIONS, INC., PAMELA G. MARRONE, JAMES B. BOYD,
DONALD J. GLIDEWELL, HECTOR ABSI, ELIN MILLER, RANJEET BHATIA,
PAMELA CONTAG, TIM FOGARTY, LAWRENCE HOUGH, JOSEPH HUDSON, LES
LYMAN, RICHARD ROMINGER, SHAUGN STANLEY, SEAN SCHICKEDANZ, and
ERNST & YOUNG LLP,

Defendants.

Master No.: 2:14-cv-2571-MCE-KJN

Hon. Morrison C. England, Jr.

CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION

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

TO: All persons or entities who or which (i) purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Marrone Bio Innovations,
Inc. ("MBI" or "the Company") directly in or traceable to the
Company's August 1, 2013 initial public offering pursuant to MBI's
Form S-1 Registration Statement, dated July 1, 2013, and its
Prospectus, dated August 1, 2013, and were damaged thereby (the
"IPO Claimants"); (ii) purchased or otherwise acquired MBI common
stock directly in or traceable to the Company's secondary offering
pursuant to MBI's Form S-1 Registration Statement, dated May 16,
2014, and its Prospectus dated June 5, 2014, and were damaged
thereby (the "Secondary Claimants"); and (iii) purchased or
otherwise acquired MBI common stock on the open market between
August 1, 2013 and November 10, 2015, inclusive, and were damaged
thereby (the "Section 10(b) Claimants").

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

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California, that the above-
captioned litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class
action on behalf of the Settlement Class, except for certain
persons and entities who are excluded from the Settlement Class by
definition as set forth in the full printed Notice of (I) Pendency
of Class Action and Certification of Settlement Class; (II)
Proposed Settlement; (III) Settlement Hearing; and (IV) Motion for
an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation
Expenses (the "Notice").

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that the Court-appointed Lead Plaintiffs,
Special Situations Fund III QP, L.P. and Special Situations Cayman
Fund, L.P., ("Lead Plaintiffs" or "The Funds"), and additional
named Plaintiff David M. Fineman ("Fineman" and, together with
Lead Plaintiffs, "Plaintiffs"), on behalf of themselves and the
other members of the Settlement Class, have reached a proposed
settlement of the Action with Defendants MBI, Pamela G. Marrone,
James B. Boyd, Donald J. Glidewell, Hector Absi, Elin Miller, Tim
Fogarty, Richard Rominger, Shaugn Stanley, Ranjeet Bhatia,
Lawrence Hough, Joseph Hudson, Sean Schickedanz, Pamela Contag,
and Les Lyman (collectively, the "Settling Defendants") for
$12,000,000 in cash (the "Settlement").  THIS SETTLEMENT DOES NOT
RESOLVE CLASS CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT ERNST & YOUNG LLP ("EY" or
the "Non-Settling Defendant").  THE LITIGATION WILL CONTINUE AS
AGAINST THE NON-SETTLING DEFENDANT.

A hearing will be held on September 22, 2016 at 2:00 p.m., before
the Honorable Morrison C. England, Jr., at the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of California, Robert T.
Matsui United States Court House, Courtroom 7, 501 I Street,
Sacramento, California, 95814, to determine (i) whether the
proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and
adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with
prejudice against the Settling Defendants, and the Releases
specified and described in the Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement dated June 16, 2016 (and in the Notice) should be
granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be
approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) whether Lead Counsel's
application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
Litigation Expenses should be approved.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Settlement Fund.  If you have not yet
received the Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these
documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at MBI Securities
Litigation, c/o GCG, P.O. Box 10287, Dublin, OH 43017-5887, by
toll-free phone at (855) 907-3227, or by email at
MBISecuritiesLitigationSettlement@GardenCityGroup.com
Copies of the Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from
www.MBISecuritiesLitigationSettlement.com

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you
must submit a Claim Form postmarked no later than October 2, 2016.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class and do not submit a
proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the
distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement, but you will
nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the
Court in the Action.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received no later than September 8,
2016, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.
If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you
will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court
in the Action and you will not be eligible to share in the
proceeds of the Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of Litigation Expenses, must be filed with the Court
and delivered to Lead Counsel and counsel for the Settling
Defendants such that they are received no later than September 8,
2016, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.

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

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

MBI Securities Litigation
c/o GCG
P.O. Box 10287
Dublin, OH 43017-5887
(855) 907-3227
MBISecuritiesLitigationSettlement@GardenCityGroup.com

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

LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP
Steven M. Hecht, Esq.
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
(212) 262-6700

Dated: July 8, 2016
By Order of the Court


MARS INC: Campbell Seeks Certification of Class
-----------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled COLLEEN CAMPBELL, 209 Liberty Bell Circle,
Downingtown, PA 19335, the Plaintiff, v. MARS, INC., 1600
Broadway, New York, NY 10019, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-
04035-SD (E.D. Penn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a
class:

     "All persons to whom the Defendants provided an
      electronically printed receipt at the point of sale of
      transaction, in a transaction occurring in the nation after
      (the effective date of Fair and Accurate Credit
      Transactions Act), which receipt displays more than five
      digits of the person's credit card or debit card." above,
      appoint Plaintiff as the class representative, and appoint
      Plaintiff's attorneys as class counsel."

The Plaintiff further asks the Court to appoint herself as the
class representative, and Plaintiff's attorneys as class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=BNV7BzdF

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Eric G. Zajac, Esq.
         ZAJAC & ARIAS LLC
         E-mail: Eric@TeamLawyers.com
         1835 Market Street, 26th Floor
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Telephone: (215) 575 7615
         Facsimile: (215) 575 7640


MERCK & CO: 405 Women Sales Reps Opt in to Equal Pay Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
two law firms bringing a gender discrimination suit against Merck
& Co. on behalf of women sales representatives have announced that
12 percent of class members have opted in to the litigation, with
three weeks to go before the sign-up deadline.

On June 16, Sanford Heisler LLP and Feinstein Doyle Payne & Kravec
LLC sent notices to 3,183 women of their opportunity to join the
Equal Pay Act suit against Merck.  As of July 21, 405 women have
come forward with claims of discrimination, the firms said in a
statement.  Claimants have until Aug. 12 to join the case.

A typical response rate at this stage would be 8-10 percent, David
Sanford, chairman of Sanford Heisler, said in a statement. A
response closer to 15 percent is anticipated at the end of the
notice period, Sanford said.

The suit, Smith v. Merck & Co., filed in May 2013 in U.S. District
Court in Newark, claims Merck's compensation policies created
incentives to discriminate against women sales representatives, by
decreasing the salaries of colleagues and managers of women who
take maternity leave.  The suit alleges that the pay formula ties
sales representatives' compensation to the success of others
selling the same product and fails to adjust sales goals to
account for representatives on pregnancy leave.  Consequently,
managers are discouraged from hiring and promoting women, the suit
says.

Lead plaintiff Kelli Smith, a Merck sales representative in
Toms River since 2004, says she was demoted, received lower
performance evaluations and was subject to a hostile work
environment after returning from maternity leave in 2010.

"We are pleased with the great response of the female class," said
Deborah Marcuse of Feinstein Doyle Payne & Kravec LLC,
co-lead counsel for Plaintiffs and the class, in a statement.  "In
the three weeks remaining for female current and former Merck
employees to join the class, we expect that many more women will
file their opt-in forms," Ms. Marcuse said.

Besides Ms. Marcuse, plaintiffs and the class are represented by
David Sanford, Andrew Melzer, Russell Kornblith, and David Tracey
of Sanford Heisler LLP.

U.S. District Judge Michael Shipp granted conditional
certification to the Equal Pay Act collective action in April.
Besides challenging pay policies at Merck & Co. Inc., Merck Sharp
& Dohme Corp. and Intervet Inc., Merck's animal health division,
the plaintiffs also allege that Merck systematically discriminates
against female sales representatives and pregnant women, in
particular, in promotions and other terms and conditions of
employment.  The plaintiffs plan to seek class certification of
their systemic gender discrimination claims under Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act in the coming months, Sanford Heisler and
Feinstein Doyle said in a statement.

Merck said in a statement that it remains confident the case lacks
merit and ultimately will not proceed as a class action.
"This is a procedural step that is typical in the early stages of
lawsuits of this kind, and it does not mean any employees have
been treated unfairly.  The company will continue to vigorously
defend itself, and remains fully committed to providing equal
employment opportunities for all employees.  Merck has a strong
anti-discrimination policy that prohibits discrimination on the
basis of characteristics, such as gender, pregnancy, race, age,
disability and sexual orientation," said the Merck statement.

In addition, Merck said, it provides multiple avenues for
employees to raise concerns and to ensure that those concerns are
addressed.  The company added that it maintains a nonretaliation
policy that prohibits any form of retaliation against an employee
because he/she brought forward a complaint.  The firm said it
supports working parents through policies that include paid
parental leave, six-month job protected child-care leave, flexible
work arrangements and on-site daycare options at many company
sites.


MINOR LEAGUE: Players Lose Class Certification Bid in Wage Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Reichard, writing for Ballpark Digest, reports that on a
lawsuit seeking higher wages for Minor League Baseball players has
been dealt a huge blow in federal court, as it has been
decertified as a class action -- which means that the 2,000
players involved in the suit would be forced to pursue actions on
their own.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero held that the individual
circumstances surrounding every player -- especially in the area
of offseason workouts -- were not common enough to rise to the
level of a class action.  One big issue: offseason workouts take
place in different states under different employment guidelines,
and keeping track of them for every player (who decides where to
work out in the offseason) would be logistically impossible.

"Class members can demonstrate minimum wage and overtime
violations only by demonstrating that their rate of pay fell below
the minimum wage rate and that they worked the requisite hours to
be entitled to overtime pay, both of which will turn on the number
of hours of compensable work they performed and the amount of
compensation they received for that work," Judge Spero wrote in
his ruling.  "The court concludes that the individualized issues
that will arise in connection with adjudicating these questions
will be extensive and will make class-wide treatment of
plaintiffs' claims virtually impossible."

The lawsuit was filed in federal California Northern District
Court by players Aaron Senne (a former Miami Marlins farmhand),
Michael Liberto (former Kansas City Royals farmhand) and Oliver
Odle (former San Francisco Giants farmhand), naming Major League
Baseball, the Office of the Commissioner, Commissioner Bud Selig
and the three former teams, later expanded to all 30 MLB teams.
(Though the lawsuit concerns MiLB contract for players, Minor
League Baseball is not a party to the lawsuit.) Judge Spero later
whittled the lawsuit to 22 MLB teams because of jurisdictional
issues, but in October 2015 he provisionally certified the class
action.  But after hearing arguments from both sides, he reversed
that decision:

"The difficulties associated with determining what activities
constitute 'work' in the context of winter training are compounded
by the fact that there appear to be no official records
documenting these activities . Because it may be impossible to
determine from official records the types of conditioning
activities in which the players engaged, membership in the state
classes based on winter training would depend largely upon the
players' ability to remember, with a reasonable amount of detail,
what they did during the off-season (often for multiple years and
for many, several years in the past) to stay fit," he wrote.

That, he added, would be quite difficult:

"Under these circumstances, the court would have to conduct a
multitude of individualized inquiries relating to the types of
activities that might have constituted 'work' and the
circumstances necessary to make these activities compensable under
the relevant states' law.

"While the court finds that many of the issues raised in this case
(including issues relating to defenses) may be addressed on a
class-wide basis, the collective members are not similarly
situated.  Rather, the disparate factual and employment settings
of the class members make collective adjudication of plaintiffs'
FLSA [Fair Labor Standards Act] claims unmanageable and
potentially unfair to defendants.  Most significantly, the court
finds that there are wide variations among the players as to the
types of activities in which they engaged and the circumstances
under which they engaged in them, which will give rise to a
plethora of individualized inquiries relating to the determination
of the amount of compensable work plaintiffs performed."

As we noted, this lawsuit has caused all sorts of consternation
among MiLB owners and management, who worry that increased player-
development costs would be passed along to then, especially with
2020 and discussions over the next MLB/MiLB operating agreement
approaching.  The players are considering a next step, which could
cover an appeal.


MJB HOLDING: Faces "Chananya" Suit Over Fiduciary Duty Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Chananya, individually, and as a shareholder of MJB
Holding Corporation, suing on behalf of herself and all other
shareholders of MJB Holding Corporation similarly situated, and in
the right of MJB Holding Corporation v. Pauline Spolan, Mindy
Spolan Bezalel, MJB Holding Corporation, Audley Street Realty LLC,
and Baron Spolan Realty LLC, Case No. 1-065778 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
July 14, 2016), arises out of the Defendants' breach of  their
fiduciary duties, specifically by failing to preserve and protect
the assets of MJB Corp.

MJB Holding Corporation owns a six-story, multifamily structure,
located at 118-09 83rd Avenue, Apt. 1 G, Kew Gardens, New York,
that has approximately forty-eight residential rental apartments.

Audley Street Realty LLC owns and operates the real property
located at 116-16 Audley Street, Kew Gardens, New York, which is a
three story apartment building with several rental apartments.

Baron Spolan Realty LLC own, manages, and operates the real
property located at 116-11 Metropolitan Avenue, Kew Gardens, New
York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert J. Ansell, Esq.
      SIVERMAN ACAMPORA LLP
      100 Jericho Quadrangle, Suite 300
      Jericho, NY 11753
      Telephone: (516) 479-6300
      Facsimile: (516) 479-6301
      E-mail: RAnsell@SilvermanAcampora.com


MONTAGE TECHNOLOGY: Sept. 20 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., on July 28 disclosed that the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California has
approved the following announcement of a summary notice of
pendency of class action that would benefit purchasers of common
stock of Montage Technology Group Limited:

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION

To: All persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
the publicly traded common stock of Montage Technology Group
Limited ("Montage" or the "Company") from September 25, 2013 to
February 6, 2014, inclusive, and did not sell such securities
prior to February 6, 2014.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, that the following
class has been certified in the above-captioned action (the
"Action"):

All persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the
publicly traded common stock of Montage Technology Group Limited
("Montage" or the "Company") from September 25, 2013 to February
6, 2014, inclusive, and did not sell such securities prior to
February 6, 2014.

Excluded from the Class are Defendants, the present and former
officers and directors of Montage and any subsidiary thereof,
members of their immediate families and their legal
representatives, heirs, successors or assigns and any entity in
which Defendants have or had a controlling interest.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
THIS ACTION. A full printed Notice of Pendency of Class Action is
currently being mailed to known Class Members. If you have not yet
received a full printed Notice, you may obtain copies of this
document by downloading it from www.strategicclaims.net or by
contacting the Notice Administrator:

Montage Technology Group Limited Securities Litigation
c/o Strategic Claims Services
P.O. Box 230
600 North Jackson Street, Suite 3
Media, PA 19063

If you did not receive the Notice by mail, and you are and decide
to remain a member of the Class, please send your name and address
to the Notice Administrator so that if any further notices are
disseminated in connection with the Action, you will receive them.
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to
Class Counsel:


Laurence Rosen, Esq.     Phillip Kim, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.     THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071     New York, NY 10016
Tel: (213) 785-2610     Tel: (212) 686-1060

If you are a Class Member, you have the right to decide whether to
remain a member of the Class. If you choose to remain a member of
the Class, you do not need to do anything at this time other than
to retain your documentation reflecting your transactions in
Montage common stock during the period from September 25, 2013 to
February 6, 2014, inclusive.  You will automatically be included
in the Class. If you do not wish to remain a member of the Class
you must exclude yourself from the Class. If you are a Class
Member and do not exclude yourself from the Class, you will be
bound by the proceedings in the Action, including all past,
present and future orders and judgments of the Court, whether
favorable or unfavorable.

If you ask to be excluded from the Class, you will not be bound by
any order or judgment in the Action, and you will not be eligible
to receive a share of any money which might be recovered for the
benefit of the Class. To exclude yourself from the Class, you must
submit a written request for exclusion postmarked no later than
September 20, 2016 in accordance with the instructions set forth
in the full printed Notice to the Notice Administrator. Pursuant
to Rule 23(e)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is
within the Court's discretion whether to allow a second
opportunity to request exclusion from the Class if there is a
settlement or judgment in the Action.

The Court has set a jury trial date for October 10, 2017.

Further information may be obtained by directing your inquiry in
writing to the Notice Administrator.

Please Do Not Call The Court with Questions.

Dated: June 22, 2016
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
United States District Court
For the Central District of California


NATURMED INC: Faces "Wink" Class Suit in W.D. Kentucky
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against NaturMed, Inc.
d/b/a the Institute for Vibrant Living.

The case is captioned Kaye Wink, individually and as next of kin
of Donald Wink, deceased, and also on behalf of all similarly
situated persons v. NaturMed, Inc. d/b/a the Institute for Vibrant
Living, Case No. 4:16-cv-00090-JHM-HBB (W.D. Ky., July 13, 2016).

NaturMed, Inc. is a manufacturer and distributor of dietary
supplements.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John T. Edwards, Esq.
      BALLIN BALLIN AND FISHMEN
      200 Jefferson Ave, Suite 1250
      Memphis, TN 38103
      Telephone: (901) 525-6278
      Facsimile: (901) 525-6294
      E-mail: tedwards@bbfpc.com

         - and -

      Kevin M. McCormack, Esq.
      GLASSMAN WYATT TUTTLE & COX, PC
      26 N. Second Street
      Memphis, TN 38103-2602
      Telephone: (901) 527-4673
      Facsimile: (901) 521-0940
      E-mail: kmccormack@gewwlaw.com


NAVIENT CORPORATION: "Ubaldi" Class Suit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Navient Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 25, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the case, Tina M.
Ubaldi v. SLM Corporation et al., remains pending.

On March 18, 2011, an education loan borrower filed a putative
class action complaint against SLM Corporation as it existed prior
to the Spin-Off ("Old SLM") in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California. The complaint was captioned Tina
M. Ubaldi v. SLM Corporation et. al. The plaintiff brought the
complaint on behalf of a putative class consisting of other
similarly situated California borrowers. The complaint alleged,
among other things, that Old SLM's practice of charging late fees
that were proportional to the amount of missed payments
constituted liquidated damages in violation of California law and
that Old SLM engaged in unfair business practices by charging
daily interest on private educational loans. Following additional
amendments to the complaint, which added usury claims under
California state law and two additional defendants (Sallie Mae,
Inc., now known as Navient Solutions, Inc. ("NSI"), and SLM PC
Student Loan Trust 2004-A), plaintiff further amended her
complaint to provide for restitution of late charges and interest
paid by members of the putative class, injunctive relief,
cancellation of all future interest payments, treble damages as
permitted by law, as well as costs and attorneys' fees, among
other relief. Named defendants in the case are subsidiaries of
Navient and as such any liability arising from the Ubaldi
litigation will remain the sole responsibility of Navient
Corporation. In December 2014, the court granted plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification with regard to claims concerning
late fees, but denied the motion as to the alleged usury claims.
In March 2015, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion to further
amend the complaint. The case is still pending. It is not possible
at this time to estimate a range of potential exposure, if any,
for amounts that may be payable in connection therewith.


NAVIENT CORPORATION: Motion to Dismiss "Blyden" Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Navient Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 25, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Court has not yet
ruled on the defendants' motion to dismiss the Marlene Blyden
complaint.

On November 26, 2014, Marlene Blyden filed a putative class action
suit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California against Navient Corporation, Navient, LLC, Navient
Solutions, Inc., Navient Credit Finance Corporation, Navient
Investment Corporation, SLM Corporation, The Bank of New York, and
The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A. ("BNY Mellon").
The amended complaint, captioned Marlene Blyden v. Navient
Corporation et. al., alleges that plaintiff and members of the
purported class were charged and/or paid interest at a rate above
that permitted under California law. Plaintiff's Second Amended
Complaint dropped SLM Corporation as a defendant, added various
securitization trusts as defendants, and added claims for
conversion and for money received.

In July 2015, the Court granted Defendants' Motions to Dismiss the
Second Amended Complaint but permitted Plaintiff to make certain
amendments to the complaint. Plaintiff filed a Third Amended
Complaint in August 2015 which removed all of the Defendants
except the SLM PC Student Loan 2003-B Trust, BNY Mellon (in its
capacity as a trustee), and Navient Solutions, Inc. The remaining
defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint
which was granted on February 16, 2016.

While the court granted leave for Plaintiff to file a further
amended complaint, Plaintiff instead filed a Notice of Appeal to
the Ninth Circuit on April 5, 2016, appealing the District Court's
decision to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint. Allegations
similar to those asserted in the Ubaldi and Blyden cases are also
raised in a putative class action complaint captioned Jamie
Beechum, et al. v. Navient Solutions, Inc. filed on October 21,
2015, and deemed served as of February 16, 2016.

On March 30, 2016, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint. The Court has not yet ruled on that motion. It is not
possible at this time to estimate a range of potential exposure,
if any, for amounts that may be payable in connection with either
the Blyden or Beechum lawsuits.


NAVIENT CORPORATION: Lord Abbett Funds Named as Lead Plaintiff
--------------------------------------------------------------
Navient Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 25, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Court has appointed
Lord Abbett Funds as Lead Plaintiff in a consolidated class action
lawsuit.

During the first quarter, Navient Corporation, certain Navient
officers and directors, and the underwriters of certain Navient
securities offerings have been sued in several putative securities
class action lawsuits filed on behalf of certain investors in
Navient stock or Navient unsecured debt. These cases, which were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware,
are: Menold v. Navient Corporation, et al. (filed February 11,
2016); Jagrelius v. Navient Corporation, et al. (filed February
16, 2016); and Policemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund of Chicago v.
Navient Corporation, et al. (filed February 26, 2016).

On April 11, 2016, various plaintiffs filed Motions to Appoint
Lead Counsel in the lawsuits.

On June 30, 2016, the Court consolidated the three pending cases
and appointed Lord Abbett Funds as Lead Plaintiff. The Navient
defendants intend to vigorously defend against the allegations in
this lawsuit.

"At this stage in the proceedings, we are unable to anticipate the
timing of resolution or the ultimate impact, if any, that the
legal proceedings may have on the consolidation financial
position, liquidity, results of operations or cash-flows of
Navient Corporation and its affiliates," the Company said.


NEW WEALTH ADVISORS: Ruling in Anti-SLAPP Case Affirmed In Part
---------------------------------------------------------------
Presiding Justice Manuel A. Ramirez of the Court of Appeals of
California, Fourth District, Division Two, affirmed in part and
denied in part appellants' motion in the case DAVID W. BOSWELL et
al., Cross-Complainants and Respondents, v. THE RETREAT COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION et al., Cross-Defendants and Appellants, No. E064171
(Cal. Ct. App.)

David and Melina Boswell moved into a house in the Retreat. The
Boswells own and operate a company called New Wealth Advisors Club
(NWAC).

The Retreat Community Association is the homeowners association
for the Retreat. Carl S. Schmidt is the President of the
Association.

On January 29, 2015, the Association commenced an action by filing
a complaint against the Boswells, NWAC, and others. In its
complaint, the Association noted that, in Anderson v. NWAC, the
Boswells had been accused of carrying out a fraudulent real estate
seminar/multi-level marketing scheme.  It expressed concern that,
by carrying on the business of NWAC at their home at the Retreat,
the Boswells had exposed the Association to potential liability.
The Association sought a declaration that it was not liable for
the Boswells' alleged fraudulent acts and/or omissions. It also
sought an injunction against the use of the Boswells' property for
illegal purposes. Finally, it sought to prevent the Boswells from
using the Retreat's trademark on Facebook.

On March 30, 2015, the Boswells filed a cross-complaint against
the Association and also against Schmidt. The Boswells alleged in
their cross-complaint that, Schmidt had targeted them for
unjustifiable, specious and punitive action so as to punish,
harass and embarrass them all under the color and authority as an
officer of the Association. The cross-complaint asserted causes of
action for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional
distress. The cross-complaint also asserted a cause of action for
declaratory and injunctive relief, solely against the Association,
alleging that the Association had refused to recognize the
Boswells as members and had refused to allow them to vote and to
attend meetings.

The Association and Schmidt filed a special motion to strike the
Boswells' cross-complaint under Code of Civil Procedure section
425.16 or an anti-SLAPP motion. In opposition, the Boswells
submitted declarations describing a laundry list of some 19
instances in which the Association and Schmidt had assertedly
inflicted emotional distress to them.

The trial court denied the motion, ruling that appellants had
failed to show that the Boswells' causes of action arose from
protected activity.

The Association and Schmidt appealed and argue that the trial
court erred in ruling that the Boswells' declarations were not
relevant to whether their causes of action arose out of protected
activity. They further contend that, once the Boswells'
declarations are considered, they reveal that the emotional
distress causes of action arise out of at least 14 instances of
protected activity. Finally, they contend that the Boswells did
not show a probability that they would prevail on the emotional
distress causes of action.

Presiding Justice Ramirez affirmed in part and denied in part the
order denying the appellants' anti-SLAPP motion. It is affirmed
with respect to the first cause of action, for intentional
infliction of emotional distress, and the third cause of action,
for declaratory relief. It is reversed with respect to the second
cause of action, for negligent infliction of emotional distress,
and the trial court is directed to enter a new order granting the
motion with respect to this cause of action.

A copy of Presiding Justice Ramirez's opinion dated July 11, 2016,
is available at http://goo.gl/mz8THDfrom Leagle.com.

Daniel M. Parlow -- dan@parlowlawoffice.com -- at Parlow Law
Office, for Cross-Defendants and Appellants

Jason D. Annigian -- jason@annigian-law.com -- at Law Offices of
Jason D. Annigian; Andre Rekte at Girardi and Keese, for Cross-
Complainants and Respondents

The Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division Two
panel consists of Presiding Justice Manuel A. Ramirez, and
Justices Douglas P. Miller and Marsha G. Slough.


NIANTIC INC: Faces Class Action in New Jersey Over "Pokemon Go"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a New Jersey man is going to
federal court to keep "Pokemon Go" players off his lawn.

Jeffrey Marder, of West Orange, says strangers began lingering
outside of his home after the popular game was released.  At least
five people knocked on his door and asked to get into his backyard
to catch a Pokemon placed there virtually by the game, according
to a lawsuit filed on July 29 in federal court in California.

The suit against game makers Niantic Inc., Nintendo Co., and The
Pokemon Company seeks class action status for others who have had
Pokemon stops and gyms placed on their property.

The lawsuit says the defendants "have shown a flagrant disregard
for the foreseeable consequences of populating the real world with
virtual Pokemon without seeking the permission of property
owners."

Spokespeople for the companies weren't immediately available to
comment on the suit.

J.C. Smith, The Pokemon Company's consumer marketing director,
told The Associated Press last week that the company is updating
the augmented-reality game so it remains fun for players but
respects the real world.

The location-aware game provides virtual rewards for players who
visit real sites designated as "Pokestops" in the game.  Several
locations, such as the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park in Japan and
the Arlington National Cemetery in Washington, D.C., have asked to
be removed from "Pokemon Go."

Niantic offers an online form to request exclusions, but changes
to the game are not automatic.


NIANTIC INC: Sued Over Deceptive Pokemon Go Terms of Services
-------------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Joseph, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that
'Pokemon Go' encourages users to get outside and find its virtual
characters, but a lawsuit filed in Palm Beach County claims
developers of the free gaming app are doing some tracking of their
own.

The suit by Lake Worth resident David Beckman claims 'Pokemon
Go's' user agreement allows creator Niantic Inc. sweeping access
to players' mobile devices, without requiring any specific
performance in return.

"The terms of services are deceptive, unfair and unconscionable,"
said Mr. Beckman's lawyer, Morgan Weinstein of the Van Ness Law
Firm in Miami.

But even if Mr. Beckman can prove the company deceives users into
granting it far-reaching access, he'll likely still have to show
he suffered from the deal.

"The issue arises as to what are the actual damages," said cyber
liability litigator Bruce Raymond of the Raymond Law Group in
Connecticut, who's not involved in the Pokemon suit.  "The
argument that the user doesn't get anything is targeted at the
notion of consideration in contracts.  The companies would make
the argument that the user gets a fun game."

Mr. Beckman's ability to show harm will likely be pivotal if he
wants to collect money damages.  Otherwise, courts typically award
injunctive relief, punitive damages and expenses.

"The theme in a lot of these cases is attorneys' fees,"
Mr. Raymond said.

'Surrender Private Information'

Mr. Beckman claims a misleading user agreement concealed that he
was granting Niantic the go-ahead to mine private data on his
mobile device.  He claims the company created an illusory
contract.  He argues Niantic never consolidated the entire
agreement, but instead posted it in multiple documents on its
website.

The game developer uses a clickwrap agreement, widely used with
software licenses and online transactions to require users to
agree to terms or conditions before accessing products or
services.  Under this agreement, Niantic collects user names,
sites visited before accessing the game, messages sent to other
players, advertising data, IP addresses, location, search terms,
device identifiers, browser type and other information.

"The law allows a company to present this type of clickwrap
agreements.  If users agree to the terms without reading it, they
will be bound by those terms," Weinstein said.  "However, they
cannot agree to a contract that is not a valid contract."

'Pokemon Go', the runaway gaming hit of the summer, launched in
July with international rollouts planned through the fall.  It
offers augmented virtual reality gaming on iOS and Android devices
via a platform developed by Pokemon Co. and Nintendo-affiliated
Niantic.

Mr. Beckman filed suit on July 26, and a summons followed on
July 27.  Niantic had not answered the complaint by press time,
and did not respond to requests for comment by deadline.

Mr. Beckman claims the Pokemon Go terms of service required him
"to surrender private, personal" information, under an illusory
contract by a company that posted only parts of the terms and
never collected them in one spot.

"Most people don't look at what they're giving up," said
Mr. Raymond, a defense attorney who specializes in
commercialization of data.  "Consumers get the benefit of the app.
If they want to get a free flashlight utility on their phone,
developers aren't creating that app for collective goodwill.
They're doing it to gather data."


NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Must Defend Against Suit Over Severance Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Andrea R. Wood of the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, denied the parties' motions in the
case ALAN CARLSON and PETER DeLUCA, Plaintiffs, v. NORTHROP
GRUMMAN CORPORATION and the NORTHROP GRUMMAN SEVERANCE PLAN,
Defendants, No. 13-cv-02635 (N.D. Ill.)

Plaintiffs Alan Carlson and Peter DeLuca worked for Northrop
Grumman Technical Services, Inc., a Northrop Grumman Corporation
(Northrop) subsidiary, for 35 and 38 years, respectively.
Plaintiffs claimed that when they were terminated from their long-
time employment with Northrop Grumman Technical Services, Inc.,
they were denied severance benefits that they should have received
in accordance with the Northrop Grumman Severance Plan. Northrop
served as the plan's sponsor and administrator and was responsible
for paying benefits.

Plaintiffs allege that they were denied severance benefits due to
their employer's desire to avoid longevity-based payments to
senior employees and, further, that the denial and their
employer's silence about its intentions to exercise discretion to
avoid such payments violated the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974. Plaintiffs seek relief under ERISA from the
plan and Northrop, their employer's parent corporation and the
sponsor and administrator of the plan.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint
for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) and a motion to strike plaintiffs' references
to allegedly extrinsic evidence. On the other hand plaintiffs
filed a motion to preclude consideration of a document attached to
defendants' motion.

Judge Wood denied defendants' motion to dismiss and denied
plaintiffs and defendants' motion to strike as moot.

A copy of Judge Wood's memorandum opinion and order dated July 11,
2016, is available at http://goo.gl/F0FhAQfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by Michael Bartolic --
mbartolic@robertsbartolic.com -- Alexis Elizabeth Pool --
apool@robertsbartolic.com -- Rebecca Kay Bryant -- at The Law
Offices of Michael Bartolic, LLC; Kira Layne-Schwabe Hettinger --
khettinger@cohenmilstein.com -- Robert Joseph Barton --
jbarton@cohenmilstein.com -- at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC

Defendants, represented by Nancy G. Ross -- nross@mayerbrown.com
-- Abigail Marie Bartine -- abartine@mayerbrown.com -- Laura Rose
Hammargren -- lhammargren@mayerbrown.com -- at Mayer Brown LLP;
Samuel P Myler -- at Federal District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin.


NW MANAGEMENT: Farm Workers Celebrate Class Action Victory
----------------------------------------------------------
Phil Ferolito, writing for Yakima Herald, reports that more than
300 farm laborers crowded into a downtown Spanish-language radio
station to celebrate victory in a class-action lawsuit affirming
their rights as workers and to receive payments from a $1 million
settlement in the case.

The case, Saucedo v. NW Management, was filed in 2012 when 10
workers were fired after calling police when shots were fired in
the orchard where they were working.  Workers, who at the time
were calling for better wages, said the shots were intended to
intimidate them and that a supervisor routinely walked through
orchards displaying a gun.

The lawsuit also argued that NW Management lacked a valid farm
workers contractor's license and that the contractor failed to
properly disclose information about wages and employment
conditions.

The case grew into a class-action lawsuit involving 722 farm
workers suing several orchard owners and NW Management, the labor
contractor that worked with the orchards.  In 2013, U.S. District
Court Judge Thomas Rice awarded the settlement after finding that
the workers' rights under state law had been violated. This past
March, the Ninth District Court of Appeals upheld the ruling.

No one with NW Management could be reached for comment.

After receiving her check on July 24 at Radio KDNA, Sandra Saucedo
said the outcome of the case solidifies farm workers' rights.

"We have rights," she said.  "We don't have to be afraid.  We have
the right to speak up."

She recalled the day she heard shots fired in an orchard, when she
called police.

"I feared for workers' safety," she said.

After a brief announcement and comments from Saucedo and her
brother-in-law, Abelardo Saucedo, who launched the case, many in
the crowd began snapping photos using cellphones when a large
check for $1 million was handed to the pair.

That $1 million is divided among the workers in the case, with
individual payments ranging from $1,000 to $3,000.

The gathering lured Yakima Mayor Avina Gutierrez, who said she was
honored to witness the event.

Applause filled the building when she told how support from voters
paved the way for her to become Yakima's first-ever Latina mayor,
and likened the achievement to the way farm workers who too often
keep complaints to themselves were united in the case.

"Things won't change unless we stand up and fight for them," Mayor
Gutierrez told the crowd.  "This is one important step to move
forward."

There were more than 400 recipients who could not make it to the
July 24 event.  They will be contacted by mail and the settlement
will be announced on the radio and advertised in local newspapers
until the claim offer expires on Sept. 9, said Lori Isley,
attorney with Columbia Legal Services who worked on the case.

"What made this case significant is that they all came together
and spoke," Ms. Isley said.  "That's what makes a case like this
successful."

His sister-in-law translating his Spanish, Abelardo Saucedo said
victory in the case means much more than money.  "It's what we
made; we got our rights taken care of," he said.

Sandra Saucedo, the mother of three young daughters, said the
effort boiled down to doing the right thing.

"I feel that we did something right for everybody," she said. "Not
just by calling police, but by getting everyone together in a
group and speaking up.  We have rights, and we have protected
rights."


PAMLAB LLC: Employees Barred From Attacking Agreement
-----------------------------------------------------
Judge Mitchell R. Theriot of the Court of Appeals of Louisiana,
First Circuit, affirmed the trial court's judgment in the case
SHARON STUMP, DONALD "DUCK" WILLIAMS II, JON SHANNON WHITE, ROY
SANDEFER, AND KEVIN HALL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER
SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. SAMUEL M. CAMP, JUDITH M. CAMP, CAMLINE,
LLC F/K/A AND PAMLAB, LLC, No. 2015 CA 1158 (La. Ct. App.)

Plaintiff-employees Sharon Stump, Donald "Duck" Williams, II, Jon
Shannon White, Roy Sandefer, and Kevin Hall, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated filed a class action suit
against Samuel M. Camp, Judith M. Camp, Camline, LLC f/k/a Pamlab,
LLC.

The plaintiff-employees allege that, during their employment with
Pamlab, they participated in an Incentive Point Employee
Compensation Plan offered by Pamlab, where points were awarded to
the employees during the course of their employment, and the
plaintiff-employees alleged that Pamlab informed them that the
points equated to stock and was a form of deferred compensation
that would be of high value if the company was ever sold.

In a letter dated January 9, 2012, Pamlab informed all employees
that the Point Plan had been terminated as of June 14, 2011,
unbeknownst to the employees. Despite the termination of the Point
Plan, Pamlab paid a fixed dollar amount to each employee whose
points had been terminated, conditioned upon their signing a
release agreement and participation election. Said agreement
released any claims the employee might have had against Pamlab as
a result of the termination of the Point Plan. The agreement also
provided the employees with two options; either participate in a
new Incentive Point Plan beginning on February 1, 2012, or accept
a cash sum paid in five annual installments without eligibility to
participate in the new plan. Pamlab informed all employees that
under the new plan, they would retain the same number of points
they had under the former Point Plan, but that payment on the new
points would be according to the conditions of the new plan. The
employees were required to sign the release agreement and indicate
their choice of option no later than January 31, 2012.

The plaintiff-employees did not trust the new plan and did not
elect to participate in it. On February 26, 2013, Pamlab announced
that it had been sold to Nestle Health Science. The sale became
effective on April 1, 2013, which was a conversion event as
defined in the new plan.

Due to the sale of Pamlab, the employees who decided to
participate in the new plan profited tremendously when they sold
their points. The employees who chose the cash buyout received
nothing more than the much smaller installment payments to which
they had agreed. After announcing the sale, Pamlab accelerated the
yearly installments and paid the employees all that was owed under
the option of the points buyout.

Despite the plaintiff-employees' opinion that they had been
defrauded by Pamlab, they nevertheless accepted the accelerated
payments on March 29, 2013.  The plaintiff-employees claimed that
Pamlab was liable to them for error of consent, fraud, and bad
faith breach of contract.

Pamlab filed a motion for summary judgment on August 5, 2014,
prior to the case being certified as a class action. Pamlab argued
that there was no genuine issue of material fact since the
plaintiff-employees voluntarily agreed to the Election and Release
Agreement, and accepted and retained the money from the points
buyout, thereby confirming their consent regardless of any vices
of consent that might have existed.

The trial court ruled in favor of Pamlab and signed a judgment on
December 10, 2014, granting summary judgment and dismissing the
plaintiff-employees' petition with prejudice.

Judge Theriot affirmed the trial court's judgment.
A copy of Judge Theriot's opinion dated July 12, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/muf11afrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs/Appellants Sharon Stump, Donald "Duck" Williams, II,
Jon Shannon White, Roy Sandefer, and Kevin Hall, individually and
on behalf of all other similarly situated, represented by:

Ryan E. Loyacano, Esq.
Leandre Millet, LaPlace
518 Belle Terre Blvd.
Laplace, LA 70068
Telephone: 985-652-8101

Charles F. Seeman, III -- Charles.Seemann@jacksonlewis.com -- Rene
E. Thorne -- ThorneR@jacksonlewis.com -- at Jackson Lewis PC, for
Defendants/Appellees Samuel M. Camp, Judith M. Camp, Camline, LLC
f/k/a and Pamlab, LLC.


RELX INC: Court Denied Class Certification Bid in "Mussat" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. John J. Tharp, Jr. denied Plaintiff's motion for class
certification without prejudice in the class action lawsuit styled
Florence Mussat, M.D. S.C., the Plaintiff, v. Relx Inc., et al.,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-07643 (N.D. Ill.).

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on July 29, 2016,
no appearance on the motion is required. The Court does not accept
prophylactic class-certification motions in light of Campbell-
Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663 (2016); and Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783 (7th Cir. 2015).

If Plaintiff is prepared to proceed on the motion as briefed it
may be refiled; alternatively, the motion may be refiled at any
point that Plaintiff is prepared to proceed with substantive
briefing.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1DFnybh2


ROKA BIOSCIENCE: November 9 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., on July 25 disclosed that the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey has approved
the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement
that would benefit purchasers of common stock of Roka Bioscience,
Inc. (NASDAQ:ROKA):

SUMMARY NOTICE OF: (1) PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS
ACTION AND (2) HEARING ON PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

TO:     ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED SECURITIES
OF ROKA BIOSCIENCE, INC. ("ROKA") DURING THE PERIOD FROM JULY 17,
2014 THROUGH MARCH 26, 2015, INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS PERIOD"):

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the above-captioned action has been
certified as a class action for settlement purposes and that the
Lead Plaintiff has reached a proposed settlement with Roka to
resolve all claims in the case for $3,275,000 in cash.  The
settlement Class consists of all persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Roka securities pursuant or
traceable to Roka's Initial Public Offering Registration
Statement, including those who purchased or otherwise acquired
Roka common stock during the Class Period.

A hearing will be held on November 9, 2016, at 10:00 a.m., before
United States District Judge Freda L. Wolfson, at the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey, located at
402 East State Street, Room 5E, Trenton, New Jersey 08608, to
determine whether the Court should approve the proposed settlement
as fair, reasonable, and adequate and whether the Court should
grant Lead Counsel's application for attorneys' fees and expenses.

IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THIS
SETTLEMENT, AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT
MONEY.

If you have not yet received the full notice of the proposed
settlement (the "Notice"), you may obtain it by contacting Roka
Bioscience Securities Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services,
600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 3, P.O. Box 230, Media, PA 19063;
telephone: 866-274-4004; email: info@strategicclaims.net
You may also download the Notice from: www.strategicclaims.net

To participate in the settlement, you must submit a Claim Form.
You may download the Claim Form from www.strategicclaims.net, or
you may contact the Claims Administrator to request a Claim Form
and to be added to the mailing list.  Completed Claim Forms must
be postmarked or received by September 19, 2016, at the Claims
Administrator's address (printed above).

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Roka securities during the
Class Period, you will be deemed a Class Member unless you ask to
be excluded from the Class.  Any requests for exclusion must be
received by October 5, 2016, at the Claims Administrator's address
(printed above).  Each request for exclusion must (i) state the
name, address, telephone number, and e-mail address (if available)
of the person or entity requesting exclusion, (ii) state that such
person or entity requests exclusion from the Roka settlement,
(iii) be signed by the person or entity requesting exclusion, and
(iv) provide the date(s), price(s), and number(s) of shares of all
purchases and sales of Roka securities during the Class Period, as
well as account statements to verify all such transactions.  You
will be bound by any judgment rendered in the class action unless
you timely request exclusion from the Class as explained in the
Notice, even if you have pending or later file another lawsuit,
arbitration, or other proceeding relating to the claims covered by
this settlement.  If you submit a valid and timely request for
exclusion, you cannot share in the settlement money, cannot object
to the settlement, and will not be bound by the settlement or the
Court's rulings.

The Notice also describes how you may object to the Settlement,
the Plan of Allocation, the request for Attorneys' Fees and
Expenses, or Lead Plaintiff's request for an award.  All
objections must be received by the Court (at the address printed
above) and by the lawyers listed below no later than October 20,
2016:

Lead Counsel for the Class Roka's Counsel
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
New York, NY  10016
212-686-1060

Roka's Counsel
Ralph C. Ferrara, Esq.
Jonathan E. Richman, Esq.
Proskauer Rose LLP
1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Suite 600 South
Washington, DC  20004

Inquiries, other than requests for copies of the Notice or for
inclusion in the mailing list for future notices, may be directed
to Lead Counsel for the Class.

Dated:  June 28, 2016
BY ORDER OF THE COURT


ROTI RESTAURANTS: Class Certification Bid in "Lindner" Continued
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Robert M. Dow Jr. entered an order in the class action
lawsuit styled Cooper Lindner, the Plaintiff, v, Roti Restaurants,
LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-07653 (N.D. Ill.), continuing
Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on July 29, 2016,
the initial status hearing is set for September 20, 2016 at
9:00 a.m. and parties are to report:

     (1) possibility of settlement in the case; and

     (2) if no possibility of settlement exists, the nature and
         length of discovery necessary to get the case ready for
         trial.

The Plaintiff is to advise all other parties of the Courts action.
The lead counsel is directed to appear at the status hearing.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Rqk90kBF


SAFEGUARD PROPERTIES: Faces "Michael" Class Suit in N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Safeguard
Properties, LLC.

The case is captioned George Michael, on behalf of himself and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Safeguard Properties,
LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-07238 (N.D. Ill., July 14, 2016).

Safeguard Properties, LLC operates a property management company
located at 7887 Hub Pkwy, Valley View, OH 44125.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony Klytta, Esq.
      KLYTTA & KLYTTA
      1645 Birchwood
      Des Plaines, IL 60018
      Telephone: (773) 727-2225


SEDGWICK: Female Partner Files Pay Discrimination Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Strom and Ben Hancock, writing for Law.com, report that a
current nonequity partner at Sedgwick has accused the firm of
systemic discrimination against women in a class action suit filed
on July 26 in a California state court.  The suit claims that a
"male-dominated culture" keeps women from earning equal pay and
equal partnership status at Sedgwick.

Traci Ribeiro, an insurance expert who joined Sedgwick's Chicago
office in 2011, said that she has been denied a promotion to
equity partner since 2012, despite being the third-highest revenue
generator at the roughly 300-lawyer Am Law 200 firm.

Ms. Ribeiro and other women at the firm "cannot crack the glass
ceiling at Sedgwick," according to her complaint, which documents
alleged sexist comments made by partners about Ms. Ribeiro.  The
suit, filed in Sedgwick's hometown of San Francisco, also states
that some female associates earned up to $50,000 less than their
male counterparts.  The complaint seeks to certify a class of
women employees at the firm in their effort to obtain back pay for
lower wages and damages.

"My goal in filing the suit and having my day in court is to
ensure equal pay for everyone at Sedgwick," said Ms. Ribeiro, who
continues to represent insurance companies in coverage disputes
out of the firm's Chicago office. "I'm hoping that other firms
will look at what they're paying the men, look at what they're
paying the women and pay them equally."

Sedgwick chair Michael Healy said in a statement that the firm is
disappointed that Ms. Ribeiro filed the suit and a previous Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission complaint against the firm.

"We are confident there has been absolutely no discrimination or
retaliation in the partner compensation process or otherwise, and
we will defend the firm against these baseless allegations," said
Mr. Healy, who also heads Sedgwick's life sciences group and
assumed leadership of the firm in 2015.

Mr. Healy said that Ms. Ribeiro is paid in the top 10 percent of
all partners at Sedgwick, which had $183 million in gross revenue
last year, according to the most recent Am Law 200 rankings.
Ms. Ribeiro declined to provide her salary in the complaint
because it may violate the firm's policy, said one of her
attorneys, J. Bryan Wood of The Wood Law Office in Chicago.
Ms. Ribeiro is also represented by Sharon Vinick of Oakland,
California-based Levy Vinick Burrell Hyams, an all-women
employment litigation boutique.

Ms. Ribeiro's suit was filed on July 26 in San Francisco County
Superior Court in response to an attempt the firm made in April to
move the dispute into arbitration, according to the complaint. Ms.
Ribeiro filed her EEOC complaint in January.  It is ongoing,
according to her civil complaint, and was investigated for the
firm by lawyers at Seyfarth Shaw, an Am Law 100 firm known for its
work in the labor and employment space.

Ms. Ribeiro became a nonequity partner at Sedgwick in September
2012 and soon began advocating for compensation raises for women
associates in her department.

One female associate was being paid $50,000 less than a male
counterpart despite being more productive and profitable,
according to Ms. Ribeiro's complaint.  Another was underpaid by
$40,000.  Ms. Ribeiro said that those associates eventually earned
raises and were paid similarly to their male counterparts.

Ms. Ribeiro has been less successful advocating on her own behalf.
Her complaint said that she has been denied equity status despite
repeated requests and a top-three book of business at the firm.
And last year, a man was made equity partner at Sedgwick despite
bringing in only 10 percent of the revenue that Ms. Ribeiro did,
according to her complaint.

Ms. Ribeiro said that she wrestled with bringing the suit for the
past four years.

"All I want to do is practice law," she said.  "And every year I
increase my revenue. And every year I thought that would be enough
for the men to treat me equally and pay me equally."

Instead, her complaint claims, her equal-pay stance has been met
with retaliation.

At a November 2012 equity partners meeting shortly after she
raised an issue over associate pay, the complaint states that
Bruce Celebrezze, a fellow insurance partner at Sedgwick in
San Francisco, told his colleagues that Ms. Ribeiro "needed to
learn how to behave," and suggested she receive a pay cut.

Mr. Celebrezze did not return an email request for comment.

In a 2013 meeting about her role at Sedgwick, a previous firm
leader told Ms. Ribeiro, "Don't worry, we're not going to bring
you out to the woodshed," according to her complaint.

"A comment like this is characteristic of the paternalistic,
dismissive and gender-biased way Ribeiro has been treated by
Sedgwick and would not have been said to a male attorney," wrote
lawyers for the Sedgwick partner in her complaint against the
firm.  "Discussion of a spanking has no place in a conversation
about a female's professional prospects."

In a description of Sedgwick that mirrors the broader legal
profession, Ms. Ribeiro's complaint states that women constitute
less than 20 percent of the firm's equity partnership despite
representing roughly half of its associates.

The first woman to sit on Sedgwick's executive committee earned
that spot only after Ms. Ribeiro's EEOC complaint, states her
complaint.  That committee makes salary and promotion
recommendations for nonequity partners at the firm.

Ms. Ribeiro's complaint claims that a lack of policies on
promotion requirements allows gender biases to play an outsize
role in decision-making.  "Sedgwick's male-dominated culture
creates an environment where gender stereotypes flourish," claim
Ms. Ribeiro's lawyers.

The firm's leader, Mr. Healy, rebuked that notion in his
statement.

"Sedgwick takes a fair, open and consensus-driven approach to
partner compensation and other partnership issues, and we do not
engage in or tolerate discriminatory or retaliatory conduct of any
kind," he said.  "In fact, Sedgwick is proud to be widely
recognized as a leader in initiating and promoting diversity in
all aspects of the firm and in our communities."

Ms. Ribeiro said that continuing to work at Sedgwick is "certainly
not the easiest situation from day to day."  But she has
persevered.

"I like to practice law, and so I go in and continue to do my
job," she said.  "The suit was filed and as of now the retaliation
has only been to not promote me to equity because I complained
about not being paid equally."


SELIP & STYLIANOU: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Karakoz A. Zhalgasbayeva, on behalf of herself and all other
similarly situated consumers v. Selip & Stylianou, LLP, Case No.
1:16-cv-03903 (E.D.N.Y., July 13, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Selip & Stylianou, LLP operates a law firm located at 199
Crossways Park Dr., Woodbury, NY 11797.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SEPHORA USA: Faces "Angulo" Suit in California Superior Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Sephora U.S.A. The case is
captioned ANGULO, OLVIA INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER
CALIFORNIA SIMILARLY SITUATED PAST AND PRESENT EMPLOYEES, the
Plaintiff, v. WACHENDORF, RAMONA AN INDIVIDUAL, SEPHORA U.S.A.,
INC., KONG, KAMYN AN INDIVIDUAL, and DOES 1-100, INCLUSIVE, the
Defendants, Case No. CGC 16 553318 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 28,
2016).

Sephora is an e-commerce site focused on products under the
categories of skincare, beauty and hair care.


SIRIUS XM: Settling TCPA Class Suit for $35,000,000
---------------------------------------------------
Sirius XM Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company has entered
entered into a memorandum of understanding to settle purported
class action lawsuits that allege that the Company, or call center
vendors acting on the Company's behalf, made calls which violate
provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (the
"TCPA").

The Company said, "The plaintiffs in these actions allege, among
other things, that we called mobile phones using an automatic
telephone dialing system without the consumer's prior consent or,
alternatively, after the consumer revoked his or her prior
consent.  In one of the actions, the plaintiff also alleges that
we violated the TCPA's call time restrictions and, in one of the
other actions, the plaintiff also alleges that we violated the
TCPA's do not call restrictions. These purported class action
cases are titled Erik Knutson v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., No. 12-cv-
0418-AJB-NLS (S.D. Cal.), Francis W. Hooker v. Sirius XM Radio
Inc., No. 4:13-cv-3 (E.D. Va.), Yefim Elikman v. Sirius XM Radio
Inc. and Career Horizons, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-02093 (N.D. Ill.), and
Anthony Parker v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., No. 8:15-cv-01710-JSM-EAJ
(M.D. Fla)."

"On April 5, 2016, we entered into a memorandum of understanding
to settle these purported class action suits. The settlement is
expected to resolve the claims of consumers beginning in February
2008 relating to telemarketing calls to their mobile telephones.
As part of this settlement, we will agree to pay $35,000,000 in
cash (from which notice, administration and other costs and
attorneys' fees will be paid), to offer participating class
members the option of receiving three months of our Select service
for no charge, and to enter into agreements to make modifications
to the practices of certain call center vendors. The memorandum of
understanding is subject to the execution of a definitive
settlement agreement and court approval, neither of which can be
assured."


SNAPCHAT: Sued in Illinois Over Face-Scanning Technology
--------------------------------------------------------
Angie Stewart, writing for Chicago Sun Times, reports that
Snapchat selfies are all fun and games until someone files a
lawsuit.

Two Illinois men are suing the mobile app company, accusing it of
violating a state law on biometrics. Cook County residents Jose
Luis Martinez and Malcolm Neal say Snapchat improperly handled the
technology behind Lenses, the popular feature that lets users
breathe fire or swap faces with friends.

The lawsuit, which seeks class-action status, alleges that
Snapchat captures data on users' appearances without their
knowledge or consent and stores it without disclosing how long it
will be kept, in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act.

"Contrary to the claims of this frivolous lawsuit, we are very
careful not to collect, store or obtain any biometric information
or identifiers about our community," a Snapchat spokesperson said
in a statement.

If the court finds Snapchat guilty of reckless, intentional
violation of the law, it will owe $5,000 for each violation.  If
found guilty of negligent violation, the company will owe $1,000
per violation in damages.

The potential fines could be steep; Snapchat has created face maps
for tens of thousands of people who live in Illinois, the lawsuit
states.

The lawsuit was filed in May in a Los Angeles County Court and
moved to a federal court on July 14.

The biometrics law was introduced in 2008 by Sen. Terry Link,
D-Gurnee, at a time when select gas stations and grocery stores
were testing "Pay By Touch" machines that used fingerprinting to
make financial transactions.

The act was part of an American Civil Liberties Union initiative
to prevent information on biometric identifiers -- such as eye
scans, voice prints, fingerprints and facial features -- from
falling into the wrong hands for the wrong purpose.

"What we were concerned about is how [facial recognition
technology] could be acquired and used, even in ways we didn't
know about," ACLU legislative director Mary Dixon said.  "While
you can, with great difficulty, change your Social Security
number, you cannot change your unique biological identifier."

The Snapchat case fits the intention behind BIPA, Ms. Dixon said.

In May, Sen. Link proposed a revision to the act that would
exclude physical and digital photographs from the definition of
"biometric identifiers."  With the revision, the law would only
protect biometric information gathered from in-person processes,
not digital scans.

Katrina Carroll, an attorney representing the two men, said the
change was proposed as a result of extensive lobbying by Facebook
and Google, which are also being sued for their handling of
biometric identifiers.

Sen. Link could not be reached for comment.

The amendment to the biometrics law was put on hold in May.  If it
eventually passes, it could prevent future lawsuits like the ones
lodged against Snapchat, Google and Facebook, and threaten the
cases already filed against those companies, Carroll said.

Snapchat introduced Lenses in September 2015 after acquiring
Looksery, a San Francisco-based startup that specializes in facial
tracking and modification technologies.

The Lenses animations let users breathe fire, don heart-shaped
eyes, wear floppy dog ears and swap faces with friends.  To use
the feature, they have to give Snapchat access to the phone
camera.

When users press and hold a face on the touchscreen, a mask
appears around the face to map facial features, identify what they
are and pinpoint where they're located.  This process, called
object recognition, determines where to overlay special effects.

Daniel Castro, vice president of the Information Technology and
Innovation Foundation, a think tank focused on tech-related public
policies, said the technology behind Lenses doesn't compromise
users' privacy.

Unlike facial recognition technology, object recognition doesn't
identify specific faces, Mr. Castro said.  Snapchat's feature
merely figures out whether an object is a face and then which
facial features are which.

"They're not trying to say, 'Is this Sam and is this John?'"
Mr. Castro said.  "They're just trying to say, 'Where is the nose
in this picture and where is the eye in this picture?'"

Mr. Castro added that broadly worded laws such as BIPA hinder
technological advancements.

"At some point, companies look at different technology and say,
'This is regulated too heavily.  We're going to focus product
development somewhere else,'" Mr. Castro said.  "These type of
laws limit that innovation and development."


SONY CORP: November 8 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------
If You Bought a Lithium Ion Battery or Electronics Such as
Notebook Computers, Mobile Phones, and/or Other Items Containing a
Lithium Ion Battery Since 2000 You Could Get Money From a $19.5
Million Settlement

A $19.5 million class action Settlement announced by Cotchett,
Pitre & McCarthy, LLP, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP,
and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP has been agreed to by Sony
Corporation, Sony Energy Devices Corporation, and Sony Electronics
Inc. ("Settling Defendants") resolving claims that they allegedly
fixed the price of Lithium Ion Battery Cells.  This may have
caused individuals and businesses to pay more for Lithium Ion
Batteries and Lithium Ion Battery Products.  Lithium Ion Battery
Products include, but are not limited to, laptop computers,
notebook computers, netbook computers, tablet computers, mobile
phones, digital cameras, camcorders, and power tools.

Am I Included?
You may be included if, from January 1, 2000, to May 31, 2011, you
indirectly purchased a Lithium Ion Battery or Lithium Ion Battery
Product (such as a notebook computer, mobile phone, or digital
camera) in the United States for your own use and not for resale
from one or more of the Defendants in this lawsuit. "Indirectly"
means you bought the product from someone other than the
manufacturer, such as from a retail store.  A more detailed
notice, including the exact Class definition and exceptions to
Class membership, is available at
www.batteriesconsumerlitigation.com

What does the Settlement provide?
The Settlement provides for the payment of $19,500,000 in cash to
the Class.  Sony has also agreed to cooperate in the pursuit of
claims against other defendants.

How can I get a payment?
Money will not be distributed to the Class at this time.  The
lawyers for the Class will pursue the lawsuit against the other
Defendants to see if any future settlements or judgments can be
obtained in the case and then be distributed together, on a pro
rata basis, based on the value of your Lithium Ion Battery and/or
Lithium Ion Battery Product purchases, to reduce expenses.

If you want to receive notice about the claims process or future
settlements, you should register at
www.batteriesconsumerlitigation.com

What are my rights?
Even if you do nothing, you will be bound by the Court's decisions
concerning this Settlement.  If you want to keep your right to sue
the Settling Defendants regarding Lithium Ion Battery and/or
Lithium Ion Battery Product purchases, you must exclude yourself
in writing from the Class by September 22, 2016. If you stay in
the Class, you may object in writing to the Settlement by
September 22, 2016.  The Settlement Agreement, along with details
on how to exclude yourself or object, is available at
www.batteriesconsumerlitigation.com
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
will hold a hearing on November 8, 2016, at 2:00 p.m., at 1301
Clay Street, Courtroom 1, 4th Floor, Oakland, CA 94612 to consider
whether to approve the Settlement.  Class Counsel will also
request at the hearing, or at a later date, attorneys' fees of up
to 30% of the Settlement Fund, plus reimbursement of costs and
expenses, for investigating the facts, litigating the case, and
negotiating the settlement.  You or your own lawyer may appear and
speak at the hearing at your own expense, but you don't have to.
The hearing may be moved to a different date or time without
additional notice, so it is a good idea to check the website for
additional information. Please do not contact the Court about this
case.

If the case against the other Defendants is not dismissed or
settled, Class Counsel will have to prove their claims against the
other Defendants at trial.  Dates for the trial have not yet been
set.  The Court has appointed the law firms of Cotchett, Pitre &
McCarthy, LLP; Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP; and Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP as Class Counsel, to represent Indirect
Purchaser Class members.

For More Information:  1-800-952-0581 /
www.batteriesconsumerlitigation.com


STAFFING SOLUTIONS: Judge Declines to Approve "Wyms" Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Michael J. Reagan of the Southern District of
Illinois, denied plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of a
group settlement and motion for certification in the case HAROLD
WYMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. STAFFING SOLUTIONS SOUTHEAST, INC., Defendant Case
No. 15-cv-0643-MJR-PMF (S.D. Ill.)

Staffing Solutions Southeast, Inc., is a staffing company that
places logistics workers into temporary positions at various
warehousing outfits and then pays them for the temporary work done
for those outfits. Harold Wyms, a forklift operator assigned and
paid by Staffing Solutions to work at a large warehousing facility
in Edwardsville, Illinois that was previously operated by UTi
Worldwide, Inc., and is now operated by Schenker, Inc. Wyms worked
at the facility from March 2011 to July 2012 under the formal
employ of Staffing Solutions.

On June 9, 2015, Wyms filed a class action and collective action
complaint against Staffing Solutions, claiming that Staffing
Solutions failed to pay him and other similar forklift operators
for the time the workers spent locating forklifts, performing
mandatory inspections, completing inspection documents, and
performing other pre-shift tasks at the warehouse, all in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Illinois law. Wyms
sought to represent an opt-in Fair Labor Standards Act collective
action consisting of all Staffing Solutions forklift operators
employed at the Edwardsville facility who consented to join the
case, and he sought to represent a Rule 23 class on the state law
claims consisting of all current and former forklift operators who
worked at the same facility within the statute of limitations.

With the aid of Judge Frazier, the parties have settled the case.
The settlement agreement says that all of the forklift operator
class members who don't opt out of the class shall be deemed to
have released Staffing Solutions from any and all claims, demands,
rights, liabilities and causes of action brought in the lawsuit,
including but not limited to any and all claims under the Fair
Labor Standards Act. The notice goes on to advise class members
that all claims asserted in the litigation will be dismissed with
prejudice.

Wyms submitted a motion for preliminary approval of the group
settlement and a motion to certify the Rule 23 class and the Fair
Labor Standards Act collective action for settlement purposes.

Chief District Judge Reagan denied the motion for approval of the
Fair Labor Standards Act collective action settlement and
preliminary approval of the Rule 23 class action settlement
without prejudice. Wyms is directed to submit a new motion for
preliminary settlement approval by September 6, 2016, or otherwise
advise the court as to whether the case remains settled. The
consent motion to certify the class and collective action for
settlement purposes is also denied without prejudice, with leave
to resubmit alongside a new motion for preliminary approval of any
settlement agreement. The deadlines and hearings put forth in the
court's settlement scheduling order are vacated, and will be reset
once a new motion for preliminary settlement approval is filed.

A copy of Chief District Judge Reagan's memorandum and order dated
July 12, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/grYLpHfrom
Leagle.com.

Harold Wyms, Plaintiff, represented by Richard M. Paul, III --
paul@paulmcinnes.com -- at Paul McInnes LLP; Jack D. McInnes -- at
Stueve, Siegel et al; Mark A. Potashnick -- markp@wp-attorneys.com
-- at Weinhaus & Potashnick

Staffing Solutions Southeast, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Gerald L Maatman, Jr -- gmaatman@seyfarth.com -- Jason J. Englund
-- jenglund@seyfarth.com -- Matthew J Gagnon --
mgagnon@seyfarth.com -- Rebecca P. DeGroff -- rbromet@seyfarth.com
-- at Seyfarth Shaw LLP


STANFORD FINANCIAL: Lawyers Benefit More From Settlement Payouts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kristin Danley-Greiner, writing for Louisiana Record, reports that
in an unprecedented raid, the U.S. government shut down the
Stanford Financial Group's brokerage firm, trust and banking
operations in February 2009 alleging it was operating a Ponzi
scheme.  But seven years later, families and retirees -- many of
whom are in Louisiana -- are still losing money thanks to
attorneys who allegedly took more than their fair share.

Investors affiliated with the Stanford International Bank in
Antiqua, an offshore bank, have been fighting to recover their
money from five banks, including two based in the U.S., which
handled billions of dollars in customer deposits.  The investors
claim that the banks should have realized that Houston-based
Stanford was scamming people.

A certified public accountant who examined Mr. Stanford entities'
books testified in court that the alleged Ponzi scheme, which
lasted from 1999 to 2008, had collected more than $7 billion
worldwide by selling fraudulent certificate of deposits.

Losses for an estimated 1,000 investors in the Baton Rouge,
Covington and Lafayette areas are close to $1 billion.

A U.S. court-appointed receiver, Dallas attorney Ralph Janvey, is
among those who expected to be paid for his efforts, but
reimbursements came out of the same chunk of money that was
allocated for investors.  Mr. Janvey had requested $10 million for
his team's work in just a two-month span.

The U.S. Supreme Court eventually ruled that the investors in
Allen Stanford's $7 billion scheme could sue the attorneys and
insurance brokers involved in recovery efforts to hopefully recoup
their losses.  Four sets of plaintiffs filed civil class-action
lawsuits, claiming that the defendants actually assisted Stanford
and his companies in furthering the alleged Ponzi scheme by
falsely stating that the uncovered securities the plaintiffs had
purchased were backed by covered securities.  The district court
originally had dismissed each case, citing the Securities
Litigation Uniform Standards Acts of 1998.

Stanford is carrying out a 110-year prison sentence for his
involvement in the scam.

Stanford investors sued the New York-based law firms Chadbourne &
Parke and Proskauer Rose, and insurance brokerage firm Willis
Group Holdings, as well as financial services firm SEI Investments
and insurance company Bowen, Miclette & Britt.  The suit seeks at
least $7 billion.

Melissa Landry, executive director of the grassroots legal reform
group Louisiana Lawsuit Abuse Watch, explained that class-action
lawsuits are "in a class by themselves" regarding fees and
payouts.

"Unfortunately, this is nothing new . . . generating multimillion-
dollar fees for lawyers and peanuts for claimants," she told the
Louisiana Record. "There are dozens of high-profile examples.  For
instance, a recent class action involving Rice Krispies cereal
netted $5 refunds for consumers, while plaintiffs' lawyers claimed
entitlement to more than $1.2 million in fees.

"The recent Red Bull settlement is another example," Ms. Landry
said.  "According to news reports, the case settled for $13
million.  As part of the settlement, class counsel received $4.7
million, while consumers who bought the drink between Jan. 1,
2002, and Oct. 3, 2014, received notices that are eligible to
receive $10 cash or $15 worth of Red Bull products."

Another example in Louisiana is the $20 million settlement
regarding the city in the New Orleans levee breach lawsuit. Almost
10 years after the class-action litigation was filed, the lawyers
and administrators will "divvy up" $7 million amongst themselves,
Ms. Landry said.

"The victims who lost their homes and businesses to flooding in
the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina will get less than $500 each,"
she said.  "In spite of trial lawyers' claims that they 'took a
beat' on this case, it is obvious who is really benefiting here,
and by and large it isn't the people who had water in their
homes."

Ms. Landry noted that the Stanford case is yet "another
illustration of the fact that the class-action system as we know
it today benefits trial lawyers far more than plaintiffs.

"I think it is part of the reason the U.S. Supreme Court has
accepted more class-action cases in recent years," Ms. Landry
said.  "It seems the high court is searching for a fair solution
to what started out as a problem and has ultimately become a
legitimate crisis."

One such investor, LV Reeves, had invested $65,000 with the
Stanford group.  He recently received a check, but it tallied up
to be less one penny per dollar for his investment -- just $540.
He didn't join the class-action lawsuit, but rather waited to see
what the court-appointed receiver would be able to do. He views
the check as an insult for all that happened.

Dane Ciolino, a law professor at Loyola University in
New Orleans, explained that there is an opportunity for claimants
to object to the fairness of a settlement in all class action
lawsuits.

"The process is set up for the judge to police the fairness of any
class action settlement and there's generally an opportunity for
claimants to insert an objection in that fairness hearing," Mr.
Ciolino told the Louisiana Record.  "It's really not uncommon for
a judge to find a negotiated settlement to be unfair to class
members.  That happened with the NFL brain injury settlement,
where a judge found a settlement to be unfair.  There is a
fairness process that is designed to guide people."


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Judge Reversed Decertification Order
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Diane Johnsen of the Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division
One, reversed the order of the Superior Court that decertified the
class in the appealed case entitled LEONEL GARZA, and all persons
similarly situated, Petitioners, v. THE HONORABLE J. RICHARD GAMA,
Judge of the SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA, in and for
the County of MARICOPA, Respondent Judge, SWIFT TRANSPORTATION
CO., INC., Real Party in Interest, No. 1 CA-SA 15-0315 (Ariz. Ct.
App.)

Petitioner Leonel Garza was a Swift truck driver who sued the
company in 2005, alleging it systematically underpaid all of its
drivers. The Superior Court denied Garza's subsequent motion for
class certification. The Court of Appeals of Arizona, division one
reversed and remanded, but on review, the Supreme Court vacated
the Court of Appeals of Arizona, division one's decision, holding
that the latter court lacked jurisdiction over the interlocutory
denial of a motion to certify a class.

On remand, the Superior Court certified a class of Swift drivers
pursuant to Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). As trial
approached, however, the Superior Court granted Swift's motion to
decertify the class in July 2015.

Petitioners challenge the superior court's order decertifying an
80,000-member class of drivers suing Swift Transportation Co.,
Inc.

Judge Johnsen reversed the order decertifying the class.

A copy of Judge Johnsen's opinion dated July 12, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/YQbVmtfrom Leagle.com.

Robert B. Carey -- rob@hbsslaw.com -- Leonard W. Aragon --
leonard@hbsslaw.com -- Michella A. Kras -- michellak@hbsslaw.com
-- at Hagens, Berman, Sobol, Shapiro, LLP, Counsel for Petitioners

Rebecca Lumley -- rlumley@polsinelli.com -- at Polsinelli, PC,
Counsel for Real Party in Interest

James C. Sullivan -- jsullivan@polsinelli.com -- Travis Salmon --
tsalmon@polsinelli.com -- at Polsinelli, PC, Counsel for Real
Party in Interest

Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen delivered the opinion of the
Court, in which Judge Patricia A. Orozco and Judge Kenton D. Jones
joined.


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Judge Allows Fraud Suit to Move Forward
---------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a federal judge in San Diego had
rejected a request to dismiss a lawsuit against Donald Trump that
accuses the Republican presidential nominee of defrauding
customers at the now-defunct Trump University.

U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel ruled on Aug. 2, saying the
2011 case can go forward.

Judge Curiel had already indicated at a hearing that he was
inclined to dismiss the request.

Mr. Trump's attorneys called the lawsuit a "gross overreach" of
federal civil racketeering statutes, and minimized Mr. Trump's
role in orchestrating allegedly misleading marketing claims.

The ruling came the same day that Judge Curiel blocked the release
of videos of Mr. Trump testifying in the lawsuit.

Mr. Trump has accused Judge Curiel of being biased against him
saying the Indiana-born judge's Mexican heritage posed a conflict
with Mr. Trump's positions on illegal immigration and promise to
build a wall on the Mexican border.

The judge has blocked the release of videos of the Republican
presidential nominee testifying in a lawsuit about the now-defunct
Trump University.

Judge Curiel in a ruling on Aug. 2 denied the request from news
organizations that wanted full transcripts and video of
Mr. Trump's recent depositions.  Judge Curiel says that while
there was legitimate public interest in viewing Trump's demeanor
in the footage, there was greater potential for harm because of
the media scrutiny it was expected to generate.

Mr. Trump's attorneys said the video would be used to tarnish the
campaign.

Judge Curiel came under attack by Mr. Trump in May after he
permitted the release of unrelated documents in the class-action
lawsuit.


TEAM BROWN: Faces "Carson" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Team Brown Consulting, Inc. The
case is captioned Sharieff Carson, Individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Team Brown
Consulting, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-04206 (E.D.N.Y.,
July 28, 2016).

Team Brown identifies and resolves community issues in ways
favorable to the client, such as governmental affairs, compliance,
local residents, schools and community based organizations.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


TOYOTA MOTORS: Bid to Seal Settlement Documents Denied
------------------------------------------------------
In the case ISATU T. KANU, et al. v. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, USA,
INC., Civil Action No. DKC 15-3445 (D. Md.), District Judge
Deborah K. Chasanow of the District of Maryland denied both
plaintiffs' consent motion to seal a forthcoming motion to approve
a settlement agreement, and defendant's motion to approve
settlement.

Plaintiffs commenced an action after a defective power window
master switch on the driver's door of plaintiffs' Toyota Corolla
allegedly caused a fire. Plaintiffs were injured while exiting the
vehicle. The parties entered into settlement discussions and
eventually filed a status report with the court indicating that
they reached an agreement.

The mediation agreement requires the execution of a mutually
agreeable settlement agreement, and court approval of the
resolution as it concerns plaintiff P.K., the minor child of
Plaintiff Isatu T. Kanu.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint to include claims brought on
behalf of P.K., who was not named in the prior pleadings. Shortly
thereafter, plaintiffs moved to seal the parties' forthcoming
motion to approve settlement, which the court denied.

Subsequently, plaintiffs filed a second motion to seal the
forthcoming motion to approve settlement. At the same time,
plaintiffs filed under seal the parties' confidential settlement
agreement. The court then advised the parties to file a motion to
approve settlement setting forth the court's authority for doing
so as well as the standard to be applied.

Defendant filed under seal a motion to approve settlement.

A copy of Judge Chasanow's memorandum opinion dated July 11, 2016,
is available at http://goo.gl/oe2bZWfrom Leagle.com.

Isatu T. Kanu, Plaintiffs, represented by:

          Emmanuel D Akpan, Esq.
          Law Office of Emmanuel Akpan
          630 Fenton St #716
          Silver Spring, MD 20910
          Telephone: 301-563-4022

Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Joel A
Dewey -- joel.dewey@dlapiper.com -- Paul Joseph Day --
paul.day@dlapiper.com -- at DLA Piper LLP US


TYSON FOODS: Seeks New Trial in Employees' Wage Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Heidi Turner, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reports that
after losing round after round of a donning and doffing lawsuit
filed against it, Tyson Foods has filed a brief requesting a new
lawsuit.  Tyson Foods recently lost an appeal of a lower court
award of $5.8 million to employees who alleged they were not
properly compensated for time spent putting on and taking off
safety gear for work.

The lawsuit was initially filed in 2006 by employees at Tyson
Foods' Iowa pork processing plant. Those employees argued they
were not adequately paid for time spent putting on and taking off
safety gear for their shifts.  Tyson Foods did pay for those
activities, but prior to 2010 only paid for 4 to 7 minutes.  The
company increased that time to 20 to 22 minutes in 2010.

The employees won their lawsuit in a lower court, but Tyson
appealed, arguing that the lawsuit should not have received class
action certification because the employees' various situations
were too varied to form a class.  But the courts found that the
employees could be grouped as a class for the purposes of the
lawsuit, and upheld the decision.

Tyson finally appealed to the US Supreme Court, but the Court
found -- in a six to two decision -- that the lawsuit was fine as
a class action.  That decision upheld the award, although the
justices remanded the case to a district court to determine
whether there were class members who suffered no injury and
therefore should not share in the damages.


Now, Tyson has asked the US District Court for the Northern
District of Iowa to allow a new trial.  According to Sioux City
Journal, Tyson argues that a new trial would allow the sides
determine which workers are legally entitled to share in the
award. Although plaintiffs have proposed various methods of
distributing the $5.8 million, Tyson argues that none of those
methods ensure only injured workers receive compensation.

A major issue at trial was that Tyson did not keep records of how
long it took employees to put on and take off protective clothing.
Plaintiffs attempted to address the issue by relying on expert
witness testimony.

Approximately 3,300 current and former employees are included in
the lawsuit.  Lower courts had ruled that employees showed
"sufficient evidence of under compensation" to warrant an award.

The Tyson lawsuit at the Supreme Court is Tyson Foods Inc. v.
Bouaphakeo et al., case number 14-1146 in the Supreme Court of the
United States.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Cavello" Suit in Dist. New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Uber
Technologies, Inc. and Rasier, LLC.

The case is captioned Carlo Cavello, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Uber Technologies, Inc. and
Rasier, LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-04264 (D.N.J., July 14, 2016).

The Defendants operate an online transportation network company
headquartered in San Francisco, California.

Carlo Cavello is a pro se plaintiff.


UNITED RECOVERY: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Avrom Weber, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
consumers v. United Recovery Systems, L.P., Case No. 1:16-cv-03927
(E.D.N.Y., July 14, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair
and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

United Recovery Systems, L.P. provides accounts receivable
management services to issuers in credit card, retail, commercial,
and deficiency loan industries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
      ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
      483 Chestnut Street
      Cedarhurst, NY 11516
      Telephone: (516) 791-4400
      Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
      E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


USG CORP: Homebuilders Attempt to Appeal Wallboard Pricing Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
USG Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the homebuilders are
attempting to appeal from a ruling in the wallboard pricing
lawsuits.

In the first quarter of 2015, USG, United States Gypsum Company,
L&W Supply Corporation, and seven other wallboard manufacturers
were named as defendants in a lawsuit filed in federal court in
California by twelve homebuilders alleging that since at least
September 2011, U.S. wallboard manufacturers conspired to fix and
raise the price of gypsum wallboard sold in the United States and
to effectuate the alleged conspiracy by ending the practice of
providing job quotes on wallboard. The lawsuit was transferred to
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania under the title In re: Domestic Drywall Antitrust
Litigation, MDL No. 2437.

In the second quarter of 2016, the Court dismissed with prejudice
the portions of the homebuilders' complaint alleging a conspiracy
in 2014 and 2015, ruling that there were insufficient factual
allegations to allow such a claim to go forward. The homebuilders
are attempting to appeal from this ruling. The homebuilders'
claims alleging a conspiracy prior to 2014 have not been
dismissed, and the case proceeds as to those claims.


USG CORP: Defending Wallboard Class Suits in Canada
---------------------------------------------------
USG Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that beginning in the third
quarter of 2013, class action lawsuits were filed in Quebec,
Ontario and British Columbia courts on behalf of purchasers of
wallboard in Canada and naming USG Corporation, United States
Gypsum Company, CGC Inc., and other wallboard manufacturers as
defendants.

The Company believes that the cost, if any, of resolving the
Canadian class action litigation will not have a material effect
on the Company's results of operations, financial position or cash
flows.


VISA INC: 2nd Circuit Vacated Lower Court's Certification Order
---------------------------------------------------------------
Visa Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 25, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2016, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit on June 30, 2016, vacated the lower court's certification
of the merchant class and reversed the approval of the settlement.
The Second Circuit determined that the class plaintiffs were
inadequately represented, and remanded the case to the lower court
for further proceedings not inconsistent with its decision. Until
the appeals process is complete, it is uncertain whether the
Company will be able to resolve the class plaintiffs' claims as
contemplated by the Settlement Agreement.


VISA INC: Motion to Transfer Home Depot Suit to MDL 1720 Filed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Visa Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 25, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2016, that Visa and MasterCard have filed a motion
with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer
the case by the The Home Depot, Inc. and Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.
to MDL 1720 for coordinated and consolidated pre-trial
proceedings.

Beginning in May 2013, more than 60 opt-out cases have been filed
by hundreds of merchants in various federal district courts,
generally pursuing damages claims on allegations similar to those
raised in MDL 1720. A number of the cases also include allegations
that Visa has monopolized, attempted to monopolize, and/or
conspired to monopolize debit card-related market segments, and
one of the cases seeks an injunction against the fixed acquirer
network fee. The cases name as defendants Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A.,
Visa International, MasterCard Incorporated, and MasterCard
International Incorporated, although some also include certain
U.S. financial institutions as defendants. Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
and its subsidiaries filed an opt-out complaint that also adds
Visa Europe Limited and Visa Europe Services Inc. as defendants.

A settlement agreement regarding all claims was reached with Wal-
Mart Stores Inc. and its subsidiaries, which will terminate if,
following all appeals, the MDL class settlement is reversed or
vacated with respect to certification of the Rule 23 (b) (2)
settlement class or the consideration provided to or release
provided by that class. Including this settlement with Wal-Mart,
as of the date of filing, Visa has reached settlement agreements
with a number of merchants representing approximately 51% of the
Visa-branded payment card sales volume of merchants who opted out.
Except for the settlement with Wal-Mart, these settlement
agreements remain effective despite the outcome of any appeals
from the district court's order approving the settlement in the
multidistrict interchange litigation.

On June 13, 2016, The Home Depot, Inc. and Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.
filed suit against Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A., Visa International,
MasterCard Incorporated, and MasterCard International Incorporated
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
The complaint pursues damages claims on allegations similar to
those raised in MDL 1720, and further asserts that Visa has
monopolized, attempted to monopolize, and conspired to monopolize
debit card-related market segments. The complaint also alleges
that Visa, MasterCard, and their member banks conspired to prevent
the adoption of chip-and-PIN authentication in the U.S. and seeks
an injunction against the fixed acquirer network fee.

On July 6, 2016, Visa and MasterCard filed a motion with the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer the case to
MDL 1720 for coordinated and consolidated pre-trial proceedings.


VISA INC: 75 Merchants Commenced Proceedings Against Visa Europe
----------------------------------------------------------------
Visa Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 25, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2016, that a total of approximately 75 merchants
(together with subsidiary/affiliate companies) have now commenced
proceedings against Visa Europe, Visa Inc. and Visa International
relating to interchange rates in Europe.


VISA INC: Amended Suit Filed in EMV Chip Liability Shift Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Visa Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 25, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2016, that plaintiffs in the EMV Chip Liability
Shift suit have filed an amended complaint.

On March 8, 2016, B&R Supermarket, Inc., d/b/a Milam's Market, and
Grove Liquors LLC filed a purported class action lawsuit against
Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A., MasterCard, Discover, American Express,
EMVCo, JCB, UnionPay, and certain financial institutions in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The
complaint asserts that defendants, through EMVCo, conspired to
shift liability for fraudulent, faulty or otherwise rejected
consumer credit card transactions from defendants to the purported
class of merchants. Plaintiffs claim that the so-called "Liability
Shift" violates Section 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act and certain
state laws, and seek treble damages, injunctive relief, and
attorneys' fees.

On April 18, 2016, certain defendants filed motions to dismiss the
complaint. On June 16, 2016, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed
without prejudice defendants JCB and UnionPay. On June 24, 2016,
the court gave plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint, and deemed
as moot the defendants' motions to dismiss.

On July 15, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint which
alleges, among other things, that the class consists of merchants
throughout the United States who have been subject to the
"Liability Shift" from October 2015 to the present.


VISA INC: Broadway Grill Filed Motion to Remand Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Visa Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 25, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2016, that Broadway Grill, Inc. ("Broadway Grill"),
on behalf of itself and a putative class of California merchants
that have accepted Visa-branded cards since January 1, 2004, filed
on July 12, 2016, a lawsuit against Visa Inc., Visa International,
and Visa U.S.A. in California state court. Based on allegations
similar to those advanced by plaintiffs in MDL 1720, Broadway
Grill pursues claims under California state antitrust and unfair
business statutes. Broadway Grill seeks damages, costs, and other
remedies. On July 18, 2016, the case was removed to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California. On July
22, 2016, Broadway Grill filed a motion to remand the case to
California state court.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: $14-Bil. Settlement Gets Initial Court Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Hancock, writing for Law.com, reports that a federal judge on
July 26 granted preliminary approval to a more than $14 billion
settlement in the litigation over Volkwagen AG's cheating of U.S.
environmental regulations.

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer of the Northern District of
California expressed satisfaction with elements of the settlement
that will allow owners of VW vehicles with 2.0 liter engines to
have their cars fixed or bought back by the automaker, as well as
component directed at ameliorating the environmental impact of the
scandal.

"It appears in your presentation today, as it appeared when you
filed your documents, that an enormous effort has been devoted to
achieve a series of goals," Judge Breyer said at the tail end of
an almost two hour hearing, where lawyers from Volkwagen, the U.S.
government and a class of consumers explained the various facets
of the settlement, which was unveiled in June.

"I think from what I've seen that those goals have been achieved,
and accordingly the court grants preliminary approval," he said.

Once Judge Breyer formally issues the order, the owners of the
roughly 480,000 affected 2.0 liter vehicles will be able to start
an online claims process at www.vwcourtsettlement.com
The company is still in talks with regulators over the technical
fix for roughly 85,000 affected 3.0 liter vehicles, which include
the automaker's Audi and Porsche-branded luxury cars.

Robert Giuffra, the Sullivan & Cromwell attorney heading up VW's
defense, told reporters after the hearing that finding a fix for
the 3.0 liter cars should be easier but that the effort had gotten
a later start because of the focus on the 2.0 liter vehicles.
Another hearing has been scheduled for Aug. 25 where attorneys are
expected to give an update on that effort.

The attorneys for the consumer class have not yet submitted their
fee request, and Judge Breyer has made clear that any fees would
not come out of the total settlement value.  He requested that the
parties submit information on their proposed fee arrangement soon.
The plaintiff steering committee is headed by Elizabeth Cabraser
of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein.

Judge Breyer particularly praised an aspect of the settlement that
prohibits Volkswagen from simply exporting the affected vehicles
it buys back to other markets where emissions rules may not be as
strict.  Before shipping any cars abroad, Volkswagen will have to
fix them.

"I think that's one of the most important aspects of the
settlement, because it appears to me that it is not responsible to
resolve a nationwide class action by taking those cars to another
country where they could damage the environment of that country,"
he said.

The settlement may not be the end of VW's legal troubles, though.
Steve Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, who sits on the
steering committee, noted that there may some members of the class
who are "so angry" over the emissions cheating scandal that they
will opt out of the class and seek to sue the company individually
for treble damages.

Judge Breyer acknowledged that individuals have a right to do so,
but encouraged members of the class to examine the details of the
settlement first and particularly its environmental aspects. He
scheduled a final approval hearing for Oct. 18.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Turns Focus to Emission Legal Challenges in Europe
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that with its $14.7
billion settlement in the rearview mirror, Volkswagen is turning
its focus to Europe, where lawyers representing the automaker's
investors and customers overseas have moved to subpoena documents
in the United States.

Lawyers hoping to sue Volkswagen in Europe face a host of
challenges: In general, they can't bring class actions in European
courts, and they have limited means for obtaining discovery.
Volkswagen also has refused to produce materials, prompting
lawyers to file motions under section 1782 of the U.S. Judiciary
Act, which could allow them to obtain discovery in U.S. courts for
use in a "foreign or international tribunal."  They want more than
8 million documents that Volkswagen turned over as part of
multidistrict litigation involving about 475,000 diesel cars in
the United States.

"These vehicles were all sold under the same misrepresentation,"
said Michael Hausfeld, chairman of Hausfeld LLP, which represents
four Volkswagen customers in Europe who have filed a 1782
application.  "These vehicles were marketed and sold as clean
diesels.  That was their major selling point.  That was a lie.
That was a lie in Europe.  It was a lie in the United States.  It
was a lie wherever they were sold."

Volkswagen, which is fighting the requests, anticipates more
motions to come.  On July 19, a federal judge in San Francisco
granted Volkswagen's request to delay briefing on the matter until
after an August 25 hearing.

A Volkswagen spokesman declined to comment.

The discovery battles come as European regulators turn up the heat
in their investigations of Volkswagen, which has admitted that 11
million vehicles worldwide were installed with a "defeat device"
to skirt emissions tests.  About 8.5 million of the affected cars
were in Europe.  In June, European Commissioner Elzbieta
Bienkowska said that Volkswagen, based in Germany, should pay its
European customers "compensation that is comparable with that
which they will pay U.S. customers."

U.S. firms like Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann and Labaton
Sucharow have helped create Dutch foundations called "stichtings"
as a means of obtaining settlements with Volkswagen on behalf of
thousands of European investors and customers.  But so far,
Volkswagen hasn't agreed to a deal.

Most of the lawsuits filed so far have been shareholder cases
brought by institutional investors, primarily in German courts.
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan filed a complaint on June 20 on
behalf of a Norwegian sovereign wealth fund -- the largest
institutional investor that doesn't have a seat on the automaker's
board.  And on March 14, Grant & Eisenhofer and Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check filed a $3.5 billion suit in German court on
behalf of 281 institutional investors worldwide, including the
California Public Employees' Retirement System.

But Volkswagen has stood firm against paying European customers,
insisting that repairs are adequate, and has denied that it failed
to timely disclose the emissions problem to shareholders in
violation of German law.

Volkswagen also has cut off lawyers from any discovery.  The
discovery hurdles are particularly burdensome in Germany, where
courts can't compel production and lawyers must identify the
specific documents they want.

"It may be their only real chance at American style discovery,"
said Ralph Stone, a partner at New York's Stone Bonner & Rocco, of
the 1782 applications. "It varies from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction, but there is no discovery like American discovery
that I've come across -- with documents on a categorical basis."
The first 1782 application was filed on April 14 on behalf of 22
Volkswagen customers in Germany, Spain, France, Italy, Greece,
Poland, Ukraine, the United Kingdom and the Czech Republic,
including Hausfeld's clients.  None had filed a suit against
Volkswagen.

"Because of the difficulty applicants' have had obtaining critical
documents -- much of which is due to Volkswagen's
conduct -- granting the 1782 application is necessary to hold the
Volkswagen defendants accountable for their admitted misconduct,"
wrote Warren Burns of Dallas-based Burns Charest, who filed the
application.

Mr. Burns brought a second motion on June 24 on behalf of a
British pension fund that filed a shareholder suit against
Volkswagen in German court.  A third motion was brought on June 17
on behalf of Altroconsumo, a consumer association in Italy that
filed a case on April 13 in Italian court on behalf of all
Volkswagen's customers in Italy.  On July 15, the lawyer who
brought that motion, William Audet, founding partner of Audet &
Partners in San Francisco, opposed Volkswagen's request to
continue the briefing into this month, citing a Nov. 4 hearing in
Altroconsumo's case.

Volkswagen, meanwhile, intends to fight the 1782 motions. Its
lawyer, Robert Giuffra, a partner at New York's Sullivan &
Cromwell, wrote in a May 19 filing that the motions were brought
for the "improper purpose of hijacking millions of pages of U.S.
discovery."  Much of the discovery pertained to marketing
materials and regulations in the United States, he wrote.

"Ultimately, applicants' overbroad, untailored request for all
documents produced in the MDL is an impermissible fishing
expedition that likely would result in the production of millions
of pages of irrelevant, confidential documents," he wrote.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: EU Works with Consumer Groups in Compensation Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alissa de Carbonnel and Andreas Cremer, writing for Reuters,
report that Europe's Commissioner for Justice is working with EU
consumer groups to pressure Volkswagen to compensate clients in
Europe as it has in the United States over the diesel emissions
scandal.

The German carmaker has pledged up to $15.3 billion to compensate
475,000 owners of VW diesel-powered cars, but has so far rejected
such calls for the 8.5 million affected vehicles in Europe, where
different legal rules weaken the chances of winning a pay out.

Instead, it is implementing a technical fix approved by regulators
to remove illicit software that cheated emissions tests, saying
this meant car owners in Europe would not suffer a loss of value.
Most U.S. owners will get $5,100 to $10,000, based on the pre-
scandal value of their vehicles.

Seeking to step up pressure on VW, European Commissioner
Vera Jourova said in an email: "We are working with the consumer
authorities to ensure EU consumers get a fair treatment."

The Commissioner sent a letter to national consumer protection
authorities in the 28 member states to gather information on the
difficulties they face and how they might coordinate their
efforts, a spokesman for the EU executive Christian Wigand said in
an email.

Options will be discussed when the Commission organizes a meeting
with consumer groups in Brussels in September, he said.

Volkswagen declined to comment.

Despite calls from Ms. Jourova and other EU officials for VW not
to discriminate against car owners in Europe, responsibility for
policing, penalties and enforcement in the EU lies mainly with
national authorities.

Consumer groups and lawyers in Europe lack of mechanisms to
marshal complaints such as U.S.-style class-action lawsuits. Legal
"wiggle room" over whether software used to switch off emissions
controls contravene EU law has muddied the waters.

Consumer organizations in Belgium, Spain and Italy have launched
group actions on behalf of affected consumers, the Brussels-based
European Consumer Protection (BEUC) said, but such recourse is not
available in other EU nations.

"The European Commission is one of the few authority which is
actually trying to do something," Johannes Kleis of BEUC said.

"This political signal is necessary," Mr. Kleis added.  "We know
that the Commission has no enforcement power, but when they
coordinate action from national consumer authorities it could help
to get compensation for EU car drivers."


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Bavaria to Sue Over State Pension Fund Losses
------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Bavaria's finance minister says
the state plans to sue Volkswagen over losses to the state pension
fund in the wake of the emissions cheating scandal that has taken
its toll on the automaker's profits.

State Finance Minister Markus Soeder told the dpa news agency on
Aug. 2 that Bavaria "has an obligation" to try and recuperate
losses for the pension fund through the suit, which he said would
be filed in September.

As of September 2015, when the emissions manipulation scandal
became public, Bavaria held some 58,000 preferred shares in Lower-
Saxony-based Volkswagen.  They've lost some 40 percent of their
value, and dpa reports that Bavaria is seeking 700,000 euros
($781,480) in damages.

Volkswagen disclosed last September that it had been fitting
diesel vehicles with special software to trick U.S. emissions
tests.


WAL-MART: Averts Shareholder Suit Over Mexico Bribery Scandal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zoe Tillman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
Walmart on July 22 scored another win against shareholders seeking
to hold the retail giant liable for an alleged bribery scheme in
Mexico involving one of the company's subsidiaries.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld an
Arkansas federal judge's dismissal of the shareholder class
action.  The shareholders failed to show that it would have been
futile to first ask Walmart's board of directors to pursue legal
action, as is required in these types of cases, Chief Judge
William Riley wrote for the three-judge appeals panel.

Walmart earlier this year won the dismissal of a similar
shareholder case in Delaware.  The Delaware Court of Chancery,
citing the Arkansas judge's April 2015 dismissal order, said the
plaintiffs in Delaware couldn't relitigate the case.
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partner Theodore Boutrous Jr. argued for
Walmart in the Eighth Circuit.  Mr. Boutrous said in an email that
the court "got it exactly right."

"As we've said all along, Delaware law gives the board of
directors -- not an individual shareholder -- the authority to
address and manage corporate matters like these," said
Mr. Boutrous, co-chair of the firm's litigation practice.

Judith Scolnick -- jscolnick@scott-scott.com -- a partner at Scott
+ Scott in New York, argued for the shareholders.  She did not
immediately return requests for comment.

The alleged bribery scheme dated to the early 2000s, according to
court papers.  A whistleblower at Wal-Mart de Mexico, referred to
by the Eighth Circuit as Wal-Mex, told an in-house lawyer in 2005
that Wal-Mex for years had been bribing Mexican officials.  A
preliminary internal investigation found evidence to support those
accusations, but the inquiry was transferred to Wal-Mex in 2006
and closed with no further action.

In 2011, after learning that The New York Times was investigating
the Wal-Mex bribery allegations and how the company handled the
investigation, Walmart revived an internal investigation and
notified the U.S. Department of Justice and Securities and
Exchange Commission.  The Times published an expose in April 2012.

Shareholder lawsuits filed after the Times' article came out were
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Arkansas; Walmart's headquarters are in Bentonville, Arkansas.
The plaintiffs claimed the company made false statements to
shareholders about the "integrity" of corporate directors.

Under federal court rules, the shareholders were supposed to ask
the board to enforce the company's rights and pursue claims before
they could file their own case. The shareholders argued that such
an effort would have been futile because the board couldn't be
impartial -- there were current board members who were serving
when the original internal Wal-Mex probe took place.
Walmart agreed that there could be a potential issue with two
members, but argued that the shareholders failed to show that the
other seven knew about the alleged Wal-Mex bribery and cover-up
and could be liable for any misleading statements to shareholders.

The Eighth Circuit sided with Walmart, finding that the
shareholders didn't present evidence that Walmart employees and
board members who knew about the Wal-Mex investigation told the
board.  The shareholders' theories -- including that the Wal-Mex
bribery presented such a threat to Walmart that the board must
have known about it -- were not "persuasive," Judge Riley wrote.
Judge Riley was joined by judges Roger Wollman and Diana Murphy.


WINDOWS USA: Faces "Hudson" Suit in Southern Dist. Mississippi
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Windows USA, LLC. The case is
captioned Archie Hudson and Angela Hudson, on behalf of themselves
and all of those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Windows
USA, LLC, doing business as Windows USA and Alaskan Window
Systems; Big Four Companies, Inc.; and Wells Fargo, N.A., the
Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00596-DPJ-FKB (S.D. Miss., July 28,
2016). The assigned District Judge is Hon. Daniel P. Jordan, III.

Windows USA is a customer manufacturer of premium quality, energy
efficient vinyl window and door systems specializing exclusively
in the residential retrofit and remodeling market.

Archie Hudson is represented by:

          Macy D. Hanson, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF
          MACY D. HANSON, PLLC
          102 First Choice Drive
          Madison, MS 39210
          Telephone: (601) 853 9521
          Facsimile: (601) 853 9327
          E-mail: macy@macyhanson.com

Angela Hudson appears pro se.


XURA INC: Settlement Reached in Securities Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------
Xura, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2016, that the Company and the
other named defendants in three class action lawsuits have agreed
to the terms of a settlement with the plaintiffs to settle the
lawsuits.

As disclosed in the definitive proxy statement on Schedule 14A
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") on July
12, 2016 by Xura, Inc. (the "Company", "we", "us", and "our"), on
July 11, 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed by a purported
stockholder of the Company in the United States District Court in
the District of Massachusetts (the "Merger Litigation") with
respect to an Agreement and Plan of Merger (as it may be amended
from time to time, the "Merger Agreement") entered into on May 23,
2016 with Sierra Private Holdings II Ltd., a private limited
company incorporated under the laws of England and Wales
("Parent"), and Sierra Private Merger Sub Inc., a Delaware
corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub").
Under the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will be merged with and
into the Company (the "Merger"), with the Company continuing after
the Merger as the surviving corporation and subsidiary of Parent,
subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Merger
Agreement. Parent and Merger Sub are affiliates of Siris Capital
Group, LLC ("Siris").

The Merger Litigation alleges that the Company, the individual
members of the Company's board of directors, Parent, Merger Sub,
and Siris violated Sections 14(a) and/or 20(a) of the Exchange Act
in connection with the proxy solicitation. A second complaint
against the Company was filed by another purported stockholder in
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' Suffolk County Superior Court
on July 15, 2016 (the "State Litigation"), alleging that, in
connection with the Merger, the individual members of the
Company's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to
the Company's stockholders and the Company, Parent, Merger Sub,
and Siris aided and abetted such breach. A third complaint against
the Company was filed by another purported stockholder in the
United States District Court in the District of Massachusetts on
July 22, 2016, alleging claims similar to those made in the State
Litigation and the Merger Litigation.

On July 26, 2016, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any
liability or wrongdoing, the Company and the other named
defendants in the three lawsuits agreed to the terms of a
settlement with the plaintiffs to settle the lawsuits. The terms
of this settlement provide, among other things, that the State
Litigation will be dismissed, the third complaint will be
consolidated with the Merger Litigation in one consolidated
federal court action (the "Consolidated Action"), and the parties
will seek to enter into a stipulation of settlement that provides
for the release of all stockholder claims arising from the Merger
and dismissal with prejudice of the Consolidated Action. The
claims will not be released, and the Consolidated Action
dismissed, until such stipulation of settlement is approved by the
court. If approved by the court, it is expected that the
stipulation of settlement will bind the plaintiff and a class of
stockholders of the Company. There can be no assurance that the
parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or
that the court will approve such settlement even if the parties
were to enter into such stipulation. As part of the terms of the
settlement, the Company has agreed to make certain additional
disclosures related to the Merger and the Merger Agreement.


ZIPCAR INC: Settles New York AG Suit Over Vehicle Damage Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press and New York Journal's Andrew Denney report
that New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has reached a
settlement with Zipcar Inc. over vehicle damage fees charged to
5,000 members from 2011 through 2015.

Investigators said the Boston-based Zipcar failed to notify
consumers before charging fees that ranged up to $1,000.
New York General Business Law Sec. 386 requires companies to give
consumers an opportunity to dispute damage fees before they're
assessed.

Zipcar lets members rent cars by the hour or day.  Contracts say
members are liable for damages on cars in their possession.
Zipcar agreed to refund damage charges assessed against customers
who contested their responsibility, pay $35,000 to the attorney
general's office and comply with New York law.

Assistant attorneys generals Kate Matuschak and Stephen Mindell of
the Consumer Frauds and Protection Bureau, as well as deputy
bureau chief Laura Levine and bureau chief Jane Azia, worked on
the investigation.

"New Yorkers have a right to contest damage fees before any
penalties are assessed and my office will continue to enforce the
law to ensure that customers are treated fairly,"
Mr. Schneiderman said in a news release.

Len Ho, Zipcar's division counsel, signed the settlement agreement
on behalf of the company.

A Zipcar spokesman said the company has been working with
Mr. Schneiderman's office on the application of the state's unique
statute and is pleased the matter is concluded.

Consumers can submit a claim online at
www.ag.ny.gov/zipcar-inc-refund-program, or call the Attorney
General's office at 212-416-6045 to have a claim form sent to them
or they can submit a request by mail.


* Appellate Panel Okays Florida Red Light Camera Programs
---------------------------------------------------------
Celia Ampel, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that
controversial red light camera programs got a thumbs-up from a
Florida appellate court on July 27 in a decision that diverges
from another district's earlier findings.

Ruling on a case related to the city of Aventura's red light
camera program, the Third District Court of Appeal found that
Florida municipalities can legally allow private companies to
review traffic images and choose which ones to forward to police.
The court specified, however, that a police officer must review
the record and not "merely acquiesce" to the company when deciding
whether to issue a citation.

The court distinguished the case from a 2014 opinion from the
Fourth District Court of Appeal, which decried red light camera
programs as unlawfully delegating police power to third-party
vendors.  That opinion prompted a class action from drivers who
received red light camera tickets -- a suit that's pending in
Miami federal court.

Noting a broad public interest in red light camera programs, two
of three judges on the Third DCA panel asked the Florida Supreme
Court to consider whether the programs were operating legally.
Third DCA Judge Linda Ann Wells concurred with Judges Thomas Logue
and Kevin Emas that the city of Aventura's program was legal, but
did not agree the issue was a matter of great public importance.
Instead, she asked only to certify conflict with the Fourth
District.

Coral Gables attorney Edward Guedes, who represented Aventura in
the Third DCA case and Hollywood in the Fourth DCA case, said he
thought the July 27 decision was "superbly written and thought-
out."

The record established in the Third DCA case, State of Florida v.
Jimenez, included detailed testimony from those involved in the
program that explained exactly how it works.  But Mr. Guedes said
the Fourth DCA case that led to litigation and "vilification" of
red light camera programs, State of Florida v. Arem, didn't have a
thorough record.

"The Fourth District Court of Appeal reached its decision kind of
in a vacuum. . . . It's taken almost two years, but I'm very
pleased that finally our position and our arguments have been
vindicated," said the Weiss Serota Helfman Cole & Bierman
attorney, who worked on the case with Samuel Zeskind --
szeskind@wsh-law.com -- his colleague.

The firm is also working on a similar case pending before the
Second District Court of Appeal.

But an attorney for Third DCA plaintiff Luis Jimenez said he
doesn't believe the decision reached on July 27 was truly
thorough, as it left out an important issue the parties argued in
their briefs: whether the relevant state law should be followed to
the letter or interpreted more liberally.

"In the Arem case in the Fourth District, what they basically said
was that statutes regarding the red light camera citations 'should
be strictly construed to effectuate their purpose,'" Hollywood
solo practioner Louis Arslanian said, quoting from the court's
decision.  "What is lacking in the Third District Court of
Appeal's opinion is any discussion about the statutory history or
the type of construction that should be done with the statute."

Mr. Arslanian, who was joined on the case by Marc Wites --
MWites@wklawyers.com -- of Wites & Kapetan in Lighthouse Point,
said the most important part of the Third DCA's decision is the
certification of questions to be decided by the state's highest
court.

"I think the best news for everyone involved is that once this
matter gets to the Supreme Court of Florida . . . there will be
some clarity and certainty about whether this particular process
at issue is being done legally or not done legally,"
Mr. Arslanian said.  "We'll finally have an answer."


* Big Law Firms Face Gender Discrimination Suits
------------------------------------------------
Ben Hancock, writing for Law.com, reports that a gender
discrimination suit filed against Sedgwick is the latest in a
string of cases against Big Law firms by female employees and
appears to be part of a growing movement to remedy through
litigation an industry culture that many say favors men when it
comes to pay and promotions.

While hard data about such cases are not available, several
attorneys in the employment field said they have observed an
uptick in suits against legal employers.

In the case against Sedgwick, Chicago-based partner Traci Ribeiro
contends that she was repeatedly passed over for an equity partner
position and punished for speaking out.  It follows a suit filed
in June against Jones Day by a long-time staffer who claims she
was laid off because of her pregnancy, age and gender.

Earlier this year, the insurer Farmers Group reached a $4 million
settlement to resolve class action claims that it paid female
staff attorneys less than their male counterparts.

Lori Andrus -- lori.andrus@andrusanderson.com -- of
San Francisco's Andrus Anderson, who represented female attorneys
in that case, said the suits reflect a rising consciousness around
the issue of fair pay -- which has swept through Silicon Valley,
Hollywood and women's soccer and emerged as a theme in the 2016
presidential election.

"All of that stuff is empowering women workers generally in the
U.S.," Ms. Andrus said, "but women lawyers are particularly
well-suited to know their rights and know how to exercise them."
Compared to a factory worker or a waitress, Ms. Andrus noted,
attorneys generally have the economic means to fight their
employer without fear of financial ruin.

Nancy Abell -- nancyabell@paulhastings.com -- of Paul Hastings, an
Los Angeles-based partner who has defended many law firms in
gender bias cases, agreed that there's been a rise in suits in the
past four to five years, which she attributes to a shift in how
lawyers relate to their employers.  More and more attorneys in
general view the firm as a "job" rather than as a long-term home
base where they will establish a career, she said, and that may
affect their readiness to sue as a solution.

But Ms. Abell said there are often better routes to resolve
disputes.  In many cases, Ms. Abell said, "if they had a factual
discussion with the firm first and focused on understanding the
critical facts, they would not have brought the actions to begin
with."

For law firms, like other employers, being able to point to
specific information that factors into attorney compensation is
key, Ms. Abell said.  She also warned that if a claimant lawyer
tries to point to evidence that is subject to attorney-client
privilege in making a case about her work, that could wind up
landing both her and her legal team in hot water.

'MALE DOMINATED CULTURE'

Ms. Ribeiro, a current nonequity partner specializing in insurance
defense, filed suit on July 26 in San Francisco Superior Court.
The suit claims that a "male-dominated culture" keeps women from
earning equal pay and equal partnership status at Sedgwick.

According to Ms. Ribeiro's complaint, she has been denied a
promotion to equity partner since 2012, despite being the third-
highest revenue generator at the roughly 300-lawyer firm.

The suit, which seeks to certify a class of women employees at the
San Francisco-based Am Law 200 firm, also alleges that some female
associates earned up to $50,000 less than their male counterparts.

Ms. Ribeiro told Law.com that her goal in filing the suit is to
ensure equal pay at Sedgwick and to promote change in the
industry.  "I'm hoping that other firms will look at what they're
paying the men, look at what they're paying the women and pay them
equally," she said.

Sedgwick chair Michael Healy said in a statement that the firm
would fight Ms. Ribeiro's suit.  "We are confident there has been
absolutely no discrimination or retaliation in the partner
compensation process or otherwise."

Ms. Ribeiro's lawyers and other plaintiff-side attorneys say the
experience she describes echoes that of women in many other large
firms.

"Do I think Sedgwick is the only one? No, I wouldn't begin to say
that," said Sharon Vinick -- sharon@levyvinick.com -- of the all-
women employment boutique Levy Vinick Burrell Hyams, which
represents Ms. Ribeiro.  "I think the facts of Traci's case
highlight the wider problem of discrimination in the legal
practice and the difficulty women are facing in making equity
partner."

LITIGATION UPTICK

A range of factors may be driving more litigation against law
firms, lawyers said, including increased transparency around pay,
stronger fair pay laws and a general perception among female
lawyers that suing their firm for discrimination is no longer
uncharted territory.

"I think every case that's made public makes it more likely that
the next case will be brought," said David Sanford of Sanford
Heisler, an employment firm that has brought gender discrimination
cases against Greenberg Traurig and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale
and Dorr. Sanford said his firm has seen the number of gender bias
cases against law firms rise, but emphasized that his colleagues
try to resolve most pre-suit.

Should negotiations fail, however, the option of litigation is no
longer taboo, said Ed Chapin, managing partner of Sanford
Heisler's San Diego office.

"I think that women in the law were fearful perhaps of asserting
claims for fear that they'd be blackballed professionally," he
said.  "That's not to say that they wouldn't be now, but I think
there are protections for them to come forward that maybe didn't
exist for them many years ago."

There is evidence that there is a disparity in pay between men and
women lawyers.  A 2013 report by the American Bar Association
titled "Closing the Gap" cited at least three studies that it said
showed a persistent divide in compensation.

Bryan Wood -- bryan@jbryanwoodlaw.com -- Ms. Ribeiro's counsel in
Chicago in her case against Sedgwick, contends that what is really
needed from law firms are clearer polices around pay that can
mitigate people's implicit biases.  "Having great policies isn't a
cure-all," he said, "but it's helpful, and in the absence of them,
we know things will be worse."


* More MDL Requests Denied as Panel Raises Level of Scrutiny
------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a federal judiciary panel last year rejected a record number
of requests to coordinate multidistrict litigation, adding a new
level of scrutiny for attorneys who petition to get large numbers
of cases across the country combined under the pretrial procedure.

In 2015, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
issued 36 denial orders -- about 44 percent of the 82 requests
made that year.  It issued 33 approvals.  That's the first time in
the past decade that the panel has denied more requests than
approved them.

The uptick in denials, which continued into this year, represents
a sea change for the panel, which historically has approved most
requests for MDLs.  The turnaround comes as lawyers on both sides
have raised criticisms of MDLs, which have consumed a record
number of the nation's federal lawsuits.

"In earlier times, it was more of a foregone conclusion that
things would be consolidated," said Lori Cohen, chairwoman of the
pharmaceutical and medical-device litigation practice group at
Greenberg Traurig.  "We're getting a sense that these judges are
taking a harder look and a stricter scrutiny in terms of --
whichever side is trying to obtain consolidation -- whether
they've met their burden."

Panel clerk Jeffrey Luthi did not respond to a request for
comment.

Congress established the panel in 1968. Made up of seven federal
judges appointed by the chief justice of the United States, the
panel coordinates cases with common claims into a single
proceeding in order to promote efficiencies in discovery matters.
The panel's rulings aren't precedential, but they affect the
outcome of some of the nation's largest dockets by determining
which judges end up overseeing the litigation.

The types of cases have changed over the years.  Once dominated by
securities, antitrust and mass disaster lawsuits, the panel now
handles a large share of mass torts and class actions.  In 2015,
the panel approved seven MDLs dealing with data-breach class
actions.

The panel has a long history of approving most MDL requests.  In
2006, for example, the panel approved 73 percent of all requests.
But that number has been dwindling over the years.  In 2015, the
panel approved only 40 percent of all requests.  The trend has
continued so far this year, with 11 cases granted and 16 denied.
While most MDLs comprise fewer than 100 cases, some have ballooned
into tens of thousands of lawsuits, said John Rabiej, director of
Duke Law School's Center for Judicial Studies.  A 2014 report by
the center found that a record 36 percent of 334,141 federal
lawsuits were pending in MDLs.  Duke hosted a conference that same
year in which former MDL Panel chairman John Heyburn said the
panel "had a concerted effort to cut down the number, reduce the
number of orders, and was scrutinizing every one very carefully,"
Mr. Rabiej said.

He said the panel, now headed by chairwoman Sarah Vance, is
responding to an increasing number of concerns from lawyers about
the MDL process.

Some plaintiffs lawyers fear that "they're going to lose control
over their cases and also may lose some or all of the fees
associated with the cases," said Deborah Hensler, a professor at
Stanford Law School.

Yet defendants aren't pushing MDLs either: They made up only 35
percent of the requests in 2015.  Ms. Hensler said defense
attorneys often have to weigh the inconvenience of handling dozens
of cases across the country against the impact that an MDL order
could have on the plaintiffs bar.

"We definitely see that when an MDL forms, what happens on the
defense side is there's a big giant flashing red light siren
screaming 'target' on the corporate defendant's back," Ms. Cohen
said.  "There are cases filed that are not properly screened, not
properly assessed, before being brought into court."

Those arguments rarely show up before the panel.  But the panel
gets an earful of other objections.  In 2015, 81 percent of the
cases in which the panel denied MDLs involved plaintiffs or
defendants who opposed coordination, compared to 39 percent in
those that were approved.


* Securities Class Actions Up 17% After Rise in M&A Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
filings of federal securities class actions in the first half of
2016 increased 17 percent from the last half of 2015, due in large
part to a jump in suits challenging mergers and acquisitions,
according to a report issued July 26 by Cornerstone Research and
the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse.

Plaintiffs nationwide filed 119 new federal securities class
actions in the first six months of this year, compared to 102
filings in the last half of 2015 and 87 filings in the first half
of 2015.

Of the securities class actions filed in the first half of this
year, 24 filings were related to mergers and acquisitions,
compared to nine M&A-related filings in the second half of 2015
and eight in the first half of 2015.  Over the last eight
semiannual periods, the number of M&A-related filings has not
exceeded nine, the report said.

If filings continue at the same pace for the rest of 2016, this
year would be the first since 2008 to have distinctly above-
average filing activity and would have the second-highest number
of filings in the last 20 years--trailing only 242 in 1998, the
report states.  As a consequence of the robust activity level for
securities class actions, 2.5 percent of U.S. exchange-listed
companies were the subject of securities class action filings in
the first half of the year.  If the trend continues through the
end of the year, 5 percent of companies will feel the impact of a
suit, the report said.

According to the report, the increase in federal filings may be
due in part to a recent Delaware Court of Chancery ruling in In re
Trulia Stockholder Litigation, which could make state courts a
less desirable venue for such suits.

The January Chancery Court decision in Trulia, which makes
disclosure-only settlements more difficult to obtain, may have
increased the likelihood that plaintiffs will again seek federal
jurisdiction for M&A-related class actions, said John Gould, a
senior vice president of Cornerstone Research.  Meanwhile,
shareholder suits under Section 11 of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 are increasingly being filed in state courts, rather than
federal court, according to Joseph Grundfest, a former Securities
and Exchange Commission commissioner and director of the Stanford
Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse.  Section 11
permits suits by shareholders who buy securities under a false or
misleading registration statement.  Plaintiffs have calculated
that they can expect better outcomes in state courts and are using
a range of jurisdictional maneuvers to stay out of federal court,
Grundfest said in a statement.

The increase in M&A litigation is probably a combination of a
general increase in merger activity, as well as a migration from
state court to federal court for those cases after Trulia,
Mr. Gould said.  The increase may also be a sign of volatility in
the market, he said.

Some securities litigation data is proving confounding to the
researchers--the Disclosure Dollar Loss Index (DDL) showed a
significant decline in the first six months of the year, while the
Maximum Dollar Loss Index (MDL) was on the rise.

Typically the two indices increase or decrease in tandem,
Mr. Gould said.  But the DDL, which represents the aggregate
dollar value change in each defendant firm's market capitalization
between the trading day just before the end of the class period
and the trading day just after the end of the class period,
declined 39 percent in the first half of 2016.  Meanwhile, the
MDL, which is the aggregate dollar value change in market
capitalization from the trading day with the highest market
capitalization during the class period to the trading day
immediately after the end of the class period, increased 24
percent in the first six months of this year.

"Normally, we see them go hand in hand.  It's hard to say what to
make of it," Mr. Gould said.


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 Companies Win Summary Judgment in "Arbogast"
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the asbestos-related personal injury case captioned CHARLES
LEMUEL ARBOGAST, JR., et al., Plaintiffs, v. A.W. CHESTERTON CO.
et al., Defendants, Civil No. JKB-14-4049 (D. Md.), Judge James K.
Bredar of the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland granted the motions for summary judgment filed by Eaton
Corporation (Cutler Hammer), Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation &
Foster Wheeler LLC, Schneider Electric USA, Incorporated (Square
D), and Union Carbide Corporation.

Judge Bredar denied the motions for summary judgment filed by
MCIC, Incorporated and Georgia-Pacific LLC.  Judge Bredar also
denied as moot the motions for summary judgment filed by Crane
Company against Goodyear, Crane as to third-party asbestos, and
Goodyear's motion for leave to file supplemental opposition or a
surreply.

The Plaintiffs in this case are Charles Lemuel Arbogast, Jr., and
Barbara Arbogast.  They sued over two dozen manufacturers and/or
distributors/installers of products that allegedly contained
asbestos, which allegedly was released into the air breathed by
Arbogast and which allegedly caused his mesothelioma.  Because the
complaint was broad in its allegations of liability -- with no
allegations specifically directed at any particular product -- the
case turns on the evidence relating to specific products by
specific manufacturers, or distributors or installers of specific
products.

A full-text copy of Judge Bredar's Memorandum dated July 25, 2016,
is available at https://is.gd/ZaAfjA from Leagle.com.

Charles Lemuel Arbogast, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by David M.
Layton, Ashcraft and Gerel LLP, John Eugene Herrick, Motley Rice
LLC & John E. Guerry, III, Motley Rice LLC.

Barbara Arbogast, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Layton,
Ashcraft and Gerel LLP, John Eugene Herrick, Motley Rice LLC &
John E. Guerry, III, Motley Rice LLC.

CBS Corporation of Delaware, Defendant, Cross Defendant,
represented by Clare Marie Maisano, Evert Weathersby Houff.

Crane Co., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Neil Joseph
MacDonald, MacDonald Law Group, LLC, David A. Fusco, K and L Gates
LLP, James B. Insco, II, K and L Gates LLP, pro hac vice, Michael
J. Sechler, K and L Gates LLP & Thomas E. Birsic, K and L Gates
LLP.

Eaton Corporation, Defendant, Cross Claimant, Cross Defendant,
represented by Michelle Noorani, Whiteford Taylor and Preston LLP
& Warren N. Weaver, Whiteford Taylor and Preston LLP.

Foster Wheeler, LLC., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by
R. Thomas Radcliffe, Jr., Dehay and Elliston LLP & Patrick C.
Smith, Dehay and Elliston LLP.

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant,
represented by R. Thomas Radcliffe, Jr., Dehay and Elliston LLP &
Patrick C. Smith, Dehay and Elliston LLP.

Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by
F. Ford Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC, Joshua Franklin
Kahn, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Leianne S. McEvoy, Miles and
Stockbridge PC, Michael L. Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC,
Raymond P. Harris, Jr., Schachter Harris LLP, Matthew R. Schroll,
Miles and Stockbridge PC, Robin Silver, Miles and Stockbridge PC,
Cary I. Schachter, Schachter Harris LLP, Eric D. Cook, Wilcox and
Savage & James E. Hooper, Wheeler Trigg Kennedy LLP.

MCIC, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Louis E.
Grenzer, Jr., Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC.

Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant,
represented by Neil Joseph MacDonald, MacDonald Law Group, LLC.

Sepco Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by F.
Ford Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC, Laura A. Cellucci,
Miles and Stockbridge PC, Leianne S. McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge
PC, Matthew R. Schroll, Miles and Stockbridge PC & Richard M. Lee,
Selman Breitman LLP, pro hac vice.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented
by Danielle Grilli Marcus, Whiteford Taylor and Preston LLP.

Goodrich Corporation, Movant, represented by John C. Ruff, DeHay
and Elliston LLP.

Crane Co., Cross Claimant, represented by Neil Joseph MacDonald,
MacDonald Law Group, LLC, David A. Fusco, K and L Gates LLP, James
B. Insco, II, K and L Gates LLP, pro hac vice, Michael J. Sechler,
K and L Gates LLP & Thomas E. Birsic, K and L Gates LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Dismisses "Brown"
----------------------------------------
Judge Charles R. Breyer of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, in a July 26, 2016 order,
dismissed, without prejudice, all claims against all defendants in
the case captioned OLIVER BROWN III, as Successor-In-Interest to
OLIVER BROWN, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS, et al.,
Defendants, No. 3:09-cv-04681-CRB (N.D. Calif.).  A full-text copy
of Judge Breyer's Decision is available at https://is.gd/nfTLtH
from Leagle.com.

Oliver Brown, III, Plaintiff, represented by David R. Donadio,
Brayton Purcell LLP, Richard Martin Grant, Brayton Purcell LLP &
Kimberly Joy Wai Jun Chu, Brayton Purcell LLP.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Alexander
Julian Alpert, Esq. -- aalpert@wfbm.com -- WFBM, LLP, Charles T.
Sheldon, Esq. -- csheldon@wfbm.com -- Walsworth, Franklin, Bevins
& McCall, OOP, Derek S. Johnson, Esq. -- djohnson@wfbm.com --
WFBM, LLP dba Walsworth & Katherine Paige Gardiner, Esq. --
kgardiner@wfbm.com -- WFBM, LLP dba Walsworth.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 6th Cir. Affirms Dist. Ct. Ruling in "Ely"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff-Appellant Theresa Ely, a school custodian, sued
Defendant Dearborn Heights School District No. 7 and Defendants-
Appellants Todd Thieken and Jeffrey L. Bartold, pursuant to 42
U.S.C. Section 1983.  Ely alleges the Defendants violated her
First Amendment rights by (1) engaging in prior restraint of her
protected speech and (2) issuing two written reprimands after she
spoke to coworkers and the public about asbestos exposure in a
district school and its subsequent cover up.

The district court denied Thieken and Bartold's motion for summary
judgment on the basis of qualified immunity.

After carefully reviewing the district court's opinion, the
briefs, and the record in this case, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit concluded that the district court
did not err in denying qualified immunity to Thieken and Bartold.
As the district court correctly set out the applicable law and
correctly applied that law to the facts contained in the record,
issuance of a full written opinion by this court would serve no
jurisprudential purpose and would be duplicative, the Sixth
Circuit held.  Accordingly, on the grounds stated in the district
court's well-reasoned opinion, the Sixth Circuit affirms.

The appeals case is THERESA ELY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DEARBORN
HEIGHTS NO. 7, Defendant, and TODD THIEKEN; JEFFREY BARTOLD,
Defendants-Appellants, No. 15-2594 (6th Cir.).  A full-text copy
of the Sixth Circuit's Opinion dated July 22, 2016, is available
at https://is.gd/PmFlaJ from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fla. Appeals Ct. Reverses Ruling in "Font"
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case styled Paula Font, individually, and as personal
representative of the Estate of Luis Torres, deceased, Appellant,
v. Union Carbide Corporation, Appellee, Case No. 3D11-3270 (Fla.
Dist. Ct. App.), the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third
District, in an opinion dated July 27, 2016, reversed the final
judgment in favor of Appellee, Union Carbide Corporation, and
remanded the case for a new trial.

The Court reconsidered on remand its opinion in Font v. Union
Carbide Corp., 118 So.3d 1005 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)("Font I"), which
was quashed by the Supreme Court of Florida following its decision
in Font v. Union Carbide Corp., 41 Fla. L. Weekly S113 (Fla. Jan.
12, 2016)("Font II"). As ordered by the Supreme Court of Florida,
the Court must apply Aubin v. Union Carbide Corp., 177 So.3d 489
(Fla. 2015) ("Aubin II"), to our earlier opinions.  Based on Aubin
II, the Court is constrained to conclude that the jury instruction
requested by Appellant, Paula Font, accurately stated the
applicable law, the evidence supported the giving of the
instruction, the instruction was necessary to resolve the issues
properly, and Font was entitled to submit her strict liability
claims to the jury on both the "risk utility" test of the
Restatement (Third) of Torts ("Third Restatement") and the
"consumer expectations" test of the Restatement (Second) of Torts
("Second Restatement").

A full-text copy of the Opinion is available at
https://is.gd/Lkzfns from Leagle.com.

The Ferraro Law Firm and Paulo R. Lima and Juan P. Bauta, II, for
appellant.

Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., and Matthew J. Conigliaro, Esq.
-- mconigliaro@carltonfields.com -- (Tampa), for appellee.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Ct Reverses Summary Ruling in "Charlifue"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Charlifue (Charlifue) and his wife, Christine Charlifue,
filed an asbestos-related personal injury action against Goodman
Lumber Company after Charlifue was diagnosed with mesothelioma.
The Plaintiffs now appeal the trial court's grant of summary
judgment in favor of Goodman, arguing that the trial court erred
in striking various evidence submitted in opposition to summary
judgment.  They also assert they raised a triable issue of fact as
to whether Goodman exposed Charlifue to an asbestos-containing
joint compound.

The Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division One,
in a decision filed July 27, 2016, agreed and reversed the ruling.
The Court of Appeals concluded that summary judgment was
inappropriate because the plaintiffs raised a triable issue as to
whether Charlifue was exposed to asbestos from the products sold
by Goodman.

The case is ANDREA GERLACH et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v.
GOODMAN LUMBER COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent, No. A144642
(Cal. App.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
https://is.gd/Yss68K from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Engineer Sues AT&T Over Mesothelioma
------------------------------------------------------------
William Davidson and Pearl Davision sued Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc.,
AT&T Corp., Nokia USA Inc., Pacific Bell Telephone Company, and
other unnamed companies, alleging that his exposure to asbestos-
containing products during his employment with these companies
caused his mesothelioma.

Mr. Davidson, an installer and engineer for AT&T Corp., and his
wife are seeking compensation for product liability negligence,
breach of express and implied warranties, strict liability in
tort, premises owner/contractor liability, personal injury
negligence, and loss of consortium.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Benno Ashrafi, Esq.
     Leonard Sandoval, Esq.
     WEITZ & LUXENBERG P.C.
     1889 Century Park East, Suite 700
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Tel: (310) 247-0921
     Fax: (310) 786-9927


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Continues to Defend Suit at June 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kaanapali Land, LLC, continues to defend itself against asbestos
lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2015.

The Company states, "Kaanapali Land, as successor by merger to
other entities, and D/C 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 (hereafter, "Kaanapali Land asbestos cases") are
allegedly based on its prior business operations in Hawaii and
cases against D/C are allegedly based on 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. 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 that 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 $1,618.
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
$26,800, 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 (hereinafter, "Petitioners")
filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay in the D/C
bankruptcy (hereinafter "life stay motion"). 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. 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: Badger Continues to Defend Suits at June 30
------------------------------------------------------------
Badger Meter, Inc., continues to defend itself against asbestos-
related lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016.

The Company states, "Like other companies in recent years, the
Company is named as a defendant in numerous pending multi-
claimant/multi-defendant lawsuits alleging personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos, manufactured by third parties, and
in the past may have been integrated into or sold with a very
limited number of the Company's products. The Company is
vigorously defending itself against these claims. Although it is
not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of these matters, the
Company does not believe the ultimate resolution of these issues
will have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
position or results of operations, either from a cash flow
perspective or on the financial statements as a whole. This belief
is based in part on the fact that no claimant has proven or
substantially demonstrated asbestos exposure caused by products
manufactured or sold by the Company and that a number of cases
have been voluntarily dismissed."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: DCLLC Had $49MM of Insurance Recovery at June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Holding Corporation's Dana Companies, LLC, had recorded $49
million as an asset for probable recovery from insurers for the
pending and projected asbestos personal injury liability claims,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2016.

The Company states, "As part of our reorganization in 2008, assets
and liabilities associated with personal injury asbestos claims
were retained in Dana Corporation which was then merged into Dana
Companies, LLC (DCLLC), a consolidated wholly-owned limited
liability company. The assets of DCLLC include insurance rights
relating to coverage against these liabilities, marketable
securities and other assets which are considered sufficient to
satisfy its liabilities. DCLLC had approximately 25,000 active
pending asbestos personal injury liability claims at both June 30,
2016 and December 31, 2015. DCLLC had accrued $74 million for
indemnity and defense costs for settled, pending and future claims
at June 30, 2016, compared to $78 million at December 31, 2015. A
fifteen-year time horizon was used to estimate the value of this
liability.

"At June 30, 2016, DCLLC had recorded $49 million as an asset for
probable recovery from insurers for the pending and projected
asbestos personal injury liability claims, compared to $51 million
recorded at December 31, 2015. The recorded asset represents our
assessment of the capacity of our current insurance agreements to
provide for the payment of anticipated defense and indemnity costs
for pending claims and projected future demands. The recognition
of these recoveries is based on our assessment of our right to
recover under the respective contracts and on the financial
strength of the insurers. DCLLC has coverage agreements in place
with insurers confirming substantially all of the related coverage
and payments are being received on a timely basis. The financial
strength of these insurers is reviewed at least annually with the
assistance of a third party. The recorded asset does not represent
the limits of the insurance coverage, but rather the amount DCLLC
would expect to recover if the accrued indemnity and defense costs
were paid in full.

"DCLLC continues to process asbestos personal injury claims in the
normal course of business, is separately managed and has an
independent board member. The independent board member is required
to approve certain transactions including dividends or other
transfers of $1 or more of value to Dana. Dana Holding Corporation
has no obligation to increase its investment in or otherwise
support DCLLC.

"We had accrued $1 million for non-asbestos product liability
costs at June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, with no recovery
expected from third parties at either date. We estimate these
liabilities based on assumptions about the value of the claims and
about the likelihood of recoveries against us derived from our
historical experience and current information."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fedex Corporation Still Subject to DOJ Probe
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fedex Corporation is still subject to an investigation of
asbestos-related regulatory violations in Puerto Rico by the U.S.
Department of Justice, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended May 31, 2016.

The Company states, "On January 14, 2014, the U.S. Department of
Justice ("DOJ") issued a Grand Jury Subpoena to FedEx Express
relating to an asbestos matter previously investigated by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. On May 1, 2014, the DOJ informed
us that it had determined to continue to pursue the matter as a
criminal case, citing seven asbestos-related regulatory violations
associated with removal of roof materials from a hangar in Puerto
Rico during cleaning and repair activity, as well as violation of
waste disposal requirements. Loss is reasonably possible; however,
the amount of any loss is expected to be immaterial."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had $1.5-Bil. in Asbestos Liabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. had $1,551 million in asbestos-
related liabilities, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2016.

The Company states, "Honeywell is a defendant in asbestos related
personal injury actions related to two predecessor companies:

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

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

The following tables summarize information concerning NARCO and
Bendix asbestos related balances:

   Asbestos Related Liabilities
   (Dollars in millions)
   ----------------------------
                                 Bendix    NARCO    Total
                                 ------    -----    -----
   December 31, 2015               $622     $921   $1,543
   Accrual for update to            102        5      107
      estimated liability
   Asbestos related liability       (96)      (3)     (99)
      payments
   June 30, 2016                   $628     $923   $1,551

   Insurance Recoveries for
   Asbestos Related Liabilities
   (Dollars in millions)
   ----------------------------
                                        Bendix    NARCO    Total
                                        ------    -----    -----
   December 31, 2015                      $124     $325     $449
   Probable insurance recoveries            10        --       10
      related to estimated liability
   Insurance receivables                     1        --        1
      settlements
   Insurance receipts for                   (6)      (3)      (9)
      asbestos related liabilities
   June 30, 2016                          $129     $322     $451

NARCO and Bendix asbestos related balances are included in the
following balance sheet accounts:

                                  June 30,       Dec. 31,
  (Dollars in millions)             2016           2015
                                  --------       --------
  Other current assets                 $23            $23
  Insurance recoveries for             428            426
    asbestos related liabilities
                                  --------       --------
                                      $451           $449
                                  ========       ========
  Accrued liabilities                 $292           $292
  Asbestos related                   1,259          1,251
      liabilities                 --------       --------
                                    $1,551         $1,543


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell No Payment to NARCO Trust at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. has not made any payments to the
NARCO Trust for Annual Contribution Claims, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016.

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

"Honeywell is obligated to fund NARCO asbestos claims submitted to
the NARCO Trust which qualify for payment under the Trust
Distribution Procedures (Annual Contribution Claims), subject to
annual caps of $140 million in the years 2016 through 2018 and
$145 million for each year thereafter. However, the initial $100
million of claims processed through the NARCO Trust (the Initial
Claims Amount) will not count against the annual cap and any
unused portion of the Initial Claims Amount will roll over to
subsequent years until fully utilized. In 2015, Honeywell filed
suit against the NARCO Trust in Bankruptcy Court alleging breach
of certain provisions of the Trust Agreement and Trust
Distribution Procedures. The parties agreed to dismiss the
proceeding without prejudice pursuant to an 18 month Standstill
Agreement. Claims processing will continue during this period
subject to a defined dispute resolution process. As of June 30,
2016, Honeywell has not made any payments to the NARCO Trust for
Annual Contribution Claims.

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

"Our consolidated financial statements reflect an estimated
liability for pre-established unliquidated claims ($145 million),
unsettled claims pending as of the time NARCO filed for bankruptcy
protection ($35 million) and for the estimated value of future
NARCO asbestos claims expected to be asserted against the NARCO
Trust through 2018 ($743 million). In the absence of actual trust
experience on which to base the estimate, Honeywell projected the
probable value of asbestos related future liabilities, including
trust claim handling costs, based on a commonly accepted
methodology used by numerous bankruptcy courts addressing 524(g)
trusts. Some critical assumptions underlying this methodology
include claims filing rates, disease criteria and payment values
contained in the Trust Distribution Procedures, estimated approval
rates of claims submitted to the NARCO Trust and epidemiological
studies estimating disease instances. This projection resulted in
a range of estimated liability of $743 million to $961 million. We
believe that no amount within this range is a better estimate than
any other amount and accordingly, we have recorded the minimum
amount in the range. In light of the uncertainties inherent in
making long-term projections and in connection with the recent
implementation of the Trust Distribution Procedures by the NARCO
Trust, as well as the stay of all NARCO asbestos claims which
remained in place throughout NARCO's Chapter 11 case, we do not
believe that we have a reasonable basis for estimating NARCO
asbestos claims beyond 2018.

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had 8,017 Bendix Claims at June 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. says there were 8,017 Bendix claims
unresolved, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2016.

Honeywell said there were 7,779 Bendix claims at the start of the
six-month period ended June 30, 2016.  During the same period,
1,421 Bendix claims were filed and 1,183 Bendix claims were
resolved, resulting to 8,017 unresolved Bendix claims at the end
of the period.

The Company states, "It is not possible to predict whether
resolution values for Bendix-related asbestos claims will
increase, decrease or stabilize in the future.

"Our consolidated financial statements reflect an estimated
liability for resolution of pending (claims actually filed as of
the financial statement date) and future Bendix-related asbestos
claims. We have valued Bendix pending and future claims using
average resolution values for the previous five years. We update
the resolution values used to estimate the cost of Bendix pending
and future claims during the fourth quarter each year.

"The liability for future claims represents the estimated value of
future asbestos related bodily injury claims expected to be
asserted against Bendix over the next five years. Such estimated
cost of future Bendix-related asbestos claims is based on historic
claims filing experience and dismissal rates, disease
classifications, and resolution values in the tort system for the
previous five years. In light of the uncertainties inherent in
making long-term projections, as well as certain factors unique to
friction product asbestos claims, we do not believe that we have a
reasonable basis for estimating asbestos claims beyond the next
five years. The methodology used to estimate the liability for
future claims is similar to that used to estimate the liability
for future NARCO-related asbestos claims.

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Continues to Defend Suits at Mar 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kaanapali Land, LLC, continues to defend itself against asbestos-
related personal injury actions, according to the Company's Form
10-Q with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015.

The Company states, "Kaanapali Land, as successor by merger to
other entities, and D/C Distribution Corporation ("D/C") 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 (hereafter, "Kaanapali
Land asbestos cases") are allegedly based on its prior business
operations in Hawaii and cases against D/C are allegedly based on
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.
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 that regard."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Int'l Paid $1.9MM for Asbestos Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lennox International Inc. paid $1.9 million for asbestos expenses
for the six months ended June 30, 2016, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016.

The Company states, "We are involved in a number of claims and
lawsuits incident to the operation of our businesses. Insurance
coverages are maintained and estimated costs are recorded for such
claims and lawsuits, including costs to settle claims and
lawsuits, based on experience involving similar matters and
specific facts known.

"Some of these claims and lawsuits allege personal injury or
health problems resulting from exposure to asbestos that was
integrated into certain of our products. We have never
manufactured asbestos and have not incorporated asbestos-
containing components into our products for several decades. A
substantial majority of asbestos-related claims have been covered
by insurance or other forms of indemnity or have been dismissed
without payment. The remainder of our closed cases have been
resolved for amounts that are not material, individually or in the
aggregate. Our defense costs for asbestos-related claims are
generally covered by insurance; however, our insurance coverage
for settlements and judgments for asbestos-related claims varies
depending on several factors and is subject to policy limits. As a
result, we may have greater financial exposure for future
settlements and judgments. For the six months ended June 30, 2016,
and 2015, expense for asbestos-related litigation was $1.9
million, and $0.6 million, net of insurance recoveries,
respectively.

"It is management's opinion that none of these claims or lawsuits
or any threatened litigation will have a material adverse effect
on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.
Claims and lawsuits, however, involve uncertainties and it is
possible that their eventual outcome could adversely affect our
results of operations for a particular period."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Continues to Defend Suits at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc., continues to defend itself against asbestos-
related lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2016.

The Company states, "For over 30 years, PPG has been a defendant
in lawsuits involving claims alleging personal injury from
exposure to asbestos. Most of PPG's potential exposure relates to
allegations by plaintiffs that PPG should be liable for injuries
involving asbestos-containing thermal insulation products, known
as Unibestos, manufactured and distributed by Pittsburgh Corning
Corporation ("PC"). PPG and Corning Incorporated are each 50%
shareholders of PC. PPG has denied responsibility for, and has
defended, all claims for any injuries caused by PC products. As of
the April 16, 2000 order which stayed and enjoined asbestos claims
against PPG, PPG was one of many defendants in numerous asbestos-
related lawsuits involving approximately 114,000 claims served on
PPG. During the period of the stay, which expired on its own terms
on May 27, 2016, PPG generally has not been aware of the
dispositions, if any, of these asbestos claims."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Continues to Defend Suits at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc., continues to defend itself against
asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016.

The Company states, "In the ordinary course of its insurance
business, the Company has received and continues to receive claims
for insurance arising under policies issued by the Company
asserting alleged injuries and damages from asbestos- and
environmental-related exposures that are the subject of related
coverage litigation.  The Company is defending asbestos- and
environmental-related litigation vigorously and believes that it
has meritorious defenses; however, the outcomes of these disputes
are uncertain.  In this regard, the Company employs dedicated
specialists and aggressive resolution strategies to manage
asbestos and environmental loss exposure, including settling
litigation under appropriate circumstances.  Currently, it is not
possible to predict legal outcomes and their impact on the future
development of claims and litigation relating to asbestos and
environmental claims. Any such development will be affected by
future court decisions and interpretations, as well as changes in
applicable legislation. Because of these uncertainties, additional
liabilities may arise for amounts in excess of the Company's
current reserves. In addition, the Company's estimate of ultimate
claims and claim adjustment expenses may change. These additional
liabilities or increases in estimates, or a range of either,
cannot now be reasonably estimated and could result in income
statement charges that could be material to the Company's results
of operations in future periods."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Pacific Had $104MM Liability at June 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Union Pacific Corporation had $104 million asbestos-related
liability, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2016.

The Company states, "We are a defendant in a number of lawsuits in
which current and former employees and other parties allege
exposure to asbestos. We assess our potential liability using a
statistical analysis of resolution costs for asbestos-related
claims. This liability is updated annually and excludes future
defense and processing costs. The liability for resolving both
asserted and unasserted claims was based on the following
assumptions:

   * The ratio of future claims by alleged disease would be
consistent with historical averages adjusted for inflation.

   * The number of claims filed against us will decline each year.

   * The average settlement values for asserted and unasserted
claims will be equivalent to historical averages.

   * The percentage of claims dismissed in the future will be
equivalent to historical averages.

"Our liability for asbestos-related claims is not discounted to
present value due to the uncertainty surrounding the timing of
future payments. Approximately 22% of the recorded liability
related to asserted claims and approximately 78% related to
unasserted claims at June 30, 2016.

"Our asbestos-related liability activity was as follows:

   (Millions)
   for the Six Months Ended June 30,         2016   2015
                                            -----  -----
   Beginning balance                         $120   $126
   Accruals                                     --      -
   Payments                                   (16)    (3)
   Ending balance at June 30                 $104   $123
   Current portion, ending balance at          $6     $6
        June 30

"We have insurance coverage for a portion of the costs incurred to
resolve asbestos-related claims, and we have recognized an asset
for estimated insurance recoveries at June 30, 2016, and December
31, 2015.

"We believe that our estimates of liability for asbestos-related
claims and insurance recoveries are reasonable and probable. The
amounts recorded for asbestos-related liabilities and related
insurance recoveries were based on currently known facts. However,
future events, such as the number of new claims filed each year,
average settlement costs, and insurance coverage issues, could
cause the actual costs and insurance recoveries to be higher or
lower than the projected amounts. Estimates also may vary in the
future if strategies, activities, and outcomes of asbestos
litigation materially change; federal and state laws governing
asbestos litigation increase or decrease the probability or amount
of compensation of claimants; and there are material changes with
respect to payments made to claimants by other defendants."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gizo Residents Warned of Asbestos Risk
-------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Toito'ona, writing for Solomon Star, reported that people
living in Gizo, Western Province have been warned of the danger of
inhaling asbestos from the burnt old Gizo hospital complex.

In a statement from the health authority in Gizo, the call was
made following the burning of the facility.

Asbestos is a highly toxic chemical that can cause severe
respiratory diseases.

"Please keep away from the old burned down Gizo hospital compound
because of the risk of inhaling asbestos chemical.

"Do not touch or collect any broken remains from the burnt
buildings. These remains are contagious and can cause medical
casualties, " the statement from the Director of Gizo hospital
said.

People are also being warned to stay behind the police sealed off
tapes, when going around the sealed off area.

"Attention to authorities, experts and team assessors please wear
proper safety face mask before you enter. Ask hospital security
personnel for safety masks before enter".

The communities near the burnt complex were also urged to
disconnect tank gutter from water tanks for a period of time, as
chemical compounds from the site maybe carried by wind to
residential homes.

This is to allow rain to wash away particles from the copper
roofs.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Adopts Defense, But Defendant Loses Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kerry Goff, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that the
California Supreme Court in May formally adopted the
"sophisticated intermediary doctrine," which provides an
additional defense that manufacturers and suppliers can assert
against asbestos and other product liability claims in California.

The defendant in Webb vs. Special Electric was a broker that sold
crocidolite asbestos Johns-Manville, which used it to manufacture
pipe that was ultimately sold to a company where the plaintiff,
William Webb, worked.

Special Electric argued that the sophisticated intermediary
defense precluded the plaintiff's failure to warn claims.

The court held that a supplier like Special Electric must provide
a warning to intermediaries like Johns-Manville unless that
intermediary is so sophisticated that it should know about the
harm. In this case, the court affirmed rulings against Special
Electric.

"The Webb decision is an important and positive step forward for
asbestos defendants because it provides an additional legal
defense to both strict liability and negligent failure to warn
claims," David Schultz, principal attorney at Polsinelli Law Firm,
recently told Legal Newsline.

"The sophisticated intermediary defense is vital to suppliers of
all raw materials (including asbestos), who have no effective or
practical way to directly provide warnings to end users, and who
also reasonably rely on sophisticated intermediaries to provide
warnings."

Schultz further explained that substantial evidence demonstrated
that Special Electric breached a duty to warn Johns-Manville and
other foreseeable users, like William Webb, about the risks of
asbestos exposure.

"The legal framework set forth by the Supreme Court in Webb
provides a sensible approach to allow raw material suppliers to
argue that they either did not have a duty to warn or they
discharged any claimed duty by providing adequate warnings to
sophisticated intermediaries," Shultz said.

This court's decision, Shultz explained, is consistent with other
states' decisions that have dealt with similar claims.

"The California Supreme Court adopted the sophisticated
intermediary defense based on provisions of the Restatement of
Torts, which many states follow," he said. "Thus, Webb is in line
with decisions from other states that have also adopted the
sophisticated intermediary defense."

When asked If he found the decision surprising, Shultz had a
pretty direct answer.

"I did not view Webb as surprising," Shultz said.

"I was present at the oral argument before the California Supreme
Court. From the arguments presented, and the questions posed by
the Justices, I think many people in the legal community believed
that the sophisticated intermediary defense would be formally
adopted in California because it makes sense from both a legal and
practical viewpoint."

The court didn't buy Special Electric's defense that Johns-
Manville was a sophisticated intermediary because it also mined
asbestos. The ruling said Special Electric "peddled" a far more
dangerous type of asbestos to the company than the type of
asbestos Johns-Manville was mining.

Denyse F. Clancy -- a partner at Kazan, Satterley, McClain and
Greenwood whose firm represented William Webb -- recently told
Legal Newsline that attorneys at the firm were happy with the
court's decision.

"We were pleased to see that the judgment for William and
Jacqueline Webb was upheld and that the family was able to achieve
justice for Mr. Webb's fatal cancer, mesothelioma," Clancy said.

"The California Supreme Court's opinion in Webb v. Special
Electric balanced the competing policies of compensating victims
of asbestos, which the Court held is an inherently dangerous
product, with encouraging conduct that can be feasibly performed.

"We were happy to see that the Court adopted the Restatement's
reasonable reliance test, which California mesothelioma attorney
Ted Pelletier recommended the Court adopt at oral argument."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Addresses Duty to Warn Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------
Amy M. Rubenstein, Esq. -- arubenstein@schiffhardin.com -- at
Schiff Hardin, in an article for The National Law Review, said on
June 28, 2016, the New York Court of Appeals decided the following
question: Does a manufacturer have a duty to warn about asbestos-
containing parts made by someone else but used with its non-
asbestos product? The Court answered, "Sometimes," under a
relatively narrow set of circumstances.

The plaintiff in Dummitt v. Crane Co., a Navy boiler technician
from 1960-1977, alleged that he developed mesothelioma from
exposure to asbestos insulation used with Crane Co.'s high-
temperature steam valves. Crane Co. didn't make the insulation,
and its valves did not contain any asbestos. But at trial,
evidence was presented that Crane Co. recommended the use of
asbestos insulation with its valves, sold its valves with asbestos
insulation already in place, and marketed other manufacturers'
asbestos-containing replacement parts under its own brand. The
evidence also was claimed to show that Crane Co.'s high-
temperature, high-pressure valves probably needed the asbestos
insulation to function at their peak.

The jury found Crane Co. 99 percent liable for the plaintiff's
injuries and awarded a $32 million verdict, which was remitted to
$8 million. On appeal, the First Department affirmed.

The Court of Appeals agreed with the lower courts, finding Crane
Co. liable for failing to warn customers about the dangers of the
asbestos insulation, but articulated a more precise rule: "[T]he
manufacturer of a product has a duty to warn of the danger arising
from the known and reasonably foreseeable use of its product in
combination with a third-party product which, as a matter of
design, mechanics or economic necessity, is necessary to enable
the manufacturer's product to function as intended."

Going forward, therefore, manufacturers should pay attention to
the products used in connection with theirs to determine whether
they need to issue a warning to consumers.

The Court of Appeals also addressed a second important issue for
product liability defendants:  whether New York recognizes a
"heeding presumption." A "heeding presumption" allows the jury to
presume, without evidence, that a plaintiff would have heeded an
adequate warning if one had been provided. Most federal courts
have held that there is a heeding presumption under New York law,
but most New York state courts have held there is not.

The "heeding presumption" is critical to proximate cause in a
duty-to-warn case. A defendant's failure to provide an adequate
warning is not the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries
when the plaintiff would not have heeded the warning. Defendants
argue that because a plaintiff must prove proximate cause, a
presumption is not appropriate.

The Court declined to resolve this dispute, finding that the issue
was unpreserved. Nevertheless, it cautioned, "trial courts must
continue to ensure that their jury instructions honor the
principle that the burden of proving proximate causation, which in
a case like this one includes the burden of demonstrating that the
injured party would have heeded warnings, falls squarely on
plaintiffs."

There are two important takeaways from this decision: (1) the pool
of asbestos defendants in New York may have deepened; and (2) the
next asbestos defendant to get an unfavorable trial court ruling
on the "heeding presumption" should press the issue at  appellate
review.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Laborer Exposed to Asbestos from Fish Docks
------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Thorp, writing for Grimsby Telegraph, reported that a
labourer who was exposed to asbestos while working at sites
including Cleethorpes Pier during the 1960s died as a result of an
industrial illness, a coroner ruled.

Geoffrey Sinclair, 70, died at St Margaret's Care Home on
Littlecoates Road, Grimsby in May this year.

Mr Sinclair, who worked for firm Cartledge and Son, carried out
renovation work at Cleethorpes Pier, in addition to other jobs in
the Grimsby-area, during which he was exposed to asbestos dust.

In a statement read at an inquest at Cleethorpes Town Hall, it was
revealed Mr Sinclair came into contact with the potentially lethal
substance while working in the basement and dressing rooms of the
pier.

"We had to do repairs in the dressing rooms and basement. The
walls were lined with asbestos and we had to remove damaged
panels," a statement, written by Mr Sinclair, said.

"I had no protective mask and you could not help inhaling the
dust.

"The dust got up my nose, in my hair and settled on my clothes."

He added: "I was not told it was dangerous. I thought it was
common sense that you would not want dust blown into your face.

"It was very dusty work and my face was inches away from where I
was cutting."

The inquest was also told that Mr Sinclair was exposed to asbestos
while working on Grimsby fish docks with Northern Trawlers.

He left the town to live in Africa after 1970, before returning to
Grimsby in 1991.

He was later found to have developed mesothelioma -- cancer of
mesothelial tissue, associated with exposure to asbestos.

Grimsby and North Lincolnshire coroner Paul Kelly concluded that
Mr Sinclair died as the consequence of an industrial disease and
said it was "more likely than not" that his mesothelioma was
caused by asbestos exposure.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill Young Mother Exposed to Asbestos in School
---------------------------------------------------------------
North Devon Journal reported that a young mother diagnosed with
terminal cancer believes she may have been exposed to asbestos
while at school in Holsworthy.

Kirsty List, 33, attended Holsworthy Community College for a year
in 1998 and, due to the age of the buildings at the time, it has
been suggested she may have encountered asbestos during her time
there.

However, Devon County Council has said it monitored and audited
schools to ensure standards relating to asbestos were being
maintained.

Due to the debilitating nature of her type of cancer,
mesothelioma, Kirsty is cared for by her mother, Debbie Merritt,
who is from North Devon.

Debbie said: "This is a devastating position we find ourselves in
as a family.

"For any mother to find their child diagnosed with cancer is
absolutely the most dreadful thing, but to discover that the
diagnosis is mesothelioma, which is (possibly) linked to past
exposure to asbestos dust, is very hard for us to deal with.

"I have seen the asbestos survey report for Holsworthy Community
College and, as expected, there is quite a bit of asbestos in this
school, which was built in 1930 and had renovation works in 1997."

In buildings which contain asbestos any maintenance work poses the
threat of disturbing asbestos dust, placing the toxic material in
the air.

Kirsty and her family have sought the advice of Simpson Millar
LLP.

Simpson Millar LLP's Helen Grady said: "The most tragic aspect of
this case is Kirsty's young age; it's so young to be diagnosed
with mesothelioma, a condition that normally affects older people
-- this is due to asbestos lying dormant in an individual's system
for 20 to 30 years before causing cancer.

"It is for this reason that we need to explore every single avenue
to ensure that we find Kirsty's source of exposure.

"As mesothelioma is always a terminal disease, Kirsty will be
leaving her daughter in the care of her father once she has gone
and I really hope to be to have some answers for Kirsty in her
lifetime."

Anybody who knew Kirsty List during her time in Holsworthy, or
anybody who attended, worked at, or performed maintenance at
Holsworthy Community College in the 1990s have been encouraged to
contact Helen Grady via helen.grady@simpsonmillar.co.uk or on
freephone 0808 129 3320.

A Spokesman for Devon County Council said: "We take great care to
manage asbestos in our buildings.

"All our schools have been surveyed for asbestos and are inspected
regularly. They each hold individual asbestos registers
identifying where asbestos is located, its condition and our
safety policies, along with their own Asbestos Management Plans
detailing their local arrangements, such as communication between
the school and relevant individuals.

"There are also a range of controls in place to prevent unintended
exposures, including a requirement to share asbestos information,
mandatory training for staff and clear policies and procedures for
managing building works and notifying contractors.

"We monitor and audit schools to ensure that these standards are
being maintained."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: St. Mary's To Make Asbestos Decision
-----------------------------------------------------
Paul Swiech, writing for Pantagraph, reported that whether
asbestos removal is necessary at St. Mary's Catholic School and
whether the school year will begin as scheduled Aug. 18 will be
determined before the end of the week.

"We hope to have a plan of action . . . as to how we'll accomplish
all the repairs," Principal Jamie Hartrich said Tuesday.

On Saturday, vandals entered the school and damaged several
classrooms, the gymnasium, the teachers' lunch room/work area, the
basement and the boys' locker room.

Three juveniles are believed to have been involved. Bloomington
police had made no arrests but the investigation continues.

Hartrich's biggest concern is classrooms, such as the science
room, in the school's 1954 building. Chemicals were dumped on
carpet that is glued to tile. That tile contains asbestos.

There's no concern if the tile remains in place. But if work is
done on the tile, it may necessitate temporarily shutting off part
of the building.

A representative of the Illinois Environment Protection Agency was
at the school on Monday.

"We're waiting on test results to see the extent of the asbestos"
and whether the carpet can be removed and replaced without
exposing asbestos in the tile, Hartrich said Tuesday.

Meanwhile, a flooring specialist removed an obscenity scratched
into the gym floor. While the gym may be used again, more work
must be done on the floor, she said.

A children's volleyball camp will take place at St. Mary's as
scheduled next week. A basketball camp scheduled for Aug. 9-12 has
been relocated to Central Catholic High School.

St. Mary's parents and parishioners, other Catholic schools, the
Bloomington-Normal YMCA and several local businesses have
volunteered to help St. Mary's.

"The phone did not stop ringing," Hartrich said. "It shows we live
in a community that is good."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sheldon Silver's Law Firm Found New Gold Mine
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kirstan Conley, writing for New York Post, reported that the law
firm that made a fortune off asbestos cases referred by former
Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver has found a new gold mine: it has
filed the first personal injury lawsuit over water contamination
in Hoosick Falls.

Earnings at Manhattan-based Weitz & Luxenberg fell after Silver
was arrested and convicted of corruption, including for pocketing
referral fees for cases he steered to the firm from an oncologist
who received $500,000 in state research grants

Silver was sentenced to 12 years is prison, but is free pending an
appeal.

The firm is now representing James Donovan, a Hoosick Falls
resident, who is seeking $2.5 million in damages.

In a lawsuit filed in federal court Wednesday, Donovan cited
damages for lost property value on his home and medical costs
associated with a host of problems he blames on the pollutants,
called perfluorooctanoic acids, or PFOAs, dumped into the water by
Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics and Honeywell International.

In court papers, Donovan says he was diagnosed with ulcerative
colitis, which deprives him of the ability to eat many foods,
including raw vegetables, after drinking water in the village for
nearly 25 years.

He also said he suffered a serious reaction to medication last
year.

At least four other class action suits were filed. Weitz &
Luxenberg and Faraci Lang are co-counsel on the cases.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Fin'l Profit Drops on Asbestos Hit
------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Beilfuss, writing for Dow Jones Business News, reported that
Hartford Financial Services Group Inc. reported second-quarter
earnings that fell far more than expected as it took an asbestos-
related hit in its property and casualty business, catastrophe
claims climbed, and investment income dropped.

Connecticut-based Hartford sells commercial and personal insurance
as well as financial products, including property and casualty
insurance, group benefits and mutual funds.

But for Hartford, weakness went beyond the anticipated net income
and catastrophe headwinds.

"The second quarter bottom line was disappointing," said Chief
Executive Christopher Swift, pointing to particular weakness in
the company's property and casualty and auto businesses.

Hartford said greater-than-expected mesothelioma claim filings for
certain defendants in asbestos cases helped push its loss in its
property and casualty "other" category to $154 million from $111
million a year earlier. In the overall property and casualty unit,
net income fell to $33 million from $189 million in last year's
quarter.

Meanwhile, Hartford's auto business continued to deteriorate, with
new business premiums there sliding 14% from a year earlier. Total
written premiums declined 2%.

During the June quarter, Hartford's net investment income slid 8%
to $735 million, dragged by private equity and real estate
partnerships.

Over all, Hartford reported a profit of $216 million, or 54 cents,
down from $413 million, or 96 cents, a year earlier. Excluding
certain tax benefits and capital gains, per-share earnings fell to
31 cents from 91 cents.

Analysts projected 80 cents in adjusted per-share profit,
according to Thomson Reuters.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firm Warns Former Workers of Imported Asbestos
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Burrell, writing for The Australian, reported that a
company that imported more than 8000 cement sheets laced with
deadly asbestos from China is urgently trying to track down former
employees to warn them of exposure risks and offer health
assessments and counselling.

Australian Portable Camps, owned by Adelaide businessman Frank
Martino, said last night it was taking "all reasonable steps" to
mitigate long-term issues that might arise from the shipments,
which it noted had been cleared by Customs.

The Australian revealed that APC imported 8070 cement sheets into
the country in 2010 and 2011. The white asbestos, or chrysotile,
contamination was not discovered until late last year, triggering
an investigation by Australian Border Force and Safework SA that
is still in process.

Industry sources say the regulators are investigating claims that
about 2000 tainted sheets were used to build portable
accommodation at APC's workshops outside Adelaide.

Companies that have awarded contracts to APC in recent years --
including Chevron at its $US54 billion Gorgon gas plant in Western
Australia -- are being forced to conduct emergency testing for
asbestos in response. Chevron's tests were negative for asbestos.

In a statement, APC said it had imported the cement sheeting in
2010 and 2011 from a Chinese supplier in Shandong, Feiching Lutai
Science and Technology Co.

"At that point, APC had no reason to believe the materials may
contain chrysotile," it said. "The cement sheets were cleared by
Customs and delivered to the company's manufacturing site at
Monarto, east of Adelaide. Due to the poor structural integrity of
the sheets, APC only used a small amount of the imported material.
This was predominantly used in some underfloor wet areas, all of
which were completely covered, including by vinyl."

APC said it had offered all potentially exposed workers health
assessments and counselling. It was trying to contact past
employees to offer the same service.

Asbestos imports were banned in 2003. Immigration Minister Peter
Dutton is under pressure to ramp up efforts to stop asbestos at
the border. The discovery of asbestos at Perth Children's Hospital
and the 1 William Street office tower in Brisbane -- both in
products sourced from China -- has highlighted the problem.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Ban Did Not Stop Mesothelioma Spread
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Strauss, writing for Surviving Mesothelioma, reported that a
30+ year asbestos ban in Iceland has so far done little to
decrease the incidence of the so-called asbestos cancer.

A new study involving researchers from the country's Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, the University of Iceland, and
the Centre for Health Security and Communicable Disease Control
finds that malignant mesothelioma is still on the rise in Iceland
and shows no signs of slowing.

Asbestos and Mesothelioma in Iceland

Asbestos is a naturally occurring fibrous mineral once prized for
its strength, abundance, and resistance to heat and corrosion.

Although Iceland has no asbestos mines of its own, the country
imported the mineral to use in various building products for
decades. At the peak of Iceland's asbestos importation in 1980,
the country was bringing in 15 kg per capita.

But by 1983, it had become clear that asbestos was making
Icelanders sick. According to the new analysis of mesothelioma
incidence in Iceland, the number of cases increased steadily from
1965 to 2014.

In spite of the asbestos ban, the researchers found that by 2014,
there were 22.2 mesothelioma deaths per million Icelandic men and
4.3 per million women.

Asbestos Bans Take Time to Work
Because asbestos is by far the leading cause of malignant
mesothelioma worldwide, numerous studies have shown that asbestos
bans do work to reduce the incidence of the disease.

Unfortunately, due to mesothelioma's long latency period, it can
take a very long time to see that reduction. People exposed to
asbestos typically don't even begin to develop mesothelioma
symptoms such as shortness of breath, fatigue, cough and chest
pain until decades after their initial exposure.

Living with The Legacy of Asbestos
Even though Iceland no longer imports asbestos, the team's
analysis of various cancer databases showed that malignant
mesothelioma remains a threat.

"In line with the previously high per capita volume of asbestos
import, many buildings, equipment, and structures contain
asbestos, so there is an on-going risk of asbestos exposure during
maintenance, renovations and replacements," observes study author
Kristinn Tomasson, an occupational medicine specialist with the
Administration of Occupational Safety and Health.  "It is thus
difficult to predict when the incidence of malignant mesothelioma
will decrease in the future."

Data from the Icelandic Cancer Registry, the National Cause-of-
Death Registry, and the National Register also revealed that
Iceland had a higher incidence of malignant mesothelioma than its
neighboring countries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Payment Fast-Tracked for Fatal Diseases
--------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Needham, Esq. -- matthew.needham@hallandwilcox.com -- and
Nikolas Willing, Esq., at Hall & Wilcox, in an article for
Lexology, wrote that the Australian Capital Territory Legislative
Assembly has passed amendments to the Workers Compensation Act
1951 (ACT) aimed at ensuring that workers who suffer from an
imminently fatal asbestos-related disease receive timely access to
compensation. For the most part these are sensible. However, the
changes appear to have been introduced without considering some of
the practical realities of the existing workers' compensation
regime.

The amendments will drastically modify how the Default Insurance
Fund (DIF), employers and private insurers are to approach fatal
asbestos-related claims from 1 July 2017:

   * The legislation will differentiate between 'asbestos-related
disease' and 'imminently fatal asbestos-related disease' (fatal
asbestos disease). Examples of the latter definition will also be
provided for in the regulations to assist doctors with their
diagnoses of claimants. A worker will only be able to be diagnosed
with fatal asbestos disease by a doctor who specialises in either
oncology, respiratory medicine or cardio-thoracic surgery.

   * Any worker diagnosed with fatal asbestos disease will be
automatically entitled to receive 100% of the statutory maximum
amount payable for permanent injuries (although this is in
addition to any applicable weekly compensation and medical expense
payments). The intention is to remove the need for the worker to
seek legal advice for the purpose of negotiating a compensation
amount for their permanent injuries.

   * The DIF will be the relevant insurer for the purposes of all
claims that relate to fatal asbestos disease. Therefore, affected
workers must submit their claims directly to the DIF, not their
employer or their employer's insurer. As a consequence:

        * Employers must, within 7 days of receiving a fatal
asbestos disease claim, forward the claim to the DIF. The penalty
for failing to do so will be approximately $25,000, which is more
likely to be pursued since the DIF will be the insurer for all
such claims.

       * Employers will not be liable to repay the DIF three times
the settlement amount between the DIF and the claimant for fatal
asbestos disease claims. This is a departure from the usual rule
that applies where the DIF settles claims involving uninsured
employers.

       * The DIF will have an unlimited amount of time to consider
the claim before accepting or rejecting it. This is an exception
to the usual 28 day requirement for all other claims and insurers.

       * The DIF will be able to recover its payments made to the
worker from current or former employers, their insurer(s) or any
other entity liable in tort. Recoverable amounts must be agreed or
determined by 'arbitration'.

Implications

The amendments are important because they effectively redirect all
fatal asbestos disease claims to the DIF, who then may pursue
other liable parties after the claimant is compensated. However,
once the amendments are considered in the light of current
workers' compensation practices it appears that the haste with
which the changes were made has led to some unusual results.

How will an employer know they have received a fatal asbestos
claim that should be forwarded to the DIF?

The amendments appear to assume that all fatal asbestos disease
claims will be made with a valid certification from an authorised
doctor. In reality, this is unlikely to be the case, and there are
inevitably going to be situations where a fatal diagnosis is made
after a non-fatal asbestos claim is initially made. What if an
insurer has already accepted liability? Would an employer or
insurer receive credit for any payments made on the claim prior to
the DIF becoming involved once a the fatal diagnosis is made and
if the DIF pursues recovery later? The amendments cannot respond
to any of these questions.

Why is the DIF not required to determine claims within 28 days?

The amendments release the DIF from any obligation to accept or
reject fatal asbestos claims within the otherwise standard period
of 28 days. The unconvincing reason provided by the government for
this exception is that 'the [DIF] may require additional time to
obtain historical records from employers and insurers.' It should
be remembered that all other claims are deemed accepted if not
determined within 28 days. This is a significant incentive to
investigate and confirm liability quickly, yet the legislature has
removed it for the most urgent of claims.

The exception also runs contrary to the idea that workers
diagnosed with fatal asbestos disease should receive compensation
first, and the DIF should investigate later. Even if historical
records (including liable insurers) are identified, the new
legislation clearly establishes the DIF as the default insurer. As
such, the existence of other liable entities does not abrogate the
DIF's responsibility to make compensation payments, which can only
be recovered by the DIF after they are paid.

The amendments do require the DIF to provide reasons if liability
is still undetermined after 28 days, but there are no consequences
for failing to do so.

How will the Court approach the recovery process if the DIF
pursues an employer or insurer?

It is unclear how the ACT Industrial Court will determine
recoverable amounts in the absence of agreement between the
parties. The Industrial Court has only ever determined disputes
about the payment of compensation. Until now it has not previously
had to determine issues of recovery. This may also be particularly
contentious where the worker is deceased at the time the DIF
pursues recovery (a likely outcome given the fatal nature of the
diagnosis).

Furthermore, the amendments require either agreement or
'arbitration' of recoverable amounts. The latter of these terms is
defined by Part 3.13 of the Court Procedure Rules 2006 (ACT)
(Rules), which currently only facilitates arbitration between
workers and employers/insurers. It is unclear how the DIF will be
able to commence arbitration proceedings against an employer or
other insurer without minor amendments to the Rules and the
official forms prescribed to be used by them. As the legislation
currently stands the DIF does not appear to be entitled to bring a
general civil action for recovery of fatal asbestos disease
payments, which it can do with all other types of claims it
administers.

Moving forward

Although there is some uncertainty in how the amendments are going
to be applied by the DIF and the ACT Industrial Court, this may
not ultimately cause problems. A mass of fatal asbestos disease
claims may not eventuate, and even if they do it appears that the
DIF may have no viable recovery options where there is no other
existing and identifiable liable entity.

For employers and insurers, it is more important to remember that
from 1 July 2017 all fatal asbestos disease claims must be
forwarded to the DIF, but also that this does not necessarily
absolve the employer or relevant workers' compensation insurer
from liability. Until 1 July 2017, employers should continue to
handle any fatal asbestos claims by forwarding them to their
workers' compensation insurer.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Council to Support Affected Homeowners
-------------------------------------------------------
Eastern Riverina Chronicle reported that shocked owners who are
set to have their homes demolished due to asbestos are set to be
supported by council.

The Greater Hume Shire Council will waive development application
fees, construction certificate costs and complying development
certificates.

Waiving these fees is expected to cost around $2000 per dwelling.

Twenty-two homes have tested positive for loose-fill asbestos in
the Greater Hume Shire.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Farmer Used Land for Illegal Asbestos Dumping
--------------------------------------------------------------
Torquay Herald Express reported that a farmer who illegally dumped
building rubble and waste -- including hazardous asbestos -- on
his land in Kingsteignton has been given a suspended jail
sentence.

Christopher Garrett, 56, of Lindridge Hill, built a track for
lorries, tossed waste down a slope and even dug a hole to try and
bury the rubbish on his land.

Exeter Crown Court was told he ignored a warning from the
Environment Agency to stop dumping waste at the site in 2014 and
simply 'carried on regardless'.

Pictures shown to the judge revealed tiles, scorched pieces of
metal and plastic, bricks and even a shoe, on the site.

Recorder Paul Dunkels QC said: "You have pleaded guilty, in
layman's terms, to an offence of the unlawful dumping of waste on
your own land.

"This is a bad case. You were visited by the Environment Agency on
June 2, 2014, and it was clear this dumping was going on. The
extent was recorded and you received a warning letter on June 18.
You carried on and extended the area, burying some of it and
tipping some of it into adjacent wasteland, including asbestos
tiles which carried a health risk."

Garrett was jailed for four months, suspended for two years, and
told to remove all the rubbish he had illegally dumped on the
site.

Prosecutor Judith Constable said when Environment Agency officers
first visited they found a hole with broken roof tiles, bricks and
other items, including a boot. There was also a hard-standing area
and evidence of metal and plastic having been burned.

She said Garrett ignored a written warning to stop and officers
returned after a member of the public reported seeing an increase
in the number of lorries visiting the land.

They found a track with asbestos tiles in it. Ms Constable said
the movement of traffic on the track could have been hazardous.

"There was waste dumped in the field at the bottom of the track,
out of the way," she said.

"It was deliberate offending in light of the June 2014 warning
letter."

The court was given few details about where the rubble was coming
from.

Kevin Hopper, mitigating, said Garrett was 'not very well' and
looks after his mother at home. He said the defendant was trying
to turn one of the farm buildings into a letting property to make
money.

But he admitted: "He was given a warning after the visit and
carried on regardless."

The court was told that Garrett was licensed to get rid of
controlled waste and if he had gone down the legal route of
getting the correct permit and had applied for planning permission
he could have got permission.

Garrett was given until September 30 to get rid of the some waste
and 12 months to clear the asbestos.

He must pay prosecution costs of GBP3,221.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Find in Royal Hobart Relocates Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Loretta Lohberger, writing for The Mercury, reported that the
discovery of asbestos in a Royal Hobart Hospital office area has
caused the temporary relocation of about 40 employees and raised
concerns about the long-term health of the staff.

The material fell from the ceiling in an office space during
renovation works, the Tasmanian Health Service's clinical
operations group director Wendy Rowell said.

"I am further advised that while it has now been confirmed as
containing asbestos, air sampling has concluded the air is safe,"
Ms Rowell said.

Unions described the news as "shocking" and the Labor Opposition
has criticised the two-day delay in informing the public.

Ms Rowell said the incident occurred during renovation works.

She said the building -- known as F block, on Collins St -- was
not part of the main redevelopment site.

"Immediate action was taken following the incident to ensure the
safety of staff and the public. The area has been cordoned off and
appropriately cleaned, with some staff relocated to other areas to
enable any rectification works to occur," she said.

But Community and Public Sector Union state secretary Tom Lynch
said he was not convinced everything had been done to prevent the
situation.

Mr Lynch said the discovery of asbestos particles in the office
area was "a really shocking and disturbing situation".

"We've got staff who have been potentially impacted by this
exposure.

"They will be at home tonight not knowing whether they have
asbestos fibres in their lungs, not knowing whether within 20 or
30 years' time they will have this horrible disease.

"Action should be taken immediately to ensure that this doesn't
happen again."

Health Minister Michael Ferguson was criticised for only releasing
news of the asbestos scare just before 5pm yesterday.

"Michael Ferguson must explain why he kept the public in the dark
for two days," Opposition health spokeswoman Rebecca White said.

"We know too well the dangers of exposure to asbestos, so the
health department is right to take this incident very seriously."

Mr Ferguson said there was no conspiracy.

"Obviously it's concerning and I have every confidence that all
necessary protective measures are being taken," he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reversal of Verdict Makes Cases Harder to Prove
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Silver, writing for CVN.com, reported that the Georgia
Supreme Court's reversal in July of a $4+ million asbestos verdict
clarified the law of causation in asbestos exposure cases,
limiting expert testimony on the issue. The ruling potentially
makes cases harder to prove by requiring plaintiffs show evidence
a defendant's asbestos was at least a "meaningful contributing
factor" to a plaintiff's overall exposure. Scapa Dryer Fabrics,
Inc. v. Knight et al., Case No. S15G1278 (July 5, 2016)., Case No.
S15G1278 (July 5, 2016).

The Case: A $4.2M Verdict Built on Evidence of Cumulative Asbestos
Exposure

Roy Knight worked intermittently as an independent contractor
sheet-metal worker at Scapa Dryer Fabrics' Waycross site between
1967 and 1973. During that time, Scapa used yarn that contained
asbestos in its manufacturing process. In 2009, doctors diagnosed
Knight meosthelioma, a cancer usually associated with inhaling or
ingesting asbestos fibers. At trial, Knight was awarded a $10
million verdict against Scapa and Union Carbide, another defendant
in the case that subsequently settled. After apportionment of
liability, the trial judge leveled a $4.2 million award against
Scapa.

New Call-to-action

Scapa argued Abraham's testimony was inadmissible, calling the
"any exposure" theory of liability "junk science."

The Holding: Clarifying Causation

The state's high court refused to consider the validity of
Abraham's theory. But,  it nonetheless agreed the testimony was
inadmissible, rejecting it as irrelevant.

The Court noted Knight needed to prove asbestos exposure at
Scapa's facility was a "contributing factor" to his mesothelioma,
citing John Crane, Inc. v. Jones, 278 Ga. 747 (2004).  However,
that decision never detailed exactly what standard of proof a
plaintiff had to meet. The Scapa Court took the opportunity to
explain the earlier opinion, stating:

"[A]lthough Knight and his wife did not have to prove that
exposure to asbestos at the Waycross facility made a substantial
contribution to his mesothelioma, they did have to show that it
made a meaningful contribution. Just as we explained in John
Crane, Inc., a de minimis contribution to an injury is not
sufficient to establish legal causation under Georgia law."
(emphasis in original).

Applying that standard, the Court rejected Abraham's testimony. It
noted there was conflicting evidence of Knight's exposure to
asbestos at Scapa's facility, and evidence showed he worked at
several other asbestos-containing facilities over a 20-year
period. The Court reasoned that, while the jury may have
determined Knight's asbestos exposure at the Scapa plant was
meaningful, it may also have relied on Abraham's opinion
concerning cumulative exposure to erroneously find any exposure at
Scapa's plant was enough to establish cause.

In finding Abraham's testimony inadmissible, the Court reasoned:

"Such testimony does not 'fit' the issue that the jury was charged
with deciding, and it could not have been helpful to the jury. . .
. For all we know, the jury could have . . .  attributed cause to
a de minimis exposure by Scapa simply because the jury believed
Dr. Abraham when he said that any exposure beyond background would
be a contributing cause.. . .  [T]he testimony did not 'fit' the
pertinent causation inquiry under Georgia law, and it should have
been excluded by the trial court, acting as gatekeeper, because it
could only serve to confuse the jury on the issue of causation."

The Path Forward: The Impact of "Fit" and the "Meaningful"
Contribution Requirement

While the holding clarifies what a plaintiff must prove, the
decision's "meaningful contribution" requirement could make it
more difficult to establish causation in asbestos cases. It may
also have a wider impact beyond asbestos trials, by applying the
holding that scientific expert testimony must "fit" a case's
pertinent causation inquiry.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Ruling Doesn't End Payment Battle
--------------------------------------------------------
Anita Merritt, writing for Exeter Express and Echo, reported that
a former employee of Exeter University with asbestosis still can't
claim a victory despite a landmark ruling being made at The Court
of Appeal.

The court ruled asbestosis sufferers could be entitled to
proportional compensation from as low as 2.3 per cent from
negligent employers, based upon the number of years worked.

Retired electrician Albert Carder, from Whimple, near Exeter, was
exposed to asbestos while working at Exeter University. Although
most of the 86-year-olds asbestos exposure occurred earlier in his
career, his lawyers calculated employment at the university
contributed 2.3 per cent toward his asbestosis.

The calculation was upheld in the Court of Appeal, but Exeter
University's insurers are now trying to appeal to the Supreme
Court.The fractional exposure suffered by Mr Carder at the
university entitled him to just GBP1,552.

Moore Blatch asbestos disease lawyer John Hedley who is
representing Mr Carder, said: "Mr Carder goes to a hospice on some
days and is slowly deteriorating unfortunately, but he is still
based at home and is very relieved with the outcome, although he
has just been told there will be an appeal to the Supreme Court.
It is up to the Supreme Court whether it will let it proceed.

"I feel sorry for Mr Carder if it does drag on as he is just a
pawn in all this as the insurers are trying to get matters of
principle established in their favour for claims elsewhere.

"I hope the appeal gets refused and we can get finality on it."

Mr Carder sued the university after he was exposed to the
hazardous substance while working in boiler rooms there between
1980 and 1994.Most of his exposure occurred earlier in his working
life -- during the 1950s when he was an apprentice electrician.

But Mr Carder's chances of winning damages from his then employers
were negligible as they were uninsured.It was agreed that his
exposure whilst working at the university represented only a small
fraction of his "lifetime exposure".The university admitted it had
breached its duty as Mr Carder's employer

.In July last year at London's High Court, the judge in favour of
Mr Carder.However, Exeter University appealed arguing the
proportion of the exposure was minimal and had made "no
discernible difference to his condition".

Today's court hearing upheld the decision and the historic ruling
confirms that proportional compensation is applicable even if the
employer's overall contribution to the condition was minimal and
the entitlement was as low as 2.3 per cent.

No one from Exeter University was available for comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Satisfied with CFA Asbestos Investigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Natalie Croxon, writing for Bendigo Advertiser, reported that the
Environment Protection Authority says it is satisfied with the
CFA's investigation into the discovery of asbestos at one of its
sites.

The hazardous material was found in a pile of concrete rubble at
the CFA's Huntly training facility in late June.

The EPA said it the rubble had been there for more than 10 years.

A CFA spokesperson said an investigation into how asbestos came to
be located at the site was ongoing.

EPA North West regional manager Dr Scott Pigdon said the body was
undertaking its own investigation, but was "satisfied with the
steps CFA are taking with their own inquiries".

A clean-up notice has been issued to the CFA, which orders the
removal of the material by October 21.

Non-compliance could result in a fine of more than $373,000.

Dr Pigdon said the material was located in an isolated, fenced off
and signed area, posing no risk to safety if left undisturbed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Beach Closed Due to Asbestos Scare
---------------------------------------------------
Matt Coyle, writing for STV.tv, reported that a beach has been
closed amid an asbestos scare after material was washed ashore.

Officials were forced to close Prestwick Beach, South Ayrshire,
following the discovery of a small amount of a potentially
hazardous material.

The decision followed an inspection at the beach after concerns
were raised that a small piece of asbestos had been found.

The inspection identified a number of small pieces of material
which sparked concern.

Access to the beach has been prohibited as a "precautionary health
and safety measure"  until the materials are removed.

All people have been cleared from the beach and signs are being
put up stating "Danger. Beach Closed".

The temporary closure will remain in place until a specialist
contractor can remove the material and carry out decontamination
works.

South Ayrshire Councils said work will be carried out as quickly
as possible.

Councillor John McDowall, environment portfolio holder at the
council, said: "We have moved swiftly to close the beach as a
precaution as even a small amount of asbestos can be harmful if
it's disturbed.

"We don't take decisions like this lightly, but I'm sure members
of the public and visitors would rather be safe than sorry.

"We simply won't take any chances and the beach will remain closed
until the material is removed and the necessary checks have been
carried out.

"We thank residents and visitors for their co-operation while this
closure is in place and ask them to observe the warning signage at
all times."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Billingham ICI Workers Seek Asbestos Answers
-------------------------------------------------------------
BBC News reported that the family of a man who it is believed died
from asbestos exposure are seeking information from his former
colleagues.

Jack Masterman, from Billingham on Teesside, died from
mesothelioma, a cancer of the lung lining.

His family's solicitors hope former workers at the town's old ICI
plant will know whether safety measures were put in place and if
staff were warned about the dangers of asbestos.

ICI ceased to exist after being taken over by Dutch firm Akzo
Nobel in 2008.

The 89-year-old, who died in 2015, worked at the facility between
1939 and 1980 and his family believe he was exposed to asbestos
during this time.

His work included welding, part fabrication, pipe fitting and
plumbing before he became a project engineer.

His daughter Debra Masterman, 58, said he had become ill quickly
and had been unable to tell them much about his work at ICI.

"We hope someone who remembers him will come forward and help us
understand why he was exposed to asbestos," she said.

Solicitor Roger Maddocks said he was seeking any information "on
the warning provided to staff about the dangers of asbestos, the
presence of asbestos at the ICI Billingham plant and the safety
measures in place, if any, to protect workers from inhaling deadly
asbestos dust and fibres".

Mesothelioma can be caused by even a brief exposure to asbestos
and can take between 15-50 years to develop.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Landmark Asbestos Ruling Good News for Sufferers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HVPMag.co.uk reported that in a landmark asbestosis case, The
Court of Appeal ruled that asbestosis sufferers could be entitled
to proportional compensation from as low as 2.3% from negligent
employers, based upon the number of years worked.

The historic ruling confirms that proportional compensation is
applicable even if the employer's overall contribution to the
condition was minimal and the entitlement was as low as 2.3%.

The ruling relates to retired electrician, Mr Albert Carder, who
was exposed to asbestos whilst working at Exeter University.
Although most of his asbestos exposure occurred earlier in his
career, Mr Carder's lawyers, Moore Blatch, calculated that his
employment at the university contributed 2.3% toward his
asbestosis.

The Court of Appeal upheld the calculation and judgement made by
The High Court in July 2015 that Mr Carder was entitled to
compensation. But at the time Exeter University's insurers
appealed, arguing the proportion of the exposure was minimal and
had made "no discernible difference to his condition".

Moore Blatch asbestos disease lawyer John Hedley, representing Mr
Carder comments: "This decision is very important and will
influence other asbestos cases. Whilst there is a long established
principle around minimal contributions to asbestos exposure by
employers, this case helps define what minimal actually means. We
can confidently say this contribution can be as low as 2.3%. While
the compensation is not substantial, it will help Mr Carder and
the ruling will help many other people who are in a similar
position."

Mr Carder said: "It's a huge relief for this case to have finally
settled and to also know that I can return to court, should my
condition deteriorate, which is of great comfort to me and my
family.When I started my career asbestos was thought to be such a
wonderful thing; unfortunately we were not made aware of the
dangers."

Mr Carder's overall damages from his total exposure to asbestos
were assessed at approximately GBP67,500, with the university's
contribution confirmed to be GBP1,713.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kilgore College Whistleblower Suit Settled
-----------------------------------------------------------
Christina Lane, writing for Longview News-Journal, reported that
although a Kilgore College lawsuit involving a whistleblower has
officially been dismissed by the court system after college
officials settled out of court, college officials said the deal
"in no way" indicates wrongdoing.

Settling the lawsuit allows the college to stay clear of the
distraction and can be less expensive than litigation, officials
said.

The college has not released the terms of the settlement.

"Kilgore College can confirm that the college and Dalton Smith
have reached a settlement of his lawsuit," college spokesman Chris
Craddock said in a statement. "Settlement of contested lawsuits
requires consideration of many issues, including the distraction
away from the business of education and the economics of being
involved in litigation, even when you believe you are right.

"Entering into this settlement was a consequence of evaluating all
these factors and is in no way indicative of belief by the Board
of Trustees of any wrong-doing on the part of Kilgore College or
any of its present or past faculty/staff. Litigation is expensive
and uncertain."

Smith, who formerly served as the plant coordinator for Kilgore
College, sued the college and then-President Bill Holda in October
after being fired Aug. 31 -- along with the rest of the college's
maintenance department -- when the school decided to outsource the
jobs. Smith believed he was fired because he had made claims of
asbestos mishandling against the college.

Holda, who retired in January, said in July 2015 that the
maintenance department privatization had been discussed since 2010
and was not related to Smith and other maintenance employees'
allegations concerning asbestos on the KC campus. Smith had
alleged asbestos was present on campus, though active asbestos
never was discovered. Holda, at the time, described the decision
to outsource maintenance as a means to help alleviate a shortfall
in the college's budget.

Smith stated in the lawsuit that he was demoted from director of
physical plant to coordinator, then was moved to "a satellite
campus" in Longview. There, Smith's fellow employees were told not
to speak with him or assist him, the lawsuit said.

College trustees on June 30 appeared to settle the lawsuit during
a meeting, though trustees did not state on the record that it was
Smith's case they were voting on. Smith's attorney, Greg Love,
said later that the sides emerged from mediation talks under an
Aug. 1 deadline from the court.

Court filings show the parties settled the case, and a judge
signed a final order of dismissal.

Neither Smith nor Love could immediately be reached for comment. A
court motion states that each party is responsible for its own
costs, expenses and attorney fees.

"This resolution provides certainty as to its conclusion and
reflects the board's desire to continue to move the college
forward by focusing its attention and energy on student learning
and success," Craddock said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Slows Gary Deconstruction Project
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Tejeda, writing for Chicago Tribune, reported that the
Gary Redevelopment Commission has approved more money to be paid
to a Hebron-based company that is supposed to take apart a dozen
old homes so that their building materials can be salvaged.

The commission voted 4-0 to pay Chem Check Inc., $39,515 for the
project. That is in addition to the $235,000 the city already has
approved in payments for the company.

The project is part of an experimental effort with the Chicago-
based Delta Institute by which the city is determining if
deconstruction is an economically feasible way of handling
redevelopment. In such projects, an old building is taken apart
instead of demolished to keep old building materials intact.

City officials have said it might be possible that future
construction projects using those materials could wind up being
sold at a premium.

But before the deconstruction can begin, officials from Chem Check
had to do an inspection of each of the 12 old homes they are
supposed to take apart, so as to see exactly what condition they
were in.

When those inspections were recently performed, seven of the homes
were found to have asbestos in them. That substance will have to
be removed before any deconstruction work can proceed, officials
said.

The additional money is to cover the cost of asbestos removal.
Redevelopment Commission Executive Director Joseph Van Dyk could
not say how long it would take for asbestos to be removed,
although he was hopeful actual deconstruction work would be
underway before summer's end.

This is not the first delay for the project, as the original
contract for deconstruction was awarded to Chem Check and another
company, Green Demolition LLC of Atlantic City, N.J., in October.

Winter weather prevented Chem Check from proceeding with the
project last year, and Green Demolition had their portion of the
contract rescinded by the Redevelopment Commission in May because
the city felt the company was being "non-responsive" to their
concerns. Chem Check was then awarded the Green Demolition
contact.

Under the initiative, six now-vacant homes in the 3900 block of
Washington Street will be deconstructed, as will be homes on
Tyler, Rhode Island, Van Buren and Virginia streets.

The dozen homes, which officials say are all too decayed for them
to continue to be used as residences, were chosen from among 100
structures across Gary studied by the city and the Delta
Institute, which has engaged in similar deconstruction projects in
Chicago and Joliet, Ill.

In other business, the Redevelopment Commission turned over
ownership of plots of land it controlled to private owners who
expressed interest in expanding their homes on the adjacent lots.

The city's Side Lot Program allows for the quick sale of lots
valued at under $25,000 to people who own a home or other building
on adjacent land. Bid offers approved were for plots in the 3600
block of West 24th Place, the 400 block of Jackson Street, and for
three lots in the 2200 block of Wilson Street.

The commission also voted without opposition to approve an
engagement letter for certified financial manager services with
Crowe Horwath LLP. Redevelopment commission members discussed the
issue when they met on July 6, but inadvertently forgot to vote to
approve it at that time.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Mineral Exposed at Quarry
------------------------------------------------
Paul Cullen, writing for The Irish Times, reported that regulatory
authorities were not informed for over a month after a cancer-
causing mineral was exposed at a Co Wicklow quarry earlier this
year, documents show.

Almost 3,000 tons of asbestos-containing rock was distributed to
sites around north Wicklow and south Dublin before the presence of
the hazardous mineral was notified to authorities, according to
documents obtained under freedom of information legislation.

The asbestos was contained in more than 30,000 tons of rock
exposed after blasting in Ballinclare quarry in April. Wicklow
County Council was informed of the presence of the mineral in late
May.

The Kilsaran group, which owns the quarry, said the rock was
blasted on April 18th but processing of the material did not start
for a time afterwards. During a routine quality control
inspection, the company's technical department discovered an
unidentified material and quarantined the area pending test
results.

"Once test results were identified, Wicklow County Council were
notified and the quarry closed," said a spokesman.

Since then, the quarry has remained closed and extensive testing
for the presence of asbestos has been carried out. While most soil
samples showed no or only tiny amounts of asbestos, 10 per cent
were found to contain more than 1 per cent asbestos by weight. No
asbestos fibres were detected in the air.

In June, Wicklow County Council formally issued Kilsaran with a
notice under section 55 of the Waste Management Act 1996. This
requires the company to deal with the health and environmental
risk resulting from the delivery of the hazardous material to nine
sites in the county by sending it back to its source in the
quarry. The notice requires the work to be completed within 40
days.

The exact details of the sites have been excised from documents
provided under freedom of information. However, there are mentions
of new cycle paths in Greystones, the driveways and paths around
houses, the service track of a driving range in Co Dublin and the
forecourt of a new petrol station.

Kilsaran told the council it had identified 2,739 tons of the
blasted and crushed rock which was delivered to about 18 sites in
south Dublin and north Wicklow. The remainder of the blasted rock
is still in the quarry.

In nine sites, seven of them in Co Wicklow, the material was loose
and was not covered with either concrete or asphalt. These sites
were covered with heavy plastic and soil as a temporary safety
measure.

"This loose, potentially hazardous material poses a risk to public
health and the environment," wrote Michael Boland, executive
scientist in the council's waste management division in an
internal memo dated May 31st.

The blasted asbestos-bearing rock in the quarry is not fit for
future use, according to the council, which says it is industrial
waste that needs to be licensed by the Environmental Protection
Agency.

The thousands of tons of returned asbestos-containing rock will be
stored in bags in a pit, and covered with dust, a "geo-textile
layer", 100m of stone material and 50cm of topsoil.

Three weeks after the section 55 notice was issued, remediation
work had been completed at just four sites.

Decisions had still to be made about the 10 sites where asbestos-
containing material was covered with concrete or asphalt before
the discovery was made.

The Kilsaran spokesman said the remediation process was over 95
per cent complete and is due to end shortly.

The council's files show that concerns about the issue were raised
by a number of individuals. One Greystones resident living across
from a building site where asbestos was discovered wanted to know
whether this was a health hazard for the family. Another person,
who was building a home using 100 tons of material found to be
contaminated, said his family has been "left exposed" for a month
and had not been told when the material would be removed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shipyard Cited for Repeated Asbestos Exposures
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gloria Gonzalez, writing for Business Insurance, reported that a
Wisconsin shipyard company is facing $1.4 million in proposed
fines and has been deemed a severe violator of workplace safety
and health regulations, federal safety regulators said Monday.

The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration cited
Superior, Wisconsin-based Fraser Shipyards Inc. for 14 willful
egregious health violations for each instance of overexposing a
worker to lead after sampling results determined 14 workers had
lead levels up to 20 times the exposure limit and workers were
exposed to other heavy metals, the agency said in a statement.

OSHA also issued five additional willful citations for failing to
conduct monitoring to assess employee exposure to lead, failing to
implement a lead compliance program or a respiratory protection
program for lead and for failing to provide training on lead and
asbestos hazards, as well as 10 serious violations, according to
the statement.

OSHA placed the company in its Severe Violator Enforcement
Program, which focuses resources on inspecting employers that,
according to the agency, have demonstrated indifference to their
Occupational Safety and Health Act obligations through willful,
repeated or failure-to-abate violations. OSHA previously cited the
shipyards, whose workers comp carrier is Arch Insurance Co. in
Jersey City, New Jersey, for exposing workers to asbestos hazards
in 2000 and for multiple lead violations in 1993, according to the
agency.

Fraser failed to identify and inform employees of the presence,
location and quantity of asbestos containing materials or presumed
asbestos-containing material despite having a written asbestos
compliance program, according to the agency.

Employees also performed demolition in several areas of a ship --
including cutting into piping and equipment -- unaware of the
presence of asbestos in areas where these activities took place.

The agency determined Fraser Shipyards' management knew of the
presence of lead and asbestos throughout the vessel, which was
built in 1959 and arrived at the shipyards in December 2015 for a
six-month retrofit project. The contract required the company to
meet specific deadlines to get the vessel back in service for the
summer iron ore shipping season, according to OSHA.

"Fraser Shipyards accepted a contract with a very low profit
margin and penalties for delayed completion, but could not meet
the schedule without endangering its workers," David Michaels,
assistant secretary of labor for Occupational Safety and Health,
said in a statement. "This employer was unwilling to pay the
necessary costs to protect employees from lead exposure. When
companies prioritize profits and deadlines over the health and
safety of their workforce, it is the workers who pay the price.
Law-breaking employers must be held accountable for their unlawful
behavior."

Fraser halted work as soon as it was alerted to high lead levels
and other concerns on the project and engaged medical experts from
two leading hospitals in the region and industrial safety experts
from the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers union to advise
the company and workers and to oversee health testing of workers,
according to an emailed statement.

The company also said it purchased state-of-the-art safety gear
and equipment to protect workers, including protective suits,
breathing equipment, air scrubbers, decontamination and changing
trailers and cleaning supplies.

Fraser also engaged medical professionals, OHSA and union
officials representing workers to develop and implement extensive
new safety procedures, including protections for how employees,
laborers and contractors prepare for work, conduct work and clean
up after work, the company said.

"We take the health and safety of our people and our community
seriously," James Farkas, president and chief operating officer of
Fraser Industries, which oversees Fraser Shipyards, said in the
statement. "We acted to protect our people as soon as we learned
of the problems. We have worked with all of our employees,
laborers and contractors to ensure their health by bringing in
medical experts as well as the highest levels of testing,
protective equipment and safe operating procedures. We strongly
disagree with OSHA's statement that any of the issues were caused
or worsened by business or profit motivations."

Fraser has requested a settlement conference with the agency,
according to a spokesman.

The insurer could not be immediately reached for comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Three Tonnes of Sheeting Dumped in Noosaville
--------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reported that more than three tonnes of asbestos roof
sheeting has been illegally dumped near a creek in Noosaville,
north of Brisbane.

The Noosa Shire Council believed the toxic material was most
likely dumped, near Eenie Creek Bridge, in the past three days.

It is calling for witnesses to come forward who saw anything
suspicious near the bridge between Eenie Creek Road and Walter Hay
Drive.

Councillor Joe Jurisevic said the asbestos could have put the
public at risk if disturbed.

"There was some protective clothing dumped with the roofing
material showing that the offenders obviously took steps to
protect themselves and were aware of the health implications of
dealing with the asbestos," he said.

"It's a shame they have not shown the same level of regard for the
safety of other residents or the environment.

"Fortunately the location, and the fact that the dumping was
quickly reported and cordoned off by our officers, alleviated any
immediate risk," he said.

"But this is still a very serious offence."

The council will be examining any evidence left at the scene and
working with Workplace Health and Safety Queensland to identify
the offender.

Those found guilty of dumping the asbestos could be fined more
than $120,000.

The area has been secured, with the council's clean-up and removal
bill estimated to cost $15,000.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Formed Relations with Asbestos Firms
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Madison County Record reported that Madison County associate
judge Donald Flack formed litigation relationships with two
national asbestos firms after taking the robe, according to his
annual statements of economic interest at the Illinois Supreme
Court.

His statements since 2013 have disclosed relationships with Baron
and Budd of Houston, Texas, and Simon, Eddins, and Greenstone of
Long Beach, Calif.

Flack didn't disclose them on the first statement he filed, in
2012.

All his statements have disclosed relationships with Thomas Q.
Keefe Jr. of Belleville, David R. Jones of Edwardsville,
Christopher Donohoo of East Alton, and the Perica law firm of Wood
River.

All his statements have disclosed an interest in "asbestos cases
filed by Flack law office or Perica law firm before 5/25/12," his
first day as judge.

His statements don't identify the parties or the courts in those
cases, nor do they specify the number of cases.

At least 30 of them remain active in Madison County, including
three that he filed after the announcement of his appointment as
associate judge.

Union Carbide has moved to dismiss all 30 for want of prosecution,
and associate judge Stephen Stobbs plans a hearing on Aug. 3, at 9
a.m.

Bob Perica took charge of the cases when Flack took the robe, and
the New York City firm of Napoli Shkolnick later replaced Perica.

Flack did not withdraw his appearances in any of the cases.

In every case but one he filed an attorney's lien, apparently
still in force.

His statements have disclosed litigation interests beyond
asbestos.

In 2012 and 2013, he listed Patterson v. Alton and Southern
Railway; Dhue v. Premier Holdings; Zimmer v. Mastercars; Salmond-
Williams v. Norman; Brown v. Scrap Solutions; Wilkinson v.
McDonald's; Harris v. Specialized Living Center and "McGee v. tree
stand mfr."

He did not specify the courts handling those cases.

In 2014, the list no longer included the cases of Patterson, McGee
and Dhue.

In 2015, the list no longer included the cases of Zimmer and
Harris.

This year's list no longer included the Salmond-Williams case,
leaving only Brown v. Scrap Solutions and Wilkinson v. McDonald's
as potential sources of income, as well as the asbestos cases.

Flack's current statement identifies the Perica firm as his wife's
employer, seasonal and part time.

Previous statements identified the firm as her employer, without
qualification.

The current statement identifies Flack's former firm, Korein
Tillery, as his son's employer from June to August last year.

The Supreme Court's statements of economic interest don't obligate
judges to report the amounts they receive from other sources.

The Secretary of State's office requires its own annual report,
with a box to check if a judge earned more than $1,200 from an
outside source.

Flack has checked the box every year.

The California firm he identified as Simon, Eddins, and Greenstone
currently identifies itself as Simon Eddins Panatier Bartlett.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fears Raised Over Mandurah Forum Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Hondros, writing for Mandurah Mail, reported that a
plumbing excavation worker on the Mandurah Forum redevelopment has
raised fears about asbestos on the site, saying he was kicked off
the job after complaining to superiors about safety.

Michael Bushell said he was asked not to come back to work about
three weeks ago after telling his employers he was unhappy with
asbestos pipes being broken up for removal and workers disposing
of the dangerous substance in plastic bags without safety
equipment.

He said he found the asbestos because he was one of the few
workers on the site with an asbestos removal ticket.

"All of the old pipes in the Forum are asbestos and some have been
smashed up to get it out of there easier," he said.

"I told them about it, so they got the asbestos guys over, and
he's just wearing his normal work clothes, no protective equipment
and stuck it in a plastic bag.

"There's a whole procedure you're supposed to go through and they
just didn't."

Mr Bushell, a full-time single father, said he filmed the worker
trying to pick up the asbestos and load it into a plastic bag
because he was worried about the risk of asbestosis.

"I'm just worried about other workers and customers that are still
walking around; I'd hate to see what's going on everywhere else,"
he said.

"If there are cases of asbestosis in Mandurah over the next 50
years, I reckon there's a good chance this is why."

Another worker had quit over the concerns, Mr Bushell said.

A spokesperson for Mandurah Forum said health and safety was the
utmost priority at Mandurah Forum.

"We believe that everyone who visits or works in our centres,
whether they be customers, team members, tenants or contractors,
has the right to go home safe and healthy," he said.

"Brookfield Multiplex, our main contractor, has confirmed that any
asbestos has been and will continue to be removed in accordance
with legislative requirements.

"A Worksafe inspector visited the site and is satisfied the
correct procedures are in place for the safe removal of asbestos."

Project plumbing contractor Cooke and Dowsett, the company Mr
Bushell's employer was contracted to, declined to comment.

A Worksafe spokesperson said an inspector had visited the site
following a complaint about asbestos removal and were satisfied
with the procedures in place.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man With Terminal Cancer Pleas for Legal Help
--------------------------------------------------------------
Messenger reported that a retired HGV driver is appealing for his
former colleagues' help after being diagnosed with terminal cancer
caused by exposure to asbestos.

Roger Bracegirdle, 69, from Timperley, believes he was exposed to
asbestos during work, which led to him developing mesothelioma.

The father-of-two spent six years working as a HGV driver at
George Bracegirdle & Sons Ltd, a company owned by his father and
his uncle.

During his time at the Partington-based company, from 1967 until
shortly before the company was dissolved in 1975, he spent time
collecting and loading pallets of asbestos insulation boards and
reels of asbestos sheeting from the Turner and Newall asbestos
cement warehouse.

Roger has now instructed expert asbestos-related disease lawyers
at Irwin Mitchell to investigate his exposure to the substance.

Roger, who has been married to his wife Susan for 45 years, said:
"I can't remember ever being given anything to protect me or being
warned of the risks asbestos posed to my health.

"My mesothelioma diagnosis came as a terrible shock for all of us
and I'm very concerned about what the future holds for me and my
family as my condition gets worse.

"The company was dissolved back in 1975 and we don't have records
of the insurers of the business, but I'm hoping that some of the
people who worked for the company will come forward with any
information they have about which company held the insurance."

Roger is now appealing to his former colleagues to come forward
and help provide information that could identify the insurer and
enable him to access compensation.

Dominic Hemsi, a Partner and specialist industrial disease lawyer
at Irwin Mitchell, said: "In these cases victims have to rely on
accessing compensation from insurance companies to help cover
their care costs, as well as providing financial security for
loved ones they will leave behind. This process can be extremely
difficult when companies have been dissolved for long periods of
time.

"Sadly, this is the case for Roger. Although he worked for a
family business he has been unable to find any details about the
insurer involved and we are now appealing to his former colleagues
for help in tracing the insurer to ensure Roger can access justice
and help provide for his future."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Case May Help York Victims
----------------------------------------------------
The Press reported that asbestos victims in York and North
Yorkshire could be helped in bids for compensation by a landmark
legal ruling, solicitors have claimed.

The ruling relates to a retired electrician who was exposed to
asbestos whilst working at Exeter University. Although most of his
asbestos exposure occurred earlier in his career, his lawyers,
Moore Blatch, calculated that his employment at the university
contributed 2.3 per cent toward his asbestosis.

It said the Court of Appeal had ruled that asbestosis sufferers
could be entitled to proportional compensation from as low as 2.3
per cent from negligent employers, based upon the number of years
worked.

The firm's asbestos disease lawyer John Hedley said: "This case
has broader significance and could impact on a large number of
other industrial disease and work related illness cases.

"There is no way of estimating the total number of cases that
could be affected, but it is reasonable to assume that it must be
substantial."

"This decision is very important and will influence other asbestos
cases.

"Whilst there is a long established principle around minimal
contributions to asbestos exposure by employers, this case helps
define what minimal actually means."

York has experienced an asbestos timebomb over the decades, with
many scores of former York Carriageworks employees contracting
asbestos-related diseases, such as asbestosis and the cancer
mesothelioma, many years after leaving the factory, and there have
been cases of others working at other factories and workplaces
across the city.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Asbestos Found at Co Tyrone Bonfire Site
----------------------------------------------------------------
Connla Young, writing for The Irish News, reported that
enrivornmental health workers were forced to remove potentially
deadly asbestos from a loyalist bonfire in Co Tyrone.

The hazardous material was removed form the pyre in Dungannon in
May after it was spotted by environment officials at the Killyman
Road bonfire site.

It is understood the asbestos was being stored on the site in
advance of an 'Eleventh night' bonfire.

A banned material, asbestos is one of the most toxic substances
used in construction, which causes around 5,000 deaths in Britain
and the north every year.

Although outlawed, asbestos can still be found in many buildings
built before 2000.

Under existing regulations it must be removed and disposed of
under strict supervision.

It is not known who dumped the potentially deadly substance at the
bonfire site.

Details of the find emerged after environment minister Michelle
McIlveen responded to a question from the SDLP's Patsy McGlone.

The Mid Ulster assembly member said the latest incident comes "at
a time when most people find bonfires and the noxious fumes they
put into the air a disgrace and a danger to public".

"Given all the health concerns about asbestos the placing in
jeopardy of people's lives in beyond a disgrace, it's a criminal
offence."

Mr McGlone criticised those responsible for dumping the asbestos.

"They are not only jeopardising people in that area, they are
putting themselves at risk, they are idiotic."

In the letter minister Ms McIlveen said her officials discovered
the suspected asbestos while doing routine work in the Dungannon
area.

After tests were carried out the substance was confirmed as
asbestos.

It was later removed and transported to a hazardous waste facility
at Mallusk, on the outskirts of north Belfast.

The DUP minister said the officials from Mid Ulster District
Council was also contacted and told about he asbestos find.



                            *********

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  * * *