CAR_Public/160909.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, September 9, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 181




                            Headlines


ABSOLUTE THAI: Faces "Villalva-Zeferino" Suit in S.D. of New York
AEROJET ROCKETDYNE: Plaintiff Drops Securities Class Suit
AFFORDABLE AUTO: Sued in Mass. Over Motor Vehicle Leases
AMERICAN HONDA: CR-Vs Have Noxious Oder, Chicago Suit Claims
AMERICAN RECOVERY: Faces "Kalkstein" Suit in S.D. of Florida

ANAVEX LIFE: Motion to Dismiss "Cortina" Action Pending
AR RESOURCES: Files Joint Bid to Certify "Kielbasinski" Class
ARS NATIONAL: Faces "Hess" Suit in Eastern District of New York
ASTRA HOME: "Shillingford" Suit Alleges NY Labor Laws Violations
BERNIE MORENO: Appeal Filed From Ruling in "Ransom" Class Suit

CANADA: EMDC Inmates' Class Action v. Ontario Can Proceed
CAVIAR INC: Faces "Rosen" Suit Alleging Cal. Labor Law Breach
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Awaits Court Ruling on "Ford" Case Settlement
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Mediation of Sinohui Lawsuit in October 2016
CECO ENVIRONMENTAL: PMFG Settlement Hearing Moved to September 14

CHADBOURNE & PARKE: Sued in N.Y. Over Gender Discrimination
CHIASMA INC: Defending Against "Gerneth" Class Action
CLECO CORPORATE: Sept. 15 Hearing on Case Dismissal Bid
CONFORMIS INC: Court Dismissed Securities Class Action Claims
CORAL TELL: Still Defends Class Action Over Phone Call Overages

CORRECTION CORP: Faces Securities Class Action in Tennessee
COVENTRY HEALTH: Williams Wants to Send Class Notice Via E-mail
CPI CARD: Preliminary Conference Set for September 15 in "Vance"
CVB FINANCIAL: Class Action Appeal Pending
CVB FINANCIAL: Service Manager's Class Suit in Discovery

CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR: Suit Over Merger Still Pending
DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces 1325 South Suit Over Appraisal Policies
DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces "Smith" Suit Over Appraisal Policies
DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces LAT Preston Suit Over Appraisal Policies
DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Market East Suit Over Appraisal Policies

DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces 1325 South Suit Over Appraisal Policies
DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Mitchell Suit Over Appraisal Policies
DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Park Lane Suit Over Appraisal Policies
DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Partners Suit Over Appraisal Policies
DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Paul Nobel Suit Over Appraisal Policies

DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Regency Suit Over Appraisal Policies
DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces US Regency Suit Over Appraisal Policies
DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Rouquette Suit Over Appraisal Policies
DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Santa Monica Suit Over Appraisal Policies
DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces SEPR Regency Suit Over Appraisal Policies

DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces "Kumar" Suit Over Appraisal Policies
DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces TPLP Office Suit Over Appraisal Policies
DAVID BOONE: Adams Seeks Certification of Consultants Class
DIVERSIFIED CONCRETE: Class Certification Sought in "Leon" Suit
ELECTRO RENT: Defending Against "Chaklos" Action in Los Angeles

ELECTRO RENT: Defending Against "Wadsworth" Action in C.D. Cal.
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Retired Players Support Davis' Bid to Certify
EPIQ SYSTEMS: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over OMERS Merger
FALCON FLOWBACK: Lyles Seeks to Certify Class of Flowback Hands
FIRST COMMONWEALTH: Parties in Talks on Definitive Settlement

FIRST TRINITY: FBLIC's Petition to Appeal Denied
FLOWERS FOODS: Oct. 11 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
FORD MOTOR: NHTSA Investigates SUVs After Gas Smell Complaints
FXCM INC: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Action
GENKI SUSHI: Starn O'Toole Files Class Action Over Hep-A Outbreak

GLOBAL CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Shterna" Suit Claims
GORIS GROCERS: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
GREEN SOLAR: Woodson, et al. Seeks Unpaid OT Under Labor Code
HALLIBURTON ENERGY: Biloxi City Council to File Oil Spill Claim
HALSTED FINANCIAL: Lopez Amends Bid to Certify Classes/Subclasses

HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: Discovery Ongoing in Securities Litigation
HARRIS COUNTY: Appraisal Dist. Over Property Assessed Value
JOHNSON CONTROLS: MOU Reached in Suit Over Tyco Deal
LINCOLN HERITAGE: Illegally Denies Insurance Claims, Action Says
LIQUIDITY SERVICES: Howard Seeks to Certify Class of Stockholders

LOS ANGELES, CA: Certification of Classes Sought in "Yagman" Suit
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Florez" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
MCGINNES: Polluted San Jacinto River, Houston Suit Claims
MEDICENTRE: November 30 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
NATERA INC: Plaintiffs' Bid to Remand Case Pending

NEOSTRATA COMPANY: "Horton" Class Suit Removed to S.D. California
NEWELL BRANDS: Settlement of Jarden Merger Suit Still Pending
NEWELL BRANDS: "Paree" Case Over Jarden Deal Remains Stayed
OCWEN LOAN: Abraham Seeks to Certify Pa., N.J. and FDCPA Classes
ONE GROUP: "Takahashi" Suit Seeks Relief Under Labor Code

PEACOCK PAINT: "Ulloa" Suit Alleges FLSA, NY Labor Law Violations
PFIZER INC: Deal Reached to Settle Celebrex and Bextra Claims
PFIZER INC: Bids to Dismiss End-Payer Plaintiffs' Claims Pending
PFIZER INC: Appeal in Zoloft Case Remains Pending
PFIZER INC: Viagra Product Liability Lawsuits Pending

PFIZER INC: Ontario Case Over Chantix/Champix Proceeding
PNC BANK: Certification of Two Classes Sought in "Muhammad" Suit
POPULAR INC: Discovery in "Valle" Action Underway
POPULAR INC: Settlement in Quiles Case Awaits Court OK
POPULAR INC: Motions to Dismiss "Fernandez" Case Still Pending

POPULAR INC: Court Okayed BPPR Settlement in RadioShack Case
PORSCHE AUTOMOBIL: VW's Dieselgate Scandal May Affect Stock Value
PPL CORPORATION: Discovery Schedule Through Q2 2017
QUANTUM SOLAR: Faces "Medrano" Suit in California Superior Court
REACHLOCAL INC: "Miranda" Suit Over Gannett Merger Pending

REACHLOCAL INC: To Defend Against "Casey" Suit Over Gannett Deal
REGULATORY TECHNOLOGY: Has Until Sept. 12 to Respond to Complaint
REMINGTON ARMS: Judge Defers Final Settlement Approval Until Feb.
RESOURCE ENERGY: Moresi Seeks to Certify Welders & Fitters Class
ROSE ACRE FARMS: Seeks to Decertify Purchasers Class in Egg MDL

RTG FURNITURE: Hankinson Seeks Certification of Three Classes
SAKUMA BROTHERS: Faces "Demetrio" Suit in W.D. of Washington
SEAS & ASSOCIATES: Stamer Amends Bid to Certify 3 TCPA Classes
SHERWOOD CITY, AR: Faces "Dade" Suit in E.D. of Arkansas
SNYDER'S-LANCE: $2.9MM Settlement in IBO Litigation Paid in Q2

SNYDER'S-LANCE: Briefing Schedule in Merger Deal Not Yet Set
SNYDER'S-LANCE: Mediation in Labor Suit Set for September 19
SOTHEBYS INC: Graham Files Appeal in Suit Seeking Royalty Fees
SOULCYCLE INC: Faces "Cavka" Suit Over Unlawful Consumer Contract
SPARK ENERGY: Discovery Has Not Commenced in "Melville" Case

SPARK ENERGY: Paid $0.5MM Related to "Amaya" Case
SPX CORPORATION: Certification of Class Sought in "Brass" Suit
STATE COLLECTION: Class Certification Sought in "Lawrence" Suit
SUBWAY IP: Faces "De Jesus" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SUNRUN INC: Continues to Defend Shareholder Actions over IPO

SWICK MINING: Faces "Russell" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA
TAMINCO US: Must Defend Against Suit Over Plant Emissions
TAMPA ELECTRIC: Parties to Enter Into Formal Settlement Agreement
THIRD AVENUE: Faces "Krasner" Suit in Delaware Court
TIVO INC: "Klein" and "Graham" Actions Pending in N.D. Cal.

TRANS ONE INC: Matthis Wants to Notify Class of Delivery Drivers
TRICO BANCSHARES: Parties Scheduling Mediation
TROPICAL SMOOTHIE: Faces Class Suit Over Hep A Outbreak
UNIT CORPORATION: Class Cert. Issues in Panola ISD Case Pending
UNITED SERVICES: Defense Attorneys Appeal Court Abuse Claims

US IMMIGRATION: "Zhang" Class Certification Bid Stayed
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Illegally Raises Drug Price, Suit Says
VALLEY CREDIT: Lisiecki Seeks Certification of Class in Wisconsin
VALVE CORP: Consumers Sue Over Alleged Gambling Law Violations
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Faces Legal Battle Outside U.S. Over Emissions

WALLACE RUSH: Faces "Thomas" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA
WATTS WATER: $14MM Settlement Awaits Court Approval
WORK OUT WORLD: Judge Dismisses TCPA Class Action
YELLOWSTONE CAPITAL: Faces "Cunningham" Suit in S.D. of Florida

* CFPB Says New Rule to Spur 1,200 More Class Actions A Year
* Employers Face Ongoing Threat of Class Wage-and-Hour Litigation


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Adopts Grant of "Hillyer" Summary Ruling
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Dismisses "Jansen"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pro Hac Vice Appearance in "McSwain" OK'd
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Estate of Uni Employee Cannot Pursue Benefits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Dismiss PI Claims vs. Cytec Granted

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Dismisses "Burt" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Waived Right to Enforce Notice
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wayne Mfg. Wins Bid to Dismiss "Fish"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5 Cos. Win Partial Summary Judgment
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3rd Circ. Flips Dismissal of Seamen Suits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: No New Trial in "Marquez," Cal. App. Says
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 6 NYCAL Suits Consolidated for Trial
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 7th Circ. Allows New Trial in "O'Malley"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Won't Review Denial of WR Grace Class Cert.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear's Liability Totals $507MM at June 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Continues to Receive Asbestos Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Still Defends Suits at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Had 6,480 Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: McDermott Continues to Defend Suits at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: McDermott Units Contribute Asbestos Insurance

ASBESTOS UPDATE: OI Inc. Continues to Defend Suits at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Developer Pleads Guilty to Asbestos Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Keizer Co. Fined for Asbestos Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Asbestos Review Sought for Brake Parts
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in 2nd Batch of Bldg Materials

ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Cases for Asbestos Scare Firm Yuanda
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bag With Asbestos Left in Hobsonville Road
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Removal Starts at Barwick Mills
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sentencing of Bolton Nightclub Moved to Oct.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family Appeals After Ex-Joiner Dies of Cancer

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Library Closes After Asbestos Find
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Firm Could Be Fined for Offenses
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Daughter of Asbestos Victim Appeals for Info
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parents Back Closure of School Due to Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cook Islands Need Help with Asbestos

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bondex Bankruptcy Trust Now Accpeting Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: George Moody Stuart School to Relocate
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Monitoring Improves Mesothelioma Diagnosis
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Broke Hall Primary Closed After Asbestos Scare
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Newport-Mesa Schools Refused Asbestos Reco

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Fined Over Asbestos Removal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ACMs Illegally Dumped in New Hampshire
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Valve Manufacturer Denied Summary Judgment
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WestConnex Asbestos Claims Investigated
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found at North Myrtle Beach High School

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wrexham Woman Continues Father's Asbestos Fight
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Victim Succeeds in Asbestos Claim


                            *********


ABSOLUTE THAI: Faces "Villalva-Zeferino" Suit in S.D. of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Absolute Thai NYC Inc. The case
is captioned Ponciano Villalva-Zeferino, individually and in
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Absolute Thai NYC Inc., doing business as: Absolute Thai jointly
and severally; Nitchamon Moramat, jointly and severally; and
Kimhan Phaetphian, jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-06627 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 23, 2016).

The Defendants operate a Thai Restaurant.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


AEROJET ROCKETDYNE: Plaintiff Drops Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the
plaintiff in the Securities Class Action filed a voluntary
dismissal of the complaint without prejudice.

On February 11, 2016, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court, Central District of California, by Juliann Travis,
purporting to represent a class of purchasers of the Company's
securities during the period from October 15, 2013 through
February 1, 2016, against the Company, Eileen Drake, Kathleen Redd
and Scott Seymour, Juliann Travis, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, v. Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings,
Inc., Eileen P. Drake, Kathleen E. Redd, and Scott J. Seymour,
Case No. 2:16-cv-00961. The complaint arose out of the
announcement of the restatement of the Company's financial
statements on February 1, 2016. The complaint asserted that the
Company's securities traded at artificially inflated prices as a
result of such misstatements and alleged various violations of and
related to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by the
defendants.

On May 20, 2016, the plaintiff filed a voluntary dismissal of the
complaint without prejudice. The Company had maintained the belief
that this action was without merit and intended to contest it
vigorously.


AFFORDABLE AUTO: Sued in Mass. Over Motor Vehicle Leases
--------------------------------------------------------
Sherill Valley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Affordable Auto Leasing, Inc., Case No. 16-2667 (Mass.
Cmmw. Ct., August 26, 2016), is brought on behalf of all persons
who entered into consumer motor vehicle leases with Defendant
containing one or more unlawful disclosures.

Affordable Auto Leasing, Inc. is engaged in leasing, offering to
lease, or arranging to lease personal property under a consumer
lease.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kenneth D. Quat, Esq.
      QUAT LAW OFFICES
      929 Worcester Rd.
      Framingham, MA 0170
      Telephone: (508) 872-1261
      E-mail: kquat@quatlaw.com

         - and -

      Deborah G. Roher, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF DEBORAH G. KOHL
      56 N. Main St. #413
      Fall River, MA 02720
      Telephone: (508) 672-1383
      E-mail: info@roherlaw.net


AMERICAN HONDA: CR-Vs Have Noxious Oder, Chicago Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that American Honda Motor Co.
knows its 2016 CR-Vs are prone filling with a noxious odor, but it
refuses to replace the defective vehicles and cannot repair the
problem, consumers claim in a federal class action in Chicago.
Honda allegedly suspects that the smell is coming from the
combination of "Midwest fuel detergents and the material that new
cars are made of."


AMERICAN RECOVERY: Faces "Kalkstein" Suit in S.D. of Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against American Recovery Systems, LLC.
The case is styled Erica Kalkstein, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. American Recovery
Systems, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 0:16-cv-62021-RNS (S.D.
Fla., Aug. 23, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Robert N. Scola,
Jr.

American Recovery operates as a collection agency.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jesse S Johnson, Esq.
          Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC
          5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 826 5477
          Facsimile: (561) 961 5684
          E-mail: jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Jordan Wagner, Esq.
          2400 East Commercial Blvd., Suite 820
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308
          Telephone: (954) 491 3277
          Facsimile: (954) 692 9186
          E-mail: jiw@jordanwagnerlaw.com

               - and -

          James Lee Davidson, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON PLLC
          5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 826 5477
          Facsimile: (561) 869 1919
          E-mail: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com


ANAVEX LIFE: Motion to Dismiss "Cortina" Action Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Anavex Life Sciences Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Defendants' motion
to dismiss a class action lawsuit by Kevin Cortina is pending
before the court for the Southern District of New York.

On December 30, 2015, Kevin Cortina filed a purported class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, Cortina v. Anaves Life Sciences Corp., et
al., Case No. 1:15-cv-10162, against the Company, Christopher
Missling, Sandra Boenisch, and Athanasios Skarpelos.  The
complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's stock between May 17, 2013 and December 28, 2015.  The
complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational, and compliance policies.  Among other things, the
complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose that it used
a paid stock promoter to artificially inflate the Company's share
price.  The complaint does not specify an amount of damages
sought.

On April 5, 2016 the court appointed Lam Truong as lead plaintiff
and Levi & Korsinsky to serve as lead counsel.  On April 13, 2016,
the court granted lead plaintiff thirty days to amend the
complaint and set a briefing schedule. Defendants filed a motion
to dismiss the complaint on June 13, 2016. The parties have fully
briefed this motion and it is currently pending before the court.

Defendants believe this action is meritless and deny all
allegations against them.  The Company intends to vigorously
defend this matter.


AR RESOURCES: Files Joint Bid to Certify "Kielbasinski" Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the lawsuit captioned THOMAS KIELBASINSKI; an
individual; on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. A.R. RESOURCES, INC., Case No. 3:15-cv-00066-KRG (W.D. Pa.),
jointly move the Court for an order certifying the case to proceed
as a class action and granting preliminary approval of their class
settlement agreement.  The Class consists of:

     All consumers in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to whom
     A.R. Resources, Inc. mailed a written communication, in
     connection with its attempt to collect a debt, which written
     communications included a statement that a $5.00 convenience
     fee would be added to all credit transactions, and which
     resulted in the consumer being charged such a fee, during a
     period beginning March 13, 2014, and ending October 31,
     2015.

The Plaintiff filed the Case pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, which alleges ARR violated the FDCPA by, inter
alia, mailing consumers collection letters that made false
representations concerning the nature character, amount of the
debt, and attempted to collect a $5 "convenience fee" for all
credit transactions, and which resulted in the consumer being
charged a fee.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=aRtXaXH6

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip D. Stern, Esq.
          Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
          STERN THOMASSON LLP
          150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Springfield, NJ 07081-1329
          Telephone: (973) 379-7500
          Facsimile: (973) 532-5868
          E-mail: philip@sternthomasson.com
                  andrew@sternthomasson.com

               - and -

          Craig Thor Kimmel, Esq.
          KIMMEL & SILVERMAN, P.C.
          30 East Butler Pike
          Ambler, PA 19002
          Telephone: (215) 540-8888
          Facsimile: (855) 540-8817
          E-mail: kimmel@creditlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Wendy Testa, Esq.
          Henry F. Canelo, Esq.
          Jonathan Dryer, Esq.
          WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER LLP
          2001 Market Street, Suite 3100
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 627-6900
          Facsimile: (215) 627-2665
          E-mail: wendy.testa@wilsonelser.com
                  henry.canelo@wilsonelser.com
                  jonathan.dryer@wilsonelser.com


ARS NATIONAL: Faces "Hess" Suit in Eastern District of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against ARS National Services, Inc. The
case is titled Bassheva Hess, on behalf of herself and all other
similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. ARS National
Services, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-04711 (E.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 23, 2016).

ARS is doing business in the accounts receivable management
industry.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


ASTRA HOME: "Shillingford" Suit Alleges NY Labor Laws Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELLA SHILLINGFORD, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. ASTRA HOME CARE, INC. d/b/a
"True Care Home Health Care," MICHAEL WERZBERGER, REBECCA
ROSENZWEIG, and JOHN DOES #1-10, Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-06785
(S.D.N.Y., August 29, 2016), was filed pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Wage Parity Act, the New York Labor Law and the
supporting New York State Department of Labor regulations.

Astra Home Care Inc. is a large-sized organization in the home
health care services industry located in Brooklyn, NY.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     William C. Rand, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM COUDERT RAND
     501 Fifth Avenue, 15th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 286-1425
     Fax: (646) 688-3078
     E-mail: wcrand@wcrand.com


BERNIE MORENO: Appeal Filed From Ruling in "Ransom" Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Norman Ransom filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Norman Ransom v. Bernie Moreno Companies, Case
No. 1:15-cv-01465, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio at Cleveland.

The Case arose from alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Norman Ransom v. Bernie Moreno
Companies, Case No. 16-3990, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit.

The Appellant's brief is due on October 11, 2016.  The Appellee's
brief is due on November 14, 2016.

Plaintiff-Appellant Norman Ransom, On behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Shannon Marie Draher, Esq.
          NILGES.DRAHER LLC
          4580 Stephen Circle, N.W., Suite 201
          Canton, OH 44718
          Telephone: (330) 433-6000
          E-mail: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee Bernie Moreno Companies is represented by:

          Ronald D. Holman, II, Esq.
          TAFT, STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP
          200 Public Square, Suite 3500
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 241-2838
          Facsimile: (216) 241-3707
          E-mail: rholman@taftlaw.com


CANADA: EMDC Inmates' Class Action v. Ontario Can Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action relating to the conditions of the Elgin-Middlesex
Detention Centre ("EMDC") was certified by the Honourable Justice
Grace of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on August 23, 2016.

In December 2013, McKenzie Lake Lawyers LLP filed a class
proceeding against Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario
alleging the conditions at EMDC are overcrowded, fraught with
violence, and violate sections 7 and 12 of the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms.

The class action includes all persons incarcerated at the EMDC
between January 1, 2010 and August 25, 2013, including those held
at the EMDC pending trial or other court appearance.

Among the issues the court approved for determination at trial are
whether the Defendant breached a duty of care in how it operated
and managed the EMDC, whether their actions violate the Charter,
and whether this is an appropriate case for aggregate damages.

Kevin Egan -- egan@mckenzielake.com -- a partner with McKenzie
Lake Lawyers LLP who spearheaded the action said, "We are very
pleased that individuals who were exposed to the conditions at
EMDC will be allowed to go forward with their claims on a class
basis.  We look forward to the next steps in this litigation."

It is too early at this stage to quantify the claims of class
members if the action is successful, but it is anticipated the
amounts will be significant.  Anyone who has been incarcerated in
the EMDC during the class period or afterwards is encouraged to
visit www.mckenzielake.com and/or call 1-855-772-3556 at which you
can leave a message to which we will endeavor to reply as soon as
possible.


CAVIAR INC: Faces "Rosen" Suit Alleging Cal. Labor Law Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
NADEZHDA ROSEN and LA'DELL BREWSTER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CAVIAR, INC. d/b/a
TRY CAVIAR, Defendant, Case 3:16-cv-04953 (N.D. Cal., August 29,
2016), alleges various wage and hour laws, including California
Labor Code and California Business & Professions Code.

Try Caviar is a company that provides food delivery services for
restaurants.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Michael Freedman, Esq.
     LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
     466 Geary Street, Suite 201
     San Francisco, CA 94102
     Phone: (415) 630-2651
     E-mail: mfreedman@llrlaw.com

        - and -

     Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
     Jill Kahn, Esq.
     LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
     729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
     Boston, MA 02116
     Phone: (617) 994-5800
     E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
             jkahn@llrlaw.com


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Awaits Court Ruling on "Ford" Case Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Richard Seeborg held a hearing on Aug. 11, 2016, on the
Motion for Settlement Final Approval of Class Action Settlement
filed by Francesca Ford in the case, Ford v. CEC Entertainment,
Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-01420 (N.D. Cal.), and the parties await
the Court's ruling on the matter.

CEC Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that former CEC employee
Franchesca Ford filed on January 27, 2014, a purported class
action lawsuit against the Company in San Francisco County
Superior Court, California (the "Ford Litigation"). The plaintiff
claims to represent other similarly-situated hourly non-exempt
employees and former employees of the Company in California who
were employed from January 27, 2010 to the present, and she
alleges violations of California state wage and hour laws.

In March 2014, the Company removed the Ford Litigation to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco Division, and subsequently defeated the plaintiff's
motion to remand the case to California state court.

In May 2015, the parties reached an agreement to settle the
lawsuit on a class-wide basis. The settlement would result in the
plaintiffs' dismissal of all claims asserted in the action, as
well as certain related but unasserted claims, and grant of
complete releases, in exchange for the Company's settlement
payment.

On March 24, 2016, the Court issued an order granting preliminary
approval of the class settlement and setting a final approval
hearing regarding the settlement for August 2016. The settlement
of this action will not have a material adverse effect on our
results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital
resources.


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Mediation of Sinohui Lawsuit in October 2016
---------------------------------------------------------------
CEC Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the parties have
scheduled mediation of the Richard Sinohui lawsuit for October
2016.

On October 10, 2014, former store General Manager Richard Sinohui
filed a purported class action lawsuit against the Company in the
Superior Court of California, Riverside County (the "Sinohui
Litigation"), claiming to represent other similarly-situated
current and former General Managers of the Company in California
during the period October 10, 2010 to the present.

The lawsuit sought an unspecified amount in damages and to certify
a class based on allegations that CEC wrongfully classified
current and former California General Managers as exempt from
overtime protections; that such General Managers worked more than
40 hours a week without overtime premium pay, paid rest periods,
and paid meal periods; and that the Company failed to provide
accurate itemized wage statements or to pay timely wages upon
separation from employment, in violation of the California Labor
Code, California Business and Professions Code, and the applicable
Wage Order issued by the California Industrial Welfare Commission.
The plaintiff also alleged that the Company failed to reimburse
General Managers for certain business expenses, including for
personal cell phone usage and mileage, in violation of the
California Labor Code; he also asserted a claim for civil
penalties under the California Private Attorneys General Act
("PAGA").

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

On June 14, 2016, the Court dismissed Sinohui's PAGA claim. The
parties have scheduled mediation of the Sinohui lawsuit for
October 2016. If the parties are unable to resolve the case at
mediation, trial is currently scheduled for June 2017.

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


CECO ENVIRONMENTAL: PMFG Settlement Hearing Moved to September 14
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CECO Environmental Corp.  said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the hearing for final
approval of the proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit over
the Company's acquisition of PMFG, Inc., has been rescheduled for
September 14, 2016.

The Company completed the acquisition of PMFG, Inc. on September
3, 2015.

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

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

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

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

On May 11, 2016, the Court entered an order preliminarily
approving the proposed settlement and setting a hearing on July
13, 2016 during which it would consider whether to enter an order
granting final approval of the proposed settlement, which hearing
was subsequently rescheduled for September 14, 2016.


CHADBOURNE & PARKE: Sued in N.Y. Over Gender Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------
Josh Russell, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
mirroring recent backlash against Fox News, the legal giant
Chadbourne & Parke faces a federal class action in Manhattan that
says the firm is run by an "all-male dictatorship."

"Even in a field where inequities between male and female
attorneys persist, Chadbourne stands out for its culture of
discrimination against female attorneys," the complaint filed on
August 31, states.

Kerrie Campbell, a Maryland-based attorney who filed the lawsuit,
says Chadbourne hired her as a lateral partner in 2014 and she
quickly began generating millions for the international law firm.

"Campbell's productivity and revenue generation have been
consistent with the firm's top performing male partners but her
pay consistently places her at the bottom ranks of male partners
who have originated far less, and in some instances, zero revenue
as a billing partner," the complaint states. "Campbell has called
out and opposed gender-based pay and power inequities at
Chadbourne and asked the firm's all-male five-member management
committee, managing partner, and head of the litigation department
to address and rectify these issues."

On the heels of her complaints, Chadbourne says Campbell gave her
the ax on Feb. 19, 2016.

The firm called Campbell's $100 million class action meritless.

"Chadbourne is proud of its commitment to firm diversity at all
levels, and will fight Ms. Campbell's attempt to distort the
firm's record for her personal gain," the firm said in a
statement.

Noting that it "categorically denies" every charge in the
complaint, the firm called Campbell's complaint "riddled with
falsehoods.

"Once the facts are fully presented, the firm is confident that
her allegations will be shown to be completely baseless," the
statement concludes.

Campbell meanwhile says the facts are clear.

She notes that "Chadbourne is conspicuously absent from both the
National Law Journal's list of the top 100 law firms on its most
recent 'Women in Law Scorecard' and Law360's most recent list of
100 large law firms recognized for being 'Best Law Firms for
Female Attorneys.'"

"Female partners at Chadbourne regularly receive less compensation
than similarly-situated male partners," the complaint states.
"This pay disparity is the direct result of Chadbourne's male-
dominated firm leadership. Women in the partnership at Chadbourne
earn less than men and are virtually shut out of influential
decision-making positions at the firm."

Indeed "the 114-year-old firm only recently elected its first
female partner to the management committee in July 2016 -- after
Campbell filed a class charge of discrimination with the EEOC."

Having been fired in February, Campbell notes that she never got
to benefit from this woman's leadership.

"Throughout the relevant time period, a committee of five men in
Chadbourne's New York office made all compensation decisions for
each and every Chadbourne partner worldwide," the complaint
states. "Together, these five men made up Chadbourne's management
committee, a centralized brotherhood with complete control over
partner compensation."

Campbell hopes to represent a class of "other female partners who
have been disparately underpaid, systematically shut out of firm
leadership, demoted, de-equitized and terminated."

"Chadbourne's all-male dictatorship makes its decisions regarding
firm partners in a black box, generally without input or scrutiny
from the partnership at large," the complaint states.

Complaining about the secrecy by which the committee operates,
Campbell says a "wall of silence reinforces the firm's glass
ceiling by shielding the management committee from meaningful
oversight and giving it unchecked dominion over the compensation
and employment of firm partners."

As described in the class action, Chadbourne uses an arbitrary
point-based system to keep its female partners underpaid.

"Partnership points are supposed to be tied to the anticipated
revenues that a partner will generate for the firm, or
'collections,'" the complaint states. "However, the management
committee routinely overvalues the anticipated contributions of
male partners, even where female partners have a demonstrated
record of outperforming them. Point allocation is left entirely to
the subjective will of the management committee."

Campbell learned that women get less points than men at Chadbourne
right away.

While similarly or less productive male partners earned points in
the 1,000-1,400 range, according to the complaint, Campbell says
she was awarded just 500 points at her hiring.

"From her first day at the firm, the deck was stacked against
Campbell," the complaint states. "She was destined to make two to
three times less than her male counterparts did."




Campbell notes that 20 nonpartner attorneys left the firm in a
two-year period from January 2014 through December 2015, and 17 of
these attorneys were women.

Chadbourne meanwhile says its "commitment to the advancement of
women dates back over fifty years, when the firm elected its first
female partner in 1964 -- at a time when such promotions were
extremely rare."

"Female equity partners have served and currently serve on the
firm's management committee, as practice group leaders, and as
managing partners of various firm offices," Chadbourne added.

In May 2016, Chadbourne Parke agreed to a pay $35 million class
action settlement to victims of R. Allen Stanford's $7 billion
Ponzi scheme.

Campbell is represented by Jeremy Heisler --
jheisler@sanfordheisler.com -- at Sanford Heisler.


CHIASMA INC: Defending Against "Gerneth" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Chiasma, Inc. is defending against the "Gerneth" class action
lawsuit, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016.

The Company said, "On June 9, 2016, Chiasma, Inc. and certain of
our officers were named as defendants in a purported federal
securities class action lawsuit filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, styled Gerneth
v. Chiasma, Inc., et al. This lawsuit challenges our public
statements regarding our Phase 3 clinical trial methodology for
Mycapssa (octreotide) capsules and our ability to obtain FDA
approval for the marketing and sale of Mycapssa, in violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The plaintiff
seeks to represent a class consisting of all purchasers of our
common stock from July 15, 2015 to April 17, 2016."

"We believe this lawsuit is meritless and intend to vigorously
defend against it. At this time, no assessment can be made as to
the likely outcome of this lawsuit or whether the outcome will be
material to us."


CLECO CORPORATE: Sept. 15 Hearing on Case Dismissal Bid
-------------------------------------------------------
CLECO Corporate Holdings LLC, and CLECO Power LLC said in their
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on August 11, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016,
that a hearing is set for September 15, 2016, on Cleco' exceptions
seeking dismissal of the plaintiffs' Third Consolidated Amended
Verified Derivative Petition for Damages and Preliminary and
Permanent Injunction.

In connection with the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of
October 17, 2014, by and among Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, and
Cleco Corporation, four actions were filed in the Ninth Judicial
District Court for Rapides Parish, Louisiana and three actions
were filed in the Civil District Court for Orleans Parish,
Louisiana.

The petitions in each action generally alleged, among other
things, that the members of Cleco Corporation's Board of Directors
breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, conducting
an allegedly inadequate sale process, agreeing to the Merger at a
price that allegedly undervalued Cleco, and failing to disclose
material information about the Merger. The petitions also alleged
that Cleco Partners, Cleco Corporation, Merger Sub, and in some
cases, certain of the investors in Cleco Partners, either aided
and abetted or entered into a civil conspiracy to advance those
supposed breaches of duty. The petitions seek various remedies,
including monetary damages, which includes attorneys' fees and
expenses.

The four actions filed in the Ninth Judicial District Court for
Rapides Parish are captioned as follows:

     * Braunstein v. Cleco Corporation, No. 251,383B (filed
October 27, 2014),

     * Moore v. Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets, No.
251,417C (filed October 30, 2014),

     * Trahan v. Williamson, No. 251,456C (filed November 5,
2014), and

     * L'Herisson v. Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets, No.
251,515F (filed November 14, 2014).

On November 14, 2014, the plaintiff in the Braunstein action moved
for a dismissal of the action without prejudice, and that motion
was granted on November 19, 2014.

On December 3, 2014, the Court consolidated the remaining three
actions and appointed interim co-lead counsel. On December 18,
2014, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a
Consolidated Amended Verified Derivative and Class Action Petition
for Damages and Preliminary and Permanent Injunction (the
Consolidated Amended Petition).

The consolidated action named Cleco Corporation, its directors,
Cleco Partners, and Merger Sub as defendants. The Consolidated
Amended Petition alleged, among other things, that Cleco
Corporation's directors breached their fiduciary duties to Cleco's
shareholders and grossly mismanaged Cleco by approving the Merger
Agreement because it allegedly did not value Cleco adequately,
failing to structure a process through which shareholder value
would be maximized, engaging in self-dealing by ignoring conflicts
of interest, and failing to disclose material information about
the Merger. The Consolidated Amended Petition further alleged that
all defendants conspired to commit the breaches of fiduciary duty.
Cleco believes that the allegations of the Consolidated Amended
Petition are without merit and that it has substantial meritorious
defenses to the claims set forth in the Consolidated Amended
Petition.

The three actions filed in the Civil District Court for Orleans
Parish are captioned as follows:

     * Butler v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-10776 (filed November
7, 2014),

     * Creative Life Services, Inc. v. Cleco Corporation, No.
2014-11098 (filed November 19, 2014), and

     * Cashen v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-11236 (filed November
21, 2014).

Both the Butler and Cashen actions name Cleco Corporation, its
directors, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, Macquarie Infrastructure
and Real Assets Inc. (MIRA), British Columbia Investment
Management Corporation, and John Hancock Financial as defendants.
The Creative Life Services action names Cleco Corporation, its
directors, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, MIRA, and Macquarie
Infrastructure Partners III, L.P., as defendants. On December 11,
2014, the plaintiff in the Butler action filed an Amended Class
Action Petition for Damages.

Each petition alleged, among other things, that the members of
Cleco Corporation's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary
duties to Cleco's shareholders by approving the Merger Agreement
because it allegedly did not value Cleco adequately, failing to
structure a process through which shareholder value would be
maximized and engaging in self-dealing by ignoring conflicts of
interest. The Butler and Creative Life Services petitions also
alleged that the directors breached their fiduciary duties by
failing to disclose material information about the Merger. Each
petition further alleged that Cleco, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub,
and certain of the investors in Cleco Partners aided and abetted
the directors' breaches of fiduciary duty.

On December 23, 2014, the directors and Cleco filed declinatory
exceptions in each action on the basis that each action was
improperly brought in Orleans Parish and should either be
transferred to the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides
Parish or dismissed. On December 30, 2014, the plaintiffs in each
action jointly filed a motion to consolidate the three actions
pending in Orleans Parish and to appoint interim co-lead
plaintiffs and co-lead counsel.

On January 23, 2015, the Court in the Creative Life Services case
sustained the defendants' declinatory exceptions and dismissed the
case so that it could be transferred to the Ninth Judicial
District Court for Rapides Parish. On February 5, 2015, the
plaintiffs in Butler and Cashen also consented to the dismissal of
their cases from Orleans Parish so they could be transferred to
the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish.

On February 25, 2015, the Ninth Judicial District Court for
Rapides Parish held a hearing on a motion for preliminary
injunction filed by plaintiffs Moore, L'Herisson, and Trahan
seeking to enjoin the shareholder vote at the Special Meeting of
Shareholders held on February 26, 2015, for approval of the Merger
Agreement. Following the hearing, the Court denied the plaintiffs'
motion.

On June 19, 2015, three of the plaintiffs filed their Second
Consolidated Amended Verified Derivative and Class Action
Petition. This will be considered according to a schedule
established by the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides
Parish. Cleco filed exceptions seeking dismissal of the amended
petition on July 24, 2015.

Cleco believes that the allegations of the petitions in each
action are without merit and that it has substantial meritorious
defenses to the claims set forth in each of the petitions.

On March 21, 2016, plaintiffs filed their Third Consolidated
Amended Verified Derivative Petition for Damages and Preliminary
and Permanent Injunction. On May 13, 2016, the plaintiffs filed
their Fourth Verified Consolidated Amended Class Action Petition.
This petition eliminated the request for preliminary and permanent
injunction and also named an additional executive officer as a
defendant. Cleco filed exceptions seeking dismissal of the amended
Petition and a hearing is set for September 15, 2016.


CONFORMIS INC: Court Dismissed Securities Class Action Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
ConforMIS, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts has dismissed all
of the claims of the consolidated amended complaint in a
securities class action.

The Company said, "On September 3, 2015, a purported securities
class action lawsuit was filed against us, our chief executive
officer, and chief financial officer in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts.  The complaint was
brought on behalf of an alleged class of those who purchased our
common stock in connection with our initial public offering or on
the open market between July 1, 2015 and August 28, 2015, which we
refer to as the class period."

"On January 11, 2016, a consolidated amended complaint was filed
purporting to allege claims arising under Sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, including allegations that our stock was
artificially inflated during the class period because the
defendants allegedly made misrepresentations or did not make
proper disclosures regarding our manufacturing process prior to
our voluntary recall of specific serial numbers of patient-
specific instrumentation for certain of our knee replacement
product systems. The complaint sought, among other relief,
certification of the class, unspecified compensatory damages,
interest, attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs.

"On March 18 2016, we filed a motion to dismiss all of the claims
of the consolidated amended complaint.  On August 3, 2016, the
court granted our motion to dismiss in its entirety, denied the
plaintiffs' request to replead their allegations, and dismissed
the lawsuit.

"We do not know at this time whether the plaintiffs will appeal
the court's decision, and there can be no assurance that we would
be successful either in an appeal proceeding, or, if such a
proceeding ends adversely to us, in any subsequent court
proceeding.  An adverse outcome of the lawsuit could have a
material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or
results of operations. We are presently unable to predict the
outcome of the lawsuit or to reasonably estimate a range of
potential losses, if any, related to the lawsuit.  Additional
complaints also may be filed against us and our directors and
officers related to our voluntary recall of specific serial
numbers of patient-specific instrumentation for our iUni, iDuo,
iTotal CR and iTotal PS knee replacement product systems."


CORAL TELL: Still Defends Class Action Over Phone Call Overages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Coral Tell Ltd. remains a defendant in a class action lawsuit
regarding phone call overages, Digital Turbine, Inc. said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016.

Digital Turbine said, "On May 30, 2013, a class action suit in the
amount of NIS 19,200,000, or approximately $5,300,000, was filed
in the Tel-Aviv Jaffa District Court against Coral Tell Ltd., an
Israeli company that owns and operates a website offering
advertisements. Coral Tell Ltd. is currently being sued in a class
action lawsuit regarding phone call overages, and has served a
third-party notice against Logia and two additional companies for
our alleged involvement in facilitating the overages. The suit
relates to a service offered by the Coral Tell website, enabling
advertisers to display a virtual cellular number in the
advertisement instead of their real cellular number. The plaintiff
claims that calls were charged for the connection time between two
segments of the call, instead of the second segment alone; that
the caller was charged even if the advertiser did not answer the
call (as the charge began upon initiation of the first segment);
and that the caller was charged for text messages sent to the
advertiser, although the service did not support delivery of text
messages.

"We have no contractual relationship with this company. We believe
the lawsuit is without merit and a finding of liability on our
part remote. After conferring with advisors and counsel,
management believes that the ultimate liability, if any, in
aggregate will not be material to the financial position or
results or operations of the Company for any future period."

The Company does not believe there is a probable and estimable
claim. Accordingly, the Company has not accrued any liability.


CORRECTION CORP: Faces Securities Class Action in Tennessee
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Aug. 23 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Correction Corporation of America ("CCA" or the
"Company") and certain of its officers.  The class action, filed
in United States District Court, Middle District of Tennessee, is
on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired CCA securities between February
27, 2012 and August 17, 2016 both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period").  This class action seeks to recover damages against
Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased CCA securities during the
Class Period, you have until October 24, 2016 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, ext. 9980.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of
shares purchased.

CCA, together with its subsidiaries, owns and operates privatized
correctional and detention facilities in the United States.  The
Company owns, operates, and manages prisons and other correctional
facilities, and provides inmate residential and prisoner
transportation services for governmental agencies.  As of 2015,
CCA was the largest private corrections company in the United
States, and manages more than 65 correction and detention
facilities in 19 states and the District of Columbia.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) CCA's facilities lacked
adequate safety and security standards and were less efficient at
offering correctional services than the Federal Bureau of Prisons'
("BOP") facilities; (ii) CCA's rehabilitative services for inmates
were less effective than those provided by BOP; (iii)
consequently, the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") was unlikely
to renew and/or extend its contracts with CCA; and (iv) as a
result of the foregoing, CCA's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

On August 18, 2016, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates announced
the DOJ's decision to end its use of private prisons, including
those operated by CCA, after officials concluded that the
facilities are both less safe and less effective at providing
correctional services than those run by the federal government.

On this news, CCA's share price fell $9.65, or 39.45%, to close at
$17.57 on August 18, 2016.

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


COVENTRY HEALTH: Williams Wants to Send Class Notice Via E-mail
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled MIA WILLIAMS, individually
and on Behalf of all others similarly situated v. COVENTRY HEALTH
CARE OF FLORIDA, INC., Case No. 6:16-cv-00731-GKS-TBS (M.D. Fla.),
file with the Court their position statement regarding notice to
similarly situated employees regarding the collective action.

Mia Williams filed a complaint seeking unpaid overtime payments
for herself, and her similarly situated co-workers.  The parties
filed a Stipulated Motion for Conditional Class Certification and
Court-Authorized Notice on August 31, 2016.  The purpose of this
Motion is to allow similarly situated co-workers to receive Court-
approved notice of the lawsuit and be given information on how to
join the action.

The parties agree that proposed NOTICE OF LAWSUIT REGARDING
POTENTIAL OVERTIME WAGES and CONSENT TO BECOME PARTY PLAINTIFF IN
THE COLLECTIVE ACTION FOR UNPAID OVERTIME WAGES should be sent to
the putative class via First Class United States Mail.  However,
the Plaintiffs believe the Notice should also be sent to the
putative class members via e-mail, with the e-mail address
supplied by the Defendant, at the same time that the Notice is
mailed via First Class Mail.  The parties requested leave to file
"Position Statements" regarding their respective positions on the
appropriateness of using e-mail to convey Notice and Consent to
the putative class.

The Plaintiffs believe that sending the notice out to the Putative
Plaintiffs via e-mail, in addition to US. Mail, is appropriate as
it helps assure that the potential plaintiffs receive notice of
this lawsuit, is inexpensive and cost effective, it promotes
judicial economy, and is not burdensome on the Defendants.

Hence, the Plaintiffs urge the Court to adopt the proposed Notice
of Lawsuit Regarding Potential Overtime Wages and Opt-in Form, to
allow the Plaintiffs to e-mail Notice of Lawsuit Regarding
Potential Overtime Wages and Opt-In Form to all putative opt-ins
in addition to serve by US Mail, and to require the Defendants to
provide to the Plaintiff's counsel e-mail addresses for social
workers/long term case managers as to the Plaintiff attorney
within 10 days of the entry of the order for the purpose of e-
mailing the proposed opt in forms.

A copy of the Statement is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=djoiJ5Zy

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John C. Davis, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOHN C. DAVIS
          623 Beard Street
          Tallahassee, FL 32303
          Telephone: (850) 222-4770
          E-mail: john@johndavislaw.net

               - and -

          Sean Culliton, Esq.
          SEAN CULLITON, ESQ., LLC
          150 John Knox Road
          Tallahassee, FL 32303
          Telephone: (850) 385-9455
          E-mail: Sean.culliton@gmail.com

               - and -

          Jeremiah J. Talbott
          LAW OFFICE OF JEREMIAH J. TALBOTT, P.A.
          900 East Moreno Street
          Pensacola, FL 32503
          Telephone: (850) 437-9600
          E-mail: jj@talbottlawfirm.com


CPI CARD: Preliminary Conference Set for September 15 in "Vance"
----------------------------------------------------------------
CPI Card Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Court has scheduled
a preliminary conference for September 15, 2016, in the case,
Vance, et al. v. CPI Card Group Inc., et al. and Chipman, et al.
v. CPI Card Group Inc.

On June 15, 2016, two purported CPI shareholders filed putative
class action lawsuits captioned Vance, et al. v. CPI Card Group
Inc., et al. and Chipman, et al. v. CPI Card Group Inc., in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against CPI and certain of its officers and directors, along with
the sponsors of and the financial institutions who served as
underwriters for CPI's October 2015 IPO. The complaints,
purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of CPI common
stock pursuant to the October 8, 2015 Registration Statement
issued in connection with the IPO, assert claims under Sec.11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and seek,
among other things, damages and costs. In particular, the
complaints allege that the Registration Statement contained false
or misleading statements or omissions regarding CPI's customers'
(i) purchases of Europay, MasterCard, and VISA chip cards
(collectively, "EMV cards") during the first half of fiscal year
2015 and resulting EMV card inventory levels, and (ii)  capacity
to purchase additional EMV cards in the fourth quarter of fiscal
year 2015, the remainder of the fiscal year ending December 31,
2015, and the fiscal year ending December 31, 2016. The complaints
allege that these actions artificially inflated the price of CPI
common stock issued pursuant to the IPO.

On July 13, 2016, the parties submitted a stipulation and proposed
order to the Court that, subject to the Court's approval, will
consolidate the Vance and Chipman actions and provide for a
schedule for the consolidated case following the appointment of
lead plaintiff and lead counsel pursuant the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act. The Court has scheduled a preliminary
conference for September 15, 2016.

CPI believes these claims are without merit and intends to defend
these suits vigorously.


CVB FINANCIAL: Class Action Appeal Pending
------------------------------------------
CVB Financial Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a scheduling conference
with respect to discovery was set for July 25, 2016, in a class
action appeal.

A purported shareholder class action complaint was filed against
the Company on August 23, 2010, in an action captioned Lloyd v.
CVB Financial Corp., et al., Case No. CV 10-06256- MMM, in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California. Along with the Company, Christopher D. Myers (our
President and Chief Executive Officer) and Edward J. Biebrich, Jr.
(our former Chief Financial Officer) were also named as
defendants.

On September 14, 2010, a second purported shareholder class action
complaint was filed against the Company, in an action originally
captioned Englund v. CVB Financial Corp., et al., Case No. CV 10-
06815-RGK, in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California. The Englund complaint named the same
defendants as the Lloyd complaint and made allegations
substantially similar to those included in the Lloyd complaint.

On January 21, 2011, the District Court consolidated the two
actions for all purposes under the Lloyd action, now captioned as
Case No. CV 10-06256-MMM (PJWx). At the same time, the District
Court also appointed the Jacksonville Police and Fire Pension Fund
(the "Jacksonville Fund") as lead plaintiff in the consolidated
action and approved the Jacksonville Fund's selection of lead
counsel for the plaintiffs in the consolidated action.

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

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

On October 24, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of
the District Court's final order of dismissal with the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Following the filing of
appellate briefs by the respective parties, the Court of Appeals
conducted a hearing and oral argument in the case on December 10,
2015. On February 1, 2016, the Court of Appeals issued its
decision in the case. The Ninth Circuit opinion affirmed the
district court's decision in part, reversed it in part and
remanded the case for further proceedings in the District Court.

Following remand of the case to the District Court, we expect to
undertake discovery and motion practice with respect to the
remaining claims of the plaintiffs which survived the appeal. The
District Court held an initial status conference in the case on
May 23, 2016, at which the defendants were directed to file an
answer to the remaining claims in the plaintiffs' complaint and a
scheduling conference with respect to discovery was set for July
25, 2016.

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


CVB FINANCIAL: Service Manager's Class Suit in Discovery
--------------------------------------------------------
CVB Financial Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the parties in a class
action lawsuit are engaged in discovery.

A former employee and branch-based service manager filed a
complaint against the Company, on December 29, 2014, in an action
entitled Glenda Morgan v. Citizens Business Bank, et al., Case No.
BC568004, in the Superior Court for Los Angeles County,
individually and on behalf of the Company's branch-based employees
and managers who are classified as "exempt" under California and
federal employment laws. The case is styled as a putative class
action lawsuit and alleges, among other things, that (i) the
Company misclassified certain employees and managers as "exempt"
employees, (ii) the Company violated California's wage and hour,
overtime, meal break and rest break rules and regulations, (iii)
certain employees did not receive proper expense reimbursements,
(iv) the Company did not maintain accurate and complete payroll
records, and (v) the Company engaged in unfair business practices.

On February 11, 2015, the same law firm representing Morgan filed
a second complaint, entitled Jessica Osuna v. Citizens Business
Bank, et al., Case No. CIVDS1501781, in the Superior Court for San
Bernardino County, alleging wage and hour claims on behalf of the
Company's "non-exempt" hourly employees. On April 6, 2015, these
two cases were consolidated in a first amended complaint in Los
Angeles County Superior Court. The first amended complaint sought
class certification, the appointment of the plaintiffs as class
representatives, and an unspecified amount of damages and
penalties.

On May 11, 2015, the Company filed its answer to the first amended
complaint denying all allegations regarding the plaintiffs' claims
and asserting various defenses. On May 24, 2016, the Company was
served with a second amended complaint which, among other things,
added a third and more recently-employed former employee, Theresa
Ruiz, as one of the named plaintiffs in the action.

The parties are currently engaged in discovery, and the filing of
briefs by the parties in connection with the class certification
motion is not presently expected to commence until at least March
the summer of 2017. The Company intends to vigorously contest both
(x) certification of the class action as well as (y) the
substantive merits of the plaintiffs' claims.


CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR: Suit Over Merger Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Cypress Semiconductor Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the
Company is defending against a class action lawsuit realted to the
merger with Spansion Inc.

On March 12, 2015, the Company completed the merger ("Merger")
with Spansion Inc. ("Spansion") pursuant to the Agreement and Plan
of Merger and Reorganization, as of December 1, 2014 (the "Merger
Agreement"), for a total consideration of approximately $2.8
billion. Consequently, the financial condition and results of
operations includes the financial results of legacy Spansion
beginning March 12, 2015.  The comparability of our results for
the six months ended July 3, 2016 to the same periods in fiscal
2015 is significantly impacted by the Merger.

The Company said, "After our announcement of the merger between
the Company and Spansion Inc. in December 2014, two separate
putative class action complaints (Walter Jeter v. Spansion Inc.,
et. al. (No. 114-cv-274635) and Shiva Y. Stein v. Spansion Inc.,
el. al. (No. 114-cv-274924)) were filed in Santa Clara County
Superior Court in December 2014, alleging claims of breach of
fiduciary duty against Spansion's board of directors and naming
Cypress as a defendant for aiding and abetting the alleged breach
of fiduciary duty.

While Cypress believes these lawsuits to be meritless, Spansion
and Cypress entered into a memorandum of understanding with
plaintiffs, the terms of which required additional disclosures by
the Company and payment of nominal attorneys' fees to the class
counsel. Final resolution of these litigations will require court
approval of a final settlement agreement.  Due to the current
stage of the proceedings, the Company cannot reasonably estimate
the loss or the range of possible loss, if any."


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces 1325 South Suit Over Appraisal Policies
-------------------------------------------------------------
1325 South Lamar Hotel, LP v. Dallas Central Appraisal District,
Case No. DC-16-10611 filed in the District Court of Dallas County,
Texas, on August 29, 2016, seeks to stop the Defendant's practice
of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten
percent, the median level of appraisal required by law.

Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing
pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Lang, Esq.
      Heather H. Lang, Esq.
      LANG LAW OFFICE, P.C.
      P.O. Box 261330
      Plano, TX 75026
      Telephone: (972) 731-6758
      Facsimile: (469) 854-3336
      E-mail: mike@langlawlx.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces "Smith" Suit Over Appraisal Policies
----------------------------------------------------------
Jon Smith and Cynthia Smith v. Dallas Central Appraisal District,
Case No. DC-16-10704 filed in the District Court of Dallas County,
Texas, on August 29, 2016, seeks to stop the Defendant's practice
of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten
percent, the median level of appraisal required by law.

Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing
pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua E. Estes, Esq.
      Niral R. Gandhi, Esq.
      ESTES & GANDHI, P.C.
      1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 4610
      Dallas, TX 75201
      Telephone: (214)272-8030
      Facsimile: (214) 390-3303 Fax
      E-mail: jestes@estesgandhi.com
              NGandhi@estesgandhi.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces LAT Preston Suit Over Appraisal Policies
--------------------------------------------------------------
LAT Preston Wood LLC v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case
No. DC-16-10706 filed in the District Court of Dallas County,
Texas, on August 29, 2016, seeks to stop the Defendant's practice
of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten
percent, the median level of appraisal required by law.

Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing
pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel P. Donovan, Esq.
      Amy Reilly Sallusti, Esq.
      GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C.
      One Bent Tree Tower 16475
      Dallas Parkway, Suite 400
      Addison, TX 75001-6837
      Telephone: (972) 931-9901
      Facsimile: (972) 931-9208
      E-mail: Ddonovan@gpd.com
              Asallusti@gpd.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Market East Suit Over Appraisal Policies
--------------------------------------------------------------
Market East Associates LLC v. Dallas Central Appraisal District,
Case No. DC-16-10637 filed in the District Court of Dallas County,
Texas, on August 29, 2016, seeks to stop the Defendant's practice
of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten
percent, the median level of appraisal required by law.

Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing
pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel P. Donovan, Esq.
      Amy Reilly Sallusti, Esq.
      GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C.
      One Bent Tree Tower 16475
      Dallas Parkway, Suite 400
      Addison, TX 75001-6837
      Telephone: (972) 931-9901
      Facsimile: (972) 931-9208
      E-mail: Ddonovan@gpd.com
              Asallusti@gpd.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces 1325 South Suit Over Appraisal Policies
-------------------------------------------------------------
1325 South Lanar Hotel, LP v. Dallas Central Appraisal District,
Case No. DC-16-10611 filed in the District Court of Dallas County,
Texas, on August 29, 2016, seeks to stop the Defendant's practice
of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten
percent, the median level of appraisal required by law.

Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing
pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Lang, Esq.
      Heather H. Lang, Esq.
      LANG LAW OFFICE, P.C.
      P.O. Box 261330
      Plano, TX 75026
      Telephone: (972) 731-6758
      Facsimile: (469) 854-3336
      E-mail: mike@langlawlx.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Mitchell Suit Over Appraisal Policies
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mitchell Bridgeport LLC, Westdale TIC Bridgeport LP, and Gilbert
Bridgeport LLC v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No. DC-
16-10685 filed in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, on
August 29, 2016, seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placing
property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten percent, the
median level of appraisal required by law.

Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing
pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel P. Donovan, Esq.
      Amy Reilly Sallusti, Esq.
      GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C.
      One Bent Tree Tower 16475
      Dallas Parkway, Suite 400
      Addison, TX 75001-6837
      Telephone: (972) 931-9901
      Facsimile: (972) 931-9208
      E-mail: Ddonovan@gpd.com
              Asallusti@gpd.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Park Lane Suit Over Appraisal Policies
------------------------------------------------------------
Park Lane Terrace Apts Ltd. v. Dallas Central Appraisal District,
Case No. DC-16-10702 filed in the District Court of Dallas County,
Texas, on August 29, 2016, seeks to stop the Defendant's practice
of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten
percent, the median level of appraisal required by law.

Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing
pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raymond Gray, Esq.
      Lorri Michel, Esq.
      Shane Rogers, Esq.
      Natalie A. Maloney
      MICHEL GRAY, LLP
      812 W. 11th Street, Suite 301
      Austin, TX 78701
      Telephone: (512) 477-0200
      Facsimile: (512) 477-6636
      E-mail: raymond@michelgray.com
              lorri@michelgray.com
              shane@michelgray.com
              natalie@michelgray.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Partners Suit Over Appraisal Policies
-----------------------------------------------------------
Partners North Story LLC v. Dallas Central Appraisal District,
Case No. DC-16-10643 filed in the District Court of Dallas County,
Texas, on August 29, 2016, seeks to stop the Defendant's practice
of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten
percent, the median level of appraisal required by law.

Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing
pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rhett Warren, Esq.
      THE WARREN FIRM, PLLC
      4925 Greenville Ave., Suite 200
      Dallas, TX 75206
      Telephone: (972) 885-0852
      Facsimile: (972) 525-2321
      E-mail: rhett@thewarrenfirm.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Paul Nobel Suit Over Appraisal Policies
-------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Nobel and Margaret Nobel v. Dallas Central Appraisal
District, Case No. DC-16-10675 filed in the District Court of
Dallas County, Texas, on August 29, 2016, seeks to stop the
Defendant's practice of placing property appraisal value that
exceeds by at least ten percent, the median level of appraisal
required by law.

Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing
pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua E. Estes, Esq.
      Niral R. Gandhi, Esq.
      ESTES & GANDHI, P.C.
      1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 4610
      Dallas, TX 75201
      Telephone: (214)272-8030
      Facsimile: (214) 390-3303 Fax
      E-mail: jestes@estesgandhi.com
              NGandhi@estesgandhi.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Regency Suit Over Appraisal Policies
----------------------------------------------------------
Regency Centers LP v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No.
DC-16-10652 filed in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas,
on August 29, 2016, seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of
placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten
percent, the median level of appraisal required by law.

Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing
pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel P. Donovan, Esq.
      Amy Reilly Sallusti, Esq.
      GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C.
      One Bent Tree Tower 16475
      Dallas Parkway, Suite 400
      Addison, TX 75001-6837
      Telephone: (972) 931-9901
      Facsimile: (972) 931-9208
      E-mail: Ddonovan@gpd.com
              Asallusti@gpd.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces US Regency Suit Over Appraisal Policies
-------------------------------------------------------------
US Regency Retail I, LLC (Shiloh Springs I & II) v. Dallas Central
Appraisal District, Case No. DC-16-10657 filed in the District
Court of Dallas County, Texas, on August 29, 2016, seeks to stop
the Defendant's practice of placing property appraisal value that
exceeds by at least ten percent, the median level of appraisal
required by law.

Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing
pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel P. Donovan, Esq.
      Amy Reilly Sallusti, Esq.
      GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C.
      One Bent Tree Tower 16475
      Dallas Parkway, Suite 400
      Addison, TX 75001-6837
      Telephone: (972) 931-9901
      Facsimile: (972) 931-9208
      E-mail: Ddonovan@gpd.com
              Asallusti@gpd.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Rouquette Suit Over Appraisal Policies
------------------------------------------------------------
Rouquette Revocable Trust v. Dallas Central Appraisal District,
Case No. DC-16-10692filed in the District Court of Dallas County,
Texas, on August 29, 2016, seeks to stop the Defendant's practice
of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten
percent, the median level of appraisal required by law.

Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing
pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua E. Estes, Esq.
      Niral R. Gandhi, Esq.
      ESTES & GANDHI, P.C.
      1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 4610
      Dallas, TX 75201
      Telephone: (214)272-8030
      Facsimile: (214) 390-3303 Fax
      E-mail: jestes@estesgandhi.com
              NGandhi@estesgandhi.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Santa Monica Suit Over Appraisal Policies
---------------------------------------------------------------
Santa Monica Properties, LLC v. Dallas Central Appraisal District,
Case No. DC-16-10609filed in the District Court of Dallas County,
Texas, on August 29, 2016, seeks to stop the Defendant's practice
of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten
percent, the median level of appraisal required by law.

Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing
pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Lang, Esq.
      Heather H. Lang, Esq.
      LANG LAW OFFICE, P.C.
      P.O. Box 261330
      Plano, TX 75026
      Telephone: (972) 731-6758
      Facsimile: (469) 854-3336
      E-mail: mike@langlawlx.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces SEPR Regency Suit Over Appraisal Policies
---------------------------------------------------------------
SEPR Regency, LLC v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No.
DC-16-10666 filed in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas,
on August 29, 2016, seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of
placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten
percent, the median level of appraisal required by law.

Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing
pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel P. Donovan, Esq.
      Amy Reilly Sallusti, Esq.
      GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C.
      One Bent Tree Tower 16475
      Dallas Parkway, Suite 400
      Addison, TX 75001-6837
      Telephone: (972) 931-9901
      Facsimile: (972) 931-9208
      E-mail: Ddonovan@gpd.com
              Asallusti@gpd.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces "Kumar" Suit Over Appraisal Policies
----------------------------------------------------------
Sundip Kumar v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No. DC-16-
10679 filed in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, on
August 29, 2016, seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placing
property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten percent, the
median level of appraisal required by law.

Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing
pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua E. Estes, Esq.
      Niral R. Gandhi, Esq.
      ESTES & GANDHI, P.C.
      1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 4610
      Dallas, TX 75201
      Telephone: (214)272-8030
      Facsimile: (214) 390-3303 Fax
      E-mail: jestes@estesgandhi.com
              NGandhi@estesgandhi.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces TPLP Office Suit Over Appraisal Policies
--------------------------------------------------------------
TPLP Office Park Properties LP v. Dallas Central Appraisal
District, Case No. DC-16-10607 filed in the District Court of
Dallas County, Texas, on August 29, 2016, seeks to stop the
Defendant's practice of placing property appraisal value that
exceeds by at least ten percent, the median level of appraisal
required by law.

Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing
pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel P. Donovan, Esq.
      Amy Reilly Sallusti, Esq.
      GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C.
      One Bent Tree Tower 16475
      Dallas Parkway, Suite 400
      Addison, TX 75001-6837
      Telephone: (972) 931-9901
      Facsimile: (972) 931-9208
      E-mail: Ddonovan@gpd.com
              Asallusti@gpd.com


DAVID BOONE: Adams Seeks Certification of Consultants Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled DUSTIN ADAMS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DAVID BOONE
OILFIELD CONSULTING and EP ENERGY CORPORATION, Case No. 4:16-cv-
01566 (S.D. Tex.), asks the Court to conditionally certify a class
consisting of:

     All current and former oilfield consultants who were staffed
     by David Boone Oilfield Consulting ("DBOC") to EP Energy
     Corporation ("EP Energy") at any time from _______________,
     2013 to the present who: (1) worked as flowback Helpers,
     Operators, or Supervisors; (2) were classified as
     independent contractors; and (3) were paid a day-rate with
     no overtime compensation.

Mr. Adams also asks the Court to approve his proposed Notice &
Consent Form and opt-in procedures.

David Boone Oilfield Consulting staffed out oilfield personnel
providing flowback services to EP Energy Corporation.  These
workers include flowback Helpers, Operators (both Lead 1 and Lead
2), and Supervisors.  In doing so, the Defendants misclassified
these workers as independent contractors in order to avoid paying
them overtime wages required under federal law, Mr. Adams
contends.  He adds that the Defendants maintained a uniform pay
practice of paying these flowback "consultants" a day-rate without
any overtime compensation, which flagrantly violates the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=yU9jbMCN

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Jessica M. Bresler, Esq.
          FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
          1150 Bissonnet St.
          Houston, TX 77005
          Telephone: (713) 751-0025
          Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
          E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com
                  litkin@fibichlaw.com
                  adunlap@fibichlaw.com
                  jbresler@fibichlaw.com

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


DIVERSIFIED CONCRETE: Class Certification Sought in "Leon" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled PEDRO LEON, on behalf of
himself and other persons similarly situated v. DIVERSIFIED
CONCRETE, LLC, RYAN ROGERS, and BRADLEY ROGERS, Case No. 2:15-cv-
06301-CJB-MBN (E.D. La.), files with the Court his preliminary
motion for class certification pursuant to Local Rule 23.1(B) and
he reserves his right to supplement the Motion upon the conclusion
of discovery.

Mr. Leon also asks that the Court suspend the hearing date on the
Motion until discovery has been completed.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=STo1EKD4

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ELECTRO RENT: Defending Against "Chaklos" Action in Los Angeles
---------------------------------------------------------------
Electro Rent Corporation is facing a class action lawsuit by
Chaklos related to a merger agreement, the Company said in its
Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on August 9, 2016, for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2016.

The Company said, "On June 23, 2016, we entered into an Amended
and Restated Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Restated Merger
Agreement") with Elecor Intermediate Holding II Corporation, a
Delaware corporation ("Parent"), and Elecor Merger Corporation, a
California corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent
("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which, subject to the satisfaction or
waiver of the conditions set forth therein, Merger Sub will be
merged with and into us, and we will survive the merger as a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent (the "Merger"). Parent and
Merger Sub are affiliates of Platinum Equity, a Beverly Hills-
based private equity firm ("Platinum Equity")."

"On June 8, 2016, following the announcement of the Merger, a
shareholder class action lawsuit, entitled Chaklos, et al. v.
Electro Rent Corp., et al., was filed in the Superior Court of the
State of California, Los Angeles County, against ELRC, our
directors, Phillip A. Greenberg, Platinum Equity, Parent and
Merger Sub. The lawsuit asserts that defendants variously
breached, or aided and abetted others in breaching, state law
fiduciary duties in connection with their consideration and
approval of the merger. The lawsuit seeks rescission of the merger
agreement, an injunction barring consummation of the merger,
imposition of a constructive trust of "benefits improperly
received by defendants" as a result of any breaches of duty and
costs and disbursements of the action."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David T. Wissbroecker, Esq.
      Edward M. Gergosian, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 231-1058
      Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
      E-mail: DWissbroecker@rgrdlaw.com
              EGergosian@rgrdlaw.com


ELECTRO RENT: Defending Against "Wadsworth" Action in C.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Electro Rent Corporation is facing a class action lawsuit by
Wadsworth related to a merger agreement, the Company said in its
Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on August 9, 2016, for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2016.

The Company said, "On June 23, 2016, we entered into an Amended
and Restated Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Restated Merger
Agreement") with Elecor Intermediate Holding II Corporation, a
Delaware corporation ("Parent"), and Elecor Merger Corporation, a
California corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent
("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which, subject to the satisfaction or
waiver of the conditions set forth therein, Merger Sub will be
merged with and into us, and we will survive the merger as a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent (the "Merger"). Parent and
Merger Sub are affiliates of Platinum Equity, a Beverly Hills-
based private equity firm ("Platinum Equity")."

"On June 20, 2016, following the announcement of the merger, a
shareholder class action lawsuit, entitled Wadsworth v. Electro
Rent Corp., et al., was filed in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California, against ELRC, its
directors, Platinum Equity, Parent and Merger Sub. The lawsuit
asserts that defendants variously breached, or aided and abetted
others in breaching, state law fiduciary duties in connection with
their consideration and approval of the merger. The lawsuit
further asserts that the defendants violated securities law in
connection with an assortment of alleged material omissions from
the preliminary proxy statement. The lawsuit seeks rescission of
the merger agreement, an injunction barring consummation of the
merger, imposition of a constructive trust of "benefits improperly
received by defendants" as a result of any breaches of duty and
costs and disbursements of the action.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (877) 534 2590
          Facsimile: (610) 667 9029
          E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Retired Players Support Davis' Bid to Certify
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Retired NFL Plaintiffs file with the Court their reply brief
in support of the motion for class certification in the lawsuit
titled MICHAEL E. DAVIS, aka TONY DAVIS, VINCE FERRAGAMO, and
BILLY JOE DUPREE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. ELECTRONIC ARTS, INC., Case No. 3:10-cv-03328-RS (N.D.
Cal.).

The Retired NFL Plaintiffs contend that EA fails, among other
things, to (i) address the evidence and argument in the
Plaintiffs' Motion establishing that California has sufficient
contacts to the claims of each class member so that the
application of California law to the nationwide class comports
with due process burden of establishing that a foreign state's law
should apply, and (ii) satisfy its burden of establishing foreign
law should apply and its burden of establishing a "true conflict."

It is undisputed that all licensing decisions related to the
Madden NFL video games -- including the decisions to use the
Retired NFL Class Members likenesses without a license or
authorization -- were made by EA's Business Affairs and Legal
Department located in California, according to the Brief.  Because
California law provides broad remedies, EA is a California
resident, and the conduct at issue emanated from California, there
is no "true conflict" in the application of California law to the
nationwide Class claims, the Retired NFL Plaintiffs argue.

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

A copy of the Brief is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qFbQ3mS2

                           *     *     *

Electronic Arts Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that Michael Davis, a former
NFL running back, filed on July 29, 2010, a putative class action
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against the Company, alleging that certain past
versions of Madden NFL included the images of certain retired NFL
players without their permission. In March 2012, the trial court
denied the Company's request to dismiss the complaint on First
Amendment grounds. In January 2015, that trial court decision was
affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the case was
remanded back to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, where the case is pending.

The Retired NFL Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brian D. Henri, Esq.
          HENRI LAW GROUP
          640 W. California Ave, Suite 210
          Sunnyvale, CA 94806
          Telephone: (650) 614-5807
          Facsimile: (650) 618-1937
          E-mail: brianhenri@henrilg.com

               - and -

          Austin Tighe, Esq.
          FEAZELL & TIGHE LLP
          6618 Sitio Del Rio Boulevard
          Building C-101
          Austin, TX 78730
          Telephone: (512) 372-8100
          Facsimile: (512) 372-8140
          E-mail: austin@feazell-tighe.com


EPIQ SYSTEMS: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over OMERS Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrews & Springer LLC, a boutique securities class action law
firm focused on representing shareholders nationwide, on Aug. 23
disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed by another
law firm on behalf of stockholders of Epiq Systems, Inc. (EPIQ)
("Epiq" or the "Company") relating to the sale of the Company to
OMERS Private Equity ("OMERS").

If you would like to join the class action, please visit our
website or contact Craig J. Springer, Esq. at
cspringer@andrewsspringer.com, or call toll free at
1-800-423-6013. You may also follow us on LinkedIn -
www.linkedin.com/company/andrews-&-springer-llc,
Twitter - www.twitter.com/AndrewsSpringer or
Facebook - www.facebook.com/AndrewsSpringer for future updates.

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

On August 2, 2016, the two parties announced the signing of a
definitive merger agreement pursuant to which OMERS will acquire
Epiq in a merger in a deal worth $1 billion.  As a result of the
merger, Epiq shareholders are only anticipated to receive $16.50
per share in cash in exchange for each share of Epiq.

The consideration Epiq shareholders are expected to receive is
inadequate.  While the Company claims that shareholders will
receive a significant premium for their shares, the Company
recently traded as high as $15.33 as of June 6, 2016, which
represents only a 7.6% premium to the merger consideration. Our
investigation has also revealed that the process leading up to the
announcement of the merger appears to have significant conflicts
of interest with Epiq management, thus making the process and
consideration unfair.

On August 2, 2016, an Epiq shareholder represented by another law
firm filed a class action in the Circuit Court of Jackson County,
16th Judicial District, Missouri, Case No. 1616-CV18720,
challenging the merger.

If you own shares of Epiq and want to receive additional
information and protect your investments free of charge, please
visit us at http://www.andrewsspringer.com/cases-
investigations/epiq-class-action-investigation or contact
Craig J. Springer, Esq. at cspringer@andrewsspringer.com, or call
toll free at 1-800-423-6013.  You may also follow us on
LinkedIn - www.linkedin.com/company/andrews-&-springer-llc,
Twitter - www.twitter.com/AndrewsSpringer or
Facebook - www.facebook.com/AndrewsSpringer for future updates.

Andrews & Springer -- http://www.andrewsspringer.com-- is a
boutique securities class action law firm representing
shareholders nationwide who are victims of securities fraud,
breaches of fiduciary duty or corporate misconduct.


FALCON FLOWBACK: Lyles Seeks to Certify Class of Flowback Hands
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled JOHN LYLES, Individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FALCON FLOWBACK
SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 5:15-cv-01198-R (W.D. Okla.), asks the
Court to conditionally certify a class defined as:

     All current and former Flowback Hands who worked for Falcon
     Flowback Services, LLC at any time from three years before
     the date of mailing of this notice and were classified as
     independent contractors.

John Lyles sued the Defendant to collect unpaid overtime allegedly
owed to him and the class of similarly situated workers pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.  He is a former flowback hand of
the Defendant.  He asserts that he and the class members were
misclassified as independent contractors and paid a flat hourly
rate regardless of hours worked without overtime compensation.

Mr. Lyles informs the Court his Motion is unopposed and that the
parties have agreed on a proposed notice to be sent to all
putative class members.  The parties also agreed on a proposed
consent form for the putative class members to sign and file to
opt-in to the lawsuit.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Noble K. McIntyre, Esq.
          MCINTYRE LAW PC
          8601 S. Western Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73139
          Telephone: (405) 917-5250
          Facsimile: (405) 917-5405
          E-mail: noble@mcintyrelaw.com

               - and -

          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          ANDERSON2X, PLLC
          819 N. Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 452-1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
          E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com


FIRST COMMONWEALTH: Parties in Talks on Definitive Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
First Commonwealth Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the
parties in a class action lawsuit are negotiating the terms of a
definitive settlement agreement.

First Commonwealth Financial Corporation and First Commonwealth
Bank were named defendants in an action commenced August 27, 2015
by eight named plaintiffs that is pending in the Court of Common
Pleas of Jefferson County, Pennsylvania.  The plaintiffs allege
that the Bank repossessed motor vehicles, sold the vehicles and
sought to collect deficiency balances in a manner that did not
comply with the notice requirements of the Pennsylvania Uniform
Commercial Code (UCC), charged inappropriate costs and fees,
including storage costs for dates that a repossessed vehicle was
not in storage, and wrongly filed forms with the Department of
Motor Vehicles asserting that the Bank had complied with
applicable laws relating to the repossession of the vehicles. The
plaintiffs seek to pursue the action as a class action on behalf
of the named plaintiffs and other similarly situated plaintiffs
who had their automobiles repossessed and seek to recover damages
under the UCC and the Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension
Uniformity Act.

First Commonwealth and the Bank contest the plaintiffs'
allegations and intend to oppose class certification.  The Bank
has also asserted counterclaims for breach of contract, set-off
and recoupment against the plaintiffs, individually, and as
representatives of the putative class.  The Bank and counsel for
the plaintiffs reached an agreement-in-principle to settle the
litigation during the second quarter. The parties are negotiating
the terms of a definitive settlement agreement which would be
subject to court approval and other customary conditions. The
estimated cost of the settlement to the Bank was recorded as a
liability as of June 30, 2016. As set forth in the preceding
paragraph, all current litigation matters, including this action,
are believed to be within the range of reasonably possible losses
set forth in the preceding paragraph.


FIRST TRINITY: FBLIC's Petition to Appeal Denied
------------------------------------------------
First Trinity Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that FBLIC's
Petition for Leave to Appeal with the Missouri Court of Appeals,
Southern District asking for permission to appeal the Court's
class certification has been denied.

Prior to its acquisition by Trinity Life Insurance Company, Family
Benefit Life Insurance Company developed, marketed, and sold life
insurance products known as "Decreasing Term to 95" policies. On
January 17, 2013, FBLIC's Board of Directors voted that, effective
March 1, 2013, it was not approving, and therefore was not
providing, a dividend for the Decreasing Term to 95 policies.

On November 22, 2013, three individuals who owned Decreasing Term
to 95 policies filed a Petition in the Circuit Court of Greene
County, Missouri asserting claims against FBLIC relating to
FBLIC's decision to not provide a dividend under the Decreasing
Term to 95 policies.

On June 18, 2015, plaintiffs filed an amended petition. Like the
original Petition, the amended Petition asserts claims for breach
of contract and anticipatory breach of contract, and alleges that
FBLIC breached, and will anticipatorily breach, the Decreasing
Term to 95 policies of insurance by not providing a dividend
sufficient to purchase a one year term life insurance policy which
would keep the death benefit under the Decreasing Term to 95
policies the same as that provided during the first year of
coverage under the policy. It also asserts claims for negligent
misrepresentation, fraud, and violation of the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act ("MMPA"). It alleges that during its
sale of the Decreasing Term to 95 policies, FBLIC represented that
the owners of these policies would always be entitled to dividends
to purchase a one-year term life insurance policy and that the
owners would have a level death benefit without an increase in
premium.

The main difference between the original Petition and the amended
Petition is that the amended Petition also seeks equitable relief
based on two new theories: that the Decreasing Term to 95 policies
should be reformed so that they will provide a level death benefit
for a level premium payment until the policyholder reaches 95
years of age; and alternatively, Count VIII of the amended
Petition asks the Court to (1) find that the dividend provisions
in the Decreasing Term to 95 policies violate Missouri law,
specifically, Sec. 376.360 RSMo.; (2) order that the policies are
void ab initio; and (3) order that FBLIC return all premiums
collected under these policies. In addition, as part of the MMPA
claim, plaintiffs are now alleging that FBLIC undertook a
fraudulent scheme to sell the Decreasing Term to 95 policies as a
level premium for level benefit even though FBLIC never intended
to pay dividends for the life of the policies and that part of
this alleged fraudulent scheme included having a dividend option
which is not allowed under Missouri law.

FBLIC denies the allegations in the amended Petition and will
continue to defend against them.

On February 1, 2016, the plaintiffs asked that the Court certify
the case as a class action. With their motion, Plaintiffs filed an
affidavit from an actuary stating the opinion that FBLIC has
collected at least $2,548,939 in premiums on the Decreasing Term
to 95 policies. This presumably is the amount that Plaintiffs will
seek to be refunded to policyholders if the policies are declared
void. FBLIC opposed the request for class certification. On July
21, 2016, the Court certified three classes to maintain the claims
for breach of contract, anticipatory breach of contract, violation
of the MMPA, reformation, and to void the Decreasing Term to 95
policies.

On August 1, 2016, FBLIC filed a Petition for Leave to Appeal with
the Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District asking for
permission to appeal the Court's class certification. The Petition
for Leave to Appeal was denied.

FBLIC intends to defend vigorously against the class and
individual allegations. The Company is unable to determine the
potential magnitude of the claims in the event of a final
certification and the plaintiffs prevailing on this substantive
action.


FLOWERS FOODS: Oct. 11 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional
Corporation, on Aug. 23 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been commenced in the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Flowers Foods,
Inc. (FLO) ("Flowers Foods" or the "Company") securities during
the period between February 7, 2013 and
August 10, 2016, inclusive (the "Class Period").  Investors who
wish to become proactively involved in the litigation have until
October 11, 2016 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff.

If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the Class, you
must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the
Court.  The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and
participate in important decisions including whether to accept a
settlement for the Class in the action.  The lead plaintiff will
be selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from
investment in Flowers Foods securities during the Class Period.
Members of the Class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and
counsel chosen by the lead plaintiff.  No class has yet been
certified in the above action.

The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants'
failure to disclose during the Class Period that the Company was
improperly classifying employees as independent contractors, that
the misclassification exposed the Company to legal liability
and/or negative regulatory action, and that proper classification
would have a negative impact on the Company's operations.

According to the complaint, following an August 10, 2016
announcement that the U.S. Department of Labor notified Flowers
Foods that the Company was scheduled for a compliance review under
the Fair Labor Standards Act, that the revenue for the second
quarter was below the Wall Street projection, and that it was
lowering its 2016 guidance, the value of Flower Foods shares
declined significantly.

If you have suffered a loss in excess of $100,000 from investment
in Flowers Foods securities purchased on or after February 7, 2013
and held through the revelation of negative information during
and/or at the end of the Class Period and would like to learn more
about this lawsuit and your ability to participate as a lead
plaintiff, without cost or obligation to you, please visit our
website at http://www.browerpiven.com/currentsecuritiescases.html

You may also request more information by contacting Brower Piven
either by email at hoffman@browerpiven.com or by telephone at
(410) 415-6616.  Brower Piven also encourages anyone with
information regarding the Company's conduct during the period in
question to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former
employees, shareholders and others.

Attorneys at Brower Piven have extensive experience in litigating
securities and other class action cases and have been advocating
for the rights of shareholders since the 1980s.  If you choose to
retain counsel, you may retain Brower Piven without financial
obligation or cost to you, or you may retain other counsel of your
choice.  You need take no action at this time to be a member of
the class.


FORD MOTOR: NHTSA Investigates SUVs After Gas Smell Complaints
--------------------------------------------------------------
Clark Fouraker, writing for WTLV, reports that a man on the First
Coast says he has a problem with his car, which is one of the most
popular American made SUV's on the market -- a Ford Explorer.

When he drives, especially on roads with high speed limits, gas
that he says he believes to be carbon monoxide comes into the car.

"It smells like exhaust in the cabin," says Colin Olson.  "Some
people describe it as burnt egg smell. It will smell really bad
for a few minutes and then it will just be gone."

Mr. Olson originally bought a 2015 Explorer from a Jacksonville
dealership.

Concerned about the smell, he took the car back to the dealership
he bought it from.  A long road of maintenance appointments,
internet research and Olson says concern for his health followed.

"I got it right in, right away to the service department," he
says.  "There was a technical service bulletin.  It's not an
official recall."

Ford made multiple attempts to service the car.

The automaker had issued a Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) titled
Exhaust Odor in Vehicle.  The bulletins serve as a guide sheet for
mechanics on what to do for a specific consumer complaint.

"Sometimes the fumes are so bad inside that it gives me a head
ache," Mr. Olson says.

CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT

Earlier in August, Ford settled a multi-year federal class action
lawsuit.

The complaint called the 2011-2015 model years of the Explorer
"dangerous and defective." It says "exhaust and other gases,
including lethal quantities of carbon monoxide, may enter the
passenger compartments."

When the judge approved the class action lawsuit, he said
"plaintiff's showed substantial evidence demonstrating that the
exhaust contamination system is a systemic problem caused by a
combination of design and manufacturing defects."

"The parties reached a general agreement on terms, but details
need to be worked out before it's submitted to the court for
approval," a Ford spokeswoman wrote in an email to us.

Federal court records say attorney's for both sides will go before
the court this month.

FEDERAL INVESTIGATION UNDERWAY

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is also
investigating complaints against the 2011-2015 Explorer.

Documents published on the agency's website about the
investigation suggest more than 630,000 cars could be impacted by
the investigation.

"The NHTSA investigation is ongoing and we will continue to
cooperate with NHTSA on this investigation as we always do," says
Ford via email.

Currently, no recalls have been issued.  An investigation by NHTSA
does not mean a recall is forthcoming.

"If it's true that there's carbon monoxide leaking into the cabin,
it's a very serious issue and Ford needs to deal with it
immediately," says Kelsey Mays.

Mr. Mays is the Senior Consumer Affairs Editor at Cars.com, a
website owned by First Coast News' parent company.

He says there's no threshold number of complaints needed to
trigger a federal investigation.

"Certainly this is a significant number of people that have
complained to them and so the fact that NHTSA has moved to an
investigation and not a recall indicates Ford is probably going to
have to provide more information," Mr. Mays says.

CARBON MONOXIDE TEST

When Mr. Olson took First Coast News on a drive in his 2016
Explorer, we brought a Sensorcon carbon monoxide detector.

We paid about $150 for it on Amazon and used it to get non-
scientific results about the levels of Carbon Monoxide in Olson's
car.

During our drive on Interstate 295, the readings went as high as
23 parts per million (ppm).

We tested 5 other cars, including an older model Ford Explorer,
driving at interstate speeds under similar conditions.

In those other tests, Carbon Monoxide levels never went above
1ppm.

Federal agencies say at levels between 35 ppm and 70 ppm people
can begin to have mild exposure symptoms.

"Without having administered or seen this test performed, we can't
speak to outcome," a Ford spokeswoman writes.  "Safety continues
to be one of the highest priorities in the design of our vehicles
and we are committed to designing and building vehicles that meet
or exceed applicable laws and regulations."

FROM 2015 TO 2016

After at least 4 attempts to repair Mr. Olson's 2015 Explorer, an
arbitrator under Florida's Lemon Law required Ford replace it with
a 2016.

"Ford was pretty much forced to replace my vehicle," Mr. Olson
says.

Concerned the 2016 is no better than the model he had before,
Mr. Olson tried to use Florida's Lemon Law a second time.

The arbitrator denied to force Ford to replace the 2016 Explorer.

With a baby on the way and his family's health on his mind, he's
still trying to get rid of his Explorer.

"I want to get rid of this car," he says.  "I want my money back.
I'm done."


FXCM INC: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
FXCM Inc. and certain officers were named defendants in a
securities class action lawsuit filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on May 8,
2015.  On August 18, 2016, the District Court granted the
Company's motion to dismiss all the claims asserted in the
complaint against defendants.  The Plaintiffs were given thirty
days to file an amended complaint, should they choose to do so.


GENKI SUSHI: Starn O'Toole Files Class Action Over Hep-A Outbreak
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Khon2 reports that there's now a class action lawsuit over the
hepatitis A outbreak that's sickened more than 200 people.

The Honolulu law firm Starn O'Toole Marcus & Fisher partnering
with foodborne illness attorney Bill Marler to file the lawsuit
against Genki Sushi, Koha Foods and Sea Port Products.

Mr. Marler says at least two people have suffered liver failure
because of the disease, and one is waiting for a transplant.

"Liver failure, whether it's mild or severe, is a very painful,
all-consuming infection," he said, "which is rare in hepatitis A
cases, but these were otherwise healthy women in their 60s."

A website has been set up for potential class members to register
for more information about pursuing a legal claim relating to the
recent hepatitis A outbreak in Hawaii.  The public can also email
questions to hepaclassaction@starnlaw.com

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of anyone who ate or drank at
Genki Sushi restaurants from April through August 2016 and:

   -- Obtained a hepatitis A vaccination or an immune globulin
(IG) shot since April 2016 as a result of the outbreak, or

   -- Became ill with the hepatitis A virus since April 2016 as a
result of the outbreak.

The complaint was filed Aug. 23 in the First Circuit Court,
following the Hawaii Department of Health findings that the
hepatitis A infections were attributed to the consumption of
contaminated scallops served raw at certain Genki Sushi
restaurants.

The scallops were imported to the United States from the
Philippines by Sea Port Products and distributed to Genki Sushi by
Koha Foods.

The lawsuit alleges that all food and drink sold at Genki Sushi
restaurants on Oahu and Kauai during the exposure period were
unsafe as a result of the contaminated scallops and potentially
exposed thousands of people to the virus.

"This is quickly becoming one of the largest hepatitis A outbreaks
in U.S. history.  Not only are there over 200 illnesses in Hawaii,
we are beginning to see cases on the mainland as well. Given the
number of people that consumed scallops at Genki Sushi and became
ill and worked at other restaurants on the islands, we estimate
that over 10,000 people needed to be vaccinated to prevent an even
larger disaster," said Mr. Marler.


GLOBAL CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Shterna" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Barouk Shterna, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Global Credit & Collection Corp., Case No.
1:16-cv-04825 (E.D.N.Y., August 25, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Global Credit & Collection Corp. is a debt collection firm in New
York.

Barouk Shterna is a pro se plaintiff.

GORIS GROCERS: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Maite Hernandez, Wilmer Rodriguez, and Ramon Trabous, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Mark Goris, Goris
Grocers Madison Ave. Corp. d/b/a NYC Fresh Market, and Jose Lopez
Ortega, Case No. 1:16-cv-06777 (S.D.N.Y., August 29, 2016), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate a grocery store located at 1666 Madison
Ave, New York, NY 10029.

Maite Hernandez, Wilmer Rodriguez, and Ramon Trabous are pro se
plaintiff.


GREEN SOLAR: Woodson, et al. Seeks Unpaid OT Under Labor Code
-------------------------------------------------------------
DOUGLAS JAMES WOODSON and SIMON KIM, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GREEN SOLAR
TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; DOES 1-10, business entities, forms unknown;
DOES 11-20, individuals; and DOES 21-30, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. BC631399 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 23, 2016),
seeks unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid minimum wages, unpaid
contractual wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods, waiting
time penalties, statutory penalties, restitution, declaratory and
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs, prejudgment
interest, and other relief under the Industrial Welfare Commission
Wage Order, and the California Labor Code.

The class members were routinely suffered and/or permitted to work
overtime, and Defendants failed to compensate the class members
for all hours worked during the Class Period. As a result of
Defendants' underpayment to the class members, the daily wages of
the class members were less than the legal minimum wage for all
hours actually worked, overtime wages were not paid in full, and
the class members were not paid for each hour worked at their
promised rate of compensation, and/or the California state-
mandated rate of compensation.

Green Solar provides affordable solar options for every home
owner.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cody D. Knight, Esq.
          Chantal R. Mccoy, Esq.
          KNIGHT EMPLOYMENT LAW
          11500 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 400
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 444 3039
          Facsimile: (310) 870 7207
          E-mail: codyknight@knightemploymentlaw.com
                  chantalmccoy@knightemploymentlaw.com


HALLIBURTON ENERGY: Biloxi City Council to File Oil Spill Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Perez, writing for Sun Herald, reports that like other
communities in South Mississippi, Biloxi received millions from BP
for damages after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of
Mexico.

On Aug. 23, the City Council hired attorneys to file a claim
against other companies involved in the 2010 disaster.

"There's a chance for us to recover more than came from BP," said
Gerald Blessey, city attorney.

Attorney Peter Abide -- pabide@curriejohnson.com -- of Currie
Johnson & Myer and W. Corban Gunn of Corban Gunn will represent
the city in the class-action suit under the HESI/Transocean
Settlement Program.  Potential claims will be filed against
Halliburton Energy Services Inc., Halliburton Co., Triton Asset
Leasing GmbH, Transocean Deepwater Inc., Transocean Offshore
Deepwater Drilling Inc. and Transocean Holdings.

Biloxi's contract calls for hourly fees with the total not to
exceed $50,000.

Mr. Abide said he believes Gulfport agreed to pay attorney fees of
15 percent of the settlement.

Nobody knows how much Biloxi may collect under the settlement, but
Mr. Abide said, "It's based on the amount of property you own."

Biloxi's claim would be considerably more than an individual
property owner, he said.

In other action on Aug. 23, the council:

   -- Approved a three-year agreement with U.S. Marine Corps
Forces, Special Operations Command to periodically hold military
training exercises in the city.  The training could include
surveillance, raid, foot movement of troops and equipment,
helicopter operations and other training.  Special forces have
trained in Biloxi before and coordinate with Biloxi Police
Department.

   -- Agreed to submit a grant application to develop a city-wide
driving and biking tour.

   -- Hired the Southern Mississippi Planning and Development
District to complete a redistricting plan that is required
following annexation.  Mr. Blessey said the redistricting is
required before next spring's municipal elections and SMPDD was
most qualified and had the lowest price.


HALSTED FINANCIAL: Lopez Amends Bid to Certify Classes/Subclasses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Manuel C. Lopez, Jr., amends his motion to certify that the claims
set forth in his complaint in the lawsuit entitled MANUEL C.
LOPEZ, JR., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. HALSTED FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, FIRST FINANCIAL INVESTMENT
FUND HOLDINGS, LLC, and FIRST FINANCIAL PORTFOLIO SERVICES, LLC,
Case No. 1:16-cv-02539 (N.D. Ill.), may proceed on behalf of the
Classes and Sub-Classes defined as:

     Halsted Class:
     (1) All persons in the United States (2) to whose cellular
     telephone number (3) Halsted placed a non-emergency
     telephone call (4) using an artificial or prerecorded voice
     (5) on or after February 24, 2012 (6) with respect to a debt
     purchased and owned by First Financial.

     First Financial Class:
     (1) All persons in the United States (2) to whose cellular
     telephone number (3) First Financial placed a non-emergency
     telephone call (4) using an artificial or prerecorded voice
     (5) on or after July 22, 2012 (6) with respect to a debt
     purchased and owned by First Financial.

     Halsted Sub-Class:
     (1) All persons in the United States (2) to whose cellular
     telephone number (3) Halsted placed a non-emergency
     telephone call (4) using an artificial or prerecorded voice
     (5) on or after February 24, 2012 (6) with respect to a debt
     purchased and owned by First Financial (7) where Halsted or
     First Financial obtained the called number from a third
     party source.

     First Financial Sub-Class:
     (1) All persons in the United States (2) to whose cellular
     telephone number (3) First Financial placed a non-emergency
     telephone call (4) using an artificial or prerecorded voice
     (5) on or after July 22, 2012 (6) with respect to a debt
     purchased and owned by First Financial (7) where Halsted or
     First Financial obtained the called number from a third
     party source.

Mr. Lopez alleges that the Defendants violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act by placing calls to consumers' cellular
telephone numbers using a pre-recorded voice message without
having the consumers' express consent to receive such calls.  He
also asks the Court to appoint him as class representative,
appoint his lawyers as counsel for the classes and sub-classes,
and allow him to file a memorandum in support of the Amended
Motion after taking class discovery.

A copy of the Amended Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0gFKXj76

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
          Timothy Sostrin, Esq.
          Michael Hilicki, Esq.
          KEOGH LAW, LTD.
          55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3390
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 726-1092
          Facsimile: (312) 726-1093
          E-mail: Keith@Keoghlaw.com
                  TSostrin@KeoghLaw.com
                  MHilicki@KeoghLaw.com


HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: Discovery Ongoing in Securities Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Harman International Industries, Incorporated said in its Form
10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
August 11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2016, that
dscovery is ongoing in the case, In re Harman International
Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation.

The Company said, "On October 1, 2007, a purported class action
lawsuit was filed by Cheolan Kim (the "Kim Plaintiff") against
Harman and certain of our officers in the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia (the "Court") seeking
compensatory damages and costs on behalf of all persons who
purchased our common stock between April 26, 2007 and September
24, 2007 (the "Class Period"). The original complaint alleged
claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act")
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder."

"The complaint alleged that the defendants omitted to disclose
material adverse facts about Harman's financial condition and
business prospects. The complaint contended that had these facts
not been concealed at the time the merger agreement with Kohlberg,
Kravis, Roberts & Co. and Goldman Sachs Capital Partners was
entered into, there would not have been a merger agreement, or it
would have been at a much lower price, and the price of our common
stock therefore would not have been artificially inflated during
the Class Period. The Kim Plaintiff alleged that, following the
reports that the proposed merger was not going to be completed,
the price of our common stock declined, causing the plaintiff
class significant losses.

"On November 30, 2007, the Boca Raton General Employees' Pension
Plan filed a purported class action lawsuit against Harman and
certain of our officers in the Court seeking compensatory damages
and costs on behalf of all persons who purchased our common stock
between April 26, 2007 and September 24, 2007. The allegations in
the Boca Raton complaint are essentially identical to the
allegations in the original Kim complaint, and like the original
Kim complaint, the Boca Raton complaint alleges claims for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

"On January 16, 2008, the Kim Plaintiff filed an amended
complaint. The amended complaint, which extended the Class Period
through January 11, 2008, contended that, in addition to the
violations alleged in the original complaint, Harman also violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by "knowingly failing to disclose
"significant problems" relating to its PND sales forecasts,
production, pricing, and inventory" prior to January 14, 2008. The
amended complaint claimed that when "Defendants revealed for the
first time on January 14, 2008 that shifts in PND sales would
adversely impact earnings per share by more than $1.00 per share
in fiscal 2008," that led to a further decline in our share value
and additional losses to the plaintiff class.

"On February 15, 2008, the Court ordered the consolidation of the
Kim action with the Boca Raton action, the administrative closing
of the Boca Raton action, and designated the short caption of the
consolidated action as In re Harman International Industries, Inc.
Securities Litigation, civil action no. 1:07-cv-01757 (RWR). That
same day, the Court appointed the Arkansas Public Retirement
System as lead plaintiff ("Lead Plaintiff") and approved the law
firm Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld and Toll, P.L.L.C. to serve as lead
counsel.

"On May 2, 2008, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated class action
complaint (the "Consolidated Complaint"). The Consolidated
Complaint, which extended the Class Period through February 5,
2008, contended that Harman and certain of our officers and
directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing false and
misleading disclosures regarding our financial condition in fiscal
year 2007 and fiscal year 2008. In particular, the Consolidated
Complaint alleged that defendants knowingly or recklessly failed
to disclose material adverse facts about MyGIG radios, personal
navigation devices and our capital expenditures. The Consolidated
Complaint alleged that when Harman's true financial condition
became known to the market, the price of our common stock declined
significantly, causing losses to the plaintiff class.

"On July 3, 2008, defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated
Complaint in its entirety. Lead Plaintiff opposed the defendants'
motion to dismiss on September 2, 2008, and defendants filed a
reply in further support of their motion to dismiss on October 2,
2008.

"On April 12, 2012, In re Harman International Industries, Inc.
Securities Litigation, civil action no. 1:07-cv-01757 (D.D.C.) was
reassigned to Judge Rudolph Contreras.

"On September 5, 2012, the Court heard oral arguments on
defendants' motion to dismiss. At the request of the Court, on
September 24, 2012, each side submitted a supplemental briefing on
defendants' motion to dismiss. On January 17, 2014, the Court
granted a motion to dismiss, without prejudice, in the In re
Harman International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation. The
Lead Plaintiff appealed this ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit (the "Court of Appeals") and,
on June 23, 2015, the District Court's ruling was reversed and
remanded for further proceedings. On July 23, 2015, the defendants
filed a motion for a rehearing en banc before the Court of
Appeals, which was denied on August 26, 2015. The defendants filed
a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking U.S. Supreme Court
review on November 24, 2015, which was denied by the District
Court on February 29, 2016. Discovery in this matter is ongoing."


HARRIS COUNTY: Appraisal Dist. Over Property Assessed Value
-----------------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON 4500 LP, WASHINGTON DURHAM PARTNERS LTD, the Plaintiff,
v. HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. 2016-
56121 (Harris County Ct., Aug. 23, 2016), asks the Court to fix
the value of the Plaintiffs' property at actual fair its market
value or equal uniform value.

According to the complaint, the assessed value assigned by the
District on the Plaintiffs' property is grossly in excess of its
actual fair market value.

The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for
ad valorem taxation purposes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          W. Montgomery Briscoe, Esq.
          EGGLESTONE & BRISCOE, LLP
          4800 Three Allen Center
          333 Clay Street
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 659 5100
          Facsimile: (713) 951 9920
          E-mail: wmb@eggstonbriscoe.com


JOHNSON CONTROLS: MOU Reached in Suit Over Tyco Deal
----------------------------------------------------
Johnson Controls, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, that the
defendants reached an agreement with the plaintiffs regarding a
settlement of a class action lawsuit.

Johnson Controls, Inc. (the "Company" or "Johnson Controls") is
making the following supplemental disclosures to the definitive
joint proxy statement/prospectus on Schedule 14A (the "Proxy
Statement/Prospectus") filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "SEC") by the Company on July 6, 2016, in
connection with the proposed settlement of certain litigation
relating to the Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger
Agreement"), dated as of January 24, 2016, as amended by Amendment
No. 1, dated as of July 1, 2016, by and among the Company, Tyco
International plc ("Tyco") and certain other parties named
therein, including Jagara Merger Sub LLC ("Merger Sub"), pursuant
to which, among other things, subject to the terms and conditions
thereof, Merger Sub will merge with and into the Company, with the
Company surviving the merger as an indirect wholly owned
subsidiary of Tyco (the "Merger"). Pursuant to the proposed
settlement, the Company has agreed to provide the additional
information set forth below under the heading "Supplement to
Definitive Proxy Statement."

The following supplemental disclosures should be read in
conjunction with the Proxy Statement/Prospectus, which should be
read in its entirety. To the extent that information herein
differs from or updates information contained in the Proxy
Statement/Prospectus, the information contained herein supersedes
the information contained in the Proxy Statement/Prospectus.
Defined terms used but not defined herein have the meanings set
forth in the Proxy Statement/Prospectus.

On May 20, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit, Laufer v.
Johnson Controls, Inc., et al., Docket No. 2016CV003859 (the
"Lawsuit"), was filed in the Circuit Court of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
County (the "Court"), naming the Company, the individual members
of its board of directors, Tyco and Merger Sub as defendants.

On August 8, 2016, the defendants reached an agreement with the
plaintiffs in the Lawsuit regarding a settlement of the action.
That agreement is reflected in a memorandum of understanding that
outlines the terms of the parties' agreement to settle, dismiss
and release all claims which were or could have been asserted in
the Lawsuit, and is subject to court approval.  Defendants agreed
to the memorandum of understanding solely to avoid the
uncertainty, risk, burden, and expense inherent in litigation and
without admitting or denying that further supplemental disclosure
is required under any applicable rule, statute, regulation or law.
The memorandum of understanding is conditioned upon, among other
things, the execution of an appropriate stipulation of settlement.
The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary
conditions, including judicial approval of the proposed settlement
contemplated by the memorandum of understanding, following notice
to the Company's shareholders.  In the event that the parties
enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be
scheduled at which the Court will consider the fairness,
reasonableness, and adequacy of the proposed settlement.  If the
proposed settlement is finally approved by the Court, it is
anticipated that the settlement will result in a release of all
claims that were or could have been brought by plaintiffs or any
member of the putative class of the Company's shareholders that
they purport to represent challenging any aspect of or otherwise
relating to the Merger, any actions, deliberations or negotiations
in connection with the Merger or any agreements, disclosures, or
events related thereto, including the Merger Agreement and the
disclosures made in connection therewith, and that the Lawsuit
will be dismissed with prejudice.  There can be no assurance that
the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement
or that the Court will approve the settlement.  In either event,
or certain other circumstances specified in the memorandum of
understanding, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the
memorandum of understanding may be terminated.  The settlement
will not affect, among other things, the consideration to be paid
to the Company's shareholders in connection with the Merger.

On Sept. 6, 2016, Johnson Controls and Tyco announced the
completion of the merger.  A copy of their press statement is
available at https://is.gd/Ev5zlA


LINCOLN HERITAGE: Illegally Denies Insurance Claims, Action Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brittany L. Holmes McKenzie and Cyrus Scott, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Lincoln Heritage
Life Insurance Company and Londen Insurance Group, Inc., Case No.
160803545 (Phil. Cmmw. Pleas, August 26, 2016), is brought on
behalf of all persons, who purchased individual life insurance
policies sold in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania by Lincoln, or
were the representatives of the estates of such individuals, or
the named beneficiaries of such policies, that submitted a claim
for death benefits which was denied for reasons other than non-
payment of premiums.

The Defendants operate an insurance company licensed to do
business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marc P. Weingarten, Esq.
      Andrew P. Bell, Esq.
      LOCKS LAW FIRM
      601 Walnut Street, Suite 720 East
      170 S. Independence Mall West
      Philadelphia, PA 19106
      Telephone: (215)893-0100
      Facsimile: (215) 893-3333
      E-mail: mweingarten@lockslaw.com
              abell@lockslaw.com

         - and -

      Richard M. Ochroch, Esq.
      Brett N. Benton, Esq.
      RICHARD M. OCHROCH & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      318 S. 16th Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19102
      Telephone: (215)735-2707
      Facsimile: (215) 790-0491
      E-mail: rochroch@ochroch-law.com
              bbenton@ochroch-law.com


LIQUIDITY SERVICES: Howard Seeks to Certify Class of Stockholders
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Lead Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned LEONARD HOWARD,
individually and on behalf of all others situated v. LIQUIDITY
SERVICES INC., WILLIAM P. ANGRICK III, and JAMES M. RALLO, Case
No. 1:14-cv-01183-BAH (D.D.C.), seek certification of a class
consisting of all persons and entities, who purchased or otherwise
acquired the publicly traded common stock of Liquidity Services,
Inc. during the period of February 1, 2012 through May 7, 2014,
inclusive, and who were damaged thereby.

The Action seeks recovery under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended by the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, against Liquidity, a provider of online
auction marketplaces for surplus and salvage assets (also known as
a "reverse supply chain").

The Lead Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as Class
Representatives, and appoint Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis,
P.C., and Labaton Sucharow LLP as Class Counsel.

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

Plaintiff Caisse de depot et placement du Quebec is represented
by:

          Mark S. Willis, Esq.
          SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS P.C.
          1101 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 600
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 756-3601
          Facsimile: (202) 756-3602
          E-mail: mwillis@srkw-law.com

               - and -

          Andrew D. Abramowitz, Esq.
          Daniel J. Mirarchi, Esq.
          Andrew N. Dodemaide, Esq.
          SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS P.C.
          1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496-0300
          Facsimile: (215) 496-6611
          E-mail: aabramowitz@srkw-law.com
                  dmirarchi@srkw-law.com
                  adodemaide@srkw-law.com

Plaintiff Newport News Employees' Retirement Fund is represented
by:

          Jonathan Gardner, Esq.
          Carol C. Villegas, Esq.
          Thomas W. Watson, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
          E-mail: jgardner@labaton.com
                  cvillegas@labaton.com
                  twatson@labaton.com


LOS ANGELES, CA: Certification of Classes Sought in "Yagman" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled STEPHEN YAGMAN, etc. v. ERIC
GARCETTI, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-05944-GHK-E (C.D. Cal.), moves
the Court to certify two classes defined as:

     "all persons who were issued parking citations by the City
      of Los Angeles and who were required to pay the amount
      demanded on the citation in order to obtain an initial
      hearing on the validity of the citation, and/or who were
      not provided a valid initial hearing by the citation
      issuing agency, the City of Los Angeles, as is required by
      California law, and whose initial hearings instead were
      contracted out by the City to a private contractor, Xerox
      Corporation."

Eric Garcetti is the mayor of the City of Los Angeles.

The Court will commence a hearing on October 3, 2016, 9:30 a.m.,
to consider the Motion.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Reichmann, Esq.
          YAGMAN & REICHMANN
          475 Washington Boulevard
          Venice Beach, CA 90292-5287
          Telephone: (310) 452-3200
          Facsimile: (310) 557-0420
          E-mail: JReichm@aol.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Florez" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
-----------------------------------------------------------
Erin Florez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-01418-LSC
(N.D. Ala., August 29, 2016), alleges that the Defendants
manufactured, labeled and sold Chinese Flooring that fails to
comply with relevant and applicable formaldehyde standards. The
Chinese Flooring emits and off-gasses excessive levels of
formaldehyde, which is categorized as a known human carcinogen by
the United States National Toxicology Program and the
International Agency for Research on Cancer.

Lumber Liquidators, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business at 3000 John Deere Road, Toano,
Virginia 23168. Lumber is a retailer of hardwood flooring.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric D. Hoaglund, Esq.
      MCCALLUM HOAGLUND COOK & IRBY LLP
      905 Montgomery Highway, Suite 201
      Vestavia Hills, AL 35216
      Telephone: (205) 824-7767
      Facsimile: (205) 824-7768
      E-mail: ehoaglund@mhcilaw.com


MCGINNES: Polluted San Jacinto River, Houston Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that more than 200 named
plaintiffs filed a class action in Houston against International
Paper, McGinnes Industrial Maintenance and Waste Management,
claiming they've fouled the San Jacinto River and its tributaries
with carcinogenic dioxins and other chemicals for decades, in
Harris County Court.


MEDICENTRE: November 30 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
If you were a patient at a Medicentre clinic either in Edmonton or
Calgary between May 2, 2011 and September 19, 2013, you may be
affected by a settlement.  A settlement has been reached in the
Class Action with respect to the loss of a laptop computer
containing names, dates of birth, Alberta Health Care Number and
Alberta Health Diagnostic Codes ("Personal Information").
Compensation may be available for the following claims:

(a) Actual out of pocket costs incurred for credit monitoring or
identity theft protection purchased on or before December 18, 2015
directly and solely as a result of the loss of the Personal
Information;

(b) Registration Costs for an Equifax Credit Monitoring and
Identity Theft Insurance Program;

(c) Compensation for medically recognized psychological or
psychiatric conditions caused or aggravated directly and solely as
a result of the loss of the Personal Information, with supporting
documentation from a physician or other healthcare professional as
may be acceptable to the Claims Administrator; and

(d) Out of Pocket costs incurred as a result of actual identity
theft which occurred on or before December 18, 2015, related
directly and solely to the loss of the Personal Information.

The settlement is a compromise of disputed claims and is not an
admission of liability, wrongdoing or fault.

Distribution of Settlement Funds

The claims bar deadline for class members to file a claim for
compensation from the Settlement Agreement is November 30, 2016.

The Court has approved a protocol for the distribution of the
Settlement Amount.

Class Members can obtain additional information about the
Distribution Protocol online at www.medicentreclassaction.mnp.ca
or by calling 1-844-818-4112.

The law firms of D'Arcy Deacon and James H. Brown and Associates
are Class Counsel.

QUESTIONS? VISIT www.medicentreclassaction.mnp.ca or call
1-844-818-4112.


NATERA INC: Plaintiffs' Bid to Remand Case Pending
--------------------------------------------------
Natera, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a motion to remand
class action to the San Mateo Superior Court is pending.

On February 17, 2016, March 10, 2016, March 28, 2016 and April 4,
2016, four purported class action lawsuits were filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Mateo (the "San Mateo Superior Court"), against the Company, its
directors and certain of its officers and 5% stockholders and
their affiliates, and each of the underwriters of its July 1, 2015
initial public offering (the "IPO"). The complaints assert claims
under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended. The complaints allege, among other things, that the
Registration Statement and Prospectus for the Company's IPO
contained materially false or misleading statements, and/or
omitted material information that was required to be disclosed,
about the Company's business and prospects. Among other relief,
the complaints seek class certification, unspecified compensatory
damages, rescission, attorneys' fees, and costs.

The Company has removed these actions to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California; a motion
to remand the actions to the San Mateo Superior Court is pending.
The Company intends to defend the matter vigorously, but it cannot
be certain of the outcome.


NEOSTRATA COMPANY: "Horton" Class Suit Removed to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Candle Horton, individually and
on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Neostrata
Company Inc., 24 Seven Inc., 24 Seven Employment Inc., 24 Seven
Staffing Inc., Timothy L. Hix, 24 Seven Talent California, Inc.,
24 Seven Recruiting, Inc., 24 Seven Creative Solutions, Celeste
Gudas, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 37-02016-
00024708-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of
California, San Diego County to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California (San Diego). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-02189-AJB-JLB to the proceeding.

The case asserts labor-related claims.

Neostrata Company Inc. develops and markets therapeutic and
cosmetic dermatological products.

24 Seven Inc., 24 Seven Employment Inc., 24 Seven Staffing Inc.,
Timothy L. Hix, 24 Seven Talent California, Inc., 24 Seven
Recruiting, Inc., 24 Seven Creative Solution, and Celeste Gudas
operate a recruitment company in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas D. Rutledge, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS D RUTLEDGE
      3555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 201
      San Diego, CA 92103
      Telephone: (619) 866-7224
      Facsimile: (619) 259-5455
      E-mail: rutledgelaw@cox.net

The Defendant is represented by:

      Timothy L. Hix, Esq.
      SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
      333 South Hope Street, Suite 3900
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 270-9622
      Facsimile: (213) 270-9601
      E-mail: thix@seyfarth.com

NEWELL BRANDS: Settlement of Jarden Merger Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Newell Brands Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the settlement in a
shaereholder class action over the Company's acquisition of Jarden
remains pending.

Subject to court approval of the settlement agreement and the lead
plaintiff and lead counsel, the shareholder claims will be
released, and the defendants will reimburse up to $0.6 million in
attorney fees for the shareholders.

A putative class action lawsuit (Vincent A. Hirsch v. James E.
Lillie, Martin E. Franklin, Ian G.H. Ashken, Michael S. Gross,
Robert L. Wood, Irwin D. Simon, William P. Lauder, Ros
L'esperance, Peter A. Hochfelder, Newell Rubbermaid Inc., NCPF
Acquisition Corp. I and NCPF Acquisition Corp. II, Case No. 9:16-
CV-80258 (United States District Court for the Southern District
of Florida)) was filed on February 24, 2016, purportedly on behalf
of Jarden shareholders against the individually named director
defendants, who were directors of Jarden. The Company and its
subsidiaries NCPF Acquisition Corp. I and NCPF Acquisition Corp.
II are also named as defendants. The Complaint alleges claims
under Sec. 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act"), SEC Rule 14a-9 against all defendants, and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual director
defendants. Plaintiff alleges that the joint proxy/prospectus of
the Company and Jarden concerning the proposed merger contemplated
by the Merger Agreement omitted certain information.

In March 2016, the parties entered into a settlement term sheet,
pursuant to which the Company added certain disclosures to its
Registration Statement on Form S-4. Thereafter, on July 19, 2016,
the parties executed a Stipulation of Settlement, and the lead
plaintiff and lead counsel contemporaneously filed an Unopposed
Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Proposed Class Action
Settlement.  That motion remains pending.


NEWELL BRANDS: "Paree" Case Over Jarden Deal Remains Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Newell Brands Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the lawsuit by Jessica
Paree over the Company's acquisition of Jarden remains stayed.

A putative class action lawsuit (Jessica Paree v. Martin E.
Franklin, et al (Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial District
in and for Palm Beach County, Florida)) was filed on March 10,
2016, purportedly on behalf of Jarden stockholders, against the
individually named director defendants, all of whom were directors
of Jarden. The Company and two of its subsidiaries are also named
as defendants. The complaint generally alleges that the director
defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to Jarden
stockholders regarding the merger consideration agreed to and the
process undertaken by the director defendants in connection with
the Jarden transaction, and that the Company and two of its
subsidiaries aided and abetted such breaches. Plaintiff further
alleges that defendants have (i) solicited stockholder action
pursuant to a materially false and misleading joint proxy
statement/prospectus, (ii) failed to include all material
information concerning the unfair sales process that resulted in
the merger transactions, and (iii) materially omitted certain
information related to the financial analyses performed by
Jarden's financial advisor.

Plaintiff seeks, among other things, preliminary and permanent
injunctive relief enjoining the merger transactions, rescission or
rescissory damages in the event the Jarden transaction is
consummated, an award of attorneys' and experts' fees and costs,
and a direction from the court that Jarden's individual board
members account for all damages allegedly suffered as a result of
their alleged wrongdoing. On March 28, 2016, the parties filed an
Agreed Joint Motion to Stay Proceedings, seeking a stay of the
litigation, pending the outcome of the above described Hirsch v.
Lillie action. The court entered an order staying the proceedings
on March 31, 2016, and the case remains stayed at this time, per
the parties' request.


OCWEN LOAN: Abraham Seeks to Certify Pa., N.J. and FDCPA Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled LISA A. ABRAHAM, LISA CAVE,
SCOTT CAVE, LEE ANN KAMINSKI, and MARK E. KAMINSKI, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. OCWEN LOAN
SERVICING, LLC, Case No. 5:14-cv-04977-JP (E.D. Pa.), move the
Court for certification of three classes:

     (1) The Pennsylvania Class -- brought by Plaintiffs Lisa
         Abraham, Lisa Cave and Scott Cave on behalf of
         themselves and a Class consisting of:

         All Pennsylvania homeowners whose mortgage loans have
         been serviced by Ocwen, and who have entered into a
         standard form template Loan Modification Agreement with
         Ocwen on or after February 14, 2007 that contains a
         "Balloon Disclosure" provision which does not disclose
         the amount of the balloon payment that the borrower will
         owe at the end of the term of the loan (the
         "Pennsylvania Class").

     (2) The New Jersey Class -- brought by Plaintiffs Lee Ann
         Kaminski and Mark E. Kaminski on behalf of themselves
         and a Class consisting of:

         All New Jersey homeowners whose mortgage loans have been
         serviced by Ocwen, and who have entered into a standard
         form template Loan Modification Agreement with Ocwen on
         or after February 25, 2009 that contains a "Balloon
         Disclosure" provision which does not disclose the amount
         of the balloon payment that the borrower will owe at the
         end of the term of the loan (the "New Jersey Class").

     (3) The FDCPA Class -- brought by Plaintiffs Lisa Cave and
         Scott Cave on behalf of themselves and a Class
         consisting of:

         All Pennsylvania and New Jersey homeowners for whom
         servicing of their mortgage loans was transferred to
         Ocwen at a time when such homeowners were in default on
         their loans, and to whom Ocwen sent a standard form
         template Loan Modification Agreement with Ocwen on or
         after July 21, 2010 that contains a "Balloon Disclosure"
         provision which does not disclose the amount of the
         balloon payment that the borrower will owe at the end of
         the term of the loan (the "FDCPA Class").

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint Plaintiffs Lisa
Abraham, Lisa Cave and Scott Cave as representatives of the
Pennsylvania Class, Plaintiffs Lee Ann Kaminski and Mark E.
Kaminski as representatives of the New Jersey Class, Plaintiffs
Lisa Cave and Scott Cave as representatives of the FDCPA Class,
and their co-counsel, Berger & Montague, P.C. and Ann Miller, LLC,
as lead counsel for the Classes.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=SmyB1rHl

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Todd S. Collins, Esq.
          Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4613
          E-mail: tcollins@bm.net
                  elechtzin@bm.net

               - and -

          Ann Miller, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ANN MILLER
          1657 The Fairway # 132
          Jenkintown, PA 19046
          Telephone: 215-238-0468
          Facsimile: 215-405-2653
          E-mail: am@attorneyannmiller.com


ONE GROUP: "Takahashi" Suit Seeks Relief Under Labor Code
---------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH TAKAHASHI, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. THE ONE GROUP HOSPITALITY, INC., a
Delaware corporation; STK WESTWOOD, LLC, a California limited
liability corporation; CELESTE FIERRO, an individual; ROBERT
LIBERATO, an individual; DENNIS CRUZ, an individual; and DOES 1-
100, Inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. Be 631176 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Aug. 23, 2016), seeks equitable and injunctive relief,
economic and statutory damages, prejudgment interest, costs and
attorneys' fees, and other appropriate relief against the
Defendants for Labor Code violations.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs routinely worked
periods of eight hours or more, per work day, without receiving
overtime compensation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          SROURIAN LAW FIRM
          Daniel Srourian, Esq.
          3440 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 915
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (310) 601 3131
          Facsimile: (310) 388 8444
          E-mail: daniel@slfla.com


PEACOCK PAINT: "Ulloa" Suit Alleges FLSA, NY Labor Law Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANGEL R. LUJAN ULLOA, Individually and on Behalf of All Other
Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. PEACOCK PAINT SUPPLIES
INCORPORATED, R & A PAINTING LTD., EGOR ARONIN, and JOHN DOES # 1-
10, Case 1:16-cv-06774 Defendants (S.D.N.Y., August 29, 2016), was
filed pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     William C. Rand, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM COUDERT RAND
     501 Fifth Ave., 15th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 286-1425
     Fax: (646) 688-3078


PFIZER INC: Deal Reached to Settle Celebrex and Bextra Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended July 3, 2016, that the parties have reached an
agreement in principle to resolve Celebrex and Bextra claims for
all defendants for $486 million.

The Company said, "Beginning in late 2004, several purported class
actions were filed in federal and state courts alleging that
Pfizer and certain of our current and former officers violated
federal securities laws by misrepresenting the safety of Celebrex
and Bextra. In June 2005, the federal actions were transferred for
consolidated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation
(In re Pfizer Inc. Securities, Derivative and "ERISA" Litigation
MDL-1688) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York. In March 2012, the court in the Multi-District
Litigation certified a class consisting of all persons who
purchased or acquired Pfizer stock between October 31, 2000 and
October 19, 2005.

"In May 2014, the court in the Multi-District Litigation granted
Pfizer's motion to exclude the testimony of the plaintiffs' loss
causation and damages expert. We subsequently filed a motion for
summary judgment seeking dismissal of the litigation, and the
plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to submit an amended report by
their expert.

"In July 2014, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for leave
to submit an amended report, and granted our motion for summary
judgment, dismissing the plaintiffs' claims in their entirety.

"In August 2014, the plaintiffs appealed the District Court's
decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In
April 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
reversed the District Court's decision and remanded the case to
the District Court for further proceedings.

"In July 2016, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
resolve this matter for all defendants for $486 million, a portion
of which was recorded in Other (income)/deductions -- net for the
three months ended July 3, 2016, and the full amount of which was
recorded in Other (income)/deductions -- net for the six months
ended July 3, 2016. The agreement in principle is subject to the
negotiation of a final settlement agreement and court approval,
and the payment will be made in accordance with the terms of the
settlement agreement.


PFIZER INC: Bids to Dismiss End-Payer Plaintiffs' Claims Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended July 3, 2016, that motions to dismiss remain pending
as to the end-payer plaintiffs' remaining claims in the antitrust
actions.

Beginning in May 2011, actions, including purported class actions,
were filed in various federal courts against Wyeth and, in certain
of the actions, affiliates of Wyeth and certain other defendants
relating to Effexor XR, which is the extended-release formulation
of Effexor. The plaintiffs in each of the class actions seek to
represent a class consisting of all persons in the U.S. and its
territories who directly purchased, indirectly purchased or
reimbursed patients for the purchase of Effexor XR or generic
Effexor XR from any of the defendants from June 14, 2008 until the
time the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct ceased. The
plaintiffs in all of the actions allege delay in the launch of
generic Effexor XR in the U.S. and its territories, in violation
of federal antitrust laws and, in certain of the actions, the
antitrust, consumer protection and various other laws of certain
states, as the result of Wyeth fraudulently obtaining and
improperly listing certain patents for Effexor XR in the Orange
Book, enforcing certain patents for Effexor XR and entering into a
litigation settlement agreement with a generic drug manufacturer
with respect to Effexor XR. Each of the plaintiffs seeks treble
damages (for itself in the individual actions or on behalf of the
putative class in the purported class actions) for alleged price
overcharges for Effexor XR or generic Effexor XR in the U.S. and
its territories since June 14, 2008. All of these actions have
been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey.

In October 2014, the District Court dismissed the direct purchaser
plaintiffs' claims based on the litigation settlement agreement,
but declined to dismiss the other direct purchaser plaintiff
claims. In January 2015, the District Court entered partial final
judgments as to all settlement agreement claims, including those
asserted by direct purchasers and end-payer plaintiffs, which
plaintiffs have appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit. Motions to dismiss remain pending as to the end-
payer plaintiffs' remaining claims.


PFIZER INC: Appeal in Zoloft Case Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended July 3, 2016, that plaintiffs' appeal in the Zoloft
case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit remains
pending.

The Company said, "A number of individual lawsuits and multi-
plaintiff lawsuits have been filed against us and/or our
subsidiaries in various federal and state courts alleging personal
injury as a result of the purported ingestion of Zoloft. Among
other types of actions, the Zoloft personal injury litigation
includes actions alleging a variety of birth defects as a result
of the purported ingestion of Zoloft by women during pregnancy.
Plaintiffs in these birth-defect actions seek compensatory and
punitive damages and the disgorgement of profits resulting from
the sale of Zoloft."

"In April 2012, the federal birth-defect cases were transferred
for consolidated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District
Litigation (In re Zoloft Products Liability Litigation MDL-2342)
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. A number of plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed
their actions. In April 2016, the District Court granted our
motion for summary judgment, dismissing the claims of almost all
of the remaining plaintiffs. In May 2016, the plaintiffs appealed
the District Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit."

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


PFIZER INC: Viagra Product Liability Lawsuits Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended July 3, 2016, that the Company continues to defend
lawsuits related to Viagra.

A number of individual and multi-plaintiff lawsuits have been
filed against us in various federal and state courts alleging that
the plaintiffs developed melanoma and/or the exacerbation of
melanoma as a result of the purported ingestion of Viagra.
Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages.

In April 2016, the federal actions were transferred for
coordinated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation
(In Re: Viagra (Sildenafil Citrate) Products Liability Litigation,
MDL-2691) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.


PFIZER INC: Ontario Case Over Chantix/Champix Proceeding
--------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended July 3, 2016, that the Ontario action related to
Chantix/Champix is proceeding on a national basis.

The Company said, "Beginning in December 2008, purported class
actions were filed against us in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice (Toronto Region), the Superior Court of Quebec (District
of Montreal), the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta, Judicial
District of Calgary, and the Superior Court of British Columbia
(Vancouver Registry) on behalf of all individuals and third-party
payers in Canada who have purchased and ingested Champix or
reimbursed patients for the purchase of Champix. Each of these
actions asserts claims under Canadian product liability law,
including with respect to the safety and efficacy of Champix, and,
on behalf of the putative class, seeks monetary relief, including
punitive damages.

"In June 2012, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified the
Ontario proceeding as a class action, defining the class as
consisting of the following: (i) all persons in Canada who
ingested Champix during the period from April 2, 2007 to May 31,
2010 and who experienced at least one of a number of specified
neuropsychiatric adverse events; (ii) all persons who are entitled
to assert claims in respect of Champix pursuant to Canadian
legislation as the result of their relationship with a class
member; and (iii) all health insurers who are entitled to assert
claims in respect of Champix pursuant to Canadian legislation. The
Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified the class against
Pfizer Canada Inc. only and ruled that the action against Pfizer
should be stayed until after the trial of the issues that are
common to the class members. The actions in Quebec, Alberta and
British Columbia have been stayed in favor of the Ontario action,
which is proceeding on a national basis."


PNC BANK: Certification of Two Classes Sought in "Muhammad" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled JAMES A. MUHAMMAD,
Individually and on behalf of a class of similarly-situated
persons v. PNC BANK, N.A., Case No. 2:15-cv-16190 (S.D. W.Va.),
asks the Court to certify these classes of similarly situated
persons:

     Class A:
     All West Virginia citizens at the time of the filing of this
     action who had or have consumer home loans serviced by
     Defendant PNC and who were charged Speedpay fees and are
     listed on Exhibit C.

     Class B:
     All West Virginia citizens at the time of the filing of this
     action who had or have consumer home loans serviced by
     Defendant PNC and who were charged document request fees and
     are listed on Exhibit C.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kW3NlvE7

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq.
          Sandra Henson Kinney, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
          209 Capitol Street
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 345-6555
          Facsimile: (304) 342-1110
          E-mail: jmarshall@baileyglasser.com
                  skinney@baileyglasser.com


POPULAR INC: Discovery in "Valle" Action Underway
-------------------------------------------------
Popular, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that discovery is ongoing in
the class action by Josefina Valle.

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

PCB removed the case to federal court (SDNY) and plaintiffs
subsequently filed a motion to remand the action to state court,
which the Court granted on August 6, 2013. A motion to dismiss was
filed on September 9, 2013. On October 25, 2013, plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint seeking to limit the putative class to New
York account holders. A motion to dismiss the amended complaint
was filed in February 2014. In August 2014, the Court entered an
order granting in part PCB's motion to dismiss. The sole surviving
claim relates to PCB's item processing policy.

On September 10, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file
a second amended complaint to correct certain deficiencies noted
in the court's decision and order. PCB subsequently filed a motion
in opposition to plaintiff's motion for leave to amend and further
sought to compel arbitration. In June 2015, this matter was
reassigned to a new judge and on July 22, 2015, such Court denied
PCB's motion to compel arbitration and granted plaintiffs' motion
for leave to amend the complaint to replead certain claims based
on item processing reordering, misstatement of balance information
and failure to notify customers in advance of potential
overdrafts. The Court did not, however, allow plaintiffs to
replead their claim for the alleged breach of the implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing.

On August 12, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint. On August 24, 2015, PCB filed a Notice of Appeal as to
the order granting leave to file the second amended complaint and
on September 17, 2015, it filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint. On February 18, 2016, the Court granted in part
and denied in part PCB's pending motion to dismiss. The Court
dismissed plaintiffs' unfair and deceptive acts and trade
practices claim to the extent it sought to recover overdraft fees
incurred prior to September 2011. On March 28, 2016, PCB filed an
answer to second amended complaint and on April 7, 2016, it filed
a notice of appeal the partial denial of PCB's motion to dismiss.
Plaintiffs are to file a motion requesting class certification by
August 19, 2016. Discovery is ongoing.


POPULAR INC: Settlement in Quiles Case Awaits Court OK
------------------------------------------------------
Popular, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the parties in the
class action by Neysha Quiles are awaiting the Court's final
determination of the settlement in the case.

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

On January 31, 2014, the Popular defendants filed an answer to the
complaint. On January 9, 2015, plaintiffs submitted a motion for
conditional class certification, which BPPR opposed. On February
18, 2015, the Court entered an order whereby it granted
plaintiffs' request for conditional certification of the FLSA
action. Following the Court's order, plaintiffs sent out notices
to all purported class members with instructions for opting into
the class. Approximately sixty potential class members opted into
the class prior to the expiration of the opt-in period. On June
25, 2015, the Court denied with prejudice plaintiffs' motion for
class certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

On October 20, 2015, the parties reached an agreement in principle
to resolve the referenced action for an immaterial amount, subject
to their reaching an agreement on the payment of reasonable
attorneys' fees. The parties submitted briefing to the Court on
this issue and are currently awaiting the Court's final
determination.


POPULAR INC: Motions to Dismiss "Fernandez" Case Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Popular, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that Defendants' motions to
dismiss the amended complaint in the class action by Nora
Fernandez are pending the Court's determination.

Banco Popular de Puerto Rico and Popular Securities have also been
named defendants in a putative class action complaint captioned
Nora Fernandez, et al. v. UBS, et al., filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) on May
5, 2014 on behalf of investors in 23 Puerto Rico closed-end
investment companies. UBS Financial Services Incorporated of
Puerto Rico, another named defendant, is the sponsor and co-
sponsor of all 23 funds, while BPPR was co-sponsor, together with
UBS, of nine (9) of those funds. Plaintiffs allege breach of
fiduciary duty and breach of contract against Popular Securities,
aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against BPPR, and
similar claims against the UBS entities. The complaint seeks
unspecified damages, including disgorgement of fees and attorneys'
fees.

On May 30, 2014, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their class
action in the SDNY and on that same date, they filed a virtually
identical complaint in the USDC-PR and requested that the case be
consolidated with the matter of In re: UBS Financial Services
Securities Litigation, a class action currently pending before the
USDC-PR in which neither BPPR nor Popular Securities are parties.
The UBS defendants filed an opposition to the consolidation
request and moved to transfer the case back to the SDNY on the
ground that the relevant agreements between the parties contain a
choice of forum clause, with New York as the selected forum. The
Popular defendants joined the opposition and motion filed by UBS.
By order dated January 30, 2015, the court denied the plaintiffs'
motion to consolidate.

By order dated March 30, 2015, the court granted defendants'
motion to transfer. On May 8, 2015, plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint in the SDNY containing virtually identical allegations
with respect to Popular Securities and BPPR. Defendants filed
motions to dismiss the amended complaint on June 18, 2015. Those
motions are pending the Court's determination.


POPULAR INC: Court Okayed BPPR Settlement in RadioShack Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Popular, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a Texas court has held
a settlement fairness hearing whereby it accepted the parties'
settlement agreement in all relevant respects concluding this
matter with respect to Banco Popular de Puerto Rico.

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

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

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


PORSCHE AUTOMOBIL: VW's Dieselgate Scandal May Affect Stock Value
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DIESELGATE may have negatively affected the value of your stock!

Research of the US Department of Justice suggests that former
Porsche Automobil Holding SE CEO Martin Winternkorn had actual
knowledge of violations of applicable clean air standards by cars
manufactured by the Porsche SE group of companies at the latest in
early 2014.  There are further indications suggesting knowledge of
these manipulations as early as in November 2009, when Winterkorn
became CEO of Porsche Automobil Holding SE. Despite the capability
to substantially influence the stock price of Porsche Automobil
Holding SE shares, relevant information had not been made public.
The main asset of Porsche Automobil Holding SE is shares in
Volkswagen AG.  The board of Porsche Automobil Holding SE was
therefore obligated to inform its shareholders truthfully and
without delay.

WE PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS!

Should you have been a shareholder in Porsche Automobil Holding SE
prior to September 18, 2015, please contact us now through this
contact form.  You may be entitled to substantial compensation.


PPL CORPORATION: Discovery Schedule Through Q2 2017
---------------------------------------------------
PPL Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a District Court has
issued an order setting a discovery schedule through the second
quarter of 2017 related to the Cane Run Environmental Claims.

In December 2013, six residents, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint against
LG&E and PPL in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Kentucky alleging violations of the Clean Air Act and Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. In addition, these
plaintiffs assert common law claims of nuisance, trespass and
negligence. These plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and civil
penalties, plus costs and attorney fees, for the alleged statutory
violations. Under the common law claims, these plaintiffs seek
monetary compensation and punitive damages for property damage and
diminished property values for a class consisting of residents
within four miles of the Cane Run plant. In their individual
capacities, these plaintiffs seek compensation for alleged adverse
health effects.

In response to a motion to dismiss filed by PPL and Louisville Gas
and Electric Company, in July 2014, the court dismissed the
plaintiffs' RCRA claims and all but one Clean Air Act claim, but
declined to dismiss their common law tort claims. Upon motion of
LG&E and PPL, the district court certified for appellate review
the issue of whether the state common law claims are preempted by
federal statute.

In December 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
issued an order granting appellate review regarding the above
matter. Oral argument before the Sixth Circuit was held in August
2015.

In November 2015, the Sixth Circuit issued an opinion affirming
the District Court's ruling that plaintiffs' state law claims are
not preempted by the Clean Air Act and remanding the matter to the
District Court for further proceedings.

The District Court has issued an order setting a discovery
schedule through the second quarter of 2017. PPL, LKE and LG&E
cannot predict the outcome of this matter. LG&E retired one coal-
fired unit at the Cane Run plant in March 2015 and the remaining
two coal-fired units at the plant in June 2015.


QUANTUM SOLAR: Faces "Medrano" Suit in California Superior Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Quantum Solar Designs Inc. The
case is captioned Anthony Medrano an Individual on behalf of
himself and other similarly situated current or former employees
of Defendants, the Plaintiff, v. Quantum Solar Designs Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 56-2016-00485628-CU-WT-VTA (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Aug. 23, 2016).

Quantum Solar Designs is a family-owned solar company, located in
Camarillo, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven D. Waisbren, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN D. WAISBREN
          5850 Canoga Ave., Ste 400
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (818) 710 7102
          E-mail: www.waisbrenlaw.com


REACHLOCAL INC: "Miranda" Suit Over Gannett Merger Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Reachlocal, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company will defend
against Todd Miranda's putative class action lawsuit challenging a
merger deal.

On June 27, 2016, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger under which Gannett Co., Inc. ("Parent") and Raptor
Merger Sub, Inc. ("Purchaser"), a wholly owned subsidiary of
Parent, commenced a tender offer (the "Offer") on July 11, 2016 to
acquire all of the Company's outstanding shares of common stock at
a purchase price of $4.60 per share in cash, subject to reduction
for any applicable withholding taxes, without interest ("Merger
Consideration"). Upon the completion of the tender offer on August
9, 2016, Purchaser acquired over 92% of the Company's outstanding
common stock and, promptly afterwards, Purchaser merged with and
into the Company without a vote of the Company's stockholders (the
"Merger"), with the Company surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary
of Parent. The Company is now in the process of deregistering
under the Exchange Act.

On July 15, 2016, Todd Miranda filed a putative class action
lawsuit challenging the Merger in the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Los Angeles.

The Company said, "In addition to the Company, the members of our
Board of Directors and certain Gannett entities were named as
defendants. The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duty by
the individual members of our Board in connection with the Merger
Agreement by allegedly accepting an inadequate offer price and
allegedly agreeing to unreasonable deal protection provisions,
among other actions. The complaint further alleges that we, Parent
and Purchaser aided and abetted the purported breaches of
fiduciary duty. The plaintiffs generally seek equitable and
injunctive relief, including an order enjoining the defendants
from completing the proposed merger transaction, rescission of any
consummated transaction, unspecified amounts in damages and
attorneys' fees."

"We believe this lawsuit is without merit, and intend to
vigorously defend against it.


REACHLOCAL INC: To Defend Against "Casey" Suit Over Gannett Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reachlocal, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company will defend
against Donal Casey's putative class action lawsuit challenging a
merger deal.

On June 27, 2016, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger under which Gannett Co., Inc. ("Parent") and Raptor
Merger Sub, Inc. ("Purchaser"), a wholly owned subsidiary of
Parent, commenced a tender offer (the "Offer") on July 11, 2016 to
acquire all of the Company's outstanding shares of common stock at
a purchase price of $4.60 per share in cash, subject to reduction
for any applicable withholding taxes, without interest ("Merger
Consideration"). Upon the completion of the tender offer on August
9, 2016, Purchaser acquired over 92% of the Company's outstanding
common stock and, promptly afterwards, Purchaser merged with and
into the Company without a vote of the Company's stockholders (the
"Merger"), with the Company surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary
of Parent. The Company is now in the process of deregistering
under the Exchange Act.

On July 27, 2016, Donal Casey filed a putative class action
lawsuit challenging the Merger in the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Los Angeles.

The Company said, "In addition to the Company, the members of our
Board of Directors were named as defendants. The complaint alleges
breaches of fiduciary duty by the individual members of our Board
in connection with the Merger Agreement by allegedly failing to
properly value the Company, allegedly agreeing to unreasonable
deal protection provisions, and allegedly failing to make adequate
disclosures regarding the Merger, among other actions. The
plaintiffs generally seek equitable and injunctive relief,
including an order enjoining the defendants from completing the
Merger, rescission of any consummated transaction, unspecified
amounts in damages and attorneys' fees. We believe this lawsuit is
without merit, and intend to vigorously defend against it."


REGULATORY TECHNOLOGY: Has Until Sept. 12 to Respond to Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Casano v. Regulatory Technology Corporation, Case No.
16-cv-00096 (Bankr. M.D. Fla., January 14, 2016), Judge Mary S.
Scriven entered an order granting Defendant's Unopposed Motion for
Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification. Defendant shall have up to and including September
12, 2016, to file a response to the Motion for Class
Certification.

The case alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The case has been referred to Magistrate Judge Anthony E.
Porcelli.


REMINGTON ARMS: Judge Defers Final Settlement Approval Until Feb.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Cohn, writing for CNBC.com, reports that the federal judge
overseeing a proposed class action settlement involving millions
of allegedly defective Remington firearms says the parties can go
ahead with a revised plan to notify gun owners of their right to
get the triggers replaced.

But in a unique twist, the judge is delaying final approval of the
settlement until he sees how many people file claims.

The case involves Remington's popular Model 700 rifle as well as a
dozen other models with a similar design, which were the subject
of a 2010 CNBC documentary and a follow-up investigation last
year.  Plaintiffs allege that for decades, Remington covered up a
design flaw that allowed the guns to fire without the trigger
being pulled, resulting in at least two dozen deaths and hundreds
of injuries.

Remington denies the allegations and says the guns are safe, but
agreed in 2014 to replace the triggers on some 7 million guns free
of charge in order to end the costly litigation once and for all.

But the judge in the case, U.S. District Judge Ortrie Smith in
Kansas City, balked at the agreement and sent the parties back to
the drawing board after only a handful of gun owners responded to
the initial offer.

"The Court cannot conceive that an owner of an allegedly defective
firearm would not seek the remedy being provided," Smith wrote in
December.

The parties came back with a revised plan in June, developed in
part by former Obama campaign manager Jim Messina, that added
social media, talk radio, and internet banner ads to the original
direct mail and print campaign designed to alert gun owners of the
offer.

That plan drew even more criticism, including a scathing letter to
the court from an authority on class action settlement notices --
Philadelphia-based consultant Todd Hilsee -- who wrote in July
that the plan was "designed to fail," and seemed geared more
toward addressing "Remington's public relations concerns" than
actually getting guns fixed.

Remington and the plaintiffs fired back with their own expert,
calling Mr. Hilsee's letter "false, rife with misinformation, and
derived from a foregone era of media consumption."

In an order issued on Aug. 23, Judge Smith sided with the company
and the plaintiffs for now, but with one important change: Rather
than giving final approval to the settlement now -- and allowing
plaintiffs' attorneys to collect $12.5 million in fees -- he is
deferring final approval of the settlement until February,
apparently depending on how many people file claims between now
and then.

"The Court expressly reserves its decision with regard to the
adequacy and reasonableness of the Plan," Judge Smith wrote.

Judge Smith also ordered a new opportunity for gun owners to
object or opt out of the settlement; a previous window had long
since expired.  The new deadline is November 18.

The new schedule means that at least in theory, Remington owners
will be bombarded with notices about the class action settlement
just as the fall hunting season approaches.

An attorney for the plaintiffs hailed the ruling.

"We applaud Judge Smith's clear concern for safety, dedication to
increasing claims and getting as many new triggers in guns as
possible," said Eric Holland in an e-mail to CNBC.

Attorneys for Remington did not immediately respond to requests
for comment about the latest ruling.

The settlement covers some of Remington's top-selling models
including the 700, Seven, Sportsman 78, 673, 710, 715, 770, 600,
660, XP-100, 721, 722, and 725, produced since 1948.


RESOURCE ENERGY: Moresi Seeks to Certify Welders & Fitters Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled DYLAN JOHN MORESI,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
RESOURCE ENERGY VENTURES AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LLC and GULF
SOUTH SERVICES, INC., Case No. 6:15-cv-02224-RFD-CBW (W.D. La.),
seeks conditional certification of a class consisting of welders,
fitters and welder helpers.

The Case is brought over alleged failure by the Defendants to pay
the Plaintiff, and those similarly situated overtime, as required
by the Fair Labor Standards Act.  Hence, the Plaintiff asks the
Court to:

   (1) conditionally certify this action for purposes of notice
       and discovery;

   (2) order that judicially-approved notice be sent to all
       Putative Class Members by first class mail and e-mail;

   (3) approve the form and content of the Plaintiff's proposed
       judicial notice and consent forms

   (4) order the Defendant to produce to the Plaintiff's Counsel
       the contact information for each Putative Class Member in
       a usable electronic format; and

   (5) authorize a 60-day notice period for Putative Class
       Members to join the Case.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=dk9XpNdq

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth D. St. Pe, Esq.
          KENNETH D. ST. PE, APLC
          311 W. University Ave., Suite A
          Lafayette, LA 70506
          Telephone: (337) 534-4043
          Facsimile: (337) 534-8379
          E-mail: kennethstpe@aol.com


ROSE ACRE FARMS: Seeks to Decertify Purchasers Class in Egg MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Rose Acre Farms, Inc., Michael Foods, Inc., and Ohio
Fresh Eggs, Inc., ask the Court to de-certify the class of shell
egg direct purchasers it previously certified in the multidistrict
litigation styled In re: Processed Egg Products Antitrust
Litigation, MDL No. 2:08-md-02002-GEKP, in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The document applies to all direct purchaser actions.

In light of developments in the case since the briefing on class
certification concluded and the Court's September 21, 2015
decision granting in part Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' ("DPPs")
motion for certification, continuing class treatment is
inappropriate, the Moving Defendants contend.  They add that it
has become clear that individual questions will predominate at
trial and that the class representatives cannot adequately
represent the claims of the absent class members.

When the DPPs' expert's econometric analysis is adjusted to
reflect the Court's ruling on the appropriate class period, the
results indicate that egg prices were actually lower than they
would have been but -- for the alleged conspiracy -- meaning that
DPPs cannot demonstrate antitrust injury nor damages using
evidence common to the class, the Moving Defendants argue.  They
add that a post-class certification analysis of flock size and egg
production submitted by Dr. Rausser with his merits report
demonstrates that if the alleged conspiracy did reduce the egg
supply, it did not do so until 2007.  This egg production analysis
also creates a defense against the claims of up to 20% of the
class members -- class members who did not purchase shell eggs
from a defendant after 2006 -- putting those class members'
interests at odds with the named plaintiffs, the Moving Defendants
assert.

Because the DPPs cannot meet their burden to demonstrate that the
requirements of Rules 23(a) and (b) are met, the class should be
decertified, the Moving Defendants conclude.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jeVzVqQ8

Defendant Michael Foods, Inc., is represented by:

          Carrie Mahan, Esq.
          WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
          1300 Eye Street NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 682-7000
          Facsimile: (202) 857-0940
          E-mail: carrie.mahan@weil.com

               - and -

          William L. Greene, Esq.
          STINSON LEONARD STREET LLP
          150 South Fifth Street, Suite 2300
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 335-1500
          Facsimile: (612) 335-1657
          E-mail: william.greene@stinson.com

Defendant Rose Acre Farms, Inc., is represented by:

          Donald M. Barnes, Esq.
          Jay L. Levine, Esq.
          Jetta C. Sandin, Esq.
          PORTER, WRIGHT, MORRIS & ARTHUR, LLP
          1900 K Street, NW, Suite 1110
          Washington, DC 20006-1110
          Telephone: (202) 778-3056
          Facsimile: (202) 778-3063
          E-mail: dbarnes@porterwright.com
                  jlevine@porterwright.com
                  jsandin@porterwright.com

Defendant Ohio Fresh Eggs, LLC, is represented by:

          Joseph M. Callow, Jr., Esq.
          KEATING MUETHING & KLEKAMP PLL
          One East Fourth Street, Suite 1400
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 579-6419
          Facsimile: (513) 579-6457
          E-mail: jcallow@kmklaw.com


RTG FURNITURE: Hankinson Seeks Certification of Three Classes
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled Benjamin Hankinson, James
Guerra, and Jeanette Gandolfo, Lisa Palmer, Donald Anderson, and
Lisa Prihoda, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. R.T.G. Furniture Corp., d/b/a Rooms to Go, RTG
America, LLC, The Jeffrey Seaman 2009 Annuity Trust, RTG Furniture
Corp. of Georgia, d/b/a Rooms to Go, RTG Furniture of Texas, L.P.,
d/b/a Rooms to Go, RTG Texas Holdings, Inc., and R.T.G. Furniture
Corp. of Texas, Case No. 9:15-cv-81139-JIC (S.D. Fla.), seek class
certification for these classes:

     a) Florida Class: All residents of Florida who purchased
        ForceField Protection Plans from Defendants, from
        August 12, 2010 to August 12, 2015.

        i. Florida "Slamming" Subclass: All residents of Florida
        who purchased ForceField Protection Plans from
        Defendants, whose ForceField Protection Plans were added
        to their bills without their knowledge from August 12,
        2011 to August 12; 2015

     b) Georgia Class: All residents of Georgia who purchased
        ForceField Protection Plans from Defendants, from
        August 12, 2009 to August 12, 2015; and

     c) Texas Class: All residents of Texas who purchased
        ForceField Protection Plans from Defendants, from
        August 12, 2011 to August 12, 2015.

Plaintiffs Hankins, Guerra, and Gandolfo, Florida residents, seek
appointment as the representatives for the class of Florida
purchasers.  Plaintiff Palmer, a Florida resident, seeks
appointment as the representative for the Florida slamming
subclass.  Plaintiff Prihoda, a Texas resident, seeks appointment
as the representative for the class of Texas purchasers.
Plaintiff Anderson, a Georgia resident, seeks appointment as the
representative for the class of Georgia purchasers.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint their counsel, Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC, as class counsel for all classes.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0w6eSQ74

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Theodore J. Leopold, Esq.
          Leslie M. Kroeger, Esq.
          Diana L. Martin, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200
          Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
          Telephone: (561) 515-1400
          Facsimile: (561) 515-1401
          E-mail: tleopold@cohenmilstein.com
                  lkroeger@cohenmilstein.com
                  dmartin@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Douglas J. McNamara, Esq.
          Eric A. Kafka, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, NW
          East Tower, 5th Floor
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
          E-mail: dmcnamara@cohenmilstein.com
                  ekafka@cohenmilstein.com

Defendant R.T.G. Furniture Corp. is represented by:

          Jamie Zysk Isani, Esq.
          Douglas C. Dreier, Esq.
          HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP
          1111 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2500
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 810-2500
          Facsimile: (305) 810-1675
          E-mail: jisani@hunton.com
                  ddreier@hunton.com

               - and -

          Walfrido J. Martinez, Esq.
          HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: (212) 309-1316
          Facsimile: (212) 309-1100
          E-mail: wmartinez@hunton.com

               - and -

          Randi Engel Schnell, Esq.
          Frank M. Lowrey IV, Esq.
          Joshua F. Thorpe, Esq.
          BONDURANT MIXSON & ELMORE LLP
          One Atlantic Center
          1201 West Peachtree Street NW, Suite 3900
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 881-4100
          Facsimile: (404) 881-4111
          E-mail: schnell@bmelaw.com
                  flowery@bmelaw.com
                  thorpe@bmelaw.com


SAKUMA BROTHERS: Faces "Demetrio" Suit in W.D. of Washington
------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Sakuma Brothers Farms Inc. The
case is titled Ana Lopez Demetrio and Francisco Eugenio Paz,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Sakuma Brothers Farms Inc. and Garnishee MUFG Union
Bank NA, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-mc-00141-RSL (W.D. Wash.,
Aug. 23, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Robert S. Lasnik.

Sakuma Bros. is a family-owned farming operation spanning four
generations with over 85 years of experience in the small fruit
industry.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lori Isley, Esq.
          COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES (YAKIMA)
          6 S 2nd St., Ste 510 Larson Bldg.
          Yakima, WA 98901
          Telephone: (509) 575 5593
          E-mail: lori.isley@columbialegal.org

               - and -

          Marc C Cote, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
          936 North 34th Street, Ste 300
          Seattle, WA 98103-8869
          Telephone: (206) 816 6603
          Facsimile: (206) 319 5450
          E-mail: mcote@terrellmarshall.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Adam S. Belzberg, Esq.
          STOEL RIVES (WA)
          600 University St., Suite 3600
          Seattle, WA 98101-3197
          Telephone: (206) 386 7516
          Facsimile: (206) 386 7500
          E-mail: adam.belzberg@stoel.com


SEAS & ASSOCIATES: Stamer Amends Bid to Certify 3 TCPA Classes
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Stamer amends his motion to certify classes in his lawsuit
captioned DAVID STAMER, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. SEAS & ASSOCIATES, LLC, ABC FINANCIAL
SERVICES, INC., BLAST FITNESS GROUP, LLC., Case No. 1:15-cv-08277
(N.D. Ill.).

Mr. Stamer also asks the Court to appoint him as class
representative, appoint his lawyers as counsel for the classes,
and allow him to file a memorandum in support of the Amended
Motion after further class discovery.  He brings the Class Action
against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, and defines the classes as:

     (1) All persons in the United States (2) to whose cellular
     telephone number (3) Seas placed a debt collection telephone
     call (4) using an automatic telephone dialing system or an
     artificial or pre-recorded voice (5) within the 4 years
     prior to the filing of the complaint (6) whose number was
     listed as an emergency contact in Defendants' records;


     (1) All persons in the United States (2) to whose cellular
     telephone number (3) Seas placed a debt collection telephone
     call (4) using an automatic telephone dialing system or an
     artificial or pre-recorded voice (5) within the 4 years
     prior to the filing of the complaint (6) after Defendants'
     records listed a "wrong number" or equivalent notation that
     the number did not belong to the person alleged to owe the
     debt in question; and

     (1) All persons in the United States (2) to whose cellular
     telephone number (3) Seas placed a debt collection telephone
     call (4) using an automatic telephone dialing system or an
     artificial or pre-recorded voice (5) within the 4 years
     prior to the filing of the complaint (6) whose number was
     listed as an emergency contact in Defendants' records and
     was called regarding a Blast Fitness debt.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
          Timothy Sostrin, Esq.
          Michael Hilicki, Esq.
          KEOGH LAW, LTD.
          55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3390
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 726-1092
          Facsimile: (312) 726-1093
          E-mail: Keith@Keoghlaw.com
                  TSostrin@KeoghLaw.com
                  MHilicki@KeoghLaw.com


SHERWOOD CITY, AR: Faces "Dade" Suit in E.D. of Arkansas
--------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Sherwood City, Arkansas. The case
is captioned Charles Dade, Nakita Lewis, Nikki Petree, Lee Andrew
Robertson, and Philip Axelroth, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Sherwood Arkansas,
City of, Pulaski County Arkansas, and Milas H Hale, III, In his
official and individual capacities, the Defendant, Case No. 4:16-
cv-00602-JM (E.D. Ark., Aug. 23, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon.
James M. Moody Jr.

Sherwood is a city in Pulaski County, Arkansas, United States. As
of the 2010 census, the population of the city was 29,523.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bettina E. Brownstein, Esq.
          BETINNA E. BROWNSTEIN LAW FIRM
          904 West Second Street, Suite 2
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 920 1764
          E-mail: bettinabrownstein@gmail.com

               - and -

          Hallie Ryan, Esq.
          LAWYER'S COMMITTEE FOR
          CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW
          1401 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 400
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 662 8359

               - and -

          J. Alexander Lawrence, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          250 West 55th Street
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 468 8000
          E-mail: alawrence@mofo.com

               - and -

          Reggie Koch, Esq.
          KOCH LAW FIRM
          2024 Arkansas Valley Drive, Suite 707
          Little Rock, AR 72212
          Telephone: (501) 223 5310
          Facsimile: (501) 223 5311
          E-mail: reggie@reggiekoch.com


SNYDER'S-LANCE: $2.9MM Settlement in IBO Litigation Paid in Q2
--------------------------------------------------------------
Snyder's-Lance, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the $2.9 million
settlement amount in the IBO Litigation was paid in the second
quarter of 2016.

In January 2013, plaintiffs comprised of independent business
owners ("IBO") filed a putative class action against our
distribution subsidiary, S-L Distribution Company, Inc., in the
Suffolk Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The
lawsuit was transferred to the United States District Court,
Middle District of Pennsylvania. The lawsuit sought statewide
class certification on behalf of a class comprised of IBOs in
Massachusetts. The plaintiffs allege that they were misclassified
as independent contractors and should be considered employees. The
plaintiffs were seeking reimbursement of their out-of-pocket
business expenses.

"We believe we have strong defenses to all the claims that have
been asserted against us," the Company said.

On December 22, 2015, the parties to this litigation reached a
tentative settlement on a class wide basis.

"We do not admit any fault or liability in this matter; however,
in an effort to resolve these claims, we agreed to pay $2.9
million to fully resolve the litigation. This amount was paid in
the second quarter of 2016."


SNYDER'S-LANCE: Briefing Schedule in Merger Deal Not Yet Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Snyder's-Lance, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a schedule has not yet
been set for briefing of anticipated motions to dismiss the
complaints in the Merger-related Litigation.

The Company said, "On October 27, 2015, we entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization (the "Merger
Agreement") with Diamond. Diamond is a leading snack food company
with five brands including Kettle Brand(R) potato chips, KETTLE(R)
Chips, Pop Secret(R) popcorn, Emerald(R) snack nuts, and Diamond
of California(R) culinary nuts. Pursuant to the Merger Agreement,
we agreed to acquire all of the issued and outstanding shares of
common stock of Diamond in a cash and stock transaction, including
our repayment of $651.0 million of Diamond's indebtedness, accrued
interest and related fees. The acquisition was subject to the
approval of our stockholders of the issuance of our shares and the
approval of the stockholders of Diamond of the adoption of the
Merger Agreement."

"On February 26, 2016, our stockholders approved the issuance of
our shares and the stockholders of Diamond adopted the Merger
Agreement. The acquisition closed on February 29, 2016 and,
pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Diamond became our wholly-owned
subsidiary.

"On November 10, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
on behalf of Diamond stockholders in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware. The complaint names as defendants Diamond, the
members of Diamond's board of directors, Snyder's-Lance, Merger
Sub I and Merger Sub II. The complaint generally alleges, among
other things, that the members of Diamond's board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties to Diamond's stockholders in
connection with negotiating, entering into and approving the
merger agreement with Snyder's-Lance, Inc. The complaint
additionally alleges that Snyder's-Lance, Merger Sub I and Merger
Sub II aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties. The
complaint sought injunctive relief, including the enjoinment of
the merger, certain other declaratory and equitable relief,
damages, costs and fees. An amended complaint was filed on
December 21, 2015. The amended complaint adds further allegations
related to the merger process and disclosures contained in the
Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed by Snyder's-Lance on
November 25, 2015.

"On January 15, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion for expedited
proceedings requesting a preliminary injunction and expedited
discovery, which the Court denied on February 3, 2016. On January
19, 2016, another action was filed in Delaware similar to the
above matter.

"A schedule has not yet been set for briefing of anticipated
motions to dismiss the complaints. If we determine that a loss is
possible and a range of the loss can be reasonably estimated, we
will disclose the range of the possible loss.


SNYDER'S-LANCE: Mediation in Labor Suit Set for September 19
------------------------------------------------------------
Snyder's-Lance, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that mediation is scheduled
to occur on September 19, 2016, in the California Labor Code
Litigation.

Former employee Patricia Sparks filed a putative class action
lawsuit against Diamond on November 25, 2015 in San Francisco
Superior Court alleging Diamond's violation of the California
Labor Code by failing to include on wage statements the start date
of the pay period and by failing to include on wage statements the
name and address of legal entity that is the employer.  Plaintiff
amended her complaint on January 4, 2016 to add a claim for
penalties under California's Private Attorneys General Act based
on the same underlying violations.

Diamond timely answered the First Amended Complaint on March 7,
2016.

The parties attended the initial case management conference on May
2, 2016 and a further case management conference occurred on
August 1, 2016. Mediation is scheduled to occur on September 19,
2016.

Adjudication or resolution of the claims asserted in this action
could have a material impact on our business or financial
condition.

"We accrued $8.3 million associated with this outstanding claim in
the Diamond opening balance sheet as that represents our best
estimate of the probable liability at that time. This accrual
remains outstanding and is included in other payables and accrued
liabilities in our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of
July 2, 2016. We will adjust this accrual as we obtain additional
information related to this estimate," the Company said.


SOTHEBYS INC: Graham Files Appeal in Suit Seeking Royalty Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Estate of Robert Graham, Chuck Close and Laddie John
Dill filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit titled
Estate of Robert Graham, et al. v. Sothebys, Inc., Case No. 2:11-
cv-08604-MWF-FFM, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Los Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Sotheby's
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016,
that the Plaintiffs indicated that they will appeal a district
court decision that granted Sotheby's motion to dismiss the
remaining claims.  The Case was brought on behalf of U.S. artists
(and their estates) whose artworks were sold by Sotheby's in the
state of California or at auction by California sellers and for
which a royalty was allegedly due under the California Resale
Royalties Act.  The Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages,
punitive damages and injunctive relief for alleged violations of
the Resale Royalties Act and the California Unfair Competition
Law.

The appellate case is captioned as Estate of Robert Graham, et al.
v. Sothebys, Inc., Case No. 16-56234, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The Appeals Court sets this schedule:

   -- Mediation Questionnaire is due on September 6, 2016;

   -- Transcript must be ordered by September 26, 2016;

   -- Transcript is due on December 27, 2016;

   -- Appellants Chuck Close, Laddie John Dill and Estate of
      Robert Graham's opening brief is due on February 6, 2017;

   -- Appellee Sothebys, Inc.'s answering brief is due on
      March 8, 2017; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after
      service of the answering brief.

Plaintiffs-Appellants ESTATE OF ROBERT GRAHAM, CHUCK CLOSE, and
LADDIE JOHN DILL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Ira Bibbero, Esq.
          Michael A. Bowse, Esq.
          Eric M. George, Esq.
          BROWNE GEORGE ROSS LLP
          2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 274-7100
          Facsimile: (310) 275-5697
          E-mail: ibibbero@bgrfirm.com
                  mbowse@bgrfirm.com
                  egeorge@bgrfirm.com

Defendant-Appellee SOTHEBYS, INC., a New York corporation, is
represented by:

          Philip Besirof, Esq.
          Paul Terry Friedman, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
          Telephone: (415) 268-7000
          E-mail: pbesirof@mofo.com
                  pfriedman@mofo.com

               - and -

          Deanne Maynard, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 887-1500
          E-mail: dmaynard@mofo.com

               - and -

          Howard B. Comet, Esq.
          Steven Alan Reiss, Esq.
          WEIL GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
          767 Fifth Avenue
          New York, NY 10153
          Telephone: (212) 310-8424
          E-mail: howard.comet@retired.weil.com
                  steven.reiss@weil.com


SOULCYCLE INC: Faces "Cavka" Suit Over Unlawful Consumer Contract
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marko Cavka, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Soulcycle, Inc. and Does 1-25, inclusive, Case No. 30-
2016-00871915-CU-AT-CXC (Cal. Super. Ct., August 26, 2016), is an
action for damages as a proximate result of the Defendant's
failure to provide contracts that adhere to California's Health
Studio Services Contract Law.

Soulcycle, Inc. operates indoor cycling studios where indoor
biking classes are offered to customers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert K. Scott, Esq.
      Stephen M. Hauptman, Esq.
      NEWMEYER & DILLION LLP
      895 Dove Street, 5th Floor
      Newport Beach, CA 92660
      Telephone: (949) 854-7000
      Facsimile: (949) 854-7099
      E-mail: robert.scott@ndlf.com
              stephen.hauptman@ndlf.com


SPARK ENERGY: Discovery Has Not Commenced in "Melville" Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Spark Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that discovery has not yet
commenced in the case, John Melville et al v. Spark Energy Inc.
and Spark Energy Gas, LLC.

John Melville et al v. Spark Energy Inc. and Spark Energy Gas, LLC
is a purported class action filed on December 17, 2015 in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
alleging, among other things, that (i) sales representatives
engaged as independent contractors for Spark Energy Gas, LLC
engaged in deceptive acts in violation of the New Jersey Consumer
Fraud Act and (ii) Spark Energy Gas, LLC  breached its contract
with plaintiff, including a breach of the covenant of good faith
and fair dealing. Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages for himself and the purported class, injunctive
relief and/or declaratory relief, disgorgement of revenues and/or
profits and attorneys' fees.

On March 14, 2016, Spark Energy Gas, LLC and Spark Energy, Inc.
filed a Motion to Dismiss this case. On April 18, 2016, Plaintiff
filed his Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. On April 25, 2016,
Spark Energy, Inc. and Spark Energy Gas, LLC filed a Reply in
support of their Motion to Dismiss.

"The Motion to Dismiss was set on the Court's submission docket
for May 2, 2016. The parties are currently waiting on the Court's
ruling. Discovery has not yet commenced in this matter. We cannot
predict the outcome or consequences of this case," the Company
said.


SPARK ENERGY: Paid $0.5MM Related to "Amaya" Case
-------------------------------------------------
Spark Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company expensed
and paid $0.5 million during the six months ended June 30, 2016,
related to the case, Arturo Amaya et al v. Spark Energy Gas, LLC.

Arturo Amaya et al v. Spark Energy Gas, LLC is a purported class
action filed on May 22, 2015 in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California alleging, among other
things, that certain door-to-door sales representatives engaged as
independent contractors for Spark Energy Gas, LLC allegedly
engaged in deceptive practices in violation of the California
Civil Code, California Unfair Competition Law, California False
Advertising Law and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act
while marketing Spark Energy Gas, LLC's gas services to consumers
in California. Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages for the purported class, injunctive relief and/or
declaratory relief, disgorgement of revenues and/or profits and
attorneys' fees.

On September 29, 2015, Spark Energy Gas, LLC filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint in its entirety and a motion to compel
arbitration in the case of one of the named plaintiffs. On April
11, 2016 the Court issued an Order denying without prejudice Spark
Energy Gas, LLC's Motion to Compel Arbitration and denying the
Motion to Dismiss. The Court also reset the date to hear any
Motion for Class Certification that plaintiffs may file in this
matter to August 5, 2016.

On April 15, 2016, the parties attended a court-ordered mediation
during which a confidential resolution of this matter was reached.
Subsequently, a confidential settlement agreement and release of
all claims was executed by the parties. On July 5, 2016, a Joint
Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice was filed with the Court.
On July 6, 2016, the Court issued an Order Dismissing the Entire
Action.

"We expensed and paid $0.5 million related to this litigation
during the six months ended June 30, 2016 in our condensed
consolidated statement of operation."


SPX CORPORATION: Certification of Class Sought in "Brass" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuits captioned (i) DAVID BRASS, RICHARD
HAMILTON, and CHARLES KOZITZKY as individuals, on behalf of
themselves and all persons similarly situated, and INTERNATIONAL
UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT
WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW v. SPX CORPORATION, and (ii) RON BEEGLE,
DAVID BOBCOCK and CARL VAN LOON, as individuals, on behalf of
themselves and all persons similarly situated, and INTERNATIONAL
UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT
WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW v. SPX CORPORATION, Case No. 3:14-cv-
00656-RJC-DSC (W.D.N.C.), seeks class certification pursuant to
Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B), and 23 (b)(2) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them and Class
Counsel as representatives of the class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=du1i1m9t

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael L. Fayette, Esq.
          Pamela K. Bratt, Esq.
          PINSKY, SMITH, FAYETTE & KENNEDY, LLP
          146 Monroe Center, NW, Suite 805
          Grand Rapids, MI 49503
          Telephone: (616) 451-8496
          E-mail: mfayette@psfklaw.com


STATE COLLECTION: Class Certification Sought in "Lawrence" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Deanna Lawrence moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint of the lawsuit styled DEANNA LAWRENCE, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. STATE COLLECTION
SERVICE, INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-01188-CNC (E.D. Wisc.), and
further asks that the Court both stay the motion for class
certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant)
relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules
and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the
Motion.

Damasco and decisions like it imposed significant burdens on the
Court and on Plaintiff's Counsel, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011),
overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th
Cir. 2015).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence, the
Plaintiff states.  The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff is
obligated to move for class certification to protect the interests
of the putative class.

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

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative
and further asks the Court to appoint Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as
class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=LqRbI3sK

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SUBWAY IP: Faces "De Jesus" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Olegario Flores de Jesus a/k/a Tomas Garcia, on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Subway IP Inc. d/b/a Subway, Subway Inc.,
Jamie's Catering Inc. d/b/a Subway, Suzanne Greco, Richard
Schragger, and Emily Ascatio, Case No. 1:16-cv-06773 (S.D.N.Y.,
August 29, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate a fast food restaurant franchise that
primarily sells submarine sandwiches and salads.

Olegario Flores de Jesus is a pro se plaintiff.


SUNRUN INC: Continues to Defend Shareholder Actions over IPO
------------------------------------------------------------
Sunrun Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company is defending against
various shareholder class action lawsuits.

On April 13, 2016, a purported shareholder class action captioned
Pytel v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. CIV 538215, was filed in
the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, against the
Company, certain of the Company's directors and officers, the
underwriters of the Company's initial public offering and certain
other defendants. The complaint generally alleges that the
defendants violated Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933 by making false or misleading statements in connection
with the Company's August 5, 2015 initial public offering
regarding the continuation of net metering programs. The
plaintiffs seek to represent a class of persons who acquired the
Company's common stock pursuant or traceable to the initial public
offering. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, including
interest, rescission or rescissory damages, an award of reasonable
costs and attorneys' fees, and any equitable or injunctive relief
deemed appropriate by the court.

On April 21, 2016, a purported shareholder class action captioned
Mancy v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. CIV 538303, was filed in
the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo. On April
22, 2016, a purported shareholder class action captioned Brown et
al. v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. CIV 538311, was filed in the
Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo. On April 29,
2016, a purported shareholder class action captioned Baker et al.
v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. CIV 538419, was filed in the
Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo. On May 6, 2016,
a purported shareholder class action captioned Greenberg v. Sunrun
Inc., et al., Case 3:16-cv-02480, was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.  On May
10, 2016, a purported shareholder class action captioned Nunez v.
Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. CIV 538593, was filed in the
Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo.  On June 10,
2016, a purported shareholder class action captioned Steinberg v.
Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. 539064, was filed in the Superior
Court of California, County of San Mateo.

The Mancy, Brown, Baker, Greenberg, Nunez and Steinberg complaints
are substantially similar to the Pytel complaint, and seek similar
relief against similar defendants on behalf of the same purported
class.

On April 21, 2016, a purported shareholder class action captioned
Cohen, et al. v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. CIV 538304, was
filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo,
against the Company, certain of the Company's directors and
officers, and the underwriters of the Company's initial public
offering. The complaint generally alleges that the defendants
violated Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by
making false or misleading statements in connection with an August
5, 2015 initial public offering regarding the Company's business
practices and its dependence on complex financial instruments. The
Cohen plaintiffs seek to represent the same class and seek similar
relief as the plaintiffs in the Pytel, Mancy, Brown, Greenberg,
Nunez, Steinberg and Baker actions.

The Company intends to defend itself vigorously against these
complaints. The Company is not able to estimate the ultimate
outcome or a range of possible loss at this time.


SWICK MINING: Faces "Russell" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
WENDELL RUSSELL, MICHAEL OELKE, RICKY ROWLAND and RANDY MCGRATH,
individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiffs, vs. SWICK MINING SERVICES (USA), INC. a
Nevada corporation, and ABC ENTITIES 1-20, JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-
20. Defendants, Case 2:16-cv-02887-JJT (D. Ariz., August 29,
2016), seeks to recover wages and damages from Defendants alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant, Swick USA, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Swick Mining
Services, one of Australia's largest mineral drilling contractors.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Daniel L. Bonnett, Esq.
     MARTIN & BONNETT, P.L.L.C
     1850 N. Central Avenue, Suite 2010
     Phoenix, AZ 85004
     Phone: (602) 240-6900
     E-mail: dbonnett@martinbonnett.com


TAMINCO US: Must Defend Against Suit Over Plant Emissions
---------------------------------------------------------
Eva Fedderly, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a chemical company with a history of being accused of failing to
control its emissions was unsuccessful in its attempt to shut down
a noxious-odors class action brought by its neighbors.

Taminco US Inc., a subsidiary of global firm Eastman Chemical
Company, has a chemical plant in Pace, Fla., where three of its
neighbors claim the company is emitting pernicious odors.

In November 2015, plaintiffs Danny Lombardozzi, Michael Dabney and
Patricia Dabney sued Taminco for public nuisance, private
nuisance, negligence and gross negligence, claiming it emits
ammonia and ammonia derivatives into the atmosphere.

Lombardozzi and the Dabneys live in residential homes within two
miles of the chemical plant. They claim "noxious and offensive
odors emanating from the facility 'physically invade' their
'homes, land, and property,' thereby diminishing their full use
and enjoyment of the properties and decreasing the properties'
value," court records show.

The plaintiffs seek class certification, punitive damages and
declaratory and injunctive relief.

Taminco argued that a federal judge in Northern Florida should
dismiss the case because it involves "'technical matters related
to air quality and air emissions' that are not within the
conventional knowledge of judges or jurors and require the
specialized expertise of the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection to resolve."

The company also argued that because the FDEP has been trying to
control the Pace facility's emissions in the past, the court
should not be able to try the case.

Taminco claims its permit given by the FEDP "insulates it from
public nuisance liability."

But U.S. District Judge Casey Rodgers ruled Aug. 24 that the FDEP
has no authority over the case and "the plaintiffs' claims are
uniquely within the court's purview."

"Defendant has not persuaded the court that the FDEP's expertise
and specialized knowledge is essential in adjudicating the common
law tort claims in this case," Rodgers wrote in a 13-page opinion.

The judge denied Taminco's motion to dismiss the claims for
private nuisance, negligence, and gross negligence. He gave the
Lombardozzi and the Dabneys 14 days to file an amended complaint
that more specifically alleges the nature of the injuries suffered
by the general public and the injunctive relief sought.

Taminco has an alleged history of failing to control its noxious
odors, and the plaintiffs' complaint lists 10 instances.

For example, "On June 8, 2011, the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection fined defendant $24,000 for an Aug. 30,
2010, release of ammonia above the allowed reportable quantities
and for violating notification requirements by failing to
immediately notify the National Response Center as soon as the
plant knew the release exceeded the allowed quantities."

Eastman Chemical Company's corporate communications team did not
return an emailed request for comment by September 1.

Christopher Bailey of Florida-based Aronfeld Trial Lawyers
represents the class and did not return a phone call seeking
comment.  He may be reached at:

     Christopher Bailey, Esq.
     Aronfeld Trial Lawyers
     3132 Ponce De Leon Blvd
     Coral Gables, FL 33134

The case is captioned, DANNY LOMBARDOZZI, MICHAEL DABNEY, and
PATRICIA DABNEY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
Situated Plaintiff, v. TAMINCO US INC., Defendant, Case No.
15cv533/MCR/EMT (N.D. Fla.).


TAMPA ELECTRIC: Parties to Enter Into Formal Settlement Agreement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tampa Electric Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that subsequent to the
closing of a merger transaction, the parties in a class action
lawsuit are expected to enter into a formal settlement agreement.

On July 1, 2016, TECO Energy and Emera, Inc. completed the Merger
contemplated by the Merger Agreement entered into on Sept. 4,
2015. As a result of the Merger, Merger Sub merged with and into
TECO Energy with TECO Energy continuing as the surviving
corporation and becoming a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of
Emera.

Twelve securities class action lawsuits were filed against the
company and its directors by holders of TECO Energy securities
following the announcement of the Emera transaction.  Eleven suits
were filed in the Circuit Court for the 13th Judicial Circuit, in
and for Hillsborough County, Florida.  They alleged that TECO
Energy's board of directors breached its fiduciary duties in
agreeing to the Merger Agreement and sought to enjoin the Merger.
In addition, several of these suits alleged that one or more of
TECO Energy, Emera and an Emera affiliate aided and abetted such
alleged breaches.

The securities class action lawsuits have been consolidated per
court order.  Since the consolidation, two of the complaints have
been amended. One of those complaints has added a claim against
the individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duty to
disclose.  The twelfth suit was filed in the Middle District of
Florida Federal Court and has subsequently been voluntarily
dismissed.

In November 2015, the parties to the lawsuits entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding with the various shareholder
plaintiffs to settle, subject to court approval, all of the
pending shareholder lawsuits challenging the proposed Merger.  As
a result of the Memorandum of Understanding, the company made
additional disclosures related to the proposed Merger in a proxy
supplement.  Subsequent to the Merger closing the parties were
expected to enter into a formal settlement agreement in August,
which will be filed with the Hillsborough Circuit Court Judge for
approval.

There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter
into a stipulation of settlement or that the court will approve
the settlement even if the parties were to enter into a
stipulation of settlement. While the outcome of such proceeding is
uncertain, management does not believe that its ultimate
resolution will have a material adverse effect on the company's
results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.


THIRD AVENUE: Faces "Krasner" Suit in Delaware Court
----------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Third Avenue Management, LLC,
Martin J. Whitman, David M. Barse, Vincent J. Dugan, W. James Hall
III, Michael Buono, William E. Chapman, II, Lucinda Franks, Edward
J. Kaier, Eric Rakowski, Patrick Reinkemeyer, Martin Shubik,
Charles C. Walden.

The case is captioned Daniel W. Krasner, individually, on behalf
of all others similarly situated and derivatively on behalf of
Third Avenue Trust, Plaintiff, v. Third Avenue Management, LLC,
Martin J. Whitman, David M. Barse, Vincent J. Dugan, W. James Hall
III, Michael Buono, William E. Chapman, II, Lucinda Franks, Edward
J. Kaier, Eric Rakowski, Patrick Reinkemeyer, Martin Shubik,
Charles C. Walden, Case No. 12681 (Del. Ch., August 24, 2016),

Third Avenue Management LLC -- http://thirdave.com/-- is a
mutual-fund company.


TIVO INC: "Klein" and "Graham" Actions Pending in N.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------
TiVo, Inc., said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2016, that alleged stockholders of TiVo
filed on August 3 and August 10, 2016, putative class actions
captioned Rebecca Graham v. TiVo, Inc., et al., Case Number 16-cv-
04367-LHK, and Melvyn Klein v. TiVo, Inc., et al., Case Number 16-
cv-04503, in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California (together, the "California Federal
Actions").  The defendants in the California Federal Actions
include TiVo and the five members of the TiVo board of directors
who approved the merger agreement.

The Klein action also names the remaining members of the TiVo
board of directors, Rovi Corporation, Titan Technologies
Corporation, Nova Acquisition Sub, Inc., and Titan Acquisition
Sub, Inc. as defendants.

The complaints in the California Federal Actions allege that the
defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder by failing to disclose all material facts
concerning the TiVo merger in the draft joint proxy
statement/prospectus filed on June 6, 2016, and as amended on July
8, July 25, and August 2, 2016.

The complaints in the California Federal Actions seek orders:
declaring that the actions are properly maintainable as class
actions; declaring that the joint proxy statement/prospectus is
materially misleading and contains omissions of material fact in
violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder; preliminarily and permanently enjoining
defendants from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the
proposed TiVo merger unless and until defendants disclose the
alleged material information omitted from the joint proxy
statement/prospectus; directing the board of directors to
disseminate a proxy statement/prospectus that does not contain any
untrue statements of material fact and that states all material
facts required in it to make the statements contained therein not
misleading; awarding plaintiff and the proposed class rescissory
damages, including pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, to the
extent the proposed TiVo merger is consummated; awarding plaintiff
the costs and disbursements of this action, including attorneys'
and expert fees and expenses; awarding extraordinary, equitable,
and/or injunctive relief as permitted by law; and granting such
other and further equitable relief as the court may deem just and
proper.  The defendants believe the complaints in the California
Federal Actions are meritless and intend to defend the actions.


TRANS ONE INC: Matthis Wants to Notify Class of Delivery Drivers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled PHILLIP MATTHIS, on behalf of
himself, and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and
unknown v. TRANS ONE INCORPORATED, Case No. 1:15-cv-07607 (N.D.
Ill.), asks the Court to enter an order allowing notice to be sent
to a putative class of past and present employees of the Defendant
defined as:

     All Trans One, Incorporated employee delivery drivers who,
     within the last three (3) years have been compensated on a
     "per stop" delivery basis, and who have worked in excess of
     forty (40) hours in any week without receiving time and
     one-half their regular rate of pay for said hours in excess
     of forty (40).

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John W. Billhorn, Esq.
          BILLHORN LAW FIRM
          53 W. Jackson, Suite 840
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 853-1450


TRICO BANCSHARES: Parties Scheduling Mediation
----------------------------------------------
TriCo Bancshares said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the parties are in the
process of scheduling a class action complaint for mediation.

On September 15, 2014, a former Personal Banker at one of the
Bank's in-store branches filed a Class Action Complaint against
the Bank in Butte County Superior Court, alleging causes of action
related to the observance of meal and rest periods and seeking to
represent a class of current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt
personal bankers, or employees with the same or similar job
duties, employed by Defendants within the State of California
during the preceding four years. On or about June 25, 2015,
Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint expanding the class
definition to all current and formerly hourly-paid or non-exempt
branch employees employed by Defendant's within the State of
California at any time during the period from September 15, 2010
to final judgment. The Bank has responded to the First Amended
Complaint, denying the charges, and the parties have engaged in
written discovery. The parties are in the process of scheduling
the matter for mediation in the July, 2016 time period.

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


TROPICAL SMOOTHIE: Faces Class Suit Over Hep A Outbreak
-------------------------------------------------------
Brandi Buchman, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a class action in Fairfax, Va., claims Tropical Smoothie Cafe used
contaminated strawberries that led to a widespread hepatitis A
outbreak across six states.

The 23-year old restaurant chain, with roughly 500 locations in 40
states, imported the tainted strawberries from Egypt.

According to a video statement from Tropical Smoothie Cafe CEO
Mike Rotondo released on the company's website, the Virginia
Department of Health contacted the smoothie purveyor on Aug. 5,
informing it of the "potential link between hepatitis A cases and
frozen strawberries from Egypt."

The class-action lawsuit was filed on August 30, in Fairfax County
Circuit Court and named 29 separate defendants with Tropical
Smoothie franchise locations scattered throughout Virginia.

Cities impacted by the contamination include Fredericksburg,
Alexandria, Centreville, Chesapeake, Yorktown, Mechanicsville,
Falls Church, Haymarket, Glen Allen, Richmond, Virginia Beach,
Stafford and Herndon.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that
Virginia was the most impacted state, with 44 confirmed cases of
consumers contracting hepatitis A.

Infections were also reported in Maryland, West Virginia, North
Carolina, Oregon and Wisconsin. No franchises in those locations
were named in the lawsuit.

The apparent irony of the company's slogan, "Eat Better, Feel
Better," was not lost on Rotondo, who told consumers that the
slogan "is not just marketing. . .  it's a promise and it's
something that I believe in very dearly."

"While recently some strawberries have made their way into our
supply chain that could challenge the concept, I sincerely
apologize for any issues that may have caused for any of our
customers," Rotondo said.

Hepatitis A can spread from person-to-person and is usually
transmitted via the fecal-oral route. It is most commonly
communicated through contaminated food that comes into contact
with water carrying the disease.

Those who have been exposed to the disease have been urged to by
the CDC to receive a vaccine or immune globulin injection within
two weeks of exposure.

"Exposure to hepatitis A virus can cause acute infection of the
liver that is typically mild and resolves on its own," the
complaint states. "The symptoms and duration of the illness vary a
great deal, with many persons showing no symptoms at all."

The virus typically has a 28-day gestation period in the body, but
symptoms can begin as early as 15 days or as late as 50 days after
exposure. Those symptoms include persistent headaches, fever and
the onset of jaundice all over the body but particularly in the
eyes and surrounding mucous membranes.

The complaint says this "occurs because bile flows poorly through
the liver and backs up into the blood."

Members of the class action who contracted the disease likely also
experienced other symptoms such as the darkening of their urine,
which occurs when the fluid is saturated with bile.

The disease can thoroughly wreak havoc on the kidneys if left
untreated. Relapses can also be prolonged for up to six months
after treatment, the complaint states.

The plaintiffs brought claims of negligence and breach of warranty
against Tropical Smoothie for the incident, claiming that the
"defendants owed a duty to the plaintiffs to use supplies and raw
materials that compiled with federal, state and local food laws,
ordinances and regulations. . . [and] were from safe and reliable
sources that were clean, wholesome and free from adulteration."

The consumers also claimed that Tropical Smoothie grossly failed
to "use reasonable care in the selection, supervision and
monitoring of their employees, suppliers or other subcontractors."

The complaint did not specific an amount of damages sought.

The proposed class is represented by Salvatore J. Zambri --
szambri@reganfirm.com -- and Christopher J. Regan --
cregan@reganfirm.com -- of Regan Zambri & Long in Washington, D.C.


UNIT CORPORATION: Class Cert. Issues in Panola ISD Case Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Unit Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that in the case, Panola
Independent School District No. 4, et al. v. Unit Petroleum
Company, No. CJ-07-215, District Court of Latimer County,
Oklahoma, there is no timetable for when the court will issue its
ruling on class certification issues.

Panola Independent School District No. 4, Michael Kilpatrick, Gwen
Grego, Carla Lessel, Thelma Christine Pate, Juanita Golightly,
Melody Culberson, and Charlotte Abernathy are the Plaintiffs in
this case and are royalty owners in oil and gas drilling and
spacing units for which the company's exploration segment
distributes royalty. The Plaintiffs' central allegation is that
the company's exploration segment has underpaid royalty
obligations by deducting post-production costs or marketing
related fees. Plaintiffs sought to pursue the case as a class
action on behalf of persons who receive royalty from us for our
Oklahoma production. We have asserted several defenses including
that the deductions are permitted under Oklahoma law. We have also
asserted that the case should not be tried as a class action due
to the materially different circumstances that determine what, if
any, deductions are taken for each lease. On December 16, 2009,
the trial court entered its order certifying the class. On May 11,
2012 the court of civil appeals reversed the trial court's order
certifying the class. The Plaintiffs petitioned the supreme court
for certiorari and on October 8, 2012, the Plaintiff's petition
was denied.

On January 22, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed a second request to
certify a class of royalty owners that was slightly smaller than
their first attempt. Since then, the Plaintiffs have further
amended their proposed class to just include royalty owners
entitled to royalties under certain leases located in Latimer, Le
Flore, and Pittsburg Counties, Oklahoma.

In July 2014, a second class certification hearing was held where,
in addition to the defenses described, the Company argued that the
amended class definition is still deficient under the court of
civil appeals opinion reversing the initial class certification.
Closing arguments were held on December 2, 2014. There is no
timetable for when the court will issue its ruling. The merits of
Plaintiffs' claims will remain stayed while class certification
issues are pending.


UNITED SERVICES: Defense Attorneys Appeal Court Abuse Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Friedman, writing for Arkansas Business, reports that three
defense attorneys followed the path of the plaintiffs' attorneys
and filed notice that they will appeal Chief U.S. District Court
Judge P.K. Holmes III's finding that they abused the court system
in their manipulation of a controversial class-action case.

The defense attorneys who are appealing are Lyn P. Pruitt, a
member at Mitchell Williams Selig Gates & Woodyard of Little Rock;
Wystan Ackerman, a partner at Robinson & Cole LLP of Hartford,
Connecticut; and Stephen Edward Goldman, a managing partner at
Robinson Cole.

Earlier in August, Judge Holmes found they had abused the judicial
process, but he did not sanction them because he said their
misconduct did not didn't rise to the level of bad faith.

The question on appeal is whether Judge Holmes made a mistake in
concluding that the defense attorneys abused the judicial process.
The defense attorneys are being represented by attorney David
Matthews of Rogers.

On Aug. 8, 12 plaintiffs' attorneys filed notice that they would
appeal Judge Holmes' finding that they abused the court system in
the class-action case.  Judge Holmes reprimand five of the
plaintiffs' attorneys, including John Goodson of Texarkana -- the
husband of a state Supreme Court justice -- because he found that
they acted in bad faith in their handling of the case.  The other
seven attorneys weren't reprimanded because their abuse didn't
rise to the level of bad faith.

The case at the root of the controversy was Mark and Katherine
Adams v. United Services Automobile Association.  The Adams case,
which concerned the method used to calculate homeowners' insurance
claims, was pending in Judge  Holmes' court for 17 months until
both sides jointly agreed to dismiss it in June 2015. (Under court
rules, the judge did not have to approve the agreed dismissal.)

The case was refiled the next day, with a settlement agreement
attached, in Polk County Circuit Court, where the settlement was
approved without any questions by Circuit Judge Jerry Ryan.

Judge Holmes, who learned that the case was moved to Judge  Ryan's
court for settlement from an article in Arkansas Business in
December, said the settlement that was negotiated "benefited
everyone but the class members" and indicated that he would not
have approved it had the case still been in his court.

The attorneys have maintained they didn't do anything wrong in
moving the case to state court.


US IMMIGRATION: "Zhang" Class Certification Bid Stayed
------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ZHANG et al v. UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION SERVICES et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00995 (D.D.C.),
Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 7, 2016, entered a minute
order staying Plaintiffs' Class Certification Motion and
Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend the Complaint pending the Court's
consideration of the parties' Cross Motions for Summary Judgment.

The Judge cited Curtin v. United Airlines, Inc., 275 F. 3d 88, 92
(D.C. Cir. 2001) (holding that the order in which motions for
summary judgment and class certification are resolved is a
"question of discretion for the trial court"); and also Nat'l
Wrestling Coaches Ass'n v. Dep't of Educ., 366 F. 3d 930, 945
(D.C. Cir. 2004) ("A district court has discretion to deny a
motion to amend on grounds of futility where the proposed pleading
would not survive a motion to dismiss.").

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Ira J. Kurzban, Esq.
     John Patrick Pratt, Esq.
     Edward F. Ramos, Esq.
     Kurzban, Kurzban, Weinger, Tetzeli, & Pratt, P.A.
     2650 SW 27th Ave
     Miami, FL 33133


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Illegally Raises Drug Price, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Association of New York
City, Inc. Health Benefits Fund and the Detectives Endowment
Association of the City Of New York v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc., Andrew Davenport, and Matthew Davenport, Case
No. 1:16-cv-06779 (S.D.N.Y., August 29, 2016), is an action for
damages as a result of the Defendants' practice of raising the
prices of drugs it had acquired from other drug companies.

Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. markets various
prescription pharmaceuticals, over-the-counter products, and
medical devices throughout the world.


The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher Lometti, Esq.
      Joel P. Laitman, Esq.
      COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
      88 Pine Street, 14th Floor
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 838-7797
      Facsimile: (212) 838-7745
      E-mail: clometti@cohenmilstein.com
              jlaitman@cohenmilstein.com

         - and -

      Steven J. Toll, Esq.
      Julie Goldsmith Reiser, Esq.
      COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
      1100 New York Ave NW Suite 500
      West Washington, DC 20005
      Telephone: (202) 408-4600
      Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
      E-mail: stoll@cohenmilstein.com
              jreiser@cohenmilstein.com

         - and -

      A. Arnold Gershon, Esq.
      William J. Ban, Esq.
      BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
      Eleven Times Square
      640 8th Avenue, 10th Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Telephone: (212) 688-0782
      E-mail: agershon@barrack.com
              wban@barrack.com

         - and -

      Jeffrey W. Golan, Esq.
      Jeffrey A. Barrack, Esq.
      Julie B. Palley, Esq.
      BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
      3300 Two Commerce Square
      2001 Market Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 963-0600
      Facsimile: (215) 963-0838
      E-mail: jgolan@barrack.com
              jbarrack@barrack.com
              jpalley@barrack.com


VALLEY CREDIT: Lisiecki Seeks Certification of Class in Wisconsin
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Lisiecki moves the Court to certify the class described
in the complaint of the lawsuit titled MICHELLE LISIECKI,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
VALLEY CREDIT SERVICES, INC. and FINANCE SYSTEM OF GREEN BAY,
INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-01192 (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks that
the Court both stay the Motion and to grant the Plaintiff (and the
Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing
schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed
with the Motion.

Damasco and decisions like it imposed significant burdens on the
Court and on Plaintiff's Counsel, Ms. Lisiecki says, citing
Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011),
overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th
Cir. 2015).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence, the
Plaintiff states.  Ms. Lisiecki contends that she is obligated to
move for class certification to protect the interests of the
putative class.

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

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative
and further asks the Court to appoint Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as
class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=4doR9tGf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VALVE CORP: Consumers Sue Over Alleged Gambling Law Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a group
of more than 30 consumers is suing multiple companies, alleging
violation of Washington state and federal gambling laws.

The consumers filed a class action lawsuit, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Aug. 4 in U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington against Valve
Corporation, CSGOLOTTO Inc., OPSKINS Group, Inc., James Varga,
Phantomlord Inc., CSGO Shuffle, Trevor A. Martin, and Thomas
Cassell, alleging they allowed their users to link accounts to
online gambling websites.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs suffered damages from
having valve's steam users able to participate in online gambling.
The plaintiffs allege the defendants allowed users under the age
of 21 to participate in online gambling despite being aware of
this illegal practice.

The plaintiffs seek trial by jury, damages, restitution of all
monies wrongfully obtained, injunctive relief against the
defendant, all legal fees and interest, and all other relief the
court deems just.  Their legal representation includes attorneys
Kim D. Stephens -- kstephens@tousley.com -- and Jason T. Dennett
of Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC in Seattle, Jasper D. Ward IV --
jasper@jonesward.com -- Alex C. Davis -- alex@jonesward.com -- and
Patrick Walsh -- Patrick@jonesward.com -- of Jones Ward PLC in
Louisville, Kentucky, and Paul C. Whalen of Law Offices of Paul C.
Whalen PC in Manhasset, New York.

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington Case
number 2:16-cv-01227-JCC


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Faces Legal Battle Outside U.S. Over Emissions
-------------------------------------------------------------
William Boston and In-Soo Nam, writing for The Wall Street
Journal, report that governments, investors and car owners around
the world are gaining ground in efforts to pressure Volkswagen AG
for settlements over its emissions-cheating scandal, aiming for
terms similar to a $15 billion U.S. agreement.

From Australia to South Korea to Ireland, governments and
consumers are ratcheting up legal and regulatory demands in part
because such moves in the U.S. yielded a speedy shift to
contrition from combativeness.

In many of the countries where Volkswagen still faces legal
action, it is arguing the so-called defeat device on its diesel
engines wasn't illegal or the car emissions didn't violate local
rules, according to court records and documents reviewed by The
Wall Street Journal.

If the efforts succeed, the costs to resolve the diesel scandal
could rise well beyond the EUR18.4 billion ($20.5 billion) the
company has set aside.  Of the roughly 11 million vehicles
affected by Volkswagen's yearslong effort to cheat on diesel
emissions standards, about 10.4 million are outside the U.S.

While outcomes are still unclear, the company's position has been
chipped away by recent decisions. In Germany, the cost could rise
as much as EUR4 billion following a ruling earlier in August by a
court in Braunschweig, near Volkswagen's headquarters.  The court
said it would address more than 170 suits filed by hundreds of
Volkswagen investors who allege the company failed to quickly
inform them of the diesel probe. Volkswagen has rejected the
allegation.

Another German court in August dismissed Volkswagen's objections
in ruling that local owners of tainted diesel vehicles had a right
to return their cars to dealers for a full refund because of
Volkswagen's "massive fraud" with its diesel-powered cars.

South Korea in August banned the sale of 80 Volkswagen models,
affecting more than 80,000 vehicles, and around 4,400 Korean
consumers are suing Volkswagen and its luxury-car unit Audi for
damages from its false emissions claims.

Korean authorities also fined Volkswagen and indicted a local
executive on charges of fraud linked to the diesel scandal.  The
auto maker faces additional class-action lawsuits, investigations
by prosecutors and punitive damages in Australia, Brazil, Canada,
Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain.

Johannes Thammer, chief executive of Volkswagen's Korean unit,
recently apologized for misleading Korean authorities, saying: "We
will do everything, faithfully, to cooperate with the prosecutor."

Attorneys outside the U.S. are striving to build on the success of
American legal action against Volkswagen.  In the June settlement,
Volkswagen agreed to pay up to $10 billion to repurchase from
consumers affected cars with two-liter diesel engines, including
Jettas, Passats, Golfs and Audi A3s.  It also agreed to devote
another $4.7 billion to environmental remediation and investments
in promoting zero-emission vehicles such as electric cars.

European lawyers working with Michael Hausfeld, a leading U.S.
class-action lawyer who was part of the plaintiff's committee that
won the U.S. settlement, are assisting Australian and Irish
attorneys.

Australia has become a significant battleground because its
vehicle-emission regulations are almost identical to European
Union laws.  If an Australian court determines that Volkswagen's
emissions system contained an illegal element known as a defeat
device, Australia could become a precedent for billions of euros
in claims in Europe.

In the U.S., Volkswagen admitted to using a defeat device.

Australian Federal Judge Lindsay Foster, who is presiding over a
class-action suit in Sydney brought by law firms Maurice Blackburn
and Bannister Law, chastised Volkswagen's lawyers at a hearing on
April 29, saying company executives in Germany "obviously think
this is some kind of backwater," according to the court
transcript.

He accused Volkswagen of intentionally stalling to delay a ruling
in the Australian case until it was able to "bed down" lawyers and
regulators in a settlement in the U.S.

"That's what's going on, I think, and I'm not having it," he said,
according to the transcript.

An attorney for Volkswagen denied Judge Foster's charge.

Maurice Blackburn attorney Jason Geisker said the two sides are
fighting over "the definition of what is a defeat device" and
Volkswagen's legal team isn't yielding as it did in the U.S.

"A lot of effort is being put into this case by Volkswagen because
of the broader consequences across Europe," Mr. Geisker said.

In July, Volkswagen's attorneys in Australia denied the existence
of illegal software to manipulate emissions.

"There is no defeat device.  That's our case," Noel Huntley, an
Australian barrister representing Volkswagen, told the court,
according to an official transcript of the hearing.

In Europe, Volkswagen has denied that its customers suffered any
damages and has ignored or denied claims seeking compensation.

European lawyers allege that Volkswagen is stalling.  They note
that the one-year statute of limitations for damages suits in many
European countries expires on Sept. 18.

"Before that, Volkswagen will do nothing so that as many claims as
possible will just go away," said Eric Breiteneder, an attorney
preparing class-action suits in the Netherlands on behalf of
106,000 European car owners and funds with more than EUR13 billion
invested in Volkswagen stocks and bonds.

Volkswagen has declined to enter settlement negotiations with
Mr. Breiteneder.

Evan O'Dwyer, an Irish attorney, has filed 20 individual claims
against Volkswagen in low-level Irish courts, seeing damages that
could go as high as EUR15,000 a vehicle.  Under Irish law,
Mr. O'Dwyer is not permitted to comment on the cases to the media.

A&L Goodbody, a law firm representing Volkswagen in Ireland, has
threatened to sue Mr. O'Dwyer and his clients for legal fees if he
takes the cases to trial.  In a letter dated Dec. 16, Goodbody
urged Mr. O'Dwyer to drop a lawsuit on behalf of Eithne Higgins, a
car owner, saying her complaint was without merit.


WALLACE RUSH: Faces "Thomas" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
DE'MARCUS THOMAS, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. WALLACE, RUSH, SCHMIDT, INC. Defendant,
Case 3:16-cv-00572-BAJ-RLB (M.D. La., August 29, 2016), alleges
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

DE'MARCUS THOMAS was allegedly hired following the flooding that
plagued central Louisiana in August of 2016 to perform disaster
restoration work.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Galen M. Hair, Esq.
     VARADI, HAIR, & CHECKI
     909 Poydras Street, Suite 1100
     New Orleans, LA 70112
     Phone: (504) 684-5200
     Fax: (504) 613-6351
     E-mail: hair@vhclaw.com

        - and -

     David Vicknair, Esq.
     Chris Meeks, Esq.
     SCOTT, SEVIN & VICKNAIR
     3850 N. Causeway Blvd., Suite 1130
     Metairie, LA 70002
     Phone: (504) 264-1057
     Fax: (504) 264-5557
     E-mail: brad@ssv-law.com
             chrism@ssv-law.com


WATTS WATER: $14MM Settlement Awaits Court Approval
---------------------------------------------------
Watts Water Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended July 3, 2016, that the $14 million
settlement of the Connector Class Actions remains pending court
approval.

In November and December 2014, Watts Water Technologies, Inc. and
Watts Regulator Co. were named as defendants in three separate
putative nationwide class action complaints (Meyers v. Watts Water
Technologies, Inc., United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio; Ponzo v. Watts Regulator Co., United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts; Sharp v. Watts
Regulator Co., United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts) seeking to recover damages and other relief based
on the alleged failure of water heater connectors. On June 26,
2015, plaintiffs in the three actions filed a consolidated amended
complaint, under the case captioned Ponzo v. Watts Regulator Co.,
in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts (hereinafter "Ponzo"). Watts Water Technologies was
voluntarily dismissed from the Ponzo case. The complaint seeks
among other items, damages in an unspecified amount, replacement
costs, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees
and costs.

On August 7, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, which motion was temporarily withdrawn pending final
approval of the settlement.  After initial discovery was conducted
the parties agreed to a mediation of all claims, which resulted in
the below-referenced settlement.

In February 2015, Watts Regulator Co. was named as a defendant in
a putative nationwide class action complaint (Klug v. Watts Water
Technologies, Inc., et al., United States District Court for the
District of Nebraska) seeking to recover damages and other relief
based on the alleged failure of the Company's Floodsafe connectors
(hereinafter "Klug"). On June 26, 2015, the Company filed a
partial motion to dismiss the complaint. In response, on July 17,
2015, plaintiff filed an amended complaint which added additional
named plaintiffs and sought to correct deficiencies in the
original complaint, Klug v. Watts Regulator Co., United States
District Court for the District of Nebraska. Watts Water
Technologies, Inc. was dismissed as a defendant. The complaint
seeks among other items, damages in an unspecified amount,
injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees and
costs. On July 31, 2015, the Company filed a partial motion to
dismiss the complaint which was granted in part and denied in part
on December 29, 2015. The Company answered the amended complaint
on February 2, 2016. No formal discovery has yet been conducted.

The Company participated in joint mediation sessions of the Ponzo
and Klug cases in December 2015 and January 2016. On February 16,
2016, the Company reached an agreement in principle to settle all
claims in both cases. The proposed total settlement amount is $14
million, of which the Company is expected to pay approximately
$4.1 million after insurance proceeds, of up to $9.9 million. The
parties executed final written settlement agreements in April
2016. Motions for preliminary approval of the settlements were
submitted on May 4, 2016 before the District of Nebraska Federal
Court and are pending with that Court.

The settlement is subject to preliminary court approval and final
court approval after a fairness hearing. Accordingly, there can be
no assurance that the proposed settlements will be approved in
their current form. If the settlements are not approved, the
Company intends to continue to vigorously contest the allegations
in these cases.


WORK OUT WORLD: Judge Dismisses TCPA Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Jason C. Gavejian, Esq. -- GavejiaJ@jacksonlewis.com -- of Jackson
Lewis P.C., in an article for The National Law Review, reports
that earlier in August, United States District Court Judge Peter
Sheridan dismissed a class action brought against Work Out World
("WOW") under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).  In
doing so, Judge Sheridan relied on the recent decision by the
United States Supreme Court in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins.

The named plaintiff, Norreen Susinno, filed a class action
complaint on July 30, 2015, against WOW.  The complaint alleged
that WOW negligently, knowingly and/or willfully contacted the
plaintiffs on their cellular telephones in violation of the TCPA
and thereby invaded their privacy.  Specifically, Ms. Susinno
alleged that on July 28, 2015, WOW left a pre-recorded message on
her cellular telephone's voicemail regarding membership.  The
complaint went on to allege that the plaintiff and class members
incurred various types of harm, including incurring certain
cellular telephone charges or reduced cellular telephone time for
which they had previously paid, having to retrieve or administer
messages left by WOW during the telephone calls, and invading the
privacy of the plaintiff and class members.  Ms. Susinno sought to
certify a nationwide class of all persons who, in the preceding
four years, had received telephone calls from WOW which were made
with the use of an automatic telephone dialing system and/or used
an artificial or prerecorded voice.

On June 10, 2016, WOW filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. WOW
argued that Ms. Susinno had failed to allege any concrete harm and
that, pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision in Spokeo, the
complaint should be dismissed.  In opposition to WOW's motion, Ms.
Susinno alleged she suffered actual damages, including that WOW's
calls (1) were a nuisance and invasion of privacy, (2) trespassed
upon and interfered with her rights and interest in her cellular
telephone, (3) intruded upon her seclusion, (4) caused her
aggravation and annoyance, (5) wasted her time, (6) caused the
loss of use of her phone during the time that her phone was
occupied by incoming calls, and (7) depleted the battery life on
her cellular telephone.  WOW countered that the entirety of Ms.
Susinno's claim under the TCPA rested on her receipt of a single,
unanswered phone call and Ms. Susinno could offer nothing more
than procedural harm in support of her claim.

Interestingly, WOW also sent Ms. Susinno an offer of judgment,
including injunctive relief and payment to her in full and final
satisfaction of her claims. WOW's offer included the deposit of
$1,501.00 on Ms. Sussino's credit card.  Ms. Susinno did not
accept WOW's offer. Nevertheless, as part of its motion to
dismiss, WOW argued that dismissal was also warranted and
consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co.
v. Gomez, as Ms. Susinno no longer had a "live claim" following
the offer of judgment. In doing so, WOW pointed to the fact the
Supreme Court's Campbell-Ewald decision left open the question
"whether [the determination that an unaccepted settlement offer or
offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case] would be
different if a defendant deposits the full amount of plaintiff's
individual claim in an account payable to the plaintiff, and the
court entered judgment for the plaintiff in that amount."

Following a hearing on the motion to dismiss, Judge Sheridan
granted WOW's motion and dismissed the matter with prejudice.
Judge Sheridan's order did not address WOW's arguments for
dismissal based on the offer of judgment.

Although Ms. Susinno filed an appeal of the district court's
decision, the decision may be very helpful to companies that are
looking for various arguments to dispose of and otherwise defend
against class claims, particularly where the alleged harm at issue
is negligible, to the extent there is any harm at all.


YELLOWSTONE CAPITAL: Faces "Cunningham" Suit in S.D. of Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Yellowstone Capital LLC. The case
is entitled Craig Cunningham, individually and on behalf of a
class of all persons and entities similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Yellowstone Capital LLC and Integrity Capital
Solutions, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 0:16-cv-62029-WPD (S.D.
Fla., Aug. 23, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. William P.
Dimitrouleas.

Yellowstone is a Houston-based, private equity solutions and
venture capital investment firm.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc Raymer Weintraub, Esq.
          BAILEY AND GLASSER LLP
          360 Central Avenue, Suite 1500
          St. Petersburg, FL 33701
          Telephone: (727) 894 6745
          Facsimile: (727) 894 2649
          E-mail: mweintraub@baileyglasser.com


* CFPB Says New Rule to Spur 1,200 More Class Actions A Year
------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Fisher, writing for Forbes, reports that the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau has put a price tag on the deterrent
effect it says it will unleash by banning class-action waivers in
consumer financial contracts: At least 1,200 additional class
actions a year, costing more than $100 million a year in legal
fees.

The CFPB says that's a good thing, but thousands of banks, credit-
card issuers and other businesses that will be affected by the
proposed new rule disagree.  In letters filed with CFPB Director
Richard Cordray before the official comment period closed on Aug.
22, they use the agency's own data to argue against the idea that
class actions are the best way to resolve consumer disputes.

Buried in the CFPB's 300-plus-page report defending the rule is a
difficult-to-read chart -- it appears sideways on computer screens
-- adding up the expected costs to businesses from additional
class actions in federal and state courts.  The CFPB's researchers
figure there will be at least 6,042 more class actions filed
against many of the 53,000 businesses covered by the new rule over
the first five years, a pattern that will continue forever.

Consumers will reap $342 million a year in payments from those new
federal class-action settlements, the CFPB reckons, although
elsewhere in the report the agency acknowledges some discouraging
statistics about what that really means to the average customer.
The agency studied 251 class actions and found an average payout
of $32, and that number was skewed upward by $1 billion in
settlements in a overdraft cases that accounted for the bulk of
the money in the study period.  Elsewhere in the report, the CFPB
says 87% of class actions resulted in no payment to consumers and
even in those that did have favorable settlements, the weighted
average claims rate was 4%.

That fits with other studies showing the odds of anybody
collecting money in a class action are less than 1 in 400, or less
than the odds of a straight flush in a 7-card poker hand.

Taxpayers will bear the increased costs of all those cases working
their way through state and federal courts, the American Bankers
Association and other financial-services associations say in their
letter to Mr. Cordray filed on Aug. 22.  The CFPB agrees that
companies will likely pass through some of the cost of this
permanent increase in legal expense to consumers, although it
cites a study of credit-card issuers that agreed not to use
arbitration for three years as part of a legal settlement and
didn't raise prices to support the idea companies will eat most of
the cost.

The U.S. Chamber disagrees, saying in its letter to Mr. Cordray
that the credit-card issuer study is flawed because it stopped
before the U.S. Supreme Court authorized class-action waivers in
its 2011 decision AT&T v. Concepcion.  As for the CFPB's argument
consumers need class actions to resolve small-dollar complaints,
the Chamber studied of 10 days of complaints to the agency,
selected at random, and found that 90% of them involved
individualized issues that can't be addressed through a class
action, like incorrect information on a credit report.

The CFPB identifies one constituency that will win big under its
proposal: Lawyers.  Plaintiff fees in federal court alone are
likely to increase by $60 million a year while defense lawyers
will bill another $36 million or so.


* Employers Face Ongoing Threat of Class Wage-and-Hour Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James Hanson and Christopher Eckhart, writing for The Indiana
Lawyer, report that employers face countless labor and employment
challenges every day.  Wage-and-hour compliance issues are near
the top of that list because employers have experienced an
increase in the number of class- and collective-action lawsuits
filed against them, and that trend is likely to continue.
Understanding the dynamics of class and collective actions and
what drives them should be a chief concern of every company that
wants to avoid high-stakes, bet-the-company litigation.

In the wage-and-hour context, class actions typically assert
violations of state laws, such as Indiana's Wage Deduction
Statute. Ind. Code Sec. 22-2-6-2.  Class and collective actions
are similar in that they are both "representative actions" brought
by a single plaintiff or group of plaintiffs on behalf of other
individuals in the same case.

There are differences, however. While class actions typically
assert violations of state wage-and-hour laws, collective actions
are principally brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29
U.S.C. Sec. 201 et seq., the federal law that obligates employers
to pay their employees at least the minimum wage for all hours
worked and overtime pay for hours worked over 40 in a workweek.
Class actions also tend to be larger in scope because class
members in a class action are by default included in the class
unless they affirmatively opt out, while class members in
collective actions must affirmatively opt in to be included in the
class.

Damages in wage-and-hour class and collective actions can be
staggering, particularly in industries with high turnover.  The
FLSA, for example, permits employees to collect unpaid wages,
liquidated damages and attorney fees.  Similarly, Indiana's Wage
Payment Statute also provides the potential for liquidated damages
on top of the unpaid wages.  One need not look very far to find a
multimillion-dollar settlement in a wage-and-hour class action.

Identifying key problem areas will enable employers to make
changes that will reduce the risk of a class or collective action.

Independent contractor misclassification. Putative class- and
collective-action lawsuits attacking the independent contractor
status of groups of workers continue to pepper the dockets of
state and federal courts across the country and are the aim of
administrative investigations on both the federal and state level.
The IRS and the U.S. Department of Labor have signed information-
sharing agreements, and those agreements have now included 31
states.  Misclassifying an employee as an independent contractor
is typically not independently actionable, but plaintiffs must
prove their employment status for the wage-and-hour laws to apply,
making this question a key gateway issue in a significant number
of wage-and-hour cases.  Companies that utilize independent
contractors should audit their independent contractor agreements,
policies and practices to confirm the individuals providing
services to the companies are correctly classified as independent
contractors.

Overtime exemption misclassification. Salaried employees claiming
their employer misclassified them as exempt from overtime continue
to file putative class and collective actions.  And with the
increase of the minimum salary requirement to $913 per week (or
$47,476 annually) under the FLSA's white collar exemptions,
employers will likely continue to face this problem.  Other
exemptions, like the FLSA's Motor Carrier Act Exemption, have also
led to significant litigation in the transportation industry.
Employers should conduct an audit of their exempt employees to
confirm the employees satisfy the requirements of the applicable
exemption.

Wage deductions. States impose strict requirements on payroll
deductions.  For a wage deduction to be valid under Indiana law,
the agreement must, among other things, be in writing, signed by
the employee, and by its terms revocable at any time upon written
notice.  Indiana law also identifies the limited types of
deductions employers can make.  Employers that do not adhere to
the technical requirements of state law or that make deductions
not authorized by state law risk class-action lawsuits seeking
repayment of the amounts deducted.  Employers can minimize that
risk by confirming all of the deductions made to their employees'
checks are permitted under state law and are memorialized in a
compliant agreement.

Expense reimbursements. Employee-paid business expenses can wreak
havoc if not monitored.  For example, requiring an employee to pay
for business expenses could cause the employee's regular rate of
pay to drop below the minimum wage under the FLSA.  Similarly,
several state laws place limitations on the extent to which an
employer can make an employee pay for business-related expenses.
Indiana, for example, caps the amount of money an employer can
deduct for uniforms or equipment necessary for the job at $2,500
per year or 5 percent of the employee's weekly disposable
earnings.  Employers that require employees to pay for business-
related expenses should closely monitor their practices to ensure
they do not run afoul of minimum wage and wage deduction
requirements.

Vacation pay policies. Several states, like Indiana, treat accrued
vacation pay as wages.  Failing to pay employees their accrued but
unused vacation pay upon termination would violate Indiana law and
subject the employer to a claim for the unpaid wages, and
potentially liquidated damages and attorney fees. Vacation pay
policies that do not clearly state how and when an employee
accrues vacation pay, and under what circumstances the vacation
pay is forfeited (i.e., a use-it-or-lose-it policy), increase the
risk of a class action asserting vacation pay claims.  Employers
should carefully review their vacation pay policies and practices
to confirm employees will not be shorted accrued but unused
vacation pay.

Recordkeeping. Some states require employers to put specific
information on wage statements and provide for penalties if the
employer violates their statutes. Employers should check the laws
in each state in which they operate to confirm the employer uses
compliant wage statements.

All employers hope they never face a wage-and-hour class or
collective action.  Those that do will be happy they planned
ahead.

James H. Hanson -- jhanson@scopelitis.com -- and Christopher J.
Eckhart -- ceckhart@scopelitis.com -- who are partners in the
labor and employment group of Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson &
Feary P.C., represent clients in class and collective actions
nationwide.  The opinions expressed are those of the authors.


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Adopts Grant of "Hillyer" Summary Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gregory M. Sleet of the United States District Court for the
District Delaware issued an order dated August 24, 2016, adopting
Magistrate Judge Fallon's Report and Recommendation in the case
captioned IN RE ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to MARK E. HILLYER
and CAROL HILLYER, his wife, Plaintiffs, v. ABB, INC., et al.,
Defendants, C.A. No. 15-cv-378 (GMS-SRF)(D. Del.), and granted the
Motions for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants ABB, Inc., CBS
Corporation, BW/IP, Inc., Eaton Corporation, Union Carbide
Corporation, and Gould Electronics, Inc.

Magistrate Judge Sherry R. Fallon of the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware, in a July 28, 2016, report and
recommendation, recommended granting the motions for summary
judgment filed by the Defendants.

Plaintiffs Mark and Carol Hillyer filed this asbestos action in
the Delaware Superior Court against multiple defendants on March
23, 2015, asserting claims regarding Mr. Hillyer's alleged harmful
exposure to asbestos.  Defendant Crane Co. removed the action to
the District Court on May 11, 2015. CBS, BW/IP, Eaton, Union
Carbide, and Gould filed motions for summary judgment on June 17,
2016. ABB filed its motion on June 21, 2016. Plaintiffs did not
respond to these motions. On July 6, 2016, counsel for CBS, Eaton,
and Union Carbide sent a letter to the court seeking dismissal for
Plaintiffs' failure to oppose the summary judgment motions.

A full-text copy of Judge Sleet's Decision is available at
http://tinyurl.com/hrufd9sfrom Leagle.com.

Mark E. Hillyer, Plaintiff, represented by Allen Dale Bowers, II,
Law Office of A. Dale Bowers.

Carol Hillyer, Plaintiff, represented by Allen Dale Bowers, II,
Law Office of A. Dale Bowers.

ABB Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented
by Oleh V. Bilynsky, O'Brien Firm.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant,
represented by Barbara Anne Fruehauf, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba.

BW/IP Inc., Defendant, represented by Joel M. Doner, Eckert
Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC.

CBS Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Beth
E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC & Shawn Edward Martyniak, Swartz
Campbell LLC.

Copes-Vulcan Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by
Antoinette D. Hubbard, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC & Paul
A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC.

Crane Co., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Nicholas E.
Skiles, Swartz Campbell LLC & Shawn Edward Martyniak, Swartz
Campbell LLC.

Eaton Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by
Joseph S. Naylor, Swartz Campbell LLC.

General Electric Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented
by Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC.

Grinnell LLC, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Kelly A.
Costello, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.

IMO Industries Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by
Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. &
Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty &
Kelly, P.C..

Mine Safety Appliances Company, Defendant, Cross Claimant, Cross
Defendant, represented by David C. Malatesta, Jr., Kent & McBride,
P.C..

Oakfabco Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by David C.
Malatesta, Jr., Kent & McBride, P.C..

Spirax Sarco Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by
Antoinette D. Hubbard, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC & Paul
A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Beth E.
Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC & Joseph S. Naylor, Swartz Campbell
LLC.

Gould Electronics Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by
David Phillip Primack, McElroy Deutsch Mulvaney & Carpenter LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Dismisses "Jansen"
------------------------------------------------
Judge Edward M. Chen of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, in an order dated August 29,
2016, granted the application for the dismissal of the case
captioned SAMUEL EDWARD JANSEN, Plaintiff, v. FOSTER WHEELER
ENERGY CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-03385-EMC
(N.D. Calif.).

The Plaintiffs initiated the personal injury asbestos action in
state court against more than 50 different companies.  Defendant
Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation removed the case to federal
court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1442(a)(1).  A total of nine
defendants have made an appearance before this Court.  The
Plaintiffs filed an ex parte application for an order granting
dismissal of the entire action, without prejudice.

According to Plaintiffs, before filing the pending application,
they contacted "all active Defendants" and asked for a stipulation
of dismissal.  Only two of the "active" defendants declined,
namely, Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation and John Crane, Inc.
The Plaintiffs therefore filed the pending application.

The Court has received no opposition to the Plaintiffs'
application from any defendant, including Foster Wheeler Energy
Corporation and John Crane, Inc.  Although some defendants were
not notified of Plaintiffs' application or their intent to file
the application, those defendants have not made an appearance in
this litigation. The Court discerns no prejudice to defendants
from dismissal. Taking into account the circumstances, the Court
granted the Plaintiffs' application.  The instant case is
dismissed, and without prejudice.

A full-text copy of Judge Chen's Decision is available at
http://tinyurl.com/zlbgcdgfrom Leagle.com.

Samuel Edward Jansen, Plaintiff, represented by Jordan Blumenfeld-
James, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett.

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Randall Keith Bernard, Hugo Parker, LLP, Shelley Kaye Tinkoff,
Hugo Parker LLP & Charles S. Park, Hugo Parker, LLP.

Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes, K&L
Gates LLP & Peter Edward Soskin, K&L Gates LLP.

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Kevin Douglas Jamison,
Pond North LLP, Frank D. Pond, Pond North LLP, Gavin David Whitis,
Pond North LLP & Rochelle Reyes Ileto, Foley Mansfield, PLLP.

McNally Industries, Defendant, represented by Frank D. Pond, Pond
North LLP, Gavin David Whitis, Pond North LLP, Kevin Douglas
Jamison, Pond North LLP & Rochelle Reyes Ileto, Foley Mansfield,
PLLP.

Sterling Fluid Systems (USA) LLC, Defendant, represented by Frank
D. Pond, Pond North LLP, Gavin David Whitis, Pond North LLP, Kevin
Douglas Jamison, Pond North LLP & Rochelle Reyes Ileto, Foley
Mansfield, PLLP.

FMC Corporation on behalf of its Former Peerless Pump, Chicago
Pump and Northern Pump Businesses, Defendant, represented by Frank
D. Pond, Pond North LLP, Gavin David Whitis, Pond North LLP, Kevin
Douglas Jamison, Pond North LLP & Rochelle Reyes Ileto, Foley
Mansfield, PLLP.

John Crane Inc., Defendant, represented by Julia Antigone Gowin,
Hawkins Parnell Thackston Young LLP & Robert E. Thackston, Hawkins
Parnell Thackston Young LLP.

Dana Companies, LLC, Defendant, represented by Randall Keith
Bernard, Hugo Parker, LLP.

The Nash Engineering Company, Defendant, represented by Randall
Keith Bernard, Hugo Parker, LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pro Hac Vice Appearance in "McSwain" OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Howell of the United States District
Court, W.D. North Carolina, Asheville Division, in an order dated
August 31, 2016, granted Marlowe Rary, III's Application for
Admission to Practice Pro Hac Vice of Sabrina Stone in the case
captioned MINERVA McSWAIN, Individually, and as Executrix of the
Estate of BUREN EDWARD McSWAIN, deceased, Plaintiffs, v. AIR &
LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, No. 1:15-cv-130
(W.D.N.C.), it appearing that Sabrina Stone is a member in good
standing with the Texas State Bar and will be appearing with
Marlowe Rary, III, a member in good standing with the Bar of this
court, that all admission fees have been paid, and that the e-mail
address of the attorney seeking admission has been provided.

A full-text copy of Magistrate Howell's Order is available at
http://tinyurl.com/zgvyznxfrom Leagle.com.

Minerva McSwain, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan M. Holder,
Dean Omar Branham LLP, pro hac vice.

Minerva McSwain, Plaintiff, represented by Mona Lisa Wallace,
Wallace & Graham, PA, Sabrina Stone, Dean Omar Branham, LLP, pro
hac vice, W. Marlowe Rary, II, Wallace and Graham P.A. & William
M. Graham, Wallace & Graham.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Defendant, represented by John
T. Holden, Dickie, McCamey & Chilcoat P.C., Tracy Edward Tomlin,
Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP, Travis Andrew
Bustamante, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP & William M.
Starr, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

Airgas USA, LLC, Defendant, represented by John T. Holden, Dickie,
McCamey & Chilcoat P.C. & Joseph Lawrence Nelson, Dickie, McCamey
& Chilcote, PC.

Aurora Pump, Defendant, represented by Tracy Edward Tomlin,
Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP, Travis Andrew
Bustamante, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP & William M.
Starr, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

BW/IP Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel Bowman White,
Gallivan White & Boyd, P.A., pro hac vice & James M. Dedman, IV,
Gallivan, White, & Boyd, P.A..

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jennifer M. Techman,
Evert Weathersby Houff.

Carboline Company, Defendant, represented by Tracy Edward Tomlin,
Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP, Travis Andrew
Bustamante, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP & William M.
Starr, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Richard A. Farrier, Jr., K&L
Gates LLP, pro hac vice & Ronald Alfonso Charlot, K&L Gates LLP.

Crane Co. -- Cochrane and Chapman Valve Co., Defendant,
represented by Ronald Alfonso Charlot, K&L Gates LLP & Richard A.
Farrier, Jr., K&L Gates LLP.

Crane Co. -- Chempump, Defendant, represented by Ronald Alfonso
Charlot, K&L Gates LLP & Richard A. Farrier, Jr., K&L Gates LLP.

Daniel International Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Charles Monroe Sprinkle, III, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A.,
Moffatt G. McDonald, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., Scott E.
Frick, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A. & W. David Conner,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A..

Fisher Controls International, LLC., Defendant, represented by
Daniel Bowman White, Gallivan White & Boyd, P.A., pro hac vice &
James M. Dedman, IV, Gallivan, White, & Boyd, P.A..

Flowserve Corporation -- Anchor/Darling Valve Company, Defendant,
represented by Tracy Edward Tomlin, Nelson, Mullins, Riley &
Scarborough, LLP, Travis Andrew Bustamante, Nelson Mullins Riley &
Scarborough LLP & William M. Starr, Nelson, Mullins, Riley &
Scarborough, LLP.

Flowserve Corporation -- Byron Jackson Pump Company, Defendant,
represented by James M. Dedman, IV, Gallivan, White, & Boyd, P.A..

Fluor Daniel Services Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Charles Monroe Sprinkle, III, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A.,
Moffatt G. McDonald, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., Scott E.
Frick, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A. & W. David Conner,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A..

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Jennifer M. Techman, Evert Weathersby Houff.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Jennifer M.
Techman, Evert Weathersby Houff.

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Defendant, represented by Kelly B.
Jones, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC.

Goulds Pumps, Inc.;, Defendant, represented by Travis Andrew
Bustamante, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, William M.
Starr, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP & Tracy Edward
Tomlin, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

Grinnell LLC, Defendant, represented by Tracy Edward Tomlin,
Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP, Travis Andrew
Bustamante, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP & William M.
Starr, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

Ingersoll Rand Company, Defendant, represented by Timothy Peck,
Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP.

ITT Corporation, Defendant, represented by Tracy Edward Tomlin,
Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP, Travis Andrew
Bustamante, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP & William M.
Starr, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

Linde LLC, Defendant, represented by Jennifer M. Techman, Evert
Weathersby Houff.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Keith E. Coltrain, Wall, Templeton & Haldrup, PA.

Owens-Illinois, Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert O.
Meriwether, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

SEPCO Corporation, Defendant, represented by Teresa E. Lazzaroni,
Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young LLP.

J.R. Clarkson Company, Defendant, represented by Tracy Edward
Tomlin, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP, Travis Andrew
Bustamante, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP & William M.
Starr, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

The Sherwin-Williams Company, Defendant, represented by John T.
Holden, Dickie, McCamey & Chilcoat P.C..

Trane U.S. Inc., Defendant, represented by Timothy Peck, Smith
Moore Leatherwood LLP.

Uniroyal, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles Monroe Sprinkle,
III, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A. & Scott E. Frick, Haynsworth,
Sinkler, Boyd P.A..

United Conveyor Corporation, Defendant, represented by Timothy
Peck, Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP.

Velan Valve Corporation, Defendant, represented by Timothy Peck,
Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP.

Weir Valves & Controls USA Inc., Defendant, represented by Tracy
Edward Tomlin, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP, Travis
Andrew Bustamante, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP &
William M. Starr, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

Crosby Valve, LLC, Defendant, represented by Tracy Edward Tomlin,
Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP, Travis Andrew
Bustamante, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP & William M.
Starr, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

Fluor Enterprises, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles Monroe
Sprinkle, III, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A..


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Estate of Uni Employee Cannot Pursue Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ESTATE OF JAMES ROCK, v. UNIVERSITY OF
CONNECTICUT, SC 19465 (Conn.), the Supreme Court of Connecticut
concluded that the plaintiff does not have standing to pursue any
type of workers' compensation benefits and the Compensation Review
Board incorrectly determined that an estate constitutes a legal
representative under the Workers' Compensation Act, General
Statutes Section 31-294c, and, thus, the board's decision is
reversed in part.

James Rock was employed by the University of Connecticut as a
research associate for more than 35 years.  In July, 2009, the
decedent was diagnosed with mesothelioma. He died on June 27,
2010. At the time of his death, the decedent had neither
presumptive dependents nor dependents in fact. The decedent never
filed a notice of claim for workers' compensation benefits or
otherwise requested such benefits for asbestos exposure. He did
not seek payment of either temporary total, temporary partial, or
permanent partial disability benefits. On October 19, 2011, the
plaintiff filed a notice of claim for workers' compensation
benefits on behalf of the decedent. The defendant contested the
claim for benefits.

The threshold jurisdictional issue in this appeal is whether the
plaintiff, Estate of James Rock, has standing under Section 31-275
et seq., to seek benefits for temporary total disability and
permanent partial disability, as well as reimbursement for, inter
alia, medical expenses, when the deceased employee, James Rock
(decedent), did not file a claim for benefits.  The plaintiff
appealed from the decision of the Board, which affirmed in part
and reversed in part the decision of the Workers' Compensation
Commissioner, who dismissed the plaintiff's claims for lack of
standing.  The board upheld the commissioner's ruling that the
plaintiff lacked standing to pursue disability benefits under
General Statutes Sections 31-307 and 31-308 but remanded the case
to allow the plaintiff to advance a claim for burial expenses, any
actual lost wages the decedent sustained between his injury and
his death, and medical expenses attributable to a compensable
injury. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that (1) under the act, an
estate of a deceased employee has standing to pursue workers'
compensation benefits, (2) a claim for temporary total and
permanent partial disability benefits survives the employee's
death, and an estate is entitled to these benefits, even when the
deceased employee did not file a claim, and (3) denying an estate
the right to pursue these benefits violates both the federal and
state constitutions.

The Supreme Court disagreed and concluded that, because an estate
is not a legal entity capable of advancing a claim for any form of
workers' compensation benefits, the board's decision must be
reversed in part.

The Supreme Court pointed out that it is well established that an
estate is not a legal representative.  It is incapable of bringing
a claim under Section 31-294c or any other section of the act.

The decision of the Compensation Review Board is reversed insofar
as the board determined that the plaintiff is a legal
representative that could pursue workers' compensation benefits
under the act, and the case is remanded with direction to dismiss
the plaintiff's claims; the decision of the board is otherwise
affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Supreme Court's Opinion officially
released September 6, 2016, is available at
http://tinyurl.com/zy2gez6from Leagle.com.

Amity L. Arscott, with whom were Stephen C. Embry and Nathan
Julian Shafner, for the appellant (plaintiff).

Lawrence G. Widem, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the
brief, were George Jepsen, attorney general, and Philip M. Schulz,
assistant attorney general, for the appellee (defendant).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Dismiss PI Claims vs. Cytec Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Martin Reidinger of the United States District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina, Asheville Division, in the
case captioned HOWARD MILTON MOORE, JR. and LENA MOORE,
Plaintiffs, v. ALCATEL-LUCENT USA, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil
Case No. 1:16-cv-00157-MR-DLH (W.D.N.C.), granted a Joint Motion
to Dismiss and dismissed without prejudice the Plaintiffs' claims
against Defendant Cytec Engineered Materials Inc.

A full-text copy of Judge Reidinger's September 1, 2016, Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/gscmb2gfrom Leagle.com.

Howard Milton Moore, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Kevin W. Paul,
Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, PC, pro hac vice.

Howard Milton Moore, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Janet Ward
Black, Ward Black, P.A..

Lena Moore, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin W. Paul, Simon
Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, PC, pro hac vice & Janet Ward Black,
Ward Black, P.A..

Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Timothy W.
Bouch, Leath Bouch Crawford & von Keller.

AT&T Corp., Defendant, represented by Timothy W. Bouch, Leath
Bouch Crawford & von Keller.

Ericsson, Inc., Defendant, represented by Stephen B. Williamson,
Van Winkle, Buck, Wall, Starnes & Davis, P.A..

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Jennifer M.
Techman, Evert Weathersby Houff.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Keith E. Coltrain, Wall, Templeton & Haldrup, PA.

Phelps Dodge Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brent
Alan Rosser, Esq. -- brosser@hunton.com -- Hunton & Williams,
Wendy Cohen McGraw, Hunton & Williams, pro hac vice & Emma Claire
Merritt, Hunton & Williams LLP.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Moffatt G.
McDonald, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice, Scott E.
Frick, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice, W. David
Conner, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice & Charles
Monroe Sprinkle, III, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A..


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Dismisses "Burt" Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald of the United States District Court
for the Central District of California, having considered the
stipulation between plaintiffs Jack W. Burt, Jr. and Margaret Burt
and all remaining Defendants in the case captioned JACK W. BURT,
JR. and MARGARET BURT, Plaintiffs, v. AVCO CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:15-CV-03355-MWF-PJWx (C.D. Calif.),
approves the stipulation and orders that the entire action is
dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, Rule 41(a)(2).

A full-text copy of Judge Fitzgerald's September 2, 2016, Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/gqq5t32from Leagle.com.

Jack W. Burt, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D.
Goldstein, Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC.

Jack W. Burt, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Christopher J. Levy,
Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC, Crystal Gayle Foley, Simmons Hanly
Conroy LLC, Deborah R. Rosenthal, Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC & Paul
C. Cook, Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC.

Margaret Burt, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D. Goldstein,
Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC, Christopher J. Levy, Simmons Hanly
Conroy LLC, Crystal Gayle Foley, Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC, Deborah
R. Rosenthal, Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC, Brent J. Zadorozny,
Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC & Paul C. Cook, Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC.

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Edward R. Hugo, Hugo Parker LLP, Elsa Sham, Hugo Parker LLP &
Shaghig D. Agopian, Hugo Parker LLP.

Wyeth Holdings Corporation, Defendant, represented by John R.
Lawless, Jr., Esq. -- jlawless@kslaw.com -- King and Spalding LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Waived Right to Enforce Notice
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned CNH INDUSTRIAL AMERICA LLC, Plaintiff, v.
AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING, PENNSYLVANIA, et al.,
Defendants, C.A. No. N12C-07-108 EMD CCLD (Del. Sup.), the
Superior Court of Delaware held that Travelers Indemnity Company
waived its right to enforce notice and cooperation provisions and
that Travelers' indemnity payments extinguished its duty to defend
no earlier than July 6, 2015, the date it reimbursed CNH for past
settlements.

This is a Complex Commercial Litigation Division case. The
Plaintiff, CNH Industrial America LLC, filed a declaratory relief
and breach of contract case against several insurance companies,
including Travelers.  CNH's complaint alleges Travelers breached
its duty to defend and indemnify CNH in asbestos-related lawsuits.
The parties in this action have engaged in aggressive litigation,
including a motion practice that can only be characterized as
extreme.

The parties filed numerous summary judgment motions related to
Travelers' duties under the Insurance Policies, including the Case
Insurance Policy.  On October 7, 2014, CNH filed Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment Against Travelers Regarding the Duty to
Defend.  CNH asked the Court hold that Travelers has a duty to
defend and indemnify CNH in the numerous asbestos bodily injury
lawsuits.

On July 6, 2015, prior to the Court's written decisions on the
remaining issues (including a decision on the Motion), Travelers
filed a letter with the Court. In it, Travelers outlined its
pending $1.6 million payment to CNH for indemnity and defense
costs. Travelers paid $600,000 to indemnity CNH for prior
settlements. Travelers calculated its indemnity payments by taking
six cases CNH tendered in 2008-09, and spreading the remaining
policy limits amongst them. Further, Travelers paid $1.0 million
for all substantiated, post-tender defense costs CNH allegedly
incurred through May 18, 2009, the latest date Travelers used in
calculating its indemnity payment. Travelers contends that the
payment fully exhausted the policies' remaining limits,
extinguishing its duty to defend.  On August 21, 2015, the Court
granted in part and deferred in part the Motion.

On the issue of the waiver of the duty to defend, the court found
that the facts demonstrate that Travelers never defended CNH in
the asbestos cases. According to the court, Travelers' actions
left CNH to resolve the lawsuits on its own -- fully reserving its
rights while telling CNH to "please take the steps you deem
necessary to protect your interests in these matters."  As such,
the court held, Travelers cannot now claim it was prejudiced by
CNH's resolving the lawsuits without Travelers' assistance.  The
court pointed out that Wisconsin law is clear on an insurer's
obligations when given notice of an underlying claim.  Travelers
should have intervened in the underlying lawsuits while
maintaining its reservation of rights, or it should have moved to
stay the underlying lawsuits so coverage could be determined, but
Travelers did neither, the court pointed out.  It cannot benefit
from its continued delays, the court said.

On the issue of reimbursement, the court held that Travelers' duty
to defend terminates only after Travelers (not CNH) exhausts its
applicable limits of liability.  Travelers cannot unilaterally
declare its duty to defend terminated retroactively due to a
settlement paid for by CNH, the court said.  Instead, Travelers'
duty to defend would only terminate on the date Travelers made its
payment to CNH -- i.e., reimbursed CNH for the payments CNH made
to satisfy a claim, the court added.

Accordingly, the court ruled that Travelers waived its right to
enforce notice and cooperation provisions.  Further, Travelers'
indemnity payments extinguished its duty to defend no earlier than
July 6, 2015, the date it reimbursed CNH for past settlements, the
court said.

A full-text copy of the Decision dated August 19, 2016 is
available at https://is.gd/34jZAw from Leagle.com.

Brian M. Rostocki, Esquire -- brostocki@reedsmith.com, and John C.
Cordrey, Esquire -- jcordrey@reedsmith.com, Reed Smith LLP,
Wilmington, Delaware and James M. Davis, Esquire --
jdavis@reedsmith.com, Thomas A. Marrinson, Esquire --
tmarrinson@reedsmith.com, Evan T. Knott, Esquire --
eknott@reedsmith.com, and Emily E. Garrison, Esquire --
egarrison@reedsmith.com, Reed Smith LLP, Chicago, Illinois.
Attorneys for CNH Industrial America LLC.

Neal J. Levitsky, Esquire -- nlevitsky@foxrothschild.com, and Seth
A. Niederman, Esquire -- sniederman@foxrothschild.com, Fox
Rothschild LLP, Wilmington, Delaware and Richard L. McConnell,
Esquire -- rmcconnell@wileyrein.com, and Dale E. Hausman, Esquire
-- dhausman@wileyrein.com, Wiley Rein LLP, Washington, DC.
Attorneys for Travelers Indemnity Company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wayne Mfg. Wins Bid to Dismiss "Fish"
------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Robert C. Fish, et al., v. Air & Liquid
Systems Corporation, et al, Civil Action No. GLR-16-496 (D. Md.),
Judge George L. Russell, III, of the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland granted Wayne Manufacturing
Corporation's unopposed Motion to Dismiss or, alternatively,
Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed with prejudice the
Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint as to Wayne.

The Plaintiffs commenced the lawsuit against Wayne, as well as
many others, alleging injuries sustained as a result of Mr. Fish's
purported exposure to asbestos-containing products at New York
Shipbuilding and Drydock in the early nineteen sixties.  The
Plaintiffs also allege Mr. Fish was exposed to asbestos-containing
products when working with and around cars and automotive parts in
the nineteen sixties and seventies.  Wayne filed its Motion to
Dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) or,
alternatively, Motion for Summary Judgment under Rule 56.

Judge Russell noted that the Plaintiffs listed Wayne in the
caption of their Amended Complaint, but the body of their Amended
Complaint is wholly devoid of any allegations against Wayne.
Consequently, the Plaintiffs fail to state a plausible claim
against Wayne because they do not plead factual content that
allows the Court to draw the reasonable inference that Wayne is
liable for the misconduct alleged, Judge Russell concluded.

A full-text copy of the Memorandum to Counsel dated August 15,
2016, is available at https://is.gd/5KnYa2 from Leagle.com.

Robert C. Fish, Plaintiff, is represented by Jacqueline Gagne
Badders, Esq. -- The Ruckdeschel Law Firm LLC, Jonathan
Ruckdeschel, Esq. -- The Ruckdeschel Law Firm LLC & Z. Stephen
Horvat, Esq. -- The Ruckdeschel Law Firm LLC.

Helen Thomas-Fish, Plaintiff, is represented by Jacqueline Gagne
Badders, The Ruckdeschel Law Firm LLC, Jonathan Ruckdeschel, The
Ruckdeschel Law Firm LLC & Z. Stephen Horvat, The Ruckdeschel Law
Firm LLC.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Defendant, is represented by F.
Ford Loker, Jr., Esq. -- floker@milesstockbridge.com -- Miles and
Stockbridge PC.

Aurora Pump, Defendant, is represented by F. Ford Loker, Jr.,
Miles and Stockbridge PC.

Borgwarner Morse Tec, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Pamela
Thomas Broache, Esq. -- pbroache@goldbergsegalla.com -- Goldberg
Segalla.

Carrier Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Patrick C.
Smith, Esq. -- psmith@dehay.com -- Dehay and Elliston LLP.

CBS Corporation of Delaware, Defendant, is represented by Philip
A. Kulinski, Esq. -- pakulinski@ewhlaw.com -- Evert Weathersby
Houff & Clare Marie Maisano, Esq. -- cmmaisano@ewhlaw.com -- Evert
Weathersby Houff.

Cleaver-Brooks, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Douglas B.
Pfeiffer, Esq. -- dpfeiffer@milesstockbridge.com -- Miles and
Stockbridge PC.

Crane Co., Defendant, is represented by Neil Joseph MacDonald,
Esq. -- nmacdonald@macdonaldlawgroup.com -- MacDonald Law Group,
LLC & Rachelle A. Schofield, Esq. --
rschofield@macdonaldlawgroup.com -- MacDonald Law Group, LLC.

Ford Motor Company, Defendant, is represented by Warren N. Weaver,
Esq. -- wweaver@wtplaw.com -- Whiteford Taylor and Preston LLP.
Foster-Wheeler LLC, Defendant, is represented by Patrick C. Smith,
Dehay and Elliston LLP.

General Electric Company, Defendant, is represented by David J.
Quigg, Meringer Zois and Quigg LLC & James T. Zois, Meringer Zois
and Quigg LLC.

Genuine Parts Company, Defendant, is represented by Niccolo N.
Donzella, Baxter Baker Sidle Conn and Jones PA & Siobhan R.
Keenan, Baxter Baker Sidle Conn and Jones PA.

Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant, is represented by
Matthew Thomas Wagman, Miles and Stockbridge PC & Matthew R.
Schroll, Miles and Stockbridge PC.

Hopeman Brothers, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Malcolm Sean
Brisker, Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP, David W. Allen,
Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP & Terri Lynn Goldberg, Goodell
DeVries Leech and Dann LLP.

IMO Industries, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Joel D.
Newport, Moore and Jackson LLC.

International Paper Company, Defendant, is represented by Philip
A. Kulinski, Evert Weathersby Houff & Clare Marie Maisano, Evert
Weathersby Houff.

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant, is represented by Michael L.
Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC & Jonathan James Huber, Miles &
Stockbridge P.C..

John Crane, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Timothy McDevitt
Hurley, Miles and Stockbridge PC.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Defendant, is represented by
Jamie Michelle Hertz, Steptoe & Johnson LLP.

The Pep Boys -- Manny, Moe & Jack, Defendant, is represented by
Douglas B. Pfeiffer, Miles and Stockbridge PC.

Pneumo Abex, LLC, Defendant, is represented by Vincent J.
Palmiotto, DeHay & Elliston, LLP &Patrick C. Smith, Dehay and
Elliston LLP.

Sargent Aerospace, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Robert T.
Shaffer, III, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP.

SB Decking, Inc., Defendant, is represented by F. Ford Loker, Jr.,
Miles and Stockbridge PC.

Velan Valve Corp., Defendant, is represented by Anthony B. Taddeo,
TaddeoSturm PLC &Stephanie A. Fox, Maron Marvel Bradley and
Anderson LLC.

Warren Pumps LLC, Defendant, is represented by Malcolm Sean
Brisker, Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP & Terri Lynn Goldberg,
Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP.

Western Auto Supply Company, Defendant, is represented by Thomas
Peter Bernier, Goldberg Segalla.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5 Cos. Win Partial Summary Judgment
----------------------------------------------------
In the case IN RE: ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to MARK E. HILLYER
and CAROL HILLYER, his wife, Plaintiffs, v. ABB, INC., et al.
Defendants, Civil Action No. 15-378-GMS-SRF (D. Del.), Magistrate
Judge Sherry R. Fallon of the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware recommended that the court grant in part and
deny in part the motions for summary judgment filed by Defendants
Mine Safety Appliances Company, Copes-Vulcan Inc., Spirax Sarco
Inc., Crane Co., and Air & Liquid Systems Corporation.

The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants are liable for Mr.
Hillyer's injuries for inadequate warning or failure to warn under
a strict product liability theory.

With respect to MSA, Magistrate Fallon held that summary judgment
should not be granted on the grounds of product identification and
causation as a reaonsbale jury could find that Mr. Hillyer was
exposed to asbestos when he opened the box containing a suit,
retrieved the suit, donned the suit, and was confined within it
for close to an hour each time, and a fact question exists as to
whether that exposure was a substantial factor in causing his
mesothelioma.

A full-text copy of the Report and Recommendation dated August 19,
2016, is available at https://is.gd/Ug7ch6 from Leagle.com.

Mark E. Hillyer, Plaintiff, is represented by Allen Dale Bowers,
II, Esq. -- Law Office of A. Dale Bowers.

Carol Hillyer, Plaintiff, is represented by Allen Dale Bowers, II,
Law Office of A. Dale Bowers.

ABB Inc., Defendant, is represented by Oleh V. Bilynsky, Esq. --
ovb@obfirm.com -- O'Brien Firm.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Defendant, is represented by
Barbara Anne Fruehauf, Esq. -- Wilbraham Lawler & Buba.

BW/IP Inc., Defendant, represented by Joel M. Doner, Esq. --
jdoner@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC.
CBS Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Beth E. Valocchi,
Esq. -- bvalocchi@swartzcampbell.com -- Swartz Campbell LLC &
Shawn Edward Martyniak, Esq. -- smartyniak@swartzcampbell.com --
Swartz Campbell LLC.

Copes-Vulcan Inc., Defendant, is represented by Antoinette D.
Hubbard, Esq. -- adh@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel Bradley &
Anderson LLC & Paul A. Bradley, Esq. -- pab@maronmarvel.com --
Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC.

Crane Co., Defendant, is represented by Nicholas E. Skiles, Esq. -
- nskiles@swartzcampbell.com -- Swartz Campbell LLC & Shawn Edward
Martyniak, Swartz Campbell LLC.

Eaton Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Joseph S. Naylor,
Esq. -- jnaylor@swartzcampbell.com -- wartz Campbell LLC.
General Electric Company, Defendant, is represented by Beth E.
Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC.

Grinnell LLC, Defendant, is represented by Kelly A. Costello, Esq.
-- kelly.costello@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.
IMO Industries Inc., Defendant, is represented by Eileen M. Ford,
Esq. -- eford@moodklaw.com -- Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty &
Kelly, P.C. & Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, Esq. --
mmantzavinos@moodklaw.com -- Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty &
Kelly, P.C..

Mine Safety Appliances Company, Defendant, is represented by David
C. Malatesta, Jr., Kent & McBride, P.C..

Oakfabco Inc., Defendant, is represented by David C. Malatesta,
Jr., Kent & McBride, P.C..

Spirax Sarco Inc., Defendant, is represented by Antoinette D.
Hubbard, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC & Paul A. Bradley,
Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Beth E.
Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC & Joseph S. Naylor, Swartz Campbell
LLC.

Gould Electronics Inc., Defendant, is represented by David Phillip
Primack, McElroy Deutsch Mulvaney & Carpenter LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3rd Circ. Flips Dismissal of Seamen Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed
the district court's decision and remanded to the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania Court for further proceedings the appeals cases
captioned IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (NO. VI)
relating to Lionel C. Wilson, Deceased by Creighton E. Miller
Administrator of the Estate, Appellant (No. 15-1387). Estate of
Joseph F. Braun, Creighton E. Miller, Administrator, Appellant
(No. 15-1388). Thomas Guiden, Deceased, by Creighton E. Miller,
Administrator, Appellant (No. 15-1389),  Nos. 15-1387, 15-1388 and
15-1389 (3rd Cir.).

Nearly three decades ago three former seamen -- Lionel Wilson,
Joseph Braun, and Thomas Guiden sued the Matson Navigation
Company, Inc., and the American President Line, Ltd., in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.
They alleged violations of the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. Section 30104
et seq., and general maritime law resulting in harmful exposures
to asbestos.  After a complicated procedural history that
eventually saw their lawsuits consolidated in the Asbestos
Multidistrict Litigation in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, that Court dismissed their
cases for lack of personal jurisdiction.  Wilson, Braun, and
Guiden have appealed, arguing, among other things, that Matson and
American waived their personal jurisdiction defenses.

The Third Circuit held that by stating their willingness to
litigate the lawsuits of Wilson, Braun, and Guiden in the Northern
District of Ohio at the hearing before chief Judge Lambros in
January 1991, Matson and American waived their lack-of-personal
jurisdiction defense.  Those waivers were confirmed by their
various post-transfer filings, the Third Circuit said.  That they
purported to preserve their personal jurisdiction defenses in
their pleadings does not change the import of these clear waivers,
the Third Circuit added.

A full-text copy of the Opinion dated August 18, 2016, is
available at https://is.gd/2CON9E from Leagle.com.

Alan Kellman, Esq. -- akellman@desmaraisllp.com, Timothy A.
Swafford, Esq. -- tswafford@jaquesadmiralty.com -- The Jaques
Admiralty Law Firm, 645 Griswold Street, 1370 Penobscot Building,
Detroit, MI 48226, Louis M. Bograd (Argued), Motely Rice, 3333 K
Street, N.W., Suite 450, Washington, DC 20007, Counsel for
Appellants.

Harold W. Henderson, Esq. -- Hal.Henderson@ThompsonHine.com
(Argued), Thompson Hine, 3900 Key Center, 127 Public Square,
Cleveland, OH 44114, Counsel for Appellees.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: No New Trial in "Marquez," Cal. App. Says
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ANTHONY MARQUEZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, v.
PAC OPERATING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Defendant and Respondent, No.
B263403 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California, Second
District, Division Four, affirmed the trial court's judgment
disagreeing that the trial court abused its discretion in denying
plaintiff Anthony Marquez' motion for a new trial.

The Plaintiff appeals from a judgment following a jury trial in
favor of defendant and respondent PAC Operating Limited
Partnership on Marquez's claim for personal injuries caused by
exposure to asbestos. Marquez contends that the trial court abused
its discretion when it granted PAC's motion in limine to exclude
evidence that PAC (through its corporate predecessor) had an
ownership interest or operational role in a site of claimed
asbestos exposure within the City of Coalinga, where Marquez lived
from 1959 until 1972. Marquez also argues the trial court erred
when it denied his motion seeking new trial.

The appellate court held that denial of the Plaintiff's motion for
new trial a proper exercise of the trial court's inherent
authority to control the proceedings and ensure a fair trial.  The
appellate court pointed out that trial courts possess an "inherent
power to control litigation before them[, and to] exercise
reasonable control over all proceedings connected with pending
litigation."  Without question, this power includes the "inherent
power to exclude evidence to ensure a fair and orderly trial" by
excluding evidence in order "to prevent the taking of an unfair
advantage and to preserve the integrity of the judicial system,"
the appellate court held.

A full-text copy of the Decision dated August 18, 2016, is
available at https://is.gd/c8eInl from Leagle.com.

Levin Simes, William A. Levin, Esq. -- wlevin@levinsimes.com,
Laurel L. Simes, Esq. -- lsimes@levinsimes.com, Mahzad K. Hite,
Esq. -- mhite@levinsimes.com;  The Ehrlich Law Firm and Jeffrey I.
Ehrlich, Esq. for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Yukevich|Cavanaugh, James J. Yukevich, Esq. --
jyukevich@yukelaw.com, Elizabeth M. Olsen, Esq. --
eolsen@yukelaw.com and Paul C. White, Esq. -- pwhite@yukelaw.com
for Defendant and Respondent.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 6 NYCAL Suits Consolidated for Trial
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION
relating to RICHARD CLARK AND THELMA CLARK, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
AVOCET ENTERPRISES, INC., et al., Defendants, Docket No.
190111/2015,2016 NY Slip Op 31527(U)(N.Y. Sup.), Judge Cynthia S.
Kern of the Supreme Court, New York County granted the motion to
consolidate six asbestos cases for trial.

This court has been assigned six asbestos actions for trial,
comprising the Meirowitz and Wasserberg, LLP, October 2015 In
Extremis trial group. The Plaintiffs have brought the present
motion to consolidate these actions into two separate groups for
joint trial, claiming that there are common questions of law and
fact.

They have requested that there be two groups of trials as follows:

   Group 1: Monseratte Acosta, Dario Battistoni and Adrian Smith
   Group 2: Richard Clark, Angelo Guerra and Louis Votta

A full-text copy of the Decision dated August 9, 2016 is available
at https://is.gd/3ANbJX from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 7th Circ. Allows New Trial in "O'Malley"
---------------------------------------------------------
In the appeals case styled UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. DUANE L. O'MALLEY, Defendant-Appellant, No. 14-2711
(7th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit vacated the ruling and directed the district court to
allow Duane O'Malley to proceed under Federal Rule of Criminal
Rule 33 because the district court improperly required him to
bring pieces of his evidence in a separate action.

According to the Seventh Circuit, the entirety of O'Malley's
submission falls within the scope of Rule 33(b)(1) even if his
theories overlap with 28 U.S.C. Section 2255, and that the
district court should have respected his choice between these
available means of relief.

Duane "Butch" O'Malley is serving ten years in prison for
violating the Clean Air Act by improperly removing and disposing
of insulation containing regulated asbestos. O'Malley filed in the
district court what he dubbed a motion under Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 33(b)(1) for a new trial based on newly
discovered evidence. That rule authorizes a district court to
grant a timely request for a new trial "if the interest of justice
so requires." The district court concluded that O'Malley's
submission contains constitutional theories that, the court
reasoned, are incompatible with Rule 33 and cognizable only under
28 U.S.C. Section 2255. And the remainder of O'Malley's motion
could not entitle him to relief under Rule 33, the court added,
because the new evidence is not material.

A full-text copy of the Opinion dated August 17, 2016 is available
at https://is.gd/ZYEC5E from Leagle.com.

Eugene L. Miller, Esq. for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Michelle L. Jacobs, Esq. -- mjacobs@biskupicjacobs.com -- Biskupic
& Jacobs for Defendant-Appellant.

Vanessa K. Eisenmann, Esq. -- veisenmann@biskupicjacobs.com --
Biskupic & Jacobs for Defendant-Appellant.

Katherine Virginia Boyle, Esq. for Plaintiff-Appellee.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Won't Review Denial of WR Grace Class Cert.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kevin J. Carey of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Delaware denied Anderson Memorial Hospital's motion to
alter or amend Judge Fitzgerald's May 29, 2008 memorandum opinion
and order which denied AMH's motion for class certification.

In 2002, Judge Fitzgerald issued a bar date order fixing March 31,
2003, as the deadline to file all present asbestos property damage
claims.  Prior to the bar date, AMH filed an individual Asbestos
PD proof of claim and two class proofs of claim, one for South
Carolina building owners and one for claimants without geographic
specification, whose buildings are allegedly contaminated with
asbestos.  In October 2005, AMH filed a Motion for Class
Certification, which Judge Fitzgerald denied with prejudice in the
May 2008 Decision.

In the May 2008 decision, Judge Fitzgerald ruled that AMH's
putative class did not meet the Rule 23(a) numerosity requirement
and Rule 23(b) superiority requirement of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.

AMH seeks to include in its class anyone who has not filed an
Asbestos PD Claim by the bar date, either because of neglect, lack
of actual notice, or because their claim has not yet accrued.

There are two issues before the Court:

   1. Whether the Plan and the Case Management Order for Class 7A
Asbestos PD Claims attached to the plan bar AMH from having its
denial of class certification reconsidered

   2. Whether AMH has made a satisfactory showing for
reconsideration of the May 2008 Decision under the appropriate
legal standard

Judge Carey concluded that the CMO is part of W.R. Grace & Co., et
al.'s Chapter 11 Plan, which was confirmed by Judge Fitzgerald in
January 2011, and which affirmed by the district court in 2012 and
by the Third Circuit in 2013.

"AMH is bound by the PD CMO to adjudicate its individual claim
before commencing its class claims, and is barred from including
post-bar date claims in its class action.  Further, AMH's
arguments regarding the change in controlling law as well
perceived factual and legal errors do not warrant reconsideration
of Judge Fitzgerald's May 2008 decision because they are a
combination of previously lost arguments and subsequent, but not
sufficiently material, developments after the decision," said
Judge Carey.

The case is In re: W.R. GRACE & CO., et al., Reorganized Debtors,
Case No. 01-01139(KJC)(Bankr. D. Del).

A full-text copy of Judge Carey's August 25, 2016 opinion is
available at http://bankrupt.com/misc/deb01-01139-32771.pdf


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear's Liability Totals $507MM at June 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company's asbestos-related liability
and gross payments, including legal costs, total approximately
$507 million, 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 numerous lawsuits
alleging various asbestos-related personal injuries purported to
result from alleged exposure to asbestos in certain products
manufactured by us or present in certain of our facilities.
Typically, these lawsuits have been brought against multiple
defendants in state and Federal courts. To date, we have disposed
of approximately 121,400 claims by defending and obtaining the
dismissal thereof or by entering into a settlement. The sum of our
accrued asbestos-related liability and gross payments to date,
including legal costs, by us and our insurers totaled
approximately $507 million through June 30, 2016 and $497 million
through December 31, 2015.

"A summary of recent approximate asbestos claims activity follows.
Because claims are often filed and disposed of by dismissal or
settlement in large numbers, the amount and timing of settlements
and the number of open claims during a particular period can
fluctuate significantly.

                           Six Months Ended     Year Ended
(Dollars in millions)      June 30, 2016        December 31, 2015
                           ----------------     -----------------
Pending claims, beginning  67,400               73,800
of period
New claims filed           1,100                1,900
Claims settled/dismissed   (3,600)              (8,300)
Pending claims, end of     64,900               67,400
period
Payments (1)               $ 12                 $ 19

"We periodically, and at least annually, review our existing
reserves for pending claims, including a reasonable estimate of
the liability associated with unasserted asbestos claims, and
estimate our receivables from probable insurance recoveries. We
recorded gross liabilities for both asserted and unasserted
claims, inclusive of defense costs, totaling $168 million and $171
million at June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively. The
recorded liability represents our estimated liability over the
next ten years, which represents the period over which the
liability can be reasonably estimated. Due to the difficulties in
making these estimates, analysis based on new data and/or a change
in circumstances arising in the future could result in an increase
in the recorded obligation in an amount that cannot be reasonably
estimated, and that increase could be significant.

"We maintain certain primary and excess insurance coverage under
coverage-in-place agreements, and also have additional excess
liability insurance with respect to asbestos liabilities. After
consultation with our outside legal counsel and giving
consideration to agreements with certain of our insurance
carriers, the financial viability and legal obligations of our
insurance carriers and other relevant factors, we determine an
amount we expect is probable of recovery from such carriers. We
record a receivable with respect to such policies when we
determine that recovery is probable and we can reasonably estimate
the amount of a particular recovery.

"We recorded a receivable related to asbestos claims of $127
million and $117 million at June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015,
respectively. The increase in the receivable balance at June 30,
2016 is primarily related to changes in assumptions for probable
insurance recoveries for asbestos claims in future periods which
positively impacted the receivable by $10 million. We expect that
approximately 75% of asbestos claim related losses would be
recoverable through insurance during the ten-year period covered
by the estimated liability. Of these amounts, $12 million, was
included in Current Assets as part of Accounts Receivable at June
30, 2016 and December 31, 2015. The recorded receivable consists
of an amount we expect to collect under coverage-in-place
agreements with certain primary and excess insurance carriers as
well as an amount we believe is probable of recovery from certain
of our other excess insurance carriers.

"We believe that, at December 31, 2015, we had approximately $410
million in excess level policy limits applicable to indemnity and
defense costs for asbestos products claims under coverage-in-place
agreements.  We also had additional unsettled excess level policy
limits potentially applicable to such costs.  We also had coverage
under certain primary policies for indemnity and defense costs for
asbestos products claims under remaining aggregate limits pursuant
to a coverage-in-place agreement, as well as coverage for
indemnity and defense costs for asbestos premises claims pursuant
to coverage-in-place agreements.

"With respect to both asserted and unasserted claims, it is
reasonably possible that we may incur a material amount of cost in
excess of the current reserve; however, such amounts cannot be
reasonably estimated. Coverage under insurance policies is subject
to varying characteristics of asbestos claims including, but not
limited to, the type of claim (premise vs. product exposure),
alleged date of first exposure to our products or premises and
disease alleged. Depending upon the nature of these
characteristics, as well as the resolution of certain legal
issues, some portion of the insurance may not be accessible by
us."

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company is a manufacturer of tires.
The Company's business is the development, manufacture,
distribution and sale of tires and related products and services
across the world.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Continues to Receive Asbestos Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., continues to receive
asbestos 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 Hartford continues to receive asbestos and environmental
claims that involve significant uncertainty regarding policy
coverage issues. Regarding these claims, The Hartford continually
reviews its overall reserve levels and reinsurance coverages, as
well as the methodologies it uses to estimate its exposures.
Because of the significant uncertainties that limit the ability of
insurers and reinsurers to estimate the ultimate reserves
necessary for unpaid losses and related expenses, particularly
those related to asbestos, the ultimate liabilities may exceed the
currently recorded reserves. Any such additional liability cannot
be reasonably estimated now but could be material to The
Hartford's consolidated operating results and liquidity.

The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. is a holding company
for insurance and financial services subsidiaries that provide
property and casualty and life insurance, as well as investment
products to both individual and business customers in the United
States. The Company conducts business in six segments, including
Property & Casualty Commercial, Consumer Markets, Property &
Casualty Other Operations, Group Benefits, Mutual Funds and
Talcott Resolution, as well as a Corporate category. The Company
includes in its Corporate category the Company's debt financing
and related interest expense, as well as other capital raising
activities, and purchase accounting adjustments related to
goodwill and other expenses not allocated to the segments.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Still Defends Suits at June 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ingersoll-Rand Public Limited Company 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, "It is involved in various litigations, claims
and administrative proceedings, including those related to
environmental, asbestos, and product liability matters. In
accordance with ASC 450, "Contingencies," the Company records
accruals for loss contingencies when it is both probable that a
liability will be incurred and the amount of the loss can be
reasonably estimated. Amounts recorded for identified contingent
liabilities are estimates, which are reviewed periodically and
adjusted to reflect additional information when it becomes
available. Subject to the uncertainties inherent in estimating
future costs for contingent liabilities, except as expressly set
forth in this note, management believes that any liability which
may result from these legal matters would not have a material
adverse effect on the financial condition, results of operations,
liquidity or cash flows of the Company.

"The Company is currently a defendant to a lawsuit originally
filed by a customer in 2012 relating to a commercial HVAC contract
entered into in 2001, prior to the acquisition of Trane U.S. Inc.
(Trane) by Ingersoll Rand.  The lawsuit has been amended several
times, most recently in April 2016. The plaintiff seeks economic
damages of $71.6 million for remediation costs and contractual
claims, as well as treble damages.  The Company believes the claim
is without merit and denies liability.  Trial is currently
scheduled to begin in September 2016 in the Texas state court.  As
of June 30, 2016, the Company has not accrued any material amount
related to this matter."

Based in Dublin, Ireland, Ingersoll-Rand plc provides products,
services and solutions to enhance the quality and comfort of air
in homes and buildings, transport and protect food and
perishables, secure homes and commercial properties, and
increase industrial productivity and efficiency.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Had 6,480 Claims at June 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
There were 6,480 claims against Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc.,
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 of June 30, 2016, the Company was a co-
defendant in cases alleging asbestos-induced illness involving
claims by approximately 6,480 plaintiffs, which is a net decrease
of 794 claims from those previously reported. In each instance,
the Company is one of a large number of defendants. The asbestos
claimants seek compensatory and punitive damages, in most cases
for unspecified sums. Since January 1, 1995, the Company has been
a co-defendant in other similar cases that have been resolved as
follows: 51,692 of those claims were dismissed, 22 were tried to
defense verdicts, seven were tried to plaintiff verdicts (one of
which is being appealed), one was resolved by agreement for an
immaterial amount and 758 were decided in favor of the Company
following summary judgment motions."

Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc.'s primary business is the design
and manufacture of arc welding and cutting products, manufacturing
a broad line of arc welding equipment, consumable welding products
and other welding and cutting products.  The Company is
headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: McDermott Continues to Defend Suits at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
McDermott International, 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, "Due to the nature of our business, we and our
affiliates are, from time to time, involved in litigation or
subject to disputes or claims related to our business activities,
including, among other things:

   * performance or warranty-related matters under our customer
and supplier contracts and other business arrangements; and

   * workers' compensation claims, Jones Act claims, occupational
hazard claims, including asbestos-exposure claims, premises
liability claims and other claims.

"Based upon our prior experience, we do not expect that any of
these other litigation proceedings, disputes and claims will have
a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition,
results of operations or cash flows; however, because of the
inherent uncertainty of litigation and other dispute resolution
proceedings and, in some cases, the availability and amount of
potentially applicable insurance, we can provide no assurance that
the resolution of any particular claim or proceeding to which we
are a party will not have a material effect on our consolidated
financial condition, results of operations or cash flows for the
fiscal period in which that resolution occurs."

McDermott International, Inc. is an engineering, procurement,
construction and installation company focused on designing and
executing offshore oil and gas projects across the world.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: McDermott Units Contribute Asbestos Insurance
--------------------------------------------------------------
McDermott International, Inc., units contribute substantial
insurance rights providing coverage for, among other things,
asbestos and other personal injury claims, to the asbestos
personal injury trust, 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, "Upon the February 22, 2006 effectiveness
relating to the Chapter 11 proceedings involving several
subsidiaries of our former subsidiary B&W, most of our
subsidiaries contributed substantial insurance rights providing
coverage for, among other things, asbestos and other personal
injury claims, to the asbestos personal injury trust. With the
contribution of these insurance rights to the asbestos personal
injury trust, we may have underinsured or uninsured exposure for
non-derivative asbestos claims or other personal injury or other
claims that would have been insured under these coverages had the
insurance rights not been contributed to the asbestos personal
injury trust."

McDermott International, Inc. is an engineering, procurement,
construction and installation company focused on designing and
executing offshore oil and gas projects across the world.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: OI Inc. Continues to Defend Suits at June 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
Owens-Illinois, Inc., continues to defend itself against asbestos
lawsuits involving approximately 2,000 plaintiffs, 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, "It is a defendant in numerous lawsuits
alleging bodily injury and death as a result of exposure to
asbestos.  From 1948 to 1958, one of the Company's former business
units commercially produced and sold approximately $40 million of
a high-temperature, calcium-silicate based insulation material
containing asbestos.  The Company sold its insulation business
unit at the end of April 1958.  The typical asbestos personal
injury lawsuit alleges various theories of liability, including
negligence, gross negligence and strict liability and seeks
compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages in various
amounts (herein referred to as "asbestos claims").

"As of June 30, 2016, the Company has determined that it is a
named defendant in asbestos lawsuits and claims involving
approximately 2,000 plaintiffs and claimants.  Based on an
analysis of the lawsuits pending as of December 31, 2015,
approximately 82% of plaintiffs either do not specify the monetary
damages sought, or in the case of court filings, claim an amount
sufficient to invoke the jurisdictional minimum of the trial
court.  Approximately 11% of plaintiffs specifically plead damages
above the jurisdictional minimum up to, and including, $15 million
or less, and 7% of plaintiffs specifically plead damages greater
than $15 million but less than or equal to $100 million.

"Current pleading practice permits considerable variation in the
assertion of monetary damages.  The Company's experience resolving
hundreds of thousands of asbestos claims and lawsuits over an
extended period demonstrates that the monetary relief alleged in a
complaint bears little relevance to a claim's merits or
disposition value.  Rather, the amount potentially recoverable is
determined by such factors as the type and severity of the
plaintiff's asbestos disease, the plaintiff's medical history and
exposure to other disease-causing agents, the product
identification evidence against the Company and other co-
defendants, the defenses available to the Company and other co-
defendants, the specific jurisdiction in which the claim is made,
and the plaintiff's firm representing the claimant.

"In addition to the pending claims, the Company has claims-
handling agreements in place with many plaintiffs' counsel
throughout the country.  These agreements require evaluation and
negotiation regarding whether particular claimants qualify under
the criteria established by such agreements. The criteria for such
claims include verification of a compensable illness and a
reasonable probability of exposure to a product manufactured by
the Company's former business unit during its manufacturing period
ending in 1958.

"The Company has also been a defendant in other asbestos-related
lawsuits or claims involving maritime workers, medical monitoring
claimants, co-defendants and property damage claimants.  Based
upon its past experience, the Company believes that these
categories of lawsuits and claims will not involve any material
liability and they are not included in the description of pending
matters or in the following description of disposed matters.

"Since receiving its first asbestos claim, the Company as of June
30, 2016, has disposed of the asbestos claims of approximately
396,000 plaintiffs and claimants at an average indemnity payment
per claim of approximately $9,200.  The Company's asbestos
indemnity payments have varied on a per claim basis, and are
expected to continue to vary considerably over time.  Asbestos-
related cash payments for 2015, 2014 and 2013 were $138 million,
$148 million, and $158 million, respectively.  The Company's cash
payments per claim disposed (inclusive of legal costs) were
approximately $95,000, $81,000 and $93,000 for the years ended
December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively.

"The Company's objective is to achieve, where possible, resolution
of asbestos claims pursuant to claims-handling agreements.
Failure of claimants to meet certain medical and product exposure
criteria in the Company's administrative claims handling
agreements has generally reduced the number of claims that would
otherwise have been received by the Company in the tort system. In
addition, certain court orders and legislative acts have reduced
or eliminated the number of claims that the Company otherwise
would have received by the Company in the tort system.  These
developments generally have had the effect of increasing the
Company's per-claim average indemnity payment over time.

"Beginning with the initial liability of $975 million established
in 1993, the Company has accrued a total of approximately $4.9
billion through 2015, before insurance recoveries, for its
asbestos-related liability.  The Company's estimates of its
liability have been significantly affected by, among other
factors, the volatility of asbestos-related litigation in the
United States, the significant number of co-defendants that have
filed for bankruptcy, the inherent uncertainty of future disease
incidence and claiming patterns against the Company, the
significant expansion of the defendants that are now sued in this
litigation, and the continuing changes in the extent to which
these defendants participate in the resolution of cases in which
the Company is also a defendant.

"The Company continues to monitor trends that may affect its
ultimate liability and analyze the developments and variables
likely to affect the resolution of pending and future asbestos
claims against the Company.  The material components of the
Company's accrued liability are determined by the Company in
connection with its annual comprehensive legal review and consist
of the following estimates, to the extent it is probable that such
liabilities have been incurred and can be reasonably estimated:
(i) the liability for asbestos claims already asserted against the
Company; (ii) the liability for asbestos claims not yet asserted
against the Company; and (iii) the legal defense costs estimated
to be incurred in connection with the claims already asserted and
those claims the Company believes will be asserted.

"The Company conducts a comprehensive legal review of its
asbestos-related liabilities and costs annually in connection with
finalizing and reporting its annual results of operations, unless
significant changes in trends or new developments warrant an
earlier review.  As part of its annual comprehensive legal review,
the Company provides historical claims filing data to a third
party with expertise in determining the impact of disease
incidence and mortality on future filing trends to develop
information to assist the Company in estimating the total number
of future claims to be filed.  The Company uses this estimate of
total future claims, along with an estimation of disposition costs
and related legal costs as inputs to develop its best estimate of
probable liability. If the results of the annual comprehensive
legal review indicate that the existing amount of the accrued
liability is lower (higher) than its reasonably estimable
asbestos-related costs, then the Company will record an
appropriate charge (credit) to the Company's results of operations
to increase (decrease) the accrued liability.

"The significant assumptions underlying the material components of
the Company's accrual are:

   (a) settlements will continue to be limited almost exclusively
to claimants who were exposed to the Company's asbestos-containing
insulation prior to its exit from that business in 1958;

   (b) claims will continue to be resolved primarily under the
Company's administrative claims agreements or on terms comparable
to those set forth in those agreements;

   (c) the incidence of serious asbestos-related disease cases and
claiming patterns against the Company for such cases do not change
materially;

   (d) the Company is substantially able to defend itself
successfully at trial and on appeal;

   (e) the number and timing of additional co-defendant
bankruptcies do not change significantly the assets available to
participate in the resolution of cases in which the Company is a
defendant; and co-defendants with substantial resources and assets
continue to participate significantly in the resolution of future
asbestos lawsuits and claims.

"The Company revised its method for estimating its asbestos-
related liabilities in connection with finalizing and reporting
its restated results of operations for the year ended December 31,
2015 and 2014 and concluded that an accrual in the amount of $817
million and $939 million as of December 31, 2015 and 2014,
respectively was required. These amounts have not been discounted
for the time value of money. The application of the revised method
also resulted in charges of $16 million, $46 million and $12
million for the years ending December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013,
respectively.

"The Company believes it is reasonably possible that it will incur
a loss for its asbestos-related liabilities in excess of the
amount currently recognized, which is $817 million as of December
31, 2015.  The Company estimates that reasonably possible losses
could be as high as $950 million.  This estimate of additional
reasonably possible loss reflects a legal judgment about the
number and cost of potential future claims and legal costs. The
Company believes this estimate is consistent with the level of
variability it has experienced when comparing actual results to
recent near-term projections. However, it is also possible that
the ultimate asbestos-related liability could be above this
estimate.

"The Company expects a significant majority of the total number of
claims to be received in the next ten years.  This timeframe
appropriately reflects the mortality of current and expected
claimants in light of the Company's sale of its insulation
business unit in 1958.

"The Company's asbestos-related liability is based on a projection
of new claims that will eventually be filed against the Company
and the estimated average disposition cost of these claims and
related legal costs. Changes in the significant assumptions have
the potential to impact these key factors, which are critical to
the estimation of the Company's asbestos-related liability
significantly."

Owens-Illinois, Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures and
sells glass containers to food and beverage manufacturers
primarily in Europe, North America, Latin America, and the Asia
Pacific. Owens-Illinois, Inc. was founded in 1903 and is
headquartered in Perrysburg, Ohio.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Developer Pleads Guilty to Asbestos Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Giambrone, writing for Washington City Paper, reported that
a 59-year-old businessman who oversaw renovations to one of
Capitol Hill's most storied properties has pleaded guilty to
federal charges that he neglected to properly remove asbestos from
the site, putting workers and the public at risk.

D.C. resident James Powers faces up to five years in prison and
financial penalties for his unscrupulous work on the former
Friendship House, now the Maples Condos, at 619 D St. SE. Francis
Scott Key bought the home after writing "The Star Spangled
Banner," and it was later the base of a nonprofit association,
dedicated to ending poverty, for more than 70 years.

The U.S. Attorney's Office for D.C. says that Powers violated the
U.S. Clean Air Act in part by posing as an asbestos-abatement
company roughly five years ago to his development partners. Powers
also concealed the extent of asbestos on the site to a waste-
disposal business, which then relocated the contaminated debris to
a dump not certified to receive the material, prosecutors say.

Exposure to asbestos can lead to lung cancer, mesothelioma, and
other ills, which is why the Clean Air Act requires safe removal
of it before demolition. But according to USAO, Powers instructed
Atlanta-based general contractor Larry Miller to proceed with the
project, despite the fact that investigators had turned up
asbestos at the house.

Miller pleaded guilty to "negligent endangerment" in November,
also under federal statutes, and has not yet been sentenced.
Before the Maples opened last year, a certified asbestos-abatement
company swept the site and its work was approved. Three townhouses
there sold for close to $2 million apiece, and more than a dozen
new condos were listed from $489,900 to $719,900, according to the
Washington Post.

"This prosecution holds this businessman accountable for his
recklessness and shows we will enforce laws that protect the
health and safety of workers and the citizens in the District of
Columbia," U.S. Attorney Channing D. Phillips said in a statement
Wednesday.

Powers' sentencing is scheduled for Dec. 16.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Keizer Co. Fined for Asbestos Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Loew, writing for Statesman Journal, reported that state
environmental regulators have fined a Keizer property company
$10,644 for asbestos-related violations.

D.C.I. Properties LLC specializes in residential renovation and
development.

In October 2015, the company's owners removed about 225 square
feet of sheet vinyl flooring from the kitchen of a home it owns at
3380 Hyacinth St. NE in Salem.

The company did not use a licensed asbestos abatement contractor,
despite a September 2015 inspection that showed the flooring
contained 40 percent asbestos, the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality said in its order.

The company's owners then disposed of the flooring at the Salem-
Keizer Recycling and Transfer Station, which is not authorized to
dispose of asbestos-containing waste.

By not complying with asbestos regulations, the company could have
caused the release of asbestos fibers into the atmosphere,
exposing workers and the public, DEQ said.

Asbestos fibers are a respiratory hazard proven to cause lung
cancer, mesothelioma and asbestos, DEQ said in a news release.
Asbestos is also a hazardous air contaminant for which there is no
known safe level of exposure.

The fine was reduced from the original $15,464 proposed in
February.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Asbestos Review Sought for Brake Parts
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pat Rizzuto, writing for Bloomberg News, reported that the health
risks that imported asbestos-containing brake components pose
should prompt the Environmental Protection Agency to make asbestos
one of the first 10 chemicals it evaluates under an updated toxic
substances law, a vehicle parts organization says.

"The continued importation of asbestos-containing brakes and brake
component material presents an unreasonable risk to the health of
American workers," the Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association
told the EPA in a Sept. 6 letter. The importation of these
products also poses a risk to do-it-yourselfers who replace their
own brakes, it said.

Members of the association phased out manufacturing and importing
brake pads and related equipment containing asbestos years ago,
Ann Wilson, senior vice president of government affairs for the
Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association, told Bloomberg BNA
Sept. 7.

The association wants to encourage the use of safer alternatives
throughout the market and level the playing field, Wilson said.

Asbestos-containing parts, which are cheaper than ones made
without asbestos, still are being used by service stations,
independent auto repair shops and other operations that provide
after-market service, she said. Brake pads and linings use
composite materials, making it difficult to determine exactly what
they contain, the association's letter said. Products are not
required to be labeled as containing asbestos, it said.

Reducing Risks of Asbestos

The passage of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the
21st Century Act (Pub. Law No. 114-182), which amended the Toxic
Substances Control Act as of June 22, provides a way for the EPA
to identify the risks of asbestos-containing materials and protect
people from asbestos exposure, the Motor & Equipment Manufacturers
Association's letter said.

The Lautenberg Act requires the EPA by December to identify 10
high-priority chemicals for which it has undertaken risk
evaluations.

The EPA should include asbestos as one of those 10 and evaluate
the risks that brake friction materials pose, Wilson said.

As of January 2015, the phaseout of asbestos and other
constituents in motor vehicle brake pads was completed due to
California and Washington state laws, the letter said.

State Laws Drove Industry

The state laws drove what became a de facto industry standard, the
EPA said in a January 2015 memorandum of understanding designed to
make the industrywide practice apply nationwide.

The Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association was among eight
industry groups that signed the memorandum, which was intended to
protect watersheds and waterways from copper in particular, as
well as from asbestos, cadmium, lead and mercury.

As industry groups worked with states to phase out the use of
these hazardous compounds, it became apparent that asbestos-
containing brakes and brake components were still entering the
U.S., Wilson said.

In its letter to EPA, the Motor & Equipment Manufacturers
Association backed up its concerns about imports with information
it said the International Trade Administration provided Congress
in 2015.

"Roughly $2.2 million in asbestos-containing brake friction
materials and pads were imported into the United States in 2013
(most recent full year available)," the association said,
providing Bloomberg BNA an e-mail exchange it had with the agency
confirming the trade agency provided the information to Congress.
An agency press officer did not reply to Bloomberg BNA's Sept. 7
request for independent verification.

Wilson said the imported volume of asbestos-containing brake
friction materials is small, but adds up because there are so many
vehicles that need brake pad to be replaced.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in 2nd Batch of Bldg Materials
--------------------------------------------------------------
Allyson Horn and Stephanie Smail, writing for ABC News, reported
that more building materials destined for the Queensland
Government's new Executive Building in Brisbane have tested
positive for asbestos.

Manufacturing company Yuanda Australia imported the materials to
be used in the construction of 1 William Street, in Brisbane's
CBD.

In July, asbestos was found at the site and another shipment of
materials has now tested positive for the deadly fibre.

In a statement, Yuanda said that shipment was another load of the
original contaminated gaskets, which had been en-route from China
for months.

"This material was already at sea when the issue came to light,
and this result was expected due to the fact that the material
formed part of the same product order that had already tested
positive," the statement said.

"For this reason, when the material arrived, it had been sent to a
secure quarantine facility to await testing and processing by
accredited contractors.

The company denies it is deliberately trying to import the
asbestos-ridden products.

"No attempt was ever made to bring the material through
Australia's customs regime for use on the building site," it said.

Yuanda said it ordered the materials be returned to China, but
instead they were taken off the boat, reportedly to quarantine.

The Asbestos Industry Association (AIA) said the company did the
wrong thing in the first instance but has rectified the situation
by flagging the next shipment with Border Force.

But the AIA has questioned whether Border Force would have picked
up the contaminated shipment if the company had not raised the
alarm.

The AIA said the company was not hiding from the issue and had
engaged a contractor to test about 40 of its building sites around
Australia for asbestos.

"[The container] remains in the secure custody of the independent
asbestos experts engaged by Yuanda, awaiting instructions from
authorities on how it should be disposed of," Yuanda's statement
said.

In a statement, the Australian Border Force said investigations
into Yuanda Australia were continuing and it would be
inappropriate to comment further.

However, the ABF said it was engaging with Yuanda, its suppliers
and customers to ensure all products entering Australia complied
with the strict ban on asbestos.

The ABF said it makes decisions on whether or not to prosecute
based on the Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth, whether there
is sufficient evidence to prove the offence, and whether there are
reasonable prospects of a successful conviction.

The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU)
spokesman Andrew Ramsey said it wanted testing done at other sites
that had used the company's products.

"We'd like to see the Queensland Government a bit more vigilant to
what's going on with Yuanda -- independent testing surely would go
a long way," he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Cases for Asbestos Scare Firm Yuanda
---------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Burrell, writing for The Australian, reported that the
Chinese company at the centre of an asbestos scandal at
construction sites in Brisbane and Perth has been caught trying to
import another shipment of building products containing the
potentially lethal material.

The illegal asbestos was detected in one of Yuanda's containers
seized by the Australian Border Force after the revelation in July
that asbestos-tainted products were supplied to Brisbane's 1
William Street skyscraper and the $1.2 billion Perth Children's
Hospital.

The Australian understands the latest contaminated products were
detected in a consignment at the Port of Brisbane and were also
destined for 1 William Street, the new home for Queensland
government ministers and public servants. The results of the tests
on the Yuanda shipment were confirmed.

Since mid-July, ABF has ordered independent testing on a further
37 of Yuanda's shipping containers and two airfreight shipments.
Those tests were all negative.

Immigration Minister Peter Dutton has come under pressure from
unions and business groups to ramp up efforts to stop asbestos at
the border, following a string of incidents that have sparked
health fears for hundreds of workers. In August, asbestos was
discovered in equipment imported from China for the redevelopment
of Nyrstar's lead and zinc smelter at Port Pirie in South
Australia.

In June, SA company Australian Portable Camps found that 8000
sheets of cement board it imported from China in 2010 and 2011
contained white asbestos.

ABF commissioner Roman Quaedvlieg said testing of Yuanda's
consignments was continuing and it was too early to comment on
whether the company would be prosecuted.

"The ABF makes decisions on whether or not to prosecute based on
the prosecution policy of the commonwealth, whether there is
sufficient evidence to prove the offence, and whether there are
reasonable prospects of a successful conviction," he said.

Mr Quaedvlieg said the ABF was working with Yuanda, its suppliers
and customers to ensure all products entering Australia complied
with the ban on asbestos.

Yuanda Australia commercial manager Mark Bottomley said in a
statement that part of the contents of one of the company's
shipping containers had returned a positive result. "This
container was already on the water when the incident at 1 William
Street was identified," he said.

Mr Bottomley said independent testing was being conducted at 28 of
the 68 sites at which Yuanda had supplied building products around
the country in recent years. No asbestos had so far been detected.
"Some sites have been fully tested, some partially, and in some
locations tests are yet to begin," he said. "But where results
have become available, they are 100 per cent clean."

Mr Bottomley said the testing was funded by Yuanda but conducted
by independent experts OccSafe Australia. The testing was still
being conducted due to delays in obtaining records needed to
ascertain which products were provided by Yuanda. Testers also had
to work with building managers to agree on appropriate locations
for drilling test samples that would cause the least damage to the
building and disruption to building users. Yuanda has previously
blamed a "fraudulent" certification process in China for the
discovery of asbestos in its products in Brisbane and Perth.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bag With Asbestos Left in Hobsonville Road
-----------------------------------------------------------
North Harbour News reported that a driver has noticed a black-
wrapped plastic package lying in Hobsonville, Auckland, which is
thought to contain asbestos.

The source says he noticed the package, which is sectioned off by
cones, when he came to work at about 6.30am.

He phoned Auckland Council, who said they would send someone out
to deal with it.

He also contacted police to alert them, but was told it was a
council issue.

He says he expected the issue to be resolved, however found that
the package had not been moved.

When he rang council again, he was told they sent someone out but
found they did not have the resources to deal with the problem, so
the job had been marked as "complete".

Another job needed to be logged to deal with it.

The package was found near the corner of Wallingford and Clark
Roads.

The source says the product is irrelevant.

"Regardless of what it is, it should be moved out of the way," he
says.

"It's not up to me or someone else to harass them to remove it.

"Everyone tells us that asbestos is a hazardous product... and yet
you tell someone, 'I've found a whole bunch of it sitting in the
middle of the road', and no one takes it seriously."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Removal Starts at Barwick Mills
---------------------------------------------------------
Jillian Duff, writing for Mesothelioma.com, reported that cleanup
will begin at the former Barwick Mills site in North Georgia after
a fire that happened last fall leaving behind exposed asbestos and
rubble. The property owner, Drennon Crutchfield, settled with the
Environmental Protection Agency in August.

The agreement says Crutchfield will foot the $850,000 bill for the
several-month project. This includes demolishing the burned part
of the building and stabilizing the standing portion. Crutchfield
had no comments.

"I'm possibly optimistic it could be demolished and completed by
Christmas," said EPA Site Coordinator David Andrews. "I've seen
stuff like this happen pretty quickly. . . asbestos jobs, rubble,
and demolition. If it goes into the New Year, it probably won't go
past January, based on my experience."

"This has been a long time coming. The city is excited to see it
move forward, begin to see equipment on site, and start the
process of cleaning up," said LaFayette City Manager David
Hamilton. The hope is for the cleanup to take much less time than
the months-long negotiation.

According to Andrews, "This building was so old. . . it was about
100 years old. . . and there was apparently no abatement that had
ever taken place. It's in the ceiling tiles and wraps around the
plumbing. That was classic use of asbestos products, and that sort
of went up with the fire."

The initial fire set off with huge gas explosions, creating a fear
of asbestos exposure. There was heavy, black, swirling smoke that
could be seen from 25 miles away.

As a result, residents within a half-mile of the area were advised
to remain indoors and keep their heating and air units off. Those
with respiratory problems, the elderly, and students in nearby
schools were specifically warned.

It took fire crews a few days to completely extinguish the flames.
About 110,000 gallons of the asbestos-contaminated water used was
relocated to a facility in Chickamuaga, but 50,000 gallons of
water and plenty of rubble still remain at the site.

The fire destroyed the former carpet mill's southern area of the
building, which was occupied by Chattanooga-based company Ashgan
Products.

The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) was
responsible for conducting the asbestos testing.

"Emergency air monitoring conducted near the site in the hours and
days after the fire did not show any asbestos particulates
traveling off site," said Andrews.

The LaFayette planning commission is currently in discussions
about what to do with the Barwick Mills site post-cleanup.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sentencing of Bolton Nightclub Moved to Oct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Bolton News reported that the sentencing of Bolton nightclub
bosses for asbestos-related health and safety breaches has been
adjourned until October.

Previously called J2, three-storey Level in Mawdsley Street
reopened under its new name following a major GBP700,000
refurbishment last summer.

The Health and Safety Executive prosecuted the company which
previously ran the venue, UK Night Life Ltd, as a corporate entity
and its then-director Charles McGrath as an individual.

Both each admitted three counts brought under the Health and
Safety at Work Act earlier at Bury Magistrates' Court.

The parties admitted failing to ensure as an employer that non-
employees were not exposed to health and safety risks between
August 1 and August 12 last year and to failing to prevent or
otherwise reduce as much as reasonably practical the spread of
asbestos between those same dates.

The third count stated McGrath, of Failsworth, Manchester, and UK
Night Life Ltd failed to carry out a "suitable and sufficient
assessment" of the asbestos risks.

The case was adjourned at Bury Magistrates' Court for sentencing
by a district judge at Salford Magistrates' Court on October 3.
McGrath previously reassured customers there was no threat as the
charges relate only to the period during the refit when it was
closed to the public.

He said: "Customers should understand that the nightclub is
entirely safe and open for business as normal."

UK Night Life Ltd was dissolved in May and club co-owner Sam
Zegrour is the sole director of successor Bolton Party Ltd.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family Appeals After Ex-Joiner Dies of Cancer
--------------------------------------------------------------
St. Albans & Harpenden reported that a grieving family of a joiner
who died from an asbestos-related cancer is appealing to his
former colleagues for help to trace the cause of his death.

Allen Lavell, from Redbourn, died aged 78 in March 2015 after a
painful battle with mesothelioma -- an incurable cancer caused by
exposure to the deadly fibres.

Before his death the dad-of-two said he thought he may have become
ill due to prolonged exposure to asbestos when working as a joiner
across London -- mainly in Willesden and Camden Town.

Mr Allen not only worked as a carpenter and joiner for a number of
firms, but was self-employed for certain periods.

Due to the known latency period between asbestos exposure and
eventual diagnosis of mesothelioma, his family's lawyers believe
he may have come into contact with asbestos while working in north
west London.

He worked at T H W Hearle in Camden Town between 1952 and 1957,
Hickmans in Brent between 1959 and 1962 and Heaton Tabbs & Co in
Willesden between 1962 and 1964.

Heaton Tabbs was a nationwide furnishing and decorating company
that had an office in Willesden.

Notably the company created interiors for British shipping company
White Star Line.

Describing the nature of his father's work, Mr Lavell's son, John,
said: "We never knew too much about dad's work other than he was a
carpenter and joiner, but once we found out he had mesothelioma,
he told us about how he may have been exposed to asbestos.

"He recalled manufacturing doors in the mid-1950s which he was
required to fill with asbestos to fire-proof them.

"Aside from this, he couldn't recall anything further, but we hope
there are people out there that worked with dad who can help us to
piece together how and where he might have come into contact with
asbestos.

"In reality, he could have come into contact with it across his
whole working life, as regulations surrounding its use were far
more relaxed than they are now."

Keen to jog people's memories about his father, John Lavell added:
"Dad was a very kind and caring man, which came across in his face
and the way he acted towards people.

"After he'd retired he led a very quiet life and would keep
himself to himself. I know that before I was born he was a keen
fisherman, and would often go fishing in Rickmansworth lakes."

John added: "We were in total shock when we heard about dad's
illness. To hear that he could have contracted it from being
exposed to asbestos over 50 years ago left us flabbergasted, it
was the last thing we were expecting."

Former colleagues who knew Allen Lavell can get in touch with the
law firm Hugh James by calling Hayley Hawkins on 0808 231 6604.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Library Closes After Asbestos Find
---------------------------------------------------
Wakefield Express reported that a library has temporarily closed
after asbestos was discovered in its ceiling.

Wakefield Council planned to shut Ossett Library on September 10
for nine weeks whilst refurbishment work took place.

But it brought forward the closure after the asbestos was found
during preparatory work.

And it said the building had been shut "as a precautionary
measure" and air quality testing has shown there is no health risk
to people.

But a full survey is now being carried out to identify the extent
of the issue and how the asbestos could affect the planned revamp.

Coun Les Shaw, cabinet member for culture, leisure and sport,
said: "We apologise for any inconvenience this may cause and we
are providing a mobile library service in the car park, in the
short term, while the survey is carried out."

Once upgraded, the library will have new flooring, decor,
furniture and shelving as well as a seating area and improved
local studies section with film readers.

Coun Shaw said: "These improvements at Ossett Library will make it
a more modern and even more enjoyable space for visitors."

A mobile library service will be available in the car park from
Monday to Wednesday, from 9am until 4pm and on Fridays from 9am
until 3pm.

During the closure, the nearest computer facilities will be
available at Horbury Library.

Books can also be renewed at any other local library, or on the
Council website.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Firm Could Be Fined for Offenses
---------------------------------------------------------
Lincolnshire Echo reported that a Lincolnshire construction
company could face fines of up to GBP1m for health and safety
breaches involving asbestos if convicted at court.

Gelder Ltd appeared at Lincoln Magistrates' Court accused of two
health and safety breaches.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Daughter of Asbestos Victim Appeals for Info
-------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Smith, writing for Halesowen News, reported that the
heartbroken daughter of a former usherette from Cradley Heath is
appealing to her mum's ex-colleagues after she died from asbestos-
related cancer.

Lynne's Halls' mother Margaret Rose Edgington was 71 when she
first became ill in 2012 and was diagnosed with mesothelioma the
following year.

She died on September 8, 2014.

Margaret worked as an usherette in Quinton's Classic Cinema
between 1975 and 1976 and Birmingham Hippodrome from 1976 until
1986.

Mrs Halls said: "Nothing will ever bring back my mum, but I really
want to know how she could have come into contact with asbestos as
the dangers were known back then and it is only right that her
past employers are held to account for their negligent actions.

"I'd be so grateful to anyone who worked with my mum or at Classic
Cinema or Birmingham Hippodrome around that time to get in touch
to help shed some light on how she would have been exposed to the
substance."

During her time at the Hippodrome, Margaret became friends with a
colleague, Anne, and the two were pictured with Des O'Connor, who
was appearing at the theatre at the time.

Mrs Halls added: "I'd particularly like to hear from Anne and it
would mean a lot to my family and I if she could get in touch.

"Mum worked hard her whole life.

"We're devastated to have lost her this way. If someone could just
give us the answers we're looking for we'd feel like we could
better come to terms with our loss."

Alida Coates, Esq. -- alida.coates@irwinmitchell.com -- a
specialist industrial disease lawyer at Irwin Mitchell said:
"Margaret's family have been left devastated at the loss of their
mother.

"It was a complete shock to be told that her Margaret had a fatal
asbestos illness."

She added: "We are keen to speak to anyone who worked at or
undertook refurbishment at Classic Cinema, Quinton or the
Hippodrome during the period when Margaret was employed.

"Any information from people engaged in refurbishment or fellow
colleagues or friends who worked alongside her could prove vital
in securing the information we need to secure justice for Margaret
and her family."

Anyone with information should contact Alida Coates at Irwin
Mitchell on 0121 214 5230 or email alida.coates@irwinmitchell.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parents Back Closure of School Due to Asbestos
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Geater, writing for Ipswich Star, reported that parents  have
praised a head teacher after she took the decision to delay the
start of the new school term due to safety concerns.

Builders working on the building at Broke Hall Primary School,
Ipswich dislodged some asbestos.

That has to be cleared up by specialist contractors -- and
headteacher Jenny Barr wrote to parents to warn that the school
could not open until September 12.

Posting on our Facebook page, Lindsey Lambert said: "I'm glad they
are taking precautions so our children are safe. It's just
frustrating it's so close to the start of term when they have been
doing building work since the beginning of July.

"It's a pain for us parents but we have all rallied around and
will all look after each other's children. Their health is the
priority. Mrs Barr is a fantastic head and wouldn't have made this
decision unless it was totally necessary."

Meanwhile, Sylvia Ward added: "I wonder what would have happened
if a parent decided to have an extra week's holiday with their
child? They would have been fined."

But Denise Hammond responded by saying: "It's not holiday. It's
their health that's more important."

Other parents expressed their dismay that after a big build up
their child's first day at school was being delayedwhile Stefanie
Racheal said: "It's for the health and safety of the children.
People need to grow up. Would you rather children get ill in say
30 years time of a nasty possibly fatal condition?

"So what if they only found it now? I would rather they found it
now than expose our children!"

Paulina Farouk said she was very concerned: "I shall have to tell
my manager what has happened. I haven't been able to find anyone
else to look after my daughter at such short notice."

Tina Sallows-Dixon added: "Obviously the school wouldn't have
closed if it wasn't necessary. It's a major health issue for both
teachers and pupils.

"On the positive you can get an all-inclusive holiday very cheaply
this week! Not so good for those who have child care issues,
though."

And those with children at neighbouring schools were sad they
missed the opportunity to extend the summer break.

Kelly Ambrose said: "I wish my kids went here. I'd be more then
happy with an extra week, these holidays have gone far too
quickly."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cook Islands Need Help with Asbestos
-----------------------------------------------------
RadioNZ.com reported that a suspected arson at a Cook Islands High
School has brought the proliferation of asbestos in the country to
light.

The fire at Tereora College, on Rarotonga, was made more dangerous
by levels of asbestos in the walls, and extensive air tests were
carried out before the school was deemed safe again.

If inhaled, asbestos can lead to an aggressive cancer, and with
many buildings in the Cook Islands containing the material, the
recent fire has escalated fears.

A New Zealand air quality tester Stuart Keer-Keer helped with the
clean-up, and he said the prevalence of asbestos poses a real
challenge.

"Lots and lots of residential, and quite a few government
buildings [have asbestos], although they're slowly removing it,"
he said.

"The biggest challenge for them is what to do with it when they've
removed it, because the island's pretty small and the normal thing
is to bury it but they're running out of places to bury it."

Stuart Keer-Keer said asbestos should be banned, and suggested New
Zealand could help with its disposal.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bondex Bankruptcy Trust Now Accpeting Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Lucarelli, writing for Mesothelioma.com, reported that a
new bankruptcy trust started accepting claims this July (2016).
Its name is the Bondex Trust. Bondex made a number of asbestos-
containing products for home renovation and repair, including
joint compound and joint cement.

What distinguishes Bondex joint compound and joint cement from
other companies' products is that the Bondex products were made
expressly for the "do-it-yourself" home market. The sanding of
joint cement and joint compound on wall board to create a smooth
surface creates very dusty conditions, leading to exposures to
asbestos and potentially to mesothelioma.

In addition to joint compound and joint cement, Bondex made
asbestos-containing products such as texture paint, water putty,
wood putty, Handy Patch, topping cement, block filler and primer,
roof coating, and roof cement.

The products were sold under a variety of names, including Bondex,
Reardon, Trax, Dramex, Wards (through Montgomery Ward), and
Penncraft (through J.C. Penney).

If you or a loved one used one of these products and has been
diagnosed with mesothelioma, we can help you file a claim with
this trust.  Please let us know.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: George Moody Stuart School to Relocate
-------------------------------------------------------
WinnFM.com reported that the Ministry of Education and the Board
of Trustees of the George Moody Stuart School announced that the
school will not be ready to receive students at the official start
of the 2016 Academic Year, which is set for Monday, September 5,
2016. This difficult decision was taken in light of the result of
a preliminary inspection of the school, which is currently located
in the Factory Social Centre of the St. Kitts Sugar Manufacturing
Corporation (SSMC) at Kittstodarts, Basseterre.

The school's preliminary inspection, which was jointly conducted
by the Bureau of Standards/Multi-Purpose Laboratory and the
Environmental Health Department within the Ministry of Health, The
east wing of the building is constructed of concrete and asbestos
roof sheeting. It was observed that sections of the asbestos
roofing material was severely damaged. As there is a risk of
asbestos fibres being released from the damaged sheeting, the
building and surrounding area should not be occupied for learning
activities.

In light of these unexpected developments, the re-opening of the
George Moody Stuart School will be on Monday, September 12, 2016,
at a temporary location to be announced in a subsequent release.
It is expected that this temporary occupancy will be necessary, in
the first instance, for a minimum of 90 days, or until the end of
the first school term in December. By that time, the school's
management will be in a better position to determine a more long-
term arrangement for the school's relocation.

The Board of Trustees, faculty and staff of the George Moody
Stuart School sincerely apologise to parents and guardians for the
considerable inconvenience created by this unfortunate development
-- which is also now a public health concern. However, parents and
guardians should be assured that this matter was only confirmed by
the Bureau of Standards at approximately 5:00 p.m. on Friday,
September 2, 2016, just three days after an official request was
made for the Bureau to inspect the premises. The official
confirmation from Director of the Bureau of Standards, Mr Hiram
Williams, was sent via email to the Chairperson of the Board of
Trustees, Mrs Jennifer Dillon-Sirjue. It is naturally anticipated
that parents and guardians will have concerns and questions which
they would want addressed by the school's management and staff. As
such, parents and guardians are encouraged to contact either of
the following two individuals:

   1. School Principal -- Mrs Elizabeth Condell at 667-1134 or
465-2005

   2. Chairperson of the School Board -- Mrs Jennifer Dillon-
Sirjue at 760-3571

The Ministries of Education and Health, and the Board of the
George Moody Stuart School are anticipating the submission of a
formal report from the Bureau of Standards, whose Director has
indicated, will be submitted on Monday, September 5, 2016.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Monitoring Improves Mesothelioma Diagnosis
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alex Strauss, writing for Surviving Mesothelioma, reported that a
Polish program designed to identify mesothelioma earlier in former
asbestos plant workers could have implications for malignant
mesothelioma patients around the world.

Mesothelioma is the most deadly of a range of diseases associated
with exposure to asbestos. Other illnesses linked to asbestos
exposure include lung cancer, asbestosis and pleural plaques.

A new report published by Poland's Nofer Institute of Occupational
Health, says a 16-year-old mesothelioma monitoring program has led
to better understanding of malignant mesothelioma, improved the
ability to diagnose it, and identified more cases that might have
otherwise gone undetected.

Mesothelioma in Asbestos Workers

Although asbestos was banned in Poland in 1997, because the
disease has such a long latency period, many people are still
being diagnosed with mesothelioma.

Under the Amiantus program which started in 2000, people who
worked around deadly asbestos dust in any of 28 Polish asbestos
plants are entitled to free comprehensive medical examinations and
medications to treat asbestos-related diseases like mesothelioma.

Thirteen regional occupational medicine centers administer the
program, which includes yearly physicals, X-rays, CT scans,
spirometry and other tests for early signs of mesothelioma.

Between 2001 and 2014, about 1,700 former asbestos workers took
part in the Amiantus program  and 289 cases of mesothelioma were
diagnosed. Unfortunately, that number represents only about 20
percent of the eligible asbestos workers who are at risk for
mesothelioma.

Improved Understanding of Mesothelioma

Worldwide, mesothelioma is an extremely rare cancer. Because most
doctors rarely see it, and because the symptoms of mesothelioma
are similar to other diseases, it is often misdiagnosed or not
diagnosed until in an advanced stage.

The authors of the Amiantus report say, even though many asbestos
workers did not participate and others, including asbestos cement
workers, were left out, the program has improved mesothelioma
diagnoses in Poland. It has also provided critical data for
government monitoring of mesothelioma rates.

According to the report in the Bulletin of the World Health
Organization, "When comparing data from the register for the
period 2001 to 2010 with data from before the Amiantus programme
(1991-2000), the number of recorded asbestos-related diseases
increased almost twofold and in the case of mesothelioma, almost
threefold during the implementation of the programme (Table 1)."

The authors speculate that the increase is largely due to more
aggressive monitoring.

Advice for Mesothelioma Monitoring Programs
The report concludes with recommendations for other groups that
want to establish medical monitoring programs for pleural and
peritoneal mesothelioma.

Among the recommendations are public mesothelioma awareness
campaigns, education for eligible asbestos workers and medical
practitioners, creation of a national compensation fund for
mesothelioma (such as the UK established), establishment of a
national asbestos-related diseases register, and research studies
on asbestos-exposed workers.

The World Health Organization estimated that 125 million people
are exposed to asbestos in their workplaces each year and more
than 107,000 deaths are attributable to occupational asbestos
exposure.

Source:

Swiatkowska, B, et al, "Medical monitoring of asbestos-exposed
workers: experience from Poland", August 2016, Bulletin of the
World Health Organization, pp. 599-604,
http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/94/8/15-159426/en/


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Broke Hall Primary Closed After Asbestos Scare
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Geater, writing for Ipswich Star, reported that children will
not be returning to Broke Hall Primary School, on Chatsworth
Drive, until September 12 after builders discovered the asbestos
while working in the school.

An inspection showed that a major clean-up was needed and
headteacher Jenny Barr has written to parents with the news.

In her letter to parents she says: "It is with great
disappointment that I am writing to inform you that the school
will not be opening as planned on 5th September.

"On 2nd September, as part of the ongoing building works being
carried out at the school, asbestos was disturbed in the library
area.

"Following advice from specialist contractors and Suffolk County
Council, myself and the governors have taken the difficult
decision to close the school until at least 12th September.

"Whilst the incident has been fully contained and clean-up work is
already underway by a specialist contractor, I am not willing to
have staff or pupils on site until I have received the 'all
clear'.

"As Heathlands has not been affected it remains open as normal and
the Year 5 residential trip will go ahead as planned.

"I know that this will have a significant impact on each and every
one of you, but the health and safety of children and staff is and
always will be my first priority.

"Please check the school website for updates."

The school has 650 pupils and their parents should be receiving e-
mails or phone calls -- however there will be some members of
staff outside the building to meet any parents or guardians who
have not heard the news.

The closure will be a blow to parents who were planning to return
to work who may now have to make alternative childcare
arrangements during the closure.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Newport-Mesa Schools Refused Asbestos Reco
-----------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Tucker, writing for Legal Reader, citing The Orange County
Register, reported that the Newport-Mesa Schools refused asbestos
related recommendations from the Orange County Grand Jury. On
September 25, 2014, modernization construction was in progress on
three schools, Hope View, Lake View and Oak View in the Ocean View
School District, Orange County, CA. In September of that year,
John Brisco, a school board member, filed a complaint with the
California division of Occupational Safety and Health, Cal/OSHA,
after learning that asbestos was being removed from the schools.

On October 7th, the school board voted for the closure of the
three schools pending confirmation that asbestos was not a threat.
The schools remained closed that year and only two of the schools
reopened at the beginning of the 2015 school year, Hope View and
Oak View. Construction was not yet finished at Lake View and it
would not reopen until the 2016 school year. As a result of this
incident, the Orange County grand jury conducted an investigation
and compiled a report on how schools could improve communications
and hazardous materials management between campus projects and
school communities.

The grand jury recommendations included conducting asbestos
inspections every three years and sharing that information with
companies that bid on construction projects; a plan to communicate
information about hazardous waste to parents and other
stakeholders; maintain a database of school buildings and their
characteristics; and ask the Department of Education, DOE, to
address hazardous material handling at monthly meetings with
school district representatives.

The Newport-Mesa and several other districts in Orange County have
refused to abide by the grand jury recommendations. They feel that
their method of making inspection reports available is sufficient
and in line with the federal Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response
Act, and that a database would require money that the district
does not have. To abide by the recommendations, it would have to
transfer funds from educational programs or would have to find
other funding. The district also did not feel that monthly
meetings with the DOE were necessary because that department
already distributes information to them on a regular basis.

During its investigation, the grand jury found that 27 of the 28
school districts in Orange County had asbestos present in, at a
minimum, one of its schools. Asbestos was used in a large number
of building materials for many years prior to the 1980s. The
asbestos does not present a problem unless it is disturbed. For
example, during building remodeling or when the materials that
contain asbestos deteriorate. When that happens, asbestos dust
particles float into the air and are inhaled. A large number of
people who inhale the dust end up with lung conditions, including
a type of cancer called mesothelioma.

School districts receive state funding based on the number of
students that attend. As a result of the asbestos issue, the Ocean
View School District lost 152 students at the start of the 2015
school year. That represents a loss of approximately $1.3 million
for the year from state funding, according to The Orange County
Register.

Although the school districts in Orange County have been in
financial trouble for a number of years, it is unthinkable that it
would submit school children and personnel to such a deadly
environment. While budgets are important, the health of the
children and others should be one of the major concerns. This is
especially true when the school district is made aware of a
problem that can, and often does, result in death, even if it does
not occur until years later.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Fined Over Asbestos Removal
-------------------------------------------------------
Eric Freedman, writing for Great Lakes Echo, reported that an
Indianapolis contactor -- whose company carries the ironic name of
Work Done Right -- has been sentenced to four months of house
arrest and fined $2,000 for illegally removing asbestos from an
occupied apartment building.

Contractor Paul Walker's failure to have a licensed abatement
company do the work was intended to "save a buck" but endangered
the health of residents, the U.S. Attorney's office said in a
statement.

"Doing so saved him the expense of hiring the professional
abatement firm, but it also put the residents of the building at
risk for exposure to harmful asbestos fibers," the statement said.

Medical researchers have linked asbestos, a toxic hazardous air
pollutant, to cancer and respiratory diseases.

Walker pleaded guilty to negligent endangerment before U.S.
Magistrate Judge Debra Lynch and faced a potential maximum penalty
of one year in jail. His sentence includes two years of probation.

According to court documents, Walker agreed to remove insulation
that contained asbestos from piping and a boiler as part of a
renovation project at the building in Indianapolis. He notified
the building's owner that he'd hired a licensed abatement company
as a subcontractor to remove the asbestos with the necessary
permits and safety measures and sent the owner a bid estimate from
an abatement company.

Instead of using the subcontractor, however, he personally cut and
stripped asbestos-containing material from the basement, dumped it
into plastic bags and hauled them off-site.

"Walker cut, stripped, bagged and disposed of the material while
the material was dry and without following federal work practice
standards and state laws for the safe and proper removal and
handling of asbestos," the criminal complaint said.

The crime occurred in July 2015.

The complaint said Walker knew at the time that apartments in the
building were occupied.

Testing found no asbestos fibers had reached the occupied floors,
and Walker later paid for a professional firm to remove the
material, the U.S. Attorney's office said.

Nobody else was charged in the case.

The Indiana Department of Environmental Management and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency conducted the investigation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ACMs Illegally Dumped in New Hampshire
-------------------------------------------------------
Jillian Duff, writing for Mesothelioma.com, reported that a 1,700-
pound box of asbestos-containing construction building materials
was illegally dumped in Candia, New Hampshire on a class VI
section of North Road on Thursday, August 11.

A resident reported the box to the New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services. Then an official from the department
confirmed the box contained asbestos. The box was later removed.

According to the National Cancer Institute, if asbestos fibers are
inhaled, they can become lodged in the lungs and cause scarring
and inflammation. Eventually, this will affect one's ability to
breathe and lead to fatal health problems such as mesothelioma
cancer.

Although New Hampshire has no naturally occurring asbestos within
its borders, it does have more than fifty different locations in
which asbestos exposure has been a problem. These sites range from
power generation plants and oil refineries to military bases, and
even public buildings such as schools and banks.

Shipyards and power plant facilities are two of the riskiest work
environments when it comes to asbestos exposure. It was the S.S.
Morro Castle incident in September 1934 that led shipbuilders to
start using substantial amounts of asbestos in the construction of
sea-going vessels.

Naval personnel and civilian employees of the Portsmouth Navy Yard
who worked or were stationed there prior to 1980 may be at risk
for contracting asbestos disease. Those who believe they have been
negligently exposed to asbestos should seek legal guidance from a
mesothelioma lawyer.

Petroleum is not only volatile, but highly toxic as well. Because
of this, asbestos-containing products were used extensively in the
construction of petroleum-related facilities. Like all asbestos
products and building materials, these become friable as they age.

In fact, three percent of work-related deaths have been attributed
to mesothelioma at the Coastal Oil refinery. The entire energy
industry has made use of asbestos at one point or another,
including power generation plants and natural gas facilities such
as the Dover and Exeter gas plants.

Between 1980 and 2000, there were 234 asbestos-related deaths in
New Hampshire. That's about one in every 7,000 people.
Mesothelioma was slightly more prevalent with patients primarily
concentrated in urbanized regions of Hillsborough and Rockingham.

A number of job sites exist in New Hampshire where asbestos has
been located, especially in the cities of Berlin, Concord, Dover,
Manchester, Nashua, and Portsmouth.

Candia officials ask for anyone who sees suspicious activity in
the area to report it to the Candia Police Department at
603.483.2318.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Valve Manufacturer Denied Summary Judgment
-----------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a New York trial court has
denied a valve manufacturer's motion for summary judgment in an
asbestos case, concluding in part that the defendant could be held
liable for the acts of its subsidiary.

In the Aug. 17 order, the New York Supreme Court for New York City
additionally rejected challenges to product identification and
causation in the case.

Gaspar Hernandez-Vega asserted the underlying claims, contending
that he was exposed to asbestos-containing products during his
career as a pipefitter.



ASBESTOS UPDATE: WestConnex Asbestos Claims Investigated
--------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reported that claims that an
excavation company has supplied asbestos-contaminated road base,
used in Sydney's WestConnex motorway project, is being
investigated by the state government.

A former employee of Moits, a Sydney excavation company, claimed
the company supplied asbestos-laden road base to the $16.8 billion
road project, according to the ABC.

SafeWork NSW confirmed to AAP in a statement on Thursday, it "will
continue to look into practices at the recycling plant and will
investigate whether WestConnex has received contaminated waste".

Moits disputed the allegations made by the former employee, saying
the company "does not and has never recycled products containing
asbestos".

"We will never put at risk the safety, health and wellbeing of any
employee or the people we supply by playing fast and loose with
asbestos," Moits said in a statement on Thursday.

The company said it would continue to cooperate with every
regulatory authority, including Safe Work NSW and the EPA to
confirm its processes are safe and that the safety and wellbeing
of its employees is not being jeopardised.

"We welcome any investigation or inquiry to clear our operation."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found at North Myrtle Beach High School
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that construction crews will be
working at night to remove asbestos from North Myrtle Beach High
School.

Local news outlets report that renovations are planned at the
school and that asbestos installed in the 1970s was found.

District Spokeswoman Teal Britton says the asbestos does not
present a danger because it is the type of asbestos that does not
break up, allowing particles to be inhaled.

Officials say renovations at the high school should take about 18
months and are expected to cost about $21 million.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wrexham Woman Continues Father's Asbestos Fight
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Bagnall, writing for Daily Post, reported that David Turner
claimed that working at the BICC factory gave him cancer, and his
daughter Michelle is now appealing for help

A woman has vowed to continue a legal battle launched by her
father, who died of cancer before his claim against a former cable
giant came to court.

David Turner, of Bangor-on Dee, Wrexham, died of mesothelioma --
an asbestos-related cancer -- on February 25 this year.

His death at the age of 83 came just days after his claim was
served on Balfour Beatty PLC, successors in title to British
Insulated Callendar Cables (BICC) Ltd, who were Mr Turner's former
employers.

Mr Turner had claimed the cancer could be related to his time
working at the BICC factory in Wrexham.

Now his daughter Michele Turner has appealed for witnesses to come
forward who could help the case.

According to law firm Leigh Day, who had acted for Mr Turner and
are now acting for Michele, Balfour Beatty deny any
responsibility.

Mr Turner worked for BICC Ltd from 1971 until his retirement in
1992.

In March 2015, David felt a pain in his chest and a swelling to
his back and was referred to hospital for further investigations.

He was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma and his health soon
deteriorated, requiring Michelle to move in with him to provide
care.

Although his condition improved following a course of palliative
radiotherapy, it began to deteriorate again at the end of last
year.

Before his death, Mr Turner instructed Leigh Day to investigate
his allegations that, while working in the factory, he was exposed
to asbestos insulation on the pipework and equipment and through
the air vents.

Michele said: "A year before his death, my father was a fit and
active man, but the cancer quickly attacked his health and left
him weak and unable to care for himself.

"I would ask anyone with information that can help determine why
and how this happened to my father to please come forward and help
us with this case."

Speaking about the pain of losing her father, Michele said: "My
dad was very fit and active and loved walking.

"It was just terrible sitting, waiting and watching your dad die.
I realised that this condition was endemic.

"The fear of this happening to somebody else is too awful to
contemplate, and we wanted to try and do something to stop it
happening again to someone."

Leigh Day lawyer Helen Ashton, Esq. -- hashton@leighday.co.uk --
has been instructed on behalf of Michele to take forward her
father's claim.

Ms Ashton said: "We are appealing to anyone who has any
information about the presence of asbestos in the BICC Ltd factory
in Wrexham between 1971 and 1992 to get in contact with us."

A Balfour Beatty spokesman said: "As the case is ongoing, it would
be inappropriate to comment."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Victim Succeeds in Asbestos Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lexology.com wrote that specialist asbestos lawyer, Daniel Easton,
Esq. -- deaston@leighday.co.uk -- at Leigh Day, has settled a
complex high value case for a gentleman suffering from peritoneal
(stomach) mesothelioma claim.

According to Mr. Easton, Leigh Day was instructed following our
client's diagnosis. After interviewing him, we identified that he
suffered asbestos exposure in the late 1960's when working as a
computer technician for English Electric while he was undertaking
installation work at Fawley Power Station.

"He was not a hands-on engineer and spent most of his time in a
clean computer control room, occasionally venturing into the power
station to monitor matters.

"Cases of low level asbestos exposure in the late 60's/early 70's
can be difficult because Defendants often plead ignorance about
the risks of small amounts of asbestos, relying on unsatisfactory
guidance issued during that time by the Government's Factory
Inspector.

"Our client could not positively identify asbestos, but remembered
going into the power station and seeing other people doing dusty
jobs. We were able to pursue matters by locating supporting
witnesses who described asbestos dust at the power station.

"We pursued three defendants; our client's employer English
Electric, the factory owners and the company overseeing the
construction work. None of the defendants admitted liability so we
issued court proceedings and obtained a preliminary hearing in
October 2015 where our barrister successfully argued that English
Electric were liable.

"We continued the claim against English Electric arguing the value
of the claim.

"Because our client ran his own company we had to obtain expert
evidence from an accountant and surveyor to help assess the value
of the case. We successfully argued that there was a significant
value in the services he provided to his company managing
properties and buying and selling shares. We then organised for
our client to give his evidence at his home, rather than go to
court.

"After negotiations, we managed to agree a settlement at
GBP350,000.

"We had numerous meetings with our client to ensure we obtained
the best information from him and to ensure he understood what was
happening with the case. We always visited him at home where he
was comfortable."


                            *********

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  * * *